Are all opinions potentially objectively right or wrong?

More Than Mortal · July 08, 2015, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on July 08, 2015, 09:58:42 AM

How can one judge which is the "better" one of these two extremely mundane types of social conditioning?

That seems rather besides the point; all I'm endeavouring to establish is that when it comes down to the real, epistemological concerns about how we judge and make propositions about phenomena, "opinions" have no special status. While the example you provide of vanilla vs. chocolate is apt--it would be a waste of time and resources to pursue any kind of experiment/survey in such an area--I'm more seeking to establish that a deference to "matters of opinion" is an epistemically null process.

When it comes to mundane kinds of motivations and differentiations between opinions/unimportant phenomena, then what you say is essentially true. But when we get into more important aspects of human society (morality, religion, society, economics, philosophy) then it becomes not only valid to criticise whatever propositions a person is making, but the priorities that cause them to make that proposition in the first place. Priorities are, of course, the purest form of opinion.

But if opinions are nothing more than propositions based on authentic, subjective experience (making them truth-apt regardless) then criticising even a person's priorities (on the basis of certain moral/epistemological presuppositions) becomes totally fair game. If somebody cares more about homelessness than the amount of people on food stamps, and we empirically can demonstrate that--for whatever reason, according to whatever variables--that the latter issue is more socially important then we can absolutely criticise somebody for their focus on homelessness (although such an example is merely to demonstrate logical coherence; there are too many variables to ever be able to empirically say "this is how many people should care, and this is how much they should care" in such a precise manner).

You could, of course, say that this is already what we do. But then I'm left to question just what purpose "opinions" serve from an epistemological point of view, and why anybody care about them at all.

Verbatim · July 08, 2015, 11:17:03 AM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on July 08, 2015, 10:52:32 AM

You could, of course, say that this is already what we do. But then I'm left to question just what purpose "opinions" serve from an epistemological point of view, and why anybody care about them at all.

From an epistemological point of view, opinions are junk.
(I also think epistemology is kind of a junk concept in itself, but whatever.)

As for why we should care?
Well, if you want my point of view, it's simply because they fascinate me.

It fascinates me how an individual could derive enjoyment from the things that I personally derive no enjoyment (and in many cases, anti-enjoyment) from, whether it be video games, movies, or your choice of beverage.

I find a lot of what human beings do for entertainment absolutely disgusting, stupid, and pointless. Because a lot of it is disgusting, stupid, and pointless. Part what what I'm here for--and this is simply my ego talking--is to understand precisely why human beings would entertain themselves with such deplorably odious things. Doing drugs, drinking alcohol, watching anime, playing Dark Souls... My brain can't process that information very well on its own, so, naturally, I seek it out from others.

Unfortunately, too many people are either
1. Too inarticulate to explain their preferences
2. Too self-important to bother doing so (a lot of people think their opinions are sacred, and can't be judged)

nonetheless, i search on
maybe every once in a blue moon, the reason will dawn on me, and i'll finally understand

Is it rational to care so much about other people's subjective tastes? I don't think it's irrational. You might be able to say it's futile. But in a way, I derive a certain level of pleasure, too, from watching others attempt to explain their own thought processes. Like most people, I do love a good explanation. Bad explanations are infuriating, but bountiful enough to make the finding of good explanations extremely gratifying. You get the thrill of finding something that you've been looking for for ages, as well as a furthered knowledge of the human psyche.

At this point, I don't even really know/care if I'm answering your question--I'm just having a lot of fun rambling about this

But that's why I care about other people's opinions. I'm a social creature trapped living with other more disgusting social creatures, trying to figure out how they tick, because if I can't do that, I can't mingle with them very well. From a purely logical perspective, caring about other people's tastes would be a waste of time, but then again, if our universe was based on reason alone, there would be no such thing as subjectivity in the first place.

Verbatim · July 08, 2015, 11:39:38 AM

I can indeed think of at least one situation where opinions and facts are intermingled in a very prudent and excruciating way, however: Meat-eating. While one can philosophically agree that eating meat & dairy products is ethically wrong, they let their subjective tastes rule their actions anyway. "It tastes good, therefore I don't care."

That type of thing is dangerous.
That's the type of toxic opinion that I think is worth caring about.

Ties into what you were talking about with priorities. If you acknowledge the welfare of animals to be a priority, then you're far more likely to become a vegan. Those who continue to consume animal products obviously don't view it as a priority in their lives--and that's where the debate comes in. And it's a debate that needs to happen.

To keep this from being derailed into that subject, though, I would say the point at which opinions start mattering is precisely when one's opinion is affectatious to (or impinging upon) the welfare of another sentience.

It might be one's opinion that it should be okay to own slaves, but it's objectively not.
It might be one's opinion that it should be okay to kill/rape people on a whim, but it's objectively not.
It might be one's opinion that it should be okay to discriminate based on one's identity, but it's objectively not.

Opinions that do not impinge upon another sentience are fair game.

It might be one's opinion that Halo is an enjoyable video game.
This opinion, of course, doesn't harm anyone, so it's... bottom priority. You won't see anyone in Congress debating about it.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · July 08, 2015, 05:30:42 PM

So basically, Verb: opinions aren't wrong, but the logic behind the opinion can be.

Verbatim · July 08, 2015, 05:34:35 PM

Quote from: Prime Skellington on July 08, 2015, 05:30:42 PM

So basically, Verb: opinions aren't wrong, but the logic behind the opinion can be.

Yeah, basically. I think that's reasonable.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · July 08, 2015, 06:04:41 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on July 08, 2015, 05:34:35 PM

Quote from: Prime Skellington on July 08, 2015, 05:30:42 PM
So basically, Verb: opinions aren't wrong, but the logic behind the opinion can be.
Yeah, basically. I think that's reasonable.

Very. No matter the content, opinions aren't wrong because I think is the focus of the statement. "I think Martians are eating all of our brains when we fall asleep!" isn't wrong, because you can't disprove that I think that. If I said, "Martians are eating all of our brains when we fall asleep!", that would be a false statement. (Or is it?)