Lambdaphagy

suspected-spinozist:

A note on method: conversations about contentious political issues would be more productive on the whole if people made an effort to explicitly distinguish between wrong and trivially wrong. I disagree e.g. with people advocating for stronger legal restrictions on hate speech in the U.S., but it’s not an obvious conclusion - they have compelling arguments, I had to do intellectual work to arrive at my current position, and while I’m very confident, given sufficient evidence I can see myself being convinced that they’re right. 

Trivially wrong isn’t the same thing as obviously morally reprehensible. My traditionalist Catholic friends are without exception among the kindest, most ethically engaged people I know (though admittedly I’m friends with an unusual subset of traditionalist Catholics); this doesn’t mean I’m going to spend any seriously entertaining that their belief system is correct. That said, most obviously morally reprehensible positions are trivially wrong. 

Different communities can and will set different standards for what’s trivial and what’s not, all I’m advocating is that the distinction be recognized in the discourse. I can think of any number of conversations that would be much more civil if we had a better way of acknowledging that positions can be well-supported, reasonable, and ultimately incorrect. 

Extra credit question: what does “correct belief system” even mean over and above “conducive to virtue and flourishing”?