= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psy-Kosh comments on Conversation Halters - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (94)
The items on that list of appeals can also be ranked. According to mainstream US values, "Appeal to egalitarianism" trumps "Appeal to unquestionable authority", "Appeal to personal freedom" trumps "Appeal to egalitarianism"; and so on. The standard political talk show debate consists of a back-and-forth escalation up this ladder.
For example, in a televised debate on regulation:
Person 1: "The National Bureau of Economics Research published a study showing conclusively that regulation of X is harmful" (authority)
Person 2: "Well, I don't care what the elite economists say; the poor are not getting equal access to X and that is unfair." (egalitarianism)
Person 1: "Sure, it's unequal, but if the government played big brother with X, that would violate our fundamental freedoms." (personal freedom)
I'm not entirely sure it's the same. I mean, what you're describing is more a policy/decision debate. That is where principles like egalitarianism, personal freedom, and such are actually valid to appeal to since they're part of that-which-we-value.
It's not exactly the same thing as what the OP is talking about, is it? (unless person 2 is saying "because it is unfair, the study that implied those consequences is, in fact, invalid" rather than "even given those consequences, it's still worthwhile because this value here is so important")