Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m...
by davidw on Thursday November 21, 2019 @07:59PM
(#21601477)
It's an extreme example, for sure, but there are things out there that have right and wrong answers and where it's not all just some game.
Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m...
by ephextom on Thursday November 21, 2019 @09:34PM
(#21601939)
The very reason other issues make for less incisive examples (than slavery, genocide) is that they are less clear-cut, and more beholden to complexities and tradeoffs.
It's a rhetorical trick to invoke slavery/genocide, and then group all the other controversial positions held by my political opponents as being in the same category of clear right/wrong.
But if they really were so clear-cut, they'd be invoked as broadly indisputable, standalone examples just as much as slavery and genocide are.
Re:Study of “moral grandstanding” helps explain why social m...
by davidw on Thursday November 21, 2019 @10:54PM
(#21602275)
Slavery was very much an accepted practice by a lot of people then.
There are tons of issues that are not clear cut, like, say, the optimal rate of taxation. It's healthy to argue about those things and try different approaches.
Other things, like trying to subvert democracy, are clear as day.
Most political disagreements are nothing like this. Most political disagreements come down to some combination of (a) a trade-off between two reasonable values or (b) differing predictions about the consequences of a particular policy in the future.
If “slavery vs not slavery” is your go-to example of what a political disagreement looks like, then you’re likely to fall victim to the sorts of bad thought habits (other side evil!) that lead to dumb polarisation and tribalism.