Is it possible to conduct a reasonable discussion...

... if you and your opposite don't even agree on the first principles on which to argue? Discuss.

A logical argument is a sequence of stating premises, and then making inferences from those premises. Everyone must agree on a premise before it can be used to make inferences.

Thus the problem with the abortion debate, it gets down to "When is it a human?". Good question, OP, I have no answer.

edited 9th Apr '11 5:25:28 PM by Usht

It's relative, therefor, there is no answer.

I'm going to say "No" but I want that to be qualified as being vulnerable to semantics.

Assuming each person understands the other's first principle, it's theoretically possible that they'll reach the same conclusion by different routes. However, serious problems arise when each assumes the other is arguing off their own first principle. (You can see this happen a lot in this subforum when someone tries to argue freedom vs. safety with Tnu without grasping what he means when he talks about freedom.)

You could have a reasonable discussion over the fact that you disagree.
On the other hand, like in the abortion debate it is perfectly possible to completely steamroll the part that is against abortion clinics via bringing in valid points that ignores their premises.
But a fair debate? Possible, but unlikely.

What is "first principle" supposed to mean? From what it sounds like, I don't think most people think like this.

I don't know though. But it's hard to argue with someone that has faith that all conceptuses have souls and God forbids killing them. It's also hard to argue with someone who thinks that just because a few cells have human DNA it's wrong to "murder" them.

But it's always possible to have a decent discussion.

It is still possible to discuss about the consequences of those "first principles", at the very least.

Well the problem with the abortion debate is that ultra-harsh moral terms are baked into the debate. It can be either murder or slavery based on how you see it.

But I think that it really depends on what the discussion is about. I think if it's a discussion about liking different types of music, then I think you can. But I think say a discussion about economics, generally speaking demand-siders and supply-siders see the world in such an entirely different fashion that things really can't be reasonable. There's no single objective measure to discuss.

For some definition of "reasonable discussion", sure. But when an opponent and oneself are arguing from values that neither shares then no, I don't think there's a meaningful discussion to be had. There's no debate there.

Or, perhaps, I simply would not know how to conduct such a debate with someone and still respect their values. When all there's left to say is "But you are wrong!" then I think it best to not say anything at all.

Easy starting premises:

• We both exist.
• We are both capable of rational thought.
• We both possess opinions.
• We are both capable of understanding the other.

edited 10th Apr '11 1:08:34 PM by Ultrayellow

You underestimate the stupidity of alot of people. Most people don't get that far before bitching and screaming.

edited 10th Apr '11 1:15:49 PM by izumoshep

Another useful starting premise:

• We both say that we think that X [not(X)] because we think that X [not(X)], not because we are lying / think that it would be cool if X were true [false] / think that we would be cool if we believed in X [not(X)].

It is kind of difficult to have a fruitful discussion if the "opponent" is starting from the premise that you are not sincere...

edited 10th Apr '11 1:17:57 PM by Carciofus

That's good.

• There is a possibility that our opinions will change if we are presented with new data.

I think the point is that if you ONLY have those agreed upon premises, you can't come to a reasonable conclusion. The only exception is if a person just "didn't think it through fully" or the like, where when shown the error of their logic, they do in fact change their mind.

That generally doesn't happen.

Then the solution is to have some universal premises, than agree on a few ethical ones the two of you share beforehand.

Yeah, but the premise of the topic is that you can't get that far.

Everyone shares some ethical premises. The only question is which.

I would guess that about half of the average person's opinions haven't been thought through properly.

Well, if they only argue on the basis of what they share as ethical principles, you'll find them pretty limited in the total set of conclusions to be had that can be shared.

For instance, I and <THAT TROPER OVER THERE!!!> share virtually no ethical principles.

Not everyone, psychopaths/sociopaths for example are totally amoral.

edited 10th Apr '11 1:37:42 PM by izumoshep

However, most people's beliefs systems are not organized in such a neat way, with a finite set of axioms and some neat rules to derive new beliefs from the old ones.

Rather, it seems to me that what we have is a mostly amorphous blob of statements, each one associated to some sort of weight, and that these weights reinforce or weaken each other according to the logical connections between statements (among other things, probably).

Hence, even if two people have radically different belief systems, it may still be worthwhile to discuss and compare them - for example, one of the two may show that something that the other considered a "central belief" implies something else that he or she strongly disbelieves.

Still, this sort of adjustment takes time, and could go either way - perhaps instead of rejecting the original belief I will accept its consequence, or perhaps I will change something else in my belief system that will make the original argument moot.

And this leads me to another premise:

• Even if you win the argument (that is, pose an objection which I cannot answer), I am not obliged to immediately accept your conclusion. I will think it through, and consult the relevant literature, and do my best to understand your point and its consequences, but I am not going to revise a crucial point of my belief system without first Doing The Research. Lots of it.

edited 10th Apr '11 1:39:12 PM by Carciofus

That's true, I suppose.

Almost everyone shares some ethical principles.

My opinion is different. Would you mind stating an ethical principle you believe in?

edited 10th Apr '11 1:40:45 PM by Ultrayellow

Suffering is generally considered a bad. Happiness is generally considered a good.

Of course, defining the terms gets ugly.

Now, see if we take that as a shared ethical principle (I agree) we can make a few conclusions we share.

For example, would you agree that it would be good for you to try and increase your happiness and decrease your suffering?