This may not work too well for moral disagreements though, where moral intuitions play a very big role. Basically what @JonHaidt argues.
-
-
Replying to @ashishkjames99 @JonHaidt
Jon Haidt is how we know the intuitions that underlie our own motivated reasoning & other people's & why reasoning is hard & needs to be done collectively including viewpoint diversity. This doesn't change the incoherence of that expectation tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I accept that we fail to reason consistently alone & have argued it here, https://areomagazine.com/2017/12/08/the-problem-with-truth-and-reason-in-a-post-truth-society/ … but a demand to be able to show that one disagrees with arguments that are reasonable is incoherent. You show that I do. Obviously, I don't think I do.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @JonHaidt
I'm not sure what the original context of your tweet was. While I get where you're coming from, I'm not entirely convinced. An argument can be reasonable within the constraints of its own axioms. A counter-argument often comes from a different set of axioms. (1)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
While reason is used to alter and inform these axioms, doing so is a process of appealing to our intuitions. I agree that reason is the best way to come to an agreement on these intuitive axioms, especially as a group. (2)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That said, it's not obvious to me that one can make arguments, no matter how well informed, that will necessarily appeal to all moral frameworks. (3)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This is why I think it's possible that some of the people who disagree with me may hold their positions in good faith using reasons that are more or less consistent with their moral intuitions. (4)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Meaningful reasoning can only stem from agreement on some values. So when you say that you don't think those you disagree with are being reasonable despite your disagreeing with their reasons, are you making the case that... (5)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
(a) their reasoning on the issue at hand is just wrong because they can be debunked from your axioms which you try to keep as reasonable as possible, or (b) their axiomatic moral intuitions on which their argument is based aren't sufficiently backed up by reason? (6)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Apologies for length. Feel free to not reply, I'm aware there can be a lot to unpack there. (END)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not really. The difference between processes & premises.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.