Move if you don't like it

[brian0918]

I had the funny idea pop into my head to buy Sealand and rename it Randoria lol

You could rename it Aynland and always pronounce the name with a stereotypical Asian accent.

[adrock3215]

So given a fundamental moral disagreement of this kind, is it proper form simply to not bother? Can the disagreement be resolved, and if so, how? How does one argue against another's assumed set of rights, moral codes, etc. Is it possible to show their assumption is incorrect, or can one only say that such assumptions are not favorable in some way?

In my estimation there is not one general rule. You have to evaluate each argument and your opposition objectively during the conversation/debate. If you see that the disagreement is very fundamental in nature, such as the one illustrated in this thread, then there is not much point to continue the argument. The exception to this would be if you consider the person of value to you, i.e. maybe it is your mother, brother, sister, friend, etc. Of course, you can show that their assumption is incorrect if you want, but it may require starting with metaphysics and working all the way to crux of the argument, which can take hours or days to do. Not to mention this assumes that the individual you are speaking with will accept truth (in many cases the individual may not care for truth at all). What I typically do is just let it go, then I try to play out the argument in my head to make sure my reasoning does not have fault. I try to ask myself all the questions I can think of from the opposing point of view, and then answer them.

[KevinDW78]

You could rename it Aynland

Oh, I like that name better!

[softwareNerd]

So given a fundamental moral disagreement of this kind, is it proper form simply to not bother?

No, one cannot take that view. Many current Objectivists might have said the same things once. Some people even thought communism was the best possible system, but then read Rand and became Objectivists.

You have to figure out the value you get. For instance, one might put in more effort if the person is an old friend, and less if he is a stranger. One factor in that calculation is the probability that you can change the other person's mind. Lots of sub-factors to consider there, including the exact nature of the opponent's argument, demonstrated seriousness about ideas, and even his age.

OTOH, one simply cannot set everyone right. You could spend a lifetime, and end up like this poor guy.

[brian0918]

OTOH, one simply cannot set everyone right. You could spend a lifetime, and end up like this poor guy.

Ha! I keep thinking of that one when I read threads like this.

[Thales]

In my estimation there is not one general rule. You have to evaluate each argument and your opposition objectively during the conversation/debate. If you see that the disagreement is very fundamental in nature, such as the one illustrated in this thread, then there is not much point to continue the argument. The exception to this would be if you consider the person of value to you, i.e. maybe it is your mother, brother, sister, friend, etc. Of course, you can show that their assumption is incorrect if you want, but it may require starting with metaphysics and working all the way to crux of the argument, which can take hours or days to do. Not to mention this assumes that the individual you are speaking with will accept truth (in many cases the individual may not care for truth at all). What I typically do is just let it go, then I try to play out the argument in my head to make sure my reasoning does not have fault. I try to ask myself all the questions I can think of from the opposing point of view, and then answer them.

Look at it this way, few people are convinced, especially in a heated argument, right at the point of the argument. Leave them with a few well chosen ideas, and a week later, a month later, maybe even years later something will click in their mind, and bang you got 'em. Remember, people have to think things out themselves. There is no short cut. Also, I don't always concern myself with the person I'm arguing with so much as with getting the ideas out there generally. On forums there are typically lots of lurkers who would gain real value from a solid argument.

So, in most cases I think it's at least a good idea to get a solid argument out there before leaving the scene.

[sanjavalen]

The only reason to interact with this person would be to discredit his "argument" in the face of a rational but undecided audience.

However, I submit that a refutation of that non-argument is unnecessary, and anyone who is remotely rational will dismiss it out of hand.

[Michael McGuire]

I think this is impracticable at the moment, what's more the idea of a country comprised of people who respect each others rights would have to come long before an Objectivist-based country.

I'm not exactly sure why the guy's suggestion (the guy brian is arguing with) is so unreasonable. Certainly I'm not going to move because he suggested it, but more the idea in general. It sure seems like in the USA we're getting farther and farther away from a culture that is rights respecting. Hell we're even talking seriously now about socialized medicine here now. Given the seemingly insurmountable task of changing the "hearts and minds" of people, isn't the more practical thing to find a way to set up a sovereign place where people can truly live, rather than sit and hope for a day that most likely will never come? I don't know about anyone else, but I'd move to such a country. Why is this such an outlandish idea, even if it took a few generations to achieve, like Israel. That is my biggest dissapointment so far with Objectivism in that there is no practical organized effort to achieve political results, there isn't even a political party. Say what you will about the Communists, and you can say plenty, but at least they took action.

So what are some signs that Objectivism is making serious headway in achieving this educational reform we are waiting for?

