[twodave]

This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity. It’s important to understand where these lines fall within yourself and those you are speaking with. Some arguments aren’t worth having in an effort to persuade, but rather they should be discussions aimed at understanding, being vulnerable and finding ways to respect and live at peace among people we have fundamental differences with. Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.

[motorest]

> This is fine when the question is, “What’s for dinner?” However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity.

No, it is not the definition of integrity. If you opt to double-down on positions you held in spite of being presented to evidence that contradicts or refutes your prior beliefs, the behavior you are displaying is opposite of integrity, specially the part about honesty and commitment to do what's right.

[dijit]

having integrity: “murder is bad, even if it’s someone i disagree with (tho isn’t murdering)”

lack of integrity: “EU bad, even if you give me evidence to say that it’s the UK’s own politicians that have screwed us for decades.. not the EU necessarily”

[vdqtp3]

Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point. I suspect that sort of thing is what GP meant.

[motorest]

> Rape is wrong. It doesn't matter what your evidence or positions or logic are, you will not sway me on that point.

Do you believe that you were already presented with evidence that compelled you to change your personal position on rape, and the only reason you didn't changed your position in spite of that was your stubbornness to stick with them in spite of you feeling your belief was already refuted?

Or does the rationale still holds?

I think you tried very hard to find a moral argument to try to refute the argument on integrity, but you unwittingly just proved the point.

[brabel]

But that clearly falls within the parent comment’s definition. Just because you are prepared to change your opinion on something based on evidence to the contrary, it doesn’t mean such evidence exists or may even be possible! I am of the opinion that the Earth is not flat. And I know that no evidence you can present would ever change that because it’s patently obvious that’s the case given the evidence I already have! But I am still theoretically open to a debate. That’s the scientific method.

[pjc50]

Yes. But what happens in practice, both in actual rape trials and the court of public opinion, is a battery of arguments to say that it wasn't "really" rape. Disbelief at the woman's version of events. (Or, for other cases, the socially subordinate person in the interaction). Arguments that various sorts of actions or forms of dress constitute consent. Introducing the victim's previous sexual history to discredit them. And so on.

This is why "#metoo" was so controversial.

[bzzzt]

> This is why "#metoo" was so controversial.

I always though it was controversial because it did away with the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument...

[potato3732842]

Why is rape wrong though? "hurr durr rape bad" is just repeating whatever you've been indoctrinated to believe. There's a more fundamental reason rape is bad (and this same fundamental reason underpins the reason we find a lot of other things bad).

[virgilp]

It does fall back to "core values" though - kinda' like with math & axioms. The "why" chain of questions will inevitably lead to something like "because there's inherent value in human life", and this is the point where it breaks down because there's no logical reason to say that. You can probably postulate the contrary and end up with a completely different set of morals that may still be internally coherent but would be very alien to you. Just how you can say "in a plane, through a given point not on a given line, there is no line parallel to the given line" and end up with a weird, non-Euclidean but coherent geometry.

[antonvs]

Much like saying "murder is wrong", the wrongness is a part of the definition of the word. There's no need for evidence or logic, beyond understanding what a definition is.

[wizzwizz4]

Neither rape nor murder are inherently, definitionally wrong. There are situations in extremis where murder and rape are considered justifiable: in war, murder is often praised; and in an "everyone else is dead, humanity will go extinct" situation (e.g. the subjective belief of Lot's daughters, according to some traditions, in Genesis 19:31–36), rape might¹ be considered permissible. And both words are used to refer to things which aren't necessarily wrong (e.g. "I'm going to murder this sandwich", or the "forcefully taking" -> "winning in a competition" senses of 'rape' described on Wiktionary and Urban Dictionary).

Rather, central members of the categories of 'rape' and 'murder' are wrong for reasons, and while those reasons may differ depending on your ethical framework, pretty much all ethical systems agree on this point.

"That's immoral by definition" isn't really how words work. Some philosophers would call that a category error, others would call it meaningless, and yet others would call it equivocation.

