The Moral Value of Correct Political Opinions (real version)

Most people perceive their political opinions are the correct ones.

Do you believe that endows your person (or the political movement you belong to) with special moral stature that makes you an exception to the general rules of generalized moral conduct? For example, does it put you, as a person, above showing respect toward people with differing opinions, or excuse you from practicing a high degree of honesty and open mindedness when promoting your own point-of-view?

It seems to me as though a lot of people aren't very rigorous about testing or challenging their own beliefs because they perceive these beliefs give them some sort of special privilege, where respect and honesty are not virtues they need to develop and practice because advancing your political agenda comes first.

That explains a lot of the behavior in politics.

There's no such thing as a "correct" political ideology. Ideologies espoused by individuals are dependent upon that individual's values. Values, by definition, are subjective.

StillBallin75 said:

There's no such thing as a "correct" political ideology. Ideologies espoused by individuals are dependent upon that individual's values. Values, by definition, are subjective.

Click to expand...

This epistemological comment seems misplaced. Notice I prefaced 'opinion' with 'perceive', which does not preclude the possibility values are subjective in nature.

This thread has more to do with how moral thinking in practice than with the true nature of morality, in a metaphysical sense, aka, whether it is relativistic (due to personal or cultural subjectivism) or universal (for whatever reason).

I'm not looking for a heavy philosophical debate. Basically all I asked is if people feel as though they don't need to show respect or be honest when promoting their own opinions, because they believe those opinions put them above the mindfulness or discipline it would require to live respectfully and honestly.

Morality Games said:

This epistemological comment seems misplaced. Notice I prefaced 'opinion' with 'perceive', which does not preclude the possibility values are subjective in nature.

This thread has more to do with how moral thinking in practice than with the true nature of morality, in a metaphysical sense, aka, whether it is relativistic (due to personal or cultural subjectivism) or universal (for whatever reason).

I'm not looking for a heavy philosophical debate.

Click to expand...

Well, I respect people with different political opinions as long as their opinions are based upon reality and truth, rather than propaganda and logically fallacious arguments.

Other

Very rarely. One cannot be snobbish to another person simply because he came to different political conclusions (and hence views his opinions as "correct" and everybody else's as "naïve", due to his own naïvety). Nazis may be one of the few exceptions.

StillBallin75 said:

Well, I respect people with different political opinions as long as their opinions are based upon reality and truth, rather than propaganda and logically fallacious arguments.

Click to expand...

That's a fair response, though it can have limitations, since it is limited by an individual's own notion of what reality and truth are, and their own measure of their capacity to understand them, and to act on that understanding in a politically efficient way. People might be too absorbed in their own understanding of such things to continually develop a better, more objective understanding. Since such understandings can have a very intoxicating effect on the human psyche, like opium or any other drug, that seemingly enlightened person would never be aware of their own hypocrisy.

That said, it is a bit at cross-purposes; the ultimate idea is whether being respectful, open-minded, and honest is what people 'should do'.

I'm aware your interpretation of the Is-Ought Problem precludes the objectivity of such things, but in practice, are you are saying that people 'should' be honest, respectful, and open-minded regardless of whether their political opinions are correct or not? Your response is a little ambiguous on that point and seems to fall more in the way of 'Other'.

StillBallin75 said:

Well, I respect people with different political opinions as long as their opinions are based upon reality and truth, rather than propaganda and logically fallacious arguments.

Click to expand...

Wait -- you just said they were all based on values, and subjective values at that.

Harshaw said:

Wait -- you just said they were all based on values, and subjective values at that.

Click to expand...

A person can be motivated to act as though morality is objective in some sense, if acting that way helps secure personal and collective goals of the individuals participating in civilization.

This kind of pragmatism is one of the responses to the problems created by moral relativism, at least the practical ones.

Personally, I don't think that is true, or equally effective as belief in moral objectivism (provided the belief is the correct belief), but that's an epistemological/metaphysical/ethical issue and neither here nor there.

"Correct" only exists in the minds of humans, like morality, and money.

Morality Games said:

A person can be motivated to act as though morality is objective in some sense, if acting that way helps secure personal and collective goals of the individuals participating in civilization.

This kind of moral pragmatism is one of the responses to the problems created by moral relativism, at least the practical ones.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but it's still contradictory statement.

Temporal said:

"Correct" only exists in the minds of humans, like morality, and money.

Click to expand...

I think people are getting a little carried away with the observations of moral subjectivism as an end-all-be response to questions like this.

Clearly human beings believe in the practice of some sort of morality, even if morality itself is subjective in character, because it is with that understanding that people interact with one another.

best thread ever

Harshaw said:

Wait -- you just said they were all based on values, and subjective values at that.

Click to expand...

No. I said that the ideology one chooses is based upon their values - opinions may or may not be based upon reality. For instance, the whole "homosexuality is unnatural" bullcrap.

mpg said:

best thread ever

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why my threads turn into off topic disasters. Maybe something about how I speak excites philosophical inquiry and dispute.

StillBallin75 said:

No. I said that the ideology one chooses is based upon their values - opinions may or may not be based upon reality. For instance, the whole "homosexuality is unnatural" bullcrap.

Click to expand...

Technically, everything is natural. Maybe you take people too literally when they use the word 'unnatural'.

mpg said:

Technically, everything is natural. Maybe you take people too literally when they use the word 'unnatural'.

Click to expand...

Or maybe they take themselves too literally when they try to make such a distinction - which by the way is completely irrelevant to the gay rights issue in any case.