[John McVey]

There is no point in responding to such nonsense. Someone who responds in such a manner is not looking for rational discourse

Not necessarily. It would depend on other things that would be discernible in an IRL conversation but difficult to discern in a text-based one. For instance, how old is he?? Or, maybe he is beligerently passive-minded, in which case, yes, don't bother - or maybe he is uncertain about his position and is using beligerence to cover it up, in which case an intelligent push in the right direction could break that bad mentality and get him thinking. Just because they are not looking for rational discourse at the outset doesn't mean they wont engage in it if questioned the right way - it may well be possible to interest in him in it.

They are merely saying that their value-system is such that they do not want to hear any criticisms at all about their country, culture or government. ... Social metaphysics, anyone?

Yes, this person is effectively saying "Thou shalt not question." If you're going to respond then point that out. Tell this guy what he is effectively saying, let him face it square. If he agrees with that then certainly it is right to snort in contempt and walk away (no violence, please), but if they balk then maybe you have an opening.

If the latter then challenge his premise of the primacy of politics - don't just point out the social metaphysics to us, point it out to him. Ask him on what basis someone should vote: is there a right and wrong that precedes politics and hence sets the foundations of what to vote for? If he goes back to beligerence then stop, but other than that then whatever he responds ask him to PROVE IT. Then then develop the argument to take it back to the general rightness or wrongness of individuals' actions independent of consideration for politics. If you can get that far then you can take it all the way back to proper ethical theory and the general nature of man. If you had the time, you could possibly even take him back to epistemology if you can interest him in it by tying it to applications in value-theory and the fundamental rationality of man since these are also prerequisites of a decent political theory.

But what is most important of all is to shatter faith in social metaphysics, if you can - politics is not a primary, and that is what you first have to disabuse him of. You can do that much within minutes or just a paragraph or two, if he's not passive-minded. If he will be rational and honest then sooner or later he's going to think about that on his own even if you don't have the time to discus more with him there and then. If he wont, well, that's no skin off your nose.

As an aside, another warning sign that he's not someone worth talking with is that he can't distinguish between something being illegal because its wrong (ie theft) and something just being illegal because a lot of people say so (ie not paying your taxes.)

That is no aside but is part of the heart of the matter. There is a major difference between "can't" and "failed to in this instance." Challenge him on that very point: does ethics precede politics? If he is a "can't distinguish" then ignore him, but if he merely "failed to distinguish" then pursue the matter with him if you think there may be benefit of some kind to you in doing so.

The only reason to interact with this person would be to discredit his "argument" in the face of a rational but undecided audience.

Only? Again, you're presuming too much about his motives. Certainly, do NOT psychologise or talk to him about his motives for saying what he did, but do recognise there may be basic ways around it and it might be possible to get him to engage in rational discourse. The presence of a rational audience, unwilling to put up with dogmatism, may help keep him on the straight and narrow?

anyone who is remotely rational will dismiss it out of hand.

Dismissing his argument intellectually is not the same thing as dismissing him in discourse. If you can talk with him and then demonstrate to him why he should dismiss the argument (which he no doubt got from others) then kaCHING!

JJM

[sanjavalen]

JJM: I challenge you to point out a single individual on planet earth who will take that position and then come around to a rational way of looking at things.

Sometimes you're barking up the wrong tree, man. When someone says by their actions that they are completely irrational, I take them at their word.

Unless some outside consideration (previous knowledge of them, or an audience I wish to impress upon the fact that this person is not worth listening to,) I do not bother.

Besides, you don't change the world retail.

[John McVey]

JJM: I challenge you to point out a single individual on planet earth who will take that position and then come around to a rational way of looking at things.

Myself, for one. I also knew a guy once who changed considerably after I quoted Anthem (I wasn't even aware I had that effect on him till much later). He had a nut-case girlfriend who was a devotee of Lenin, Marx, and Chomsky. They broke up not longer after he started questioning things in ways he never questioned before, and she never forgave me after she learned what happened.

Sometimes you're barking up the wrong tree, man.

I don't doubt that for a second - given some of her comments of honest wondering about the merits or otherwise of utilitarianism, before I knew her better, I thought she might be able to see reason. Nnnnnuh-uh. She became even nuttier than before after being challenged.

When someone says by their actions that they are completely irrational, I take them at their word.

If you are dealing with a person like that, sure - but you're assuming that all you need to know about a person is exemplified in a single outburst such as Brian posted. It doesn't take much effort to do a simple probe by asking a pertinent question.

Unless some outside consideration (previous knowledge of them, or an audience I wish to impress upon the fact that this person is not worth listening to,) I do not bother.

By all means, it is not your obligation to do so. I am just saying it is not necessarily the best thing to do to write someone off after a single emotional reaction to a line of argumentation whose context Brian did not present.

JJM