---

¹: For the record: I think the "don't rape" deontological principle is extremely reliable, and if anyone alive finds themselves in a situation where they think they should break it, they're almost certainly wrong about the facts. The dilemma faced by Lot's daughters was a false dilemma: many other options were available, including "talk about the dilemma and thereby acquire either consent, or a good counterargument", or "double-check with the supernatural being who created the otherwise-unlikely circumstance where you have good reason to believe everyone else died in fire and/or conversion to salt, to confirm whether you are in fact the last remnants of humanity". I can't think of a situation where rape is actually justified. Trolley problems don't occur in real life.

[jhanschoo]

You are mistaken.

> in war, murder is often praised;

The killing of an enemy combatant, for example, is usually lawful, praised and not considered murder. Generally speaking, the killing of a civilian is sometimes a war crime and considered a murder.

You also have a lot to say on the nuanced ethics of killing and on sexual violence, but these deal with the underlying concepts themselves and the words don't matter; in fact philosophers frequently give common terms a specialized, ad-hoc definition when they want to discuss these concepts themselves.

[wizzwizz4]

I have nothing to say on the "nuanced ethics": as far as I'm concerned, rape is bad and murder is bad. Sufficiently-advanced pedantry always circles back to that. There's no nuance to be had.

If you asked any (non-bloodthirsty) soldier, officer or general whether they'd press a button to magically achieve their military objectives without bloodshed, they'd certainly take that option. Killing enemy combatants is praised as good because it is (considered) a necessary evil, but "necessary evil" is awful for morale. If you take people outside that situation, they tend to hold the view that "killing is wrong", or "killing non-wrongdoers is wrong" at worst.

You've (re)defined the word "murder" to exclude "lawful killings of enemy combatants", but whether we use your or my definition, that doesn't change the morality of the actions. You also observed that philosophers do that kind of (re)definition all the time. That's the point I was trying to make.

[antonvs]

> Neither rape nor murder are inherently, definitionally wrong.

This is easily refuted: look up “murder” in any English dictionary and you’ll find a definition like this: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” The inclusion of “unlawful” makes it definitionally wrong. You might want to quibble about legality vs. morality but in this case at least, the one entails the other. Perhaps you’re thinking of words like “killing”.

[Thiez]

The difference between legality and morality is extremely relevant and it's absurd to just gloss over it. Many things we now consider immoral were perfectly legal, like slavery or the holocaust. Law should be based on morality, morality does not and should not defer to the law.

[quackqquack]

What if you're a duck

[NotaRat]

Still bad. They should require consent like rats do. Its much more ethical

[red-iron-pine]

based duckposting

[Dilettante_]

When the shitpost so bad it needs its own throwaway

[sethammons]

Does the alcoholic dad who wont stop drinking have integrity? His core principles say he shouldn't back down; he's not a quitter after all.

Silly example, but I find arguments fall apart most at the edges.

I challenge you to develop a better definition of integrity. For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.

[lelanthran]

> For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.

It's not as binary as that.

Each new convincing data point may cause me to re-evaluate my position, but simply re-evaluation may not cause me to change my mind, but may cause me to slightly shift in the direction of the new position.

At some point, I would have ingested and/or seen so many convincing data points that my position is effectively neutral. And some point after that, my position may have actually shifted and not be neutral anymore.

IOW, it's a spectrum, and journeys across this spectrum are:

a) Slow - position moves in tiny amounts, and

b) Not guaranteed to end up on the opposite end - you might get to neutral and remain there for the rest of your life, or you might shift back towards your original position.

[nkrisc]

> Does the alcoholic dad who wont stop drinking have integrity? His core principles say he shouldn't back down; he's not a quitter after all.

Then yes, he does have integrity. He has his principles and stands by them (however misguided it may seem to others). But all this illustrates is that integrity alone doesn't define a good person.

[gjsman-1000]

The problem there though is that data completely breaks down for anything historical, philosophical, cultural, religious, miraculous, or otherwise requiring “faith.”

Anything that is not a repeatable event under a microscope has no “data” and never will.

