For those curious, I'd recommend looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance.

Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought.

Often times, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and so we develop instincts that ensure we can take a step back and not immediately point fingers.

That's good; most of us don't think of ourselves as political idiots, where any dog whistle will make us jump through hoops, raging at some invisible enemy.

But there are times when the truth clearly falls much more on one side than the other. And in those times, saying "well I thought both parties were wrong, but it turns out that one was and is right" can be a rather scary prospect!

But I think it's better to be a little embarrassed than to run away from the world's problems.

We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side."

This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins.

Edit: Just want to note that the parent comment was substantially edited in ways that might make this comment seem weird.

People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no or negligible impact on climate etc)

>People on both sides pretty much share the same values

Sorry but I think you are significantly mistaken. To give two examples of statements that are common from each side. "Homosexuality is sinful" and "All white people are racist." The two sides are so far apart that when someone makes one of those statements they feel they are making an obvious non-controversial statement but it is offensive to the other side.*

This is because each side is so far apart they cannot even agree on what words mean. Combine this with the ease at which someone can become offended and it makes discussion almost impossible.

*I can either or both statements if requested.

As I already said: social issues are a big exception, but research shows that social issues are very low on the totem-pole relative to facts based issues. Additionally, I don't think either statement is very common, those examples illustrate extreme individuals that are motivated by hate rather than by a disagreement about particular values. Ironically, your example illustrates my point pretty well since the black community tends to vote for liberal politicians even though they share religious and traditional values with conservatives. The reason for this is a disagreement about which policies are effective not about values, and we saw this play out in the 2016 election when Trump specifically addressed black voters with promises of more jobs, better education, and lower crime rates in black communities.

> Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought.

The problem is that much of the progressive movement is convinced that not only do they have all the right answers, but that their conclusions are not up for debate. To even open up a dialogue on transgender issues (for example) is considered harmful, violent, toxic, hateful.

This happens over and over, but here is this week's example: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/heres-the-full-recording...

I disagree with the right on almost everything, but the left has serious problems that it needs to work out before it can claim to be the party of truth.

This seems like relativism run amok. All political positions are not equal except in a completely unmoored ethical system.

I don't subscribe to an objective morality. There are things that I value and attempt to maximize, but I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position.

I'm willing to "live and let live," with the understanding that conflict will still happen sometimes and that's okay.

There need not be an objective morality for us to bring our values into our politics.

Politics is the way we make collective decisions about things of mutual importance. What's important to you?

What would a society full of people who refuse to advocate for their own values out of a sense of meta-ethical relativism look like?

If I recall correctly, the leadership of LessWrong espouses "Politics is the mindkiller".

Consequently, their followers will find all manners of justification to avoid applying their rationality to political subjects, in the guise of some holier-than-thou enlightenment.

Ironically, this actually helps to sustain their membership. Broaching politics would risk schisms within their enervated movement, as a group who believes "Global Warming is irrational" but wouldn't otherwise discuss it, would be forced to confront an opposing group which does.

I'm not telling you not to bring your values into politics.

I'm not some kind of relativism evangelist. That's a strawman that multiple commenters here are standing up.

This all started with one commenter saying that his outgroup is uniquely evil, and me replying that it was a matter of perspective. Both sides get to bring their values into politics.

Saying evil is a matter of perspective is relativism.

This is going to drift into a problem of definitions, as value conflicts often can. If your deontology considers me "evil," there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not going to complain about your use of the word.

People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come.

"People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come."

What does this mean? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective, not trying to play gotcha or argue semantics.

The language is tricky in this area; I'll try to be clear. There seems some confusion in your concepts; at least I'm confused about them. I don't claim to have this stuff all worked out; sorry if it's not helpful.

It sounds like, for you, 'subscribing to an objective morality' would involve feeling the need to make everyone 'adopt your position' - share your beliefs? do as you do?

I don't think there are actually many ethical or social relativists at all. Even the most self-proclaimedly relativist academics may talk like that professionally, but in their everyday lives have quite another standard, and evidently believe in objective ethics/morality/reality etc. That's the thing about ethics; it's not like favourite ice cream flavour, where you might think lemon is best, chocolate awful, but understand it's just your personal taste. Believing something is ethically wrong means it's not just 'wrong for you', but 'wrong, full stop.' It doesn't mean you go around forcing people to think/act the same. (Although probably means you wish they would.)

I think you have described tolerance, an understanding that people think differently, not everyone has the same values etc. But to go from that to thinking there is no right and wrong, good or bad - only right-for-you, wrong-for-you - well, that's an abysmal step. I suppose you don't mean that; I hope not. Well, even in your "I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position" it sounds like you think it's simply a better way of acting than others who need to compel etc. Not just better-for-you, but better for anyone, better for everyone i.e. objectively better.

