John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2002-11-18 04:10 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2002-11-18 04:10 pm
You Can't Say That On LJ
People don't like being told they're wrong.
It's a simple fact that I think anone out there can confirm. I can't imagine what it would be like for anyone who LIKED to be told they're wrong, and I would argue the point that none is even indifferent to being wrong.
People like to know they're right.
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever been given - though I can't remember if it was specifically directed towards writing or acting - is that, to have a believable villain, be must believe that what he is doing is justified, if not good.
It's also become evident to me that people don't like to hear what their faults are - and the closer a remark is to what someone precieves to be a personmal failing, the less they like to hear it.
I had a personal example just a moment ago, but it's left me...
(And no, I don't intend that to be a sarcastic allusion to my poor memory.)
I think, perhaps, that to understand where I'm going with this, you have to understand two points: that i'm driven by conviction, and that I beliieve in objective morality.
I'm sure you're all aware of the facts of those two point, but I'd like to expand, if only a bit, on the implications.
First off, I am driven by conviction. Though I would argue that I'm not so cut-and-dry as to be pidgion-holed into one category or another, I believe X, Y, and Z, and I'm convinced of their truth. This is not to say I know, absolutely and without a doubt, that what I believe is actually the truth. The subtlty may be a difficult one, but while I am convinced of X, if it were to come about that I were convinced of not-X, I am prepared to adjust my beliefs. However, I stand secure in my certainty because I have not yet been shown reasonable arguments for not-X, and have no reason to doubt X. Even speaking with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nif, with as valid points as she makes, hasn't yet caused me to falter. I question, yes - I question all the time, because to do otherwise would be to fall into fanaticism. As I told Trevor just the other night, there are two things I don't want to be - someone who claims to believe in X, but doesn't act like it; and someone who believes in X, but doesn't understand what that means. I want to be someone who not only believes, but also understands WHY he believes, and acts accordingly.
The second point readily follows from the first (or perhaps, it's more that the first follows from the second), and that is that I believe in objective morality - or more broadly, objective truth. That is to say, there are things that are and are not; and, on a moral level, things that are right and things that are wrong. I don't mean to say that ethics is mathmatical, or that you can be CERTAIN of morality in a given situation, but the fact remains that things are right and wrong.This means that people do bad things. I do, you do, EVERYONE does things which are wrong. We should strive to do what is right, but we aren't perfect. Following this, not everything we think or even feel is nessisarily good, either.
All of that being said - you know what bothers me? It bothers me when people claim a subjective morality - that things are only right or wrong if you believe they are. Perhaps you can't truely be held accountable for the full gravity of your actions if you don't know them to be wrong. But the universe did not alter itself when we learned the world was round - it had ALWAYS been round, we just knew the truth of the matter then.
Truth is truth, no matter what you think of it.
The REASON this bothers me is, I should think, evident from the preceeding paragraphs. it seems to me that saying something is wrong only if you think it's wrong removes all acountability on the part of the person. First off, NO ONE does something they think is wrong - there's always some justification as to why someone does X or Y. And following from that is the idea that Subjective Morality claims that no one ever does anything wrong - that whatever anyone does at any given time is good, almost solely because they did it. And it also implies that one thing could be good at one moment, and bad at another moment, just because he who acts changes his system of belief.
In essence, all I've said is the this perspective seems to be the polar opposite of everything I'm convinced of. That is, it seems Subjective Reality is the opposite of Objective Reality.
But then, isn't that evident?
Slogans
A Steve A Day Helps You Work, Rest and Play.
The Steve Of A New Generation.
Got Steve?
A Different Kind Of Company. A Different Kind Of Steve.
This Is Not Your Father's Steve.
We're with the Steve.
You Deserve A Steve Today.
Every Steve Helps.
I Can't Believe It's Not The Advertising Slogan Generator
It's a simple fact that I think anone out there can confirm. I can't imagine what it would be like for anyone who LIKED to be told they're wrong, and I would argue the point that none is even indifferent to being wrong.
People like to know they're right.
One of the best pieces of advice I've ever been given - though I can't remember if it was specifically directed towards writing or acting - is that, to have a believable villain, be must believe that what he is doing is justified, if not good.
