My opinion > your opinion.

[trix]

Allow me to preface this by stating, it is not my intention with this thread to cause intense drama.  I am simply seeking opinions from those that are more versed in moral philosophy then me.  Feel free to reply with links to material that covers this if you'd prefer, I wouldn't know where to look so I'd appreciate that as well.

The issue is this:  My roommate and I were having a somewhat philosophical conversation, and at some point she stated something I've heard before, "I don't believe that my opinion is more important or relevant than anyone else's."  I told her that was false, and that I could prove it.  My argument was thus, "Imagine you were walking down the sidewalk, and ahead of you was a man walking next to a young girl of around 6 years of age.  Suddenly, with seemingly no provocation, the man turns and punches the little girl hard in the face, causing her to cry and collapse on the ground.  Then he starts kicking her.  Witnessing this event, would you step in and attempt to defend the little girl?"

Her response, predictably, was "Of course I would!  What a stupid question, you would too."

I then explained that the man must have felt justified for his actions, his opinion at the time, excluding the possibility of irrational anger or mental instability, must have been that hurting the child is what he should do.  Your opinion (and mine) is that there is no justification for hurting a child in this manner.  We would act, believing our opinion to be of more importance, or significance then the man's opinion.

The argument continued from there, but I was unsuccessful in getting my point across.

Thinking about it further, on my own, I begin to wonder... at what point is it ok, or not ok, to consider my own opinion more valid than that of somebody else?  If I decided to swat my kid's ass for wrongdoing, and some self-righteous prick got all "that's wrong!!" on me, I'd ignore him and continue to raise my child in ways I feel are appropriate.  Yet, if my physical punishment crossed the line into abusive, the previously mentioned prick would be correct, and it would be wrong of me.  I believe.

Hmm, I guess I don't really have a point here.  It seems to be an unsolvable conundrum.  How can one recognize when the opinion of another is superior or more correct then one's own?

Thoughts?

(Edited to fix a typo)

[Payne]

[Doktor Howl]

I don't have an opinion.  WE have an opinion.  And it is superior...Not because we are more talented, or generally cleverer than fuck, but because we're RIGHT and they're WRONG, and that's really all there is to it.

[The Johnny]

If they are better at rationalizing an action from the viewpoint of a shared ideology, then their opinion is superior.

If they have a different ideology, then they are WRONG.

[trix]

 

I don't have an opinion.  WE have an opinion.  And it is superior...Not because we are more talented, or generally cleverer than fuck, but because we're RIGHT and they're WRONG, and that's really all there is to it.

Who is this we?  The royal we?  Discordians?  Doktors?  Bipeds?

If they are better at rationalizing an action from the viewpoint of a shared ideology, then their opinion is superior.

If they have a different ideology, then they are WRONG.

Ah but, what about the case when you cannot know their ideology and whether or not it is shared?  If you saw a guy beating some child harshly, you can't exactly ask his ideology and reasoning, you are left with a choice to either attempt to stop him or no.  Only later can you discover the child was actually an alien in disguise, planning a global takeover.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Opinions are entirely subjective, which makes this a typical Philosophy 122: Ethics class.

In general, the more informed and objective opinion is considered the superior opinion, and the measure of ethics is usually that which causes the least harm to the well-being and freedom of other people.

[Triple Zero]

I don't have an opinion.  WE have an opinion.  And it is superior...Not because we are more talented, or generally cleverer than fuck, but because we're RIGHT and they're WRONG, and that's really all there is to it.

Who is this we?  The royal we?  Discordians?  Doktors?  Bipeds?

Whoever considers it wrong if grown men get away with kicking little girls.

yes it's a bit circular, but that's really how it works.

check a serious Philosophy Ethics class if you ever get the chance. You're in uni IIRC, I was too and even though I studied Computer Science, I'm really glad I took the chance to take that class on Ethics. I also took another one about general overview of philosophy, which was interesting, but nowhere near as useful as the one on Ethics.

thing is, your questions about what opinions on what is right and what is wrong, there are many different answers to. Kantianism, utilitarianism, "because God says so", "because I say so", "because it is virtuous", etc etc.

Funny thing is how nearly all of them come to the same conclusion on the matter of kicking little girls.

The other funny thing is how they're all wrong, if you really get into the details of it. This is an important lesson in Ethics because it allows you to avoid that sort of discussion, if possible.

IMO utilitarianism and virtue ethics are the best ones. But the former requires too much self-sacrifice because it inevitably makes you the sucker in a world where most other people don't play utilitarian, and the latter is kinda subjective and not very well defined.

Now that's about questions whether opinions on "right and wrong" are more important than others.


In the general case, however, opinions on other matters than whether something is right or wrong, some opinions are strictly better than others. I refer you to the Barstool Experiment.

[BadBeast]

Right and wrong are not constants. What's right at the time, might be wrong ten minutes later. That's why as a species we reserve the right to change our minds at any given time. Look back at the mistakes you've made. How many of them did you believe were wrong at the time? (Hopefully not many) We believe that we act rightly most of the time. Even if we subsequently turn out to be wrong. This process is called "Learning".

ETA: And it's only as hard as we make it, ourselves.

[The Johnny]

Ah but, what about the case when you cannot know their ideology and whether or not it is shared?  If you saw a guy beating some child harshly, you can't exactly ask his ideology and reasoning, you are left with a choice to either attempt to stop him or no.  Only later can you discover the child was actually an alien in disguise, planning a global takeover.

In a general sense, you have to talk/argue with the other person to find out.

In the example case you show of a grown man punching a child in the face, *I* would intervene, because:

1. A child doesnt have full cognitive abilities to make a decision, so i tolerate from them a much wider range of actions than i would from an adult.

2. A child cant defend itself, so its assault/battery on a defenseless person.

By the way, the underlying argument you are going for is nihilistic, it posits "not taking action unless all information is known", and one doesnt know all the information ever.

troll is troll, or for reals?

[Doktor Howl]

I don't have an opinion.  WE have an opinion.  And it is superior...Not because we are more talented, or generally cleverer than fuck, but because we're RIGHT and they're WRONG, and that's really all there is to it.

Who is this we?  The royal we?  Discordians?  Doktors?  Bipeds?

Anyone who isn't "they".  You.  Me.  Nigel.  Captain Kangaroo.  That nice old man that used to live down the street.  Try this simple test:  Turn on your TV and count the number of actual news broadcasting companies.  There's 6, for the whole world.  Now try googling, the way you used to, and see if you get the same results, or things that are more "trending" than what you thought you wanted to see when you logged on.  That's them.  We're us, and our job in life is to not become them, or let them push granny down the stairs for her own good.  They tell you WHAT to think, we just hope you think at all.

Who are we?

[Faust]

Opinions are meaningless actions are all that counts.

[Doktor Howl]

Opinions are meaningless actions are all that counts.

So we should push Stephen Hawking in front of a train?

[Faust]

Opinions are meaningless actions are all that counts.

So we should push Stephen Hawking in front of a train?

He'd only assassinate us three years earlier with a neutrino gun if we tried.

[Doktor Howl]

Opinions are meaningless actions are all that counts.

So we should push Stephen Hawking in front of a train?

He'd only assassinate us three years earlier with a neutrino gun if we tried.

[Phox]

Dear trix,

You are stupid and therefore your opinion is automatically irrelevant. Have a pleasant week.