tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post9107927828617912914..comments2024-03-27T03:19:11.216-04:00Comments on Assistant Village Idiot: People Vs PrinciplesAssistant Village Idiothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01978011985085795099noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-18813899253728340582019-08-05T12:34:24.157-04:002019-08-05T12:34:24.157-04:00People vs Principle is also a variation on our rea...People vs Principle is also a variation on our reaction to the distribution of benefits and costs. It is easy to identify the potential benefit of recognizing gay marriage to particular individuals but the potential cost of such a change in the definition of marriage is going to be diffused across a much larger population.Christopher Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00396671757183163171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-46098728232533963212019-08-05T01:16:34.640-04:002019-08-05T01:16:34.640-04:00You're right. I am a devotee of arguing from ...You're right. I am a devotee of arguing from principles, and it puts me on the wrong side of those who argue from people every time. I have not repented, nor shall I; but I do notice that the difference ultimately comes down to whether you care about principled arguments about The Right, or The Truth; or whether you care about how living people feel and suffer. <br /><br />Maybe I'm a bad person because I care more about ideas than people's feelings. That's possible; I admit the possibility. If so, though, I'm wrong constitutionally rather than accidentally, and I can't repent because I can't be otherwise. Pray for me.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19305198.post-25247654630803960042019-08-04T23:18:35.243-04:002019-08-04T23:18:35.243-04:00I think that arguments that derive from a foundati...I think that arguments that derive from a foundation of principle must be naturally constructive to be effective. I don’t find that discussions of principle that result in a negative finding are particularly helpful. Logically, a principle is a crystallized idea that correctly concludes something that is true and may be used in turn to build upon – this is certainly the case in mathematics, engineering, and the sciences, but also in a softer way, in society. In the first context, principles are the things that lead to discoveries that improve our lives or enable some achievement that changes the course of human history. In the second context, the Golden Rule is a great guiding principle, one that is found across cultures and religions and would likely have a sound basis in statistically large population samples. Emotions don’t do that – but they do provide the framework for the individual to navigate the world of principles. But on balance I think it’s principle that can guide through an uncharted and uncertain time or event, not emotion.<br /><br />Regarding your gay marriage debate. I think this has a lot of similarities to the abortion debate, the range of everybody's views is sufficiently diverse whereby consensus is impossible. I’ve been friends with many gay people throughout my life, some of which were quite close relationships. I don’t have any hang-ups with gay people or issues, in other words – but our society has been inundated in recent memory with arguments to treat it as something ‘normal’. It has become a very specific campaign: No instance of treating homosexuality as anything but completely normal can be tolerated. It follows that there is no end of condemnation for those who object to this re-labeling and dare to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural, which of course it is, from the perspective of biological purpose. Yes, it is found in nature across species, but in numbers that statistically place it distinctly into category of an abnormal minority. And where it is found, there are no statistically-significant cases of this minority adopting all of the attributes of normal sexuality, notably rearing of the young - at least that I am aware of. But just try expressing that thinking that out loud in a public setting, you’ll be hung as a witch by the Puritan mob, even though many if not most of the people there are probably in agreement, privately. Because nowadays it’s: In Your Face! 24/7! <br /><br />This is a great example of the limited role of using principle in debate. Principle would suggest that one does not allow a statistically abnormal minority to unduly influence what societal norms should be for the entire population. I think that most of us don’t care a rap about someone’s sexuality, and would probably prefer they keep it to themselves, whatever it is. It’s a good illustration of how emotional arguments can be quite effective in the face of reality, in this Age of Modern Media, especially for desensitizing disgust reactions. Think of the common reactions to In-Your-Face homosexuality 50 years ago, as compared to today's sensibilities. For good or bad, that's a sea change. And I guess that’s how I view it: Principles allow us to create a civilization. Emotions allow us to retain our humanity and grow spiritually while doing it.<br />Aggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11089648434324058300noreply@blogger.com