It's also become evident to me that people don't like to hear what their faults are - and the closer a remark is to what someone precieves to be a personmal failing, the less they like to hear it.
I had a personal example just a moment ago, but it's left me...
(And no, I don't intend that to be a sarcastic allusion to my poor memory.)
I think, perhaps, that to understand where I'm going with this, you have to understand two points: that i'm driven by conviction, and that I beliieve in objective morality.
I'm sure you're all aware of the facts of those two point, but I'd like to expand, if only a bit, on the implications.
First off, I am driven by conviction. Though I would argue that I'm not so cut-and-dry as to be pidgion-holed into one category or another, I believe X, Y, and Z, and I'm convinced of their truth. This is not to say I know, absolutely and without a doubt, that what I believe is actually the truth. The subtlty may be a difficult one, but while I am convinced of X, if it were to come about that I were convinced of not-X, I am prepared to adjust my beliefs. However, I stand secure in my certainty because I have not yet been shown reasonable arguments for not-X, and have no reason to doubt X. Even speaking with
nif, with as valid points as she makes, hasn't yet caused me to falter. I question, yes - I question all the time, because to do otherwise would be to fall into fanaticism. As I told Trevor just the other night, there are two things I don't want to be - someone who claims to believe in X, but doesn't act like it; and someone who believes in X, but doesn't understand what that means. I want to be someone who not only believes, but also understands WHY he believes, and acts accordingly.The second point readily follows from the first (or perhaps, it's more that the first follows from the second), and that is that I believe in objective morality - or more broadly, objective truth. That is to say, there are things that are and are not; and, on a moral level, things that are right and things that are wrong. I don't mean to say that ethics is mathmatical, or that you can be CERTAIN of morality in a given situation, but the fact remains that things are right and wrong.This means that people do bad things. I do, you do, EVERYONE does things which are wrong. We should strive to do what is right, but we aren't perfect. Following this, not everything we think or even feel is nessisarily good, either.
All of that being said - you know what bothers me? It bothers me when people claim a subjective morality - that things are only right or wrong if you believe they are. Perhaps you can't truely be held accountable for the full gravity of your actions if you don't know them to be wrong. But the universe did not alter itself when we learned the world was round - it had ALWAYS been round, we just knew the truth of the matter then.
Truth is truth, no matter what you think of it.
The REASON this bothers me is, I should think, evident from the preceeding paragraphs. it seems to me that saying something is wrong only if you think it's wrong removes all acountability on the part of the person. First off, NO ONE does something they think is wrong - there's always some justification as to why someone does X or Y. And following from that is the idea that Subjective Morality claims that no one ever does anything wrong - that whatever anyone does at any given time is good, almost solely because they did it. And it also implies that one thing could be good at one moment, and bad at another moment, just because he who acts changes his system of belief.
In essence, all I've said is the this perspective seems to be the polar opposite of everything I'm convinced of. That is, it seems Subjective Reality is the opposite of Objective Reality.
But then, isn't that evident?
Slogans
A Steve A Day Helps You Work, Rest and Play.
The Steve Of A New Generation.
Got Steve?
A Different Kind Of Company. A Different Kind Of Steve.
This Is Not Your Father's Steve.
We're with the Steve.
You Deserve A Steve Today.
Every Steve Helps.
I Can't Believe It's Not The Advertising Slogan Generator
Defining Truth
Agreed, I do believe. However... It seems to me that we owe it to others, and especially those we care about, to strive to find precicely what truth is. When I argue a point, I don't so much intend to say 'you are wrong' as to challenge you to prove me wrong. Nothing cane be learned without dialogue, as I can see it.
I will say that, whatever else it sounds like I stand for, I will defend anyone who has something valid to say. There can be no dialogue if there is only one voice speaking.
And I greatly appreciate the considerating, Lovely. ^_^;;
Re: Defining Truth
Re: Defining Truth
However, that being said, it only makes sense that if something can be called valid, the same thing could plausibly be called invalid. I suppose something I might consider invalid, and hope you might agree, would be if someone tried to shoot down another person without having any basis. ::Shrugs::
Re: Defining Truth
Re: Defining Truth
I agree that not everything can be coldly logical, but I would argue that anything that has no logic at all can't really hold up.
I will agree though that subjectivity does have a place in dialogue - we are all human here, not machines.