While I respect and understand the perspective that you share in your reply to the original post, I find that a different reading is also possible...to wit, how much would our actitivist opinions be influenced (or not) if we knew we would be required to shoulder the front line responsibility for seeing them carried out? For example, would a person who is pro-death penalty be swayed in the strength of her or his conviction if it meant being the person who actually delivers lethal injections to condemned prisoners? A slighly skewed version of the same kind of reading might also lead to another question...how strong be our "deeply held" convictions if we are not willing to personally involve ourselve in ways(if capable)that share the same risks that front line participants are taking in the name of our cause?
Yes, I see what you mean and it's an extremely interesting point. I think that people would think a lot harder about their convictions if they did have to "put up or shut up" or which ever phrase one wishes to use. However I genuinely don't think they should have to. I think that people in a "modern" society should be able to debate and have opinions without having to actually go out and do the thing. There are limits and any such general statement is inherently flawed, but I think the core concept holds true.
Your original counter-example is flawed, because by not keeping child slaves, I am doing as I think everyone else should - the action is negative, not positive.
What I'm saying is that if an opinion is good enough to hold in mind, and recommend that others hold it in action, it had better be good enough for you yourself to hold it in action. If you're capable (physically or whatever) of holding the opinion in action, then by only holding it in mind, you're being hypocritical. "Do as I say, don't do as I do," etc.
If you can show me something that I think other people should do, and could but don't do myself in my current situation, I'll concede your point, but I don't think you'll find one.
For example:
I think people should recycle; I recycle. I think people should not go to war; I do not go to war. I think people should try to be considerate; I try to be considerate. I think people should not keep child slaves; I do not keep child slaves.
And so on - this is consistent.
"I think other people should go to war, but I won't" is not consistent.
I think people should form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for them to carry them out personally. I form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for me to carry them out personally. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
The 'no downsides for me, personally' is a horrible disease that infects policymaking everywhere. 'I don't like hunting, so I think hunting should be banned. I don't hunt, therefore I'm being consistent!'
I think people should form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for them to carry them out personally. I form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for me to carry them out personally. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
That sounds fair; I try to do this. I'm not sure how well I succeed.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything; I do think people should have (that's should, not must, or anything; an ideal) the necessary conviction to back opinion with action. The "no downsides" notion is an odd one, but fair. I do a fair number of things I don't enjoy doing (paying taxes springs to mind right now, as I struggle through trying to get some money back) because my beliefs/opinions say I should. I've never tried to construct an opinion with no downsides for me; possibly something to look out for in myself.
One of the touchstone tests of fairness I learned in a philosophy class (utilitarianism? I'm not sure) is: what would be your judegement of a situation if you knew you were going to be in it after you decided, but you did NOT know in what role? To me, espousing-- and even more, actively working towards-- a war when you KNOW that you will not be required to fight in it but will force others to instead, is very very wrong.
To me, it's wrong to force others to shoulder the responsibilities of one's decisions, especially if one is not shouldering them oneself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
What I'm saying is that if an opinion is good enough to hold in mind, and recommend that others hold it in action, it had better be good enough for you yourself to hold it in action. If you're capable (physically or whatever) of holding the opinion in action, then by only holding it in mind, you're being hypocritical. "Do as I say, don't do as I do," etc.
If you can show me something that I think other people should do, and could but don't do myself in my current situation, I'll concede your point, but I don't think you'll find one.
For example:
I think people should recycle; I recycle.
I think people should not go to war; I do not go to war.
I think people should try to be considerate; I try to be considerate.
I think people should not keep child slaves; I do not keep child slaves.
And so on - this is consistent.
"I think other people should go to war, but I won't" is not consistent.
From:
no subject
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
The 'no downsides for me, personally' is a horrible disease that infects policymaking everywhere. 'I don't like hunting, so I think hunting should be banned. I don't hunt, therefore I'm being consistent!'
From:
no subject
That sounds fair; I try to do this. I'm not sure how well I succeed.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything; I do think people should have (that's should, not must, or anything; an ideal) the necessary conviction to back opinion with action. The "no downsides" notion is an odd one, but fair. I do a fair number of things I don't enjoy doing (paying taxes springs to mind right now, as I struggle through trying to get some money back) because my beliefs/opinions say I should. I've never tried to construct an opinion with no downsides for me; possibly something to look out for in myself.
From:
no subject
One of the touchstone tests of fairness I learned in a philosophy class (utilitarianism? I'm not sure) is: what would be your judegement of a situation if you knew you were going to be in it after you decided, but you did NOT know in what role? To me, espousing-- and even more, actively working towards-- a war when you KNOW that you will not be required to fight in it but will force others to instead, is very very wrong.
To me, it's wrong to force others to shoulder the responsibilities of one's decisions, especially if one is not shouldering them oneself.
From:
no subject
I can see the premise has flaws, but still think it's not a bad place to begin.