|
|
|
|
|
|
by rayiner
1831 days ago
|
|
|
No, those aren’t the assumptions at all. The assumption is not that “the truth is likely to lie between the two poles” but rather that, in a democracy, you have to pay attention to what the other half of the country thinks. Democracy isn’t about “finding the truth.” It’s not really even about “truth” anyway. Most disputes are about differing moral judgments not disagreements about facts. For example, liberals I’ve talked to are often a bit surprised to learn that a fetus stops being “just a bundle of cells” very soon, and by 12-13 weeks has all its parts, a face, etc. That doesn’t cause them to go “oh, now my view of abortion is totally the opposite!” Views on what stage of development entitled a human to a right to life isn’t about truth finding, it’s about differing moral judgments. In a democracy, the most important thing is accommodating those disparate world views so we can live together productively. |
|
|
I submit that it's less about moral judgements--no one comes out in favor of, say, chattel slavery--than it is about controlling people via cognitive dissonance[1].
After a life-altering act, e.g. aborting a pregnancy, or having a gender reassignment surgery, it is cheaper for the mind to fall in with a re-enforcement group than to realize the decision was wrong.
Not to judge these wrong calls as worse than my own wrong calls. Merely being descriptive.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance