Indeed. So why do people seem to identify as one or the other and then seem to base their arguments on whatever they identify as. Not everyone but broadly speaking.
Sorry, I do not follow what you are trying to say. If you are asking why people support the party or position that they agree with, I would say that is not at all surprising.Ask a person who call himself a liberal why he supports liberalism he is apt to give you liberal reasons. That is none too surprising. They will argue the positions that they agree with and simply adopt the label that applies.By your logic, separating the two, you would have a person who believes in free market economics call himself a liberal even though he does not. Not sure that makes much sense. You seem to be conflating the causal relationship between viewpoints and the names we assign to those viewpoints.
Well no what I meant was why do people just go with the view associated with that label when in reality, people will have differing views for different things.
You have that backward. People hold to a certain set of views which are then classified by a certain name. Most people don't say "I am conservative and therefore I believe..." Rather they say, "I believe x and y and z and therefore I am a conservative."In any case, you appear to be making a distinction without a difference. Because either way, you get to the same place.
What if their belief is different depending on the issue?
Two points. 1) There are different strands of idea. For example, I come out of the classical conservative tradition so I tend to differ with what Americans call conservative. Which is actually classical liberalism, albeit with a streak of social traditionalism that comes from America's origins in the Protestant Reformation.2) Then, in other cases, people will hold ideas that they think contradict the definitions, but actually do not as a matter of their philosophical pedigree. So you might hear someone say, "I am a social liberal but an economic conservative."THAT, however, is a consistent philosophy. It is liberalism in the classical tradition. "That government is best which governs least..." and all the rest. Such people are more consistent than they realize, but they confuse modern usage with longstanding ideas of which they are likely not really aware at all.Then last, you sometimes have people who are just plain inconsistent. They may not recognize it and they may not recognize how one idea they hold contradicts another idea or principle that they hold - unless you point it out to them. People are flawed and imperfect. They make mistakes.
Why would they contradict if it’s on a completely unrelated issue?
Please note what I wrote above. Partly it is the pedigree of the ideas that they are drawing from - whether they understand those ideas or not.For example, I call myself a conservative. To American minds, that means that I am opposed to tax increases. Yet I am a conservative who favors an across the board tax increase. Without going into all the details, that is because I come from the classical conservative tradition.So, while I agree with American conservatives on the abortion question, I differ with them on tax increases.See how that worked?
What if a person is conservative on justice but but the opposite when it comes to healthcare for example?
You could play this game all day. It really is kind of silly. Seems to me the way to answer this is to ask the person to explain their ideas. No matter.However, to use your example, it is VERY likely that person comes from the classical conservative tradition that I come from. The person wants a stable traditional social order with emphasis on preserving a cultural emphasis on the rule of law and respect for the institutions of society.Then using an expansive health care system to reconcile the public to the inevitable upheavals and turmoils caused by a free market economy. Just as an historical note - the welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Bismarck in Germany and Disraeli in Britain. Marx ferociously opposed the welfare as a bribe by the ruling class to deprive the workers of their sense of class solidarity and identity.If you want to see a ton of people who are tough on crime but supportive of an extensive health care system - in fact, "socialized medicine" - look to the Conservative Party in Britain.Beyond that, there are all sorts of particulars that come into play. (For my part, while I don't support a national health care system for various practical reasons, on principle I do not object to it. My sole stipulation being that if the public insists upon it, then it must be paid for through the appropriate level of taxation.)Anyhow, rather than playing this game, may I suggest to you George Will's 1983 book, Statecraft as Soulcraft. It will give you, as it game me when I read it, a more nuanced understanding of political philosophy and political thinking.
There’s no game. I just think people are different based on different issues. You can apply as many labels as you want. At the end of the day, they’re just labels.
Yes, but what if it. Ideas are complex, but they are not random, nor are they unrelated. You want to boil the complicated down to simple caricature. In fact, there are a multiplicity of factors that go into the formation of any idea or opinions. Some not as well thought out as others and some more prone to error than others.However, that does not change the fact that there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong or inconsistent when an individual does not conform to what you assume the labels to mean. As I have attempted to show you, even the labels are more complicated and have a more complex pedigree than you understand.Where there is inconsistency there may be error or there may be a rationale that is more complicated than your terminology and labels suggest. The labels are a convenience, but they are not arbitrary. Indeed, try this. Describe yourself without resorting to labels. You are confusing cause and effect.
Whether that inconsistency is an inconsistency or not will be subjective. Whether that’s right or wrong will also be subjective.
No. A lurid example: If a person says he hates hate black people and then marries a black woman, his words and actions will be objectively inconsistent with one another. That is NOT subjective. That is an assessment of the factual case.All you are doing is trapping yourself in an intellectual hall of mirrors.
That won’t apply to every situation.
Not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean that sometimes people are inconsistent, file that one under "duh." People may be mistaken or not even aware that they are. To say that there are inconsistencies is not to say that there are ALWAYS inconsistencies.