[sethammons]

I am not a "data or it didn't happen" person. I am sure I have magical beliefs that don't play out in reality.

I'm not convinced by the argument that this falls apart for your categories. Logic and reasoning still exists. Philosophy can be argued and principals agreed upon. Historical things leave traces. And I am appalled by blind faith.

At some point, our society and ways of doing things boils down to trust or faith. I trust that people thinking about things, trying to validate those things, and who employ a way to change their minds will move towards "more correct" understandings. People knew not to hang around people with the plague before germ theory.

[TeMPOraL]

I used to look at things this way too, but I now see this picture as incomplete, missing a crucial detail. There exist another dimension to our reality, beyond the inanimate, objective one we normally study through physics and life sciences. That dimension is the social dimension. It has its own rules, and for everyone at almost all times, it's more directly relevant to survival and happiness than actual physics.

An example I also posted in another comment: you can be objectively right about the color of the sky, but that won't save you from becoming dinner to wild animals after your people cast you out for believing differently.

We've evolved to navigate this social dimension as much as physical one, because we're social creatures and other people have forever been a part of our environment. Recognizing that, and recognizing that this social reality is more relevant than physical one, is IMO the key to understanding why people behave they do - why they believe obvious bullshit, and refuse to align their beliefs with the truth of physical reality, despite ample and indisputable evidence. It's the key to understand why seemingly smart people say and believe dumb things, especially after they start a career in sales or politics. It's all because, for almost everyone and in almost every case, being seen as in good standing in one's social circles is much more directly relevant to everyday experience and long and happy life, than getting some facts right.

Having that understanding, it becomes more apparent than just about the only way to convince people to change their mind, is to make things relevant to them personally in either dimension, and at a larger scale, to bring those two dimension more in alignment.

[strogonoff]

In a world where there is no way of knowing whether my blue is the same as your blue, can there be a way to be objectively right about the colour of the sky?

[balamatom]

Yes. The color is exactly as you see it.

[igobivm]

your perception of blue might be different than mine, but as a society we have agreed that specific wavelengths of light are blue. those wavelengths are absolutely measurable.

[__s]

To explain why your comment was received poorly: they're talking about integrity & you somewhat randomly brought in faith

Changing your mind given data isn't going to apply when there's no data to go by, so this concept of integrity isn't related to faith

[nathan_compton]

My feeling is that we should simply not believe in stuff where we will never have data.

[timcobb]

> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity.

I see what you're saying but I think this is called obstinance...

[yndoendo]

_I will never vote for a politician that committed an act of rape or pedophilia._

Is that part of my character Integrity or Obstinance?

[jjk166]

Most likely neither, as you are presumably not voting for a politician who has committed rape or pedophilia because it is a legitimate, logical argument for not supporting them. Likewise I am rather firmly opposed to being thrown into a woodchipper, not because of some inflexible commitment to an ideology or ethical principle but because I have two braincells to rub together.

[timcobb]

Have you ever felt a strong desire to vote for a politician who has committed sex crimes?

[jjk166]

If your principles don't stand up to scrutiny, you shouldn't hold them. Some of the greatest evils ever committed were done by people certain they were acting according to upstanding principles. There is a middle ground between forcing all people to adopt your viewpoints and accepting all viewpoints as equally valid. Oftentimes you can agree to disagree, but there are certainly times you can't.

[twodave]

Yeah, I think we agree here.

[teekert]

"However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed"

That's called being dogmatic. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but, in the face of extraordinary evidence you'd be a fool to stay unswayed and adhere to your proven false core principles.

[twodave]

I would venture to say that not all dogma is misplaced, despite the negative feelings that word tends to ignite. I tend to use that word more in situations where it’s clear someone hasn’t reasoned out why they believe what they believe. When I use the word “principles” I think it different than someone who just follows rules they were told to follow.

[user_7832]

> However, there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed. This is called having integrity... ...Otherwise we are no different than Crusaders and Jihadists.

And do you suggest a crusader or jihadist or keep this point of view as well? They too might think they are in the right and should keep their (religious etc) integrity, surely?

