I will prove to you that two people can observe the same facts, come to different conclusions, and both be simultaneously correct. The key to understanding this is twofold: first, each of us measures the world according to our own values. Second, the actual function of the world is incredibly complex leading us to cherry pick the factors we consider. By the end of this blog, I hope that you will walk away understanding that people who disagree with you are not necessarily ignorant, stupid, or evil. I also hope that you will see that when you are disgusted with somebody else's opinion, what really is bothering you is that they don't value the same things you do.
Subjective Truth versus Objective Truth
First I need to cover the obvious fact that some truths are subjective. For example: "the best flavor of ice cream is chocolate." A less trivial example would be "FDR was a great president." Other truths are more objective such as the gravity at the earth's surface=9.8 m/s2. Subjective truths are inseparable from individual priorities, tastes, and beliefs. (I will call these "values").
Is there any point in asserting a subjective truth when it can only be true for one single person? Yes. Since we all share the experience of being human, we share things in common. Thus, if you like chocolate, there is a chance that I will like it too. But in the end, we must accept that some people may never like chocolate.
Values combine with knowledge to produce individual truth. Collective subjective truth is possible when there are shared values and knowledge. This is no trivial thing. Wars are fought over values divergence. The word culture is another name for collective values. Values are extremely important and everybody has them (socially conservative voters have adopted the term "values voters", but what they mean is "conservative values").
It should be obvious that two people with the same intellect and knowledge can have drastically different prescriptions for society. Let's see how the values of a 2nd amendment activist differ from those of a gun control advocate:. The pro-gun activist is likely to have a higher regard for individual rights at the expense of perceived security, a lower regard for government and for criminals. The anti-gun activist is likely to value collective action over individual action. She will value security over freedom. (Caveat alert: these generalizations are simplified.) As another illustration, a friend of mine recently described his value of freedom poignantly "I'd rather risk another 9/11 than give away civil liberties".
I've thought a little on what it takes to convert someone over to you're way of thinking. I think this table summarizes most of the common approaches.
The possible Scenarios of conflicting opinion
| Person A | Person B | Ways A can influence B to unite in common cause | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
Person A has ample amounts of knowledge, good mental faculties, and a fairly strong value system. | Has insufficient knowledge but holds values similar to person A. | Since both have the same values, A only need educate B. | Campaign literature sent by a party to its membership. A Democrat explains to a Republican how liberal policies can achieve conservative ends. |
Has sufficient knowledge and a weakly held value system that is different than person A. | Attempt to change the values of person B | A pro-abortion advocate focuses B on the plight of women in order to cause a reprioritization of values. | |
Has sufficient knowledge and a strongly held value system that is different than person A. | Compromise. | Including pork in legislation so that everyone can claim success. | |
Disenfranchise | Jim Crow laws, anti-polygamy Edmunds act of 1882, etc. | ||
Destroy your opposition | Terrorism, war, etc. | ||
| Person A lacks certain mental faculties or knowledge, but has a fairly strong value system. | This situation is analogous to all of the previous rows except that the effectiveness of persuasion is reduced. | ||
| Person A has a weak value system. | In this case, little or no attempt at persuasion is likely |
I'm grateful that in this country, at present, we have mostly been able to confine ourselves to the first three rows in terms of domestic relations. What I think people need to be aware of is that when someone has different values than you, it does not necessarily mean they are stupid or evil. I can't tell you how many times I've felt vilified for my conservative views. And just as many times I've been called out as ignorant. I strive to be a thoughtful person, and so these accusations hurt. President Bush is another example. To this day some people seethe with hate for him. Bush's values are so foreign to some of them them that they can only interpret his motives as evil. But if having a different priority of values makes someone evil, which priority is right? Moral relativists will have to say that the only evil is not being true to oneself. (I disagree with moral relativists, BTW) Good luck proving President Bush wasn't true to himself. I'd take anti-Bush people more seriously if they did believe in universal morality but that would make the discussion theological and is outside the scope of this blog.
End versus Means
In all this talk about values, I should mention there is another dimension that complicates matters. Some people choose means that are less likely to achieve their ends. But perhaps they value the means so highly, they are willing to sacrifice those ends. For example, some people value equality of income and try to rectify inequality through progressive tax rates. The income from these taxes are redistributed to the poor. It has been shown that lowering the top tax bracket can induce higher tax receipts (by stimulating investment). People who value the punitive aspect of the tax more than helping the poor with the increased revenue will still oppose the tax cut.
How Two Sides can both be right about Objective Truths
Now I will show by example how opposing viewpoints about objective truth can both be right. I will take the recent financial crisis as an example. That there is a meltdown of sorts is pretty much an objective truth agreed upon by most everyone. Over the past week I've heard two claims that were made with utmost certainty:
1. Republicans, especially President Bush, are 100% to blame for the crisis.
2. Democrats are 100% to blame for the crisis.
My argument is based on the fact that, whether they knew it or not, each of the above claimants is implying "according to my values and priorities" in their statement. When you take into account the implied reference point, their claims can both be verified objectively
I will do so. According to this Denver Post article and this WSJ article there are about eight causes of the financial meltdown. Some of the causes had both beneficial as well as deleterious effects. In no particular order:
- Enactment of laws that encourage home ownership (most notably, the CRA of 1977 and the 1993 expansion of it) (D)
- Political pressure on Fannie and Freddie to buy/guarantee subprime loans. Followed up by lax oversight. (D)
- Deregulation of banks which allowed them to get too big and have too high a debt load (R)
- Overregulation of banks which give them a false sense of security. (D)
- Low interest rate policy of the Fed which fueled mortage debt (D/R)
- Preditory lending practices (R)
- Government created credit-rating oligopoly (providing the market with misinformation) (D)
- Short Sellers (R)
Now a bubble can only burst when it reaches a certain level. Take away any one or two of the above factors, and you might have averted the crisis entirely. So if you order the list above according to your priority, the last few items (that the other guy caused) are the entire cause of the meltdown right? This sort of cherry picking can be justified from a subjective point of view and it is very very common.
Conclusion
So did I convince you that people who disagree with you can be right too? Did I convince you to be a little more cognizant of different ways to value and prioritize?
No comments:
Post a Comment