The bliss of ignorance

[Dozy]

A discussion questioning whether or not the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima can be morality justified would enter us into the realms of popular opinion I would have thought?.. as with the invasion of Iraq and the like. And one thing I have learned from my time spent on SF is very few people who share the views of popular opinion ever question whether their opinion could be misplaced, misguided, or even wrong, at least not to any extent where doing so may change their opinion.

 

All we have is our personal point of view, which doesn't necessarily have to concur with popular opinion or need google links to corroborate it in order for our argument to have credibility.

My bold

 

If, for instance, somebody had said that capital punishment should be brought back because it would reduce the number of murders, replying, "Oh, no it wouldn't" isn't much of a convincing argument, is it?

 

Just explaining one's reasons for thinking that capital punishment is morally wrong is not going to convince anybody who thinks it's a good idea. But posting a link to statistics which show that the murder rate isn't any lower in US states which have capital punishment than it is in the states which do execute murderers, would surely add credibility to the argument that it's not an effective deterrent.

[danot]

I really can't see how you can form an opinion on such a thing without debating the evidence... evidence like what the US knew of the effects of the bomb, evidence of what the attitude of the Japanese Govt was after Hiroshima etc. You could just argue killing is wrong in any circumstances, in which case you are right in a sense the scope for debate then becomes about the nature of morality rather than facts. There are interesting arguments to be had on this by pointing out the consequences of such a view, but if the person remains consistent then you are right it is ultimately subjective. But for anyone that takes the normal view that actions are justified by outcomes and intentions then there is plenty of scope to look at the evidence to see what substance there is and the strength of arguments for and against.

I totally agree with you. I'm not saying we shouldn't familiarise ourselves with the evidence available, of course we should, wouldn't be much of a debate otherwise would it?.

 

 

What I'm saying is: To use links(evidence) to corroborate(not prove to be true) an argument is fine, I haven't a problem with that.

[boyfriday]

I totally agree with you. I'm not saying we shouldn't familiarise ourselves with the evidence available, of course we should, wouldn't be much of a debate otherwise would it?.

 

That was the jist of the OP, danot. Posters who are reluctant to familiarise themselves with the evidence available, either that they've discovered themselves or that offered by other contributors.

[danot]

My bold

 

If, for instance, somebody had said that capital punishment should be brought back because it would reduce the number of murders, replying, "Oh, no it wouldn't" isn't much of a convincing argument, is it?

 

Just explaining one's reasons for thinking that capital punishment is morally wrong is not going to convince anybody who thinks it's a good idea. But posting a link to statistics which show that the murder rate isn't any lower in US states which have capital punishment than it is in the states which do execute murderers, would surely add credibility to the argument that it's not an effective deterrent.

I would have to agree based on the example you've used.

[danot]

That was the gist of the OP, danot. Posters who are reluctant to familiarise themselves with the evidence available, either that they've discovered themselves or that offered by other contributors.

But they've no reason to accept it as truth.

 

If I was to start the thread:- Who really shot JFK and provided a link corroborating my argument that- Lee Harvey Oswald must have assassinated president John F Kennedy,(which I'm not claiming to be true) what other evidence is there to discredit my argument?

[boyfriday]

But they've no reason to accept it as truth.

 

If I was to start the thread:- Who really shot JFK and provided a link corroborating my argument that- Lee Harvey Oswald must have assassinated president John F Kennedy,(which I'm not claiming to be true) what other evidence is there to discredit my argument?

 

It's not about battering people into submission with evidence, that wasn't the point of the OP really, it's about the blind confidence some hold in their position based on instinct rather than knowledge.

[danot]

It's not about battering people into submission with evidence, that wasn't the point of the OP really, it's about the Blind confidence some hold in their position based on instinct rather than knowledge.

 

Likewise, it requires Blind faith to present evidence which you claim contradicts someone's argument.. because you would have to believe that your source is accurate and trustworthy, even though you've no reason to believe the source is accurate and trustworthy.. neither does anyone else, so why not simply agree to disagree with each others personal views instead of claiming they don't acknowledge or accept contradictory evidence when they are presented with it.

[JFKvsNixon]

Likewise, it requires Blind faith to present evidence which you claim contradicts someone's argument.. because you would have to believe that your source is accurate and trustworthy, even though you've no reason to believe the source is accurate and trustworthy.. neither does anyone else, so why not simply agree to disagree with each others personal views instead of claiming they don't acknowledge or accept contradictory evidence when they are presented with it.

 

Surely it's important for anyone to critique their sources they present? I feel that this is where a lot of people fall down.

[boyfriday]

Likewise, it requires Blind faith to present evidence which you claim contradicts someone's argument.. because you would have to believe that your source is accurate and trustworthy, even though you've no reason to believe the source is accurate and trustworthy.. neither does anyone else, so why not simply agree to disagree with each others personal views instead of claiming they don't acknowledge or accept contradictory evidence when they are presented with it.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone should accept contradictory evidence, it's a matter for them and only part of the game that we play here.

 

What I don't understand are those who post without providing any evidence to corroborate their position, and when challenged then refuse to consider the contrary evidence..content in their ignorance. Invariably the outcome is an agreement to disagree, whether they consider the contradictory evidence or not.

[danot]

Surely it's important for anyone to critique their sources they present? I feel that this is where a lot of people fall down.

Yes it is, it's vital if you're debating an issue.

 

Presenting evidence to corroborate statements that someone is criticising is fine. But in my opinion, "the evidence" is just the source of information being used in argument. I certainly don't see it as proof that someone's argument is true... why would anyone have reason to believe that?.