Everyone/most people always assume they are always in the right; if this was objectively true, there would never be a single debate or argument in the world.

[vintermann]

A saying I like, apparently first made by Quine: "I always think I'm right, but I don't think I'm always right."

In other words, for every belief I have, I think it's right. Clearly, otherwise I would have abandoned it already. But I don't think that the set of all my beliefs is 100% free of errors or inconsistencies.

[twodave]

The point is I don’t have to agree with their views. Why would I want them to keep views I disagree with? This isn’t about what I’d want them to do, but rather accepting that people believe things that sound crazy to me, and it’s still up to me to find a way to live with and love them.

[Nevermark]

> there is nothing wrong with having core principles that aren’t able to be swayed

Well, yes there is.

In fact, that is the central problem of unresolvable divisions. People implicitly making themselves "the decider" by imagining their principles are so great as to preclude any need for revision. (Faith in the primacy of one's beliefs, is inherently the same as faith in one's own primacy to choose beliefs.)

There is nothing wrong with having strong core principles, because your best understanding supports them strongly. But as soon as you discount the possibility of them being wrong, even partially wrong, not the whole picture, framed within a non-tautological assumption, or not supercedable by other wiser principles, ..., you become the enemy of your own progress.

Nobody's knowledge, wisdom, or principles are complete, or have consistent primacy over all others.

Ultimately, principles, ethics and morality are a kind of economics. Decisions are tradeoffs between options. How does one make choices, so that the result is the outcome with the greatest value, and doesn't create other problems that exceed what is solved. That is a decidability problem, which will never have a complete or completely consistent answer.

The landscape for the question "What is best?" and "What is true?" is chaotic, fractal, non-Euclidean and infinitely complex.

---

One of the biggest reasons to strong man the arguments of others, is the better at strong manning you become, the more likely you find something worth changing your own views over. Regardless of how explicit, implicit, or non-existent that was in their original argument.

Leveraging others disagreement, to identify misunderstandings and gaps in one's own knowledge, is the most important reason to talk to someone we disagree with.

Persuading them should be second, but is also more likely if we are clearly pushing ourselves to improve first.

There are very few cases where someone who disagrees with us doesn't see something wrong with our side. Or at a minimum, is not convinced because we are not as clear of a communicator as we think we are. Or not as good a listener as to what their question is, as we think. Even when we are "mostly right" and they are "mostly wrong", others rarely can't teach us something more about what we already know in one of those dimensions.

---

Finally, don't try to persuade people in real time. Discuss, then move on. Discuss again if they want to.

People don't decide anything big in the moment.

They need time to understand an argument. Time to consider both its strengths and weaknesses. And time to consider ramifications we haven't even imagined. And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.

---

I have been preparing to persuade a lot of people of something highly contrarian for a long time. This topic lights all the fires in me!

[twodave]

No, I disagree. Not all differences need resolving. Mature adults should learn to respect those differences. It doesn’t mean you have to change your worldview to get along. This is not about how tight or loose your convictions are, but rather how much empathy and grace you’re willing to grant to others. I can vehemently disagree with you while also seeking to understand and love you. Mischaracterizing strong and, yes, even non-negotiable convictions as “hate” or “division” is what keeps us divided.

[Nevermark]

> And the freedom to prioritize what is worth going down a rabbit hole for, in their life.

[twodave]

I’m not actually so sure that we disagree as much as I originally said. A better way for me to phrase it would have been: there is nothing wrong with certain unswayable convictions. But others can be very problematic.

That said, the point I want to make more is that both of these exist whether we like it or not. So rather than saying there’s no place for those strong convictions I disagree with, it is better to understand and empathize than to debate. That doesn’t mean changing my convictions necessarily. But it does mean I should treat others well regardless of how I think of them. This is the true meaning of “love thy neighbor”. And It is a shame more people who quote such scriptures don’t exercise them.

[Nevermark]

Even if everyone was flexible, there would be unresolved differences.

So I 100% agree with general (reciprocated) respect.