There will be occasions where it will be subjective whether a person is acting inconsistently to their values or not.
Well, they either are or they are not. Their opinion of their own objectivity we then test against a demonstrable reality. That reality then determining whether there is consistency or not.One's feelings about their objectivity and consistency is NOT the standard against we measure such objectivity and consistency.
It won’t always be a simple answer as you suggest.
Didn't say it was simple. Indeed, who is the more simple?You who argue that everything is relative and subjective? Me, who argues that we must measure these things against an objective reality, the totality of which we may not always know and must constantly be seeking.For you, it is all relative and that makes it easy. For me, it is hard work to find the objective standard.
That’s your way of looking at things.
Which puts you back in the intellectual hall of mirrors. Strikingly, in that, you are stunningly consistent.
There have always been debates between objectivism and relativism. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24439305?seq=1
Ever have their been. That does not change the fact that if all is relative, we quickly find ourselves justifying very bad things. Thus, we can deduce which side is right and which wrong.So try this. So try this - make the case for throwing Jews into ovens because they are Jews. Put your money where your mouth is. Defend the Holocaust on practical and relativistic moral grounds.
No because people have moral principles and an interest in preserving humanity. Different cultures will also be different in terms of which works better. Humans are not homogenous.
Yes, but they are only relative and a matter of subjective opinion. You said so yourself.So c'mon out little boy - put your mouth where your moral relativism is.
Yes it is. But humans are not homogenous so what works in one place doesn’t necessarily work somewhere else. Also, there are many factors at play. Some cultures are more relativistic than others. The US has always been more individualistic and objectivist compared to Europe for example. And that’s expected given the USA is a new country compared to Europe.
All true, but you said all relative. If throwing Jews into ovens is as good as not throwing them into ovens - because it is all relative - then why choose one over the other. Both are equally as good because nothing is right or wrong but only perspective makes it so.So, play your thesis out. Make the case that Naziism is good for Nazis and that is as good as democracy is for those in democracies. You literally just said that - so make your case.
That’s a point of learning And also one extreme. It’s not within humanity’s interest to commit mass genocide. But you can’t apply that same logic to every situation. For example, people will have different preferences on hobbies and different opinions on it. It is relative. Because humans are not homogenous.
What's the point of learning.C'mon now. If there is a good to learn about and a bad to learn about, then we teach that. On the other hand, if good and bad are merely perspective and relative, then we teach that and ;eave each to decide what they will.C'mon out little Kitty. I smell some moral absolutism creeping into your argument. You actually think there is an objective truth to be taught?Yikes, they are going to yank away your moral relativist credentials if you keep that up.
Well your objectivist principles are apparently teaching you that making comments like that is the best way to win an argument. But there will be some things which would be more objectivist because of human survival instincts. There will be other things which will be relative. The point of teaching is because that particular society has figured that its beneficial to their survival and wellbeing.
Well, you are the one who will not make the case for the Holocaust. You are the one dancing away from my challenge. I think that there is an objective moral standard. You do not. So defend the relativist case and justify the other side. If you are right, then you will sweep away my objectivist case for an objective moral standard and will show how throwing Jews into ovens can be moral. Indeed, there being no objective morality, that it is perfectly fine to do so.Oh, and by the way, who said the human survival instinct is moral or justified. That is just another thing to be tossed aside as one option among many. Remember, no objective standards here - at all. The human survival instinct is not defensible, it is just another thing to be set equally against all the others.
Well yes human survival instincts is scientific theory. But it’s mostly worked over time. I don’t disagree with you that there may be an ideal standard but I don’t believe that the standard is the same everywhere for all societies. And even then there will be variations of that standard which works equally well.
Sir, c'mon, you are getting silly.There is an objective moral standard. What we do in life, in politics, in religion and law and education and much else is to try to ferret out what it is and give it the best expression that imperfect beings possible can.Just because we do not always know or agree does not mean that there is not one. For the Nazis, throwing Jews into ovens was moral. They were WRONG!See how that works?
I did not say that. You are saying that. Read this - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../...9973.1983.tb00311.x
And we can keep going on forever. We will just keep going round in circles. It’s pointless. Thank you for your time. Bye.
That’s because people would have differing views based on the issue though?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
That’s at a country level. But what about at a more rudimentary level?
That’s the difference with liberals and conservatives. The right sides with the individual and believes one person can make intelligent decisions so they should have the most freedoms and less government control. The left believes in the collective so they want the individual to have less freedom and the government to have more power in order to do what’s right for everyone. Is that the rudimentary level you wanted?
Yes thanks. So basically looking at the extremes - communism and facsism.
You really think that the right to pay starvation wages is a motivation to be good?
@goaded Sure, because if employees are being ripped off they have other options. Start their own business together where they're paid fairly, work for someone else who pays better, or get a new set of skills that will help them find better paying employment.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!