Are Some Ideas Better than Others?

[ZenitYerkes]

Well, an idea may be proper. But just like Nazism seemed proper to Germany way back in the 30s or the IngSoc in Orwell's 1984 -most objective ideas of today are just subjective and personal perspectives with authority.

May that authority be power of the holder, length, results, number of people defending it, closeness to the real situation,...

[Banefull]

We do not know which ideas are proper or not. Some living in Germany at that time period thought it was proper to accept Facism, other groups of people did not and spoke out against it within Germany. One of them had to be right. That is why we debate. One idea has to be the proper way, there is a final correct way of thinking, we just do not know what it is.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Banefull

We do not know which ideas are proper or not. That is why we debate. One idea has to be the proper way, there is a final correct way of thinking, we just do not know what it is.

No, there is no proper idea or way of thinking. It all depends on the focus, the end of your idea.

Euthanasia, for example. I say it shouldn't be put in practice for the harm it may produce (humanitarian and social end) whereas others defend people have the right to do whatever they please with their lives (libertarian end).

The properness of my idea depends on how many people agree with me and I manage to convince -but as you see, it depends on the numbers; a kind of idea authority. Just like if I were a pastor I would have the support of my community; or if I were an economist I could expose how expensive these operations are.

As I said... most objective or universal truths are just subjective views with authority. And these subjective views are conditioned by their holders' interests.

[Banefull]

Lets assume what you said is true -- that whether an idea is superior or not is based on how many support it. If a majority supports euthanasia, then the idea of euthanasia is superior to just letting people suffer. If a majority rejects euthanasia, then the idea of preserving as much life as possible is superior to euthanasia. In either case one idea is superior.

As to what determines whether an idea is superior or not is an interesting point of debate. I would argue that there is an absolute fabric of ideas that is the correct way of thinking. What actual set of ideas are correct is another point of debate. If the truth were based upon what the majority thinks then we, as an entire group, would never be wrong.

[ZenitYerkes]

That's objectivism for you.

But unless you do provide reasons for an idea to be completely valid, whatever the circumstances; you won't convince me.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

But unless you do provide reasons for an idea to be completely valid, whatever the circumstances; you won't convince me.

I would disagree. No single person is completely 100% rational. We are also influenced by our feelings and instincts -- you, me, everyone. If humans acted 100% rationally then the economics and psychology would be the simplest of sciences. Everyone has acted or thought irrationally at some point without evidence to back up them up. You said yourself that a debater will tend to become defensive and hold his view in spite of overwhelming evidence. That is an emotional response.

[ZenitYerkes]

Reason does not kill freedom to pick sides.

You see, as in the Euthanasia example... which side is the good one? Social or libertarian?

Both are equally rational. They are just different takes on the same issue.

[Banefull]

The issue is both moral and rational. We do not know which is the good or bad side. If we knew, then the issue would not still be around. But if we knew, we would instantly mark one side as being superior. Whether we have chosen correctly also would remain unknown. This is why we debate -- to find which idea is superior.

We could still measure the effects of either policy through experiment. Researchers could survey family members while their loved one's are suffering and after they have died in both cases and measure their repsonses on a quantitative scale.

[ZenitYerkes]

You are assuming there is already a bad and good side with that.

[Banefull]

If what you said earlier is true -- that the good and bad are based upon the majority view, then the good side is by default the side who has the largest following. If there is an absolute universal framework of morality, then one side must be correct or perhaps the two sides are morally equal (some ideas can be equal but not all ideas are. ex: we can have policies that have the exact same effect on GDP growth but there are policies that clearly have a better effect than others).

This is why morality cannot be based upon the majority view alone. It does not allow for morally neutral ideas. You either are good if you follow the majority view or bad if you do not. In such a universe, everyone would strive to copy his or her neighbor exactly.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

I think it depends on how we choose to look at an idea. Many times ideas are judged based on their general utility - how much the idea contributes to society, a group, or an individual. Some ideas are looked at through a moral lens and are judged accordingly.