You talk about something being: 'wrong, full stop'

How can you tell if this full stop "wrongness" is occurring?

Any answer you give is going to be an explanation of how the full stop "wrong" thing violates some set of principles or reduces something you value. Not all people will agree on which principles or values to privilege as the arbiters of right and wrong.

The whole thing will become a game of definitions.

To your last point: No. My way of looking at things is not "better" in any cosmic sense. My question would be:

"Better at what?"

I value what I value. You value what you value. There's a whole planet of people with their values. Many will align, many will conflict. This is normal.

I don't believe those with values different from mine are "wrong, full stop" or "evil, full stop."

'How can you tell if this full stop "wrongness" is occurring?' Well, I get why you would ask this, but that's an extremely strange question; I sense false assumptions in there somewhere.

Yes, "wrong, full stop", otherwise known as wrong. That's what the word 'wrong' means in English. I had to create terms because you are (what seems to me) pretending you 'have no need of' any judgement-words whatsoever.

You, I presume, and I don't kill people in the normal course of a day, e.g. because they have something we want. I think that would be wrong. So does almost everyone, the religious & spiritual traditions etc. It's based on natural feeling, and also on what makes for human flourishing.

"Because not everyone agrees on what is right and wrong, there can be no such thing", you seem to be saying. If not everyone agrees on who is most beautiful, that means there's no such thing as beauty?

The way you talk of 'values' came in, I believe, with Nietzsche and post-Nietzschean relativism. There's something profoundly macabre about talking the way you do, in spite or because of its all-levelling blandness. I'm very curious about your influences in learning to speak and think like that - who are they? (You have to be very smart indeed to not understand good and bad, right and wrong.)

Say there's a guy who does go around killing people on the slightest pretext. You don't think there's anything wrong with that, he just has different values, (yours are no better) and that's normal?

I think that way of talking as if everything, from whether murder is ok to what music I like to listen to, is on an equivalent plane of 'values', erases essential and major distinctions, to say the least.

So..for example, I can't imagine you would be interested in thinking about or discussing what broad direction your society/town/institution should be heading, because no direction would be better or worse than another? Or if you have a preference, well, so does everyone else.

You have sympathy for those terrible singers (whoops, there's no bad singers?) on American Idol when they say, in answer to the judges' "You're terrible!", "That's just your opinion"? But there are better opinions and worse. Better and worse reasons for judgments and interpretations, etc.

Well, I still feel the way you're talking is ultimately incoherent, and that underneath it you hold the common sense view, even if I've not managed to break through yet. At least you won't let yourself say that you understand this, or anything at all, better than me. :-) But it seems you do think you have a better understanding of what we're talking about than I do. It seems you think I, and almost everyone, are wrong to believe in objective morality. But you can't say that, so...most people just have different values to yours?

I notice you again say 'in any cosmic sense'; before it was 'all sentients in the universe'. The way everday language is used offends some sense of due human modesty in you, or something? Maybe it's from thinking that everyday language presupposes a God's eye 'view from nowhere'. Well, I get that, I realize there's no right or wrong out there except inside creatures' brains.

If a stranger were to come up and punch you in the face, you wouldn't think it was, uh, wrong? How about if someone killed your girlfriend for the fun of it? Replying "That's fine, you just have different values" wouldn't sound more enlightened, it would insanely brainwashed.

>I don't believe those with values different from mine are "wrong, full stop" or "evil, full stop."< You thought I was saying that? Well, with that word 'values' putting everything in one basket, from ice-cream to murder, I can see how would be possible to reach conclusions such as yours, and talk that way. It does seem there's a faulty argument or two somewhere though.

There's so much strawman nonsense in this comment I don't even know where to begin.

I don't go around murdering people because doing so would harm the society I live in and care about, i.e. harm things I value. I support stopping people from murdering for the same reason. I don't have to believe in some kind of naive "wrongness" to take a position on something.

Your position is that a simple and intuitive sense of "wrong" is easily derived. So let me know if abortion is "right" or "wrong." Should be easy to do, right?

People will come down on drastically different sides of that issue, and neither will be correct in an objective sense. It will depend on their values and moral matrices.

To be honest, I don't have a lot of hope I'll get anywhere with you. This comment makes you seem like a retard.

"Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say face-to-face. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

It's less a system of thought and more a way to think less.

If truth does not exist for a person, then that person can stand, sneering on the sidelines at those who dare stand up for whatever this or whatever that. Or they can squirrel themselves away, safe in their own make believe world.

Some people need that illusory superiority or distance to get through life.

At least until they hear a knock at the door at night.

This is a cutting attack on those who fail to support your ingroup.

Well done.

I recommend steelmanning my comment and seeing if there's another interpretation of my position you can find. Me not sharing your values is not equal to me disbelieving in objective reality.