[spacebacon]

Strongman argument style here and I agree. If you argue with enough people you will be changed. If you keep arguing you will develop hardened identity around these positions or fold into humility. Only politicians shape their views inside a box. At that point one chose power over progress. They learned power can be leveraged far sooner than wisdom can be applied.

[chucksmash]

That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?

[strken]

This reminds me of the Heinz Dilemma [0]. Ideally you want neither person A's rigid social/legal conformity in the face of death, not person B's vague wishy-washy convictions that change each time, but some higher set of ideals. Ones that accept cheating may sometimes be justified but only when the stakes are something really important like a human life, and only when cheating doesn't cause more harm than it prevents.

If person A can't accept or understand that a human life overrides lesser considerations, then no, I don't put my trust in them.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

[nothrabannosir]

The older I get the more I hear the exact opposite of what people say when they claim anything absolute about themselves. It's working out well.

"I'm an empath." "I don't like drama." "I never cheat people." "I value honesty."

[kruffalon]

So, what you are saying is that you found the fountain of youth and are getting younger?

[Nevermark]

> That's all well and good, but when you have to put your trust in someone and person A believes "it's wrong to cheat people" and person B has a whole framework for thinking about the problem on a case by case basis, you just go with A, right?

Whut?

Surely it would also depend on the situation, and the relevance and reasoning behind B's view.

Are we in preschool with children? Then probably A is right.

But if B is a teacher and explains that the kids love a game in which they all rampantly cheat, and the teacher has given up because they are having an absolute blast breaking the rules and trying to trick each other? I hope you would change your mind too.

Are we talking about an undercover agent in a dangerous country, attempting to get a critical component from a drunk bioweapons scientist, at a card table in a casino?

These are humorous examples, but real world versions are not hard to come by.

Principles that have few or no exceptions tend to be very narrow in scope. Like don't preemptively launch world ending nukes during a stable peacetime.

The sensible approach is have the best principles you can, be willing to improve them, and apply them with care and situational flexibility.

Principles are maps, not the actual moral territory.

Principles are wisdom, not an algorithm.

[komali2]

I feel like people who make such blanket value statements like "I don't cheat people" or "I don't lie" aren't being honest with themselves, or are putting too much faith in the stability of the society they live in.

The easiest retort is Anne Frank. You're hiding her in your attic and a Nazi asks if you're hiding enemies of the state. There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat!

Someone might answer, "well, fine. I don't cheat or lie unless I'm in extraordinary circumstances." That's fine, they've let go of dogmatism then, now the interesting conversation starts of where the line is, what constitutes extraordinary circumstances. That's a very interesting conversation I believe.

[naasking]

> There you go, a time when you'll definitely lie and cheat!

I don't think this is the win you think it is. Kantians and se deontologists will absolutely say that no, you cannot lie and cheat even in that scenario. You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.

[Nevermark]

> You have a moral duty to not lie but also a moral duty to resist tyranny. You cannot sacrifice one to achieve the other, you must choose only options that fulfill both duties.

The universe doesn't respect that viewpoint. There is no mechanism in reality or life that prevents hard tradeoffs from having to be made.

[naasking]

> The universe doesn't respect that viewpoint. There is no mechanism in reality or life that prevents hard tradeoffs from having to be made.

What the universe does or doesn't respect has no bearing on what is or is not right / good.

[komali2]

Have you ever met in real life a person who wouldn't lie to the axe murderer, because of their Kantian values?

If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.

[naasking]

> If a Kantian can be put into a situation where their morals would require them to say the word that gives up Anne Frank, we can safely say it's a bad moral system.

Not unless you can present some proof of this. Your implicit assumption that we should care about outcomes over principles has its own set of moral failures, like the repugnant conclusion.

[chucksmash]

To cheat someone implies there is some obligation owed which is reneged upon, even if that's just the minute obligation owed from one member of a society to another.

In your hypothetical situation, I owe no such obligation to the Nazis who as you'll remember were an occupying force. I entered into no social compact with them.

[shae]

I put my trust in someone on a case by case basis, unless they're going to cheat someone. Then I don't trust them.