On what basis should social policy be debated?

Great Debates
1

Logic requires that deductions follow from specific axioms. Empiricism demands than any logical structure explain and be in absolute accordance with all directly observable facts (it’s a little more complicated than that, but I’m making a different point here). But what are the “facts” and “axioms” we should use to reason about social policy and values, especially in regard to the creation and criticism of laws and their enforcement. How do we weigh the “reliability” of an “observable fact”? How do we pick our axioms?

Obviously legality cannot establish truth; I’m talking (in part) about the means by which we create and modify the laws themselves.

Religion seems a poor method. The details of various religions differ too widely for a multicultural nation such as ours to peacefully negotiate our ways of living.

I suppose warfare is at least authoritative. Kill everyone who disagrees with you, and any position will become obviously true to everyone. Again, however, this seems an unsatisfying solution.

Merely insisting on internal consistency is not sufficient. Mathematics has shown that one complete (to Godel limits) axiom set can completely contradict another complete set.

My original position of accepting consensually accepted beliefs as axioms or observable facts and then using them to reason solutions into uncertain or controversial areas has been roundly criticized by people I both admire and abhor. So I’m in doubt about the value of this idea.

Perhaps rationality and logic themselves are poor methods for discussing social policy and values.

Can anyone offer a better solution?

Remember, I’m not talking about which values and policies are correct, I’m interested here in how we make the distinction in general between correct and incorrect values, “good” values and “bad” values.

2

Money works.

3

Phew - a damn difficult OP to comment on, IMHO. IT seems to be asking:[ul]
[li]On what criteria do we decide which is the best system?[/li][li]How do we work out the best way to implement that system?[/li]
I’ll leave the first question for now.

On the second I have a suggestion - Joe, your methods seem to be all “bottom-up”. That is, you want to start with axioms and deduce solutions from them. How about considering some form of “top-down” approach - consider what you want in your society and work out structures that allow that ends to be in place.

That way:[list=1]
[li]If two debators disagree about the ends, the means become somewhat irrelevant.[/li][li]You should know what the point of each structure is.[/li][/ul]

I realise that this isn’t entirely clear - I’m still trying to get my thoughts straight about this myself.

regards,

pan

4

The best way to to figure out social policy: Trial and error.

Keep what works, scrap what doesn’t.

Unfortunately, a different, twisted version of this notion seems to be implemented in the United States: Keep what gets votes, scrap what doesn’t.

::sigh:: God bless America.

It’s 3:43 AM!!! Do you know where your SPOOFE is?!?

5

**

Defining what works is part of the problem, as the original OP percieved.

Your problem here might be that what captures votes is in fact what works from the point of view of voters. Your not liking it happens to be the minority view perhaps? The sticky part of democracy is the part where your POV loses.

6

Excellent OP, as it’s relevant to many other issues discussed in this forum as well as to the democratic process.

kabbes’ top down approach seems the most practical, and is probably how most people approach decisions IRL.[ul][li]What is our goal? Goals may be based on shared values and perceptions, or may be based on entirely pragmatic considerations. Compassion and emotion can play a large role in forming goals.[]What are the current conditions? These can be difficult to determine. Evaluation must be based on observable and demonstrable facts. Shared perceptions are irrelevant except insofar as they affect conditions.[]What are the variables affecting these conditions? Even more difficult. Observation and experimentation are required, but theory and supposition necessarily come into play as well. Evaluation of variables requires both analytical and intuitive skills; emotion has no legitimate role in the process. Not everyone can play well at this level.What actions must we take to reach our goal, based on these conditions and variables? Here’s the crux of the matter, as it relates to social policy, and the reason why systems which allow many points of view to be represented are better at evaluation than more authoritarian systems, but are not as good at decision making or implementation.[/ul][/li]
I guess my point is that by “accepting consensually accepted beliefs as axioms or observable facts and then using them to reason solutions” we would tend to limit the effectiveness of our actions, because they would be based on and require the approval of the very same group which may have consensually perceived a problem based on erroneous assumptions or incomplete data.

Whew! Sorry about the run-on sentences there! I hope I was at least partially comprehensible.

7

Well articulated xenophon.

This seems to me a form of the control cycle. For those not in the know it goes something like this:
[ol]
Start by considering the general current environment. We’re not in the cycle at the moment, merely gathering data.

[li]Specify the problem - this is a matter of identifying your aims, goals and the potential risks you face in achieving them.[/li]
[li]Develop the solution - model the situation to work towards a solution that addresses the issues in point 1.[/li]
[li]Monitor the situation - data should continue to be gathered and analyses conducted to ensure that things are proceeding as we have foreseen.[/li]
Now return to point 1 and continue indefinitely.
[/ol]
It’s always served me well!

regards,

pan

8

Interesting comments, but I detect a subtle problem.

With the top-down approach, we still have the same fundamental problem: How to define and evaluate competing goals. Conceptions of an “ideal society” obviously differ widely. For example, I personally hold as a top priority the abolition of poverty. Another might hold that poverty is necessary to compel economic participation. Yet another might hold that exact adherence to Biblical Law must be the highest priority.

My question is, how do we evaluate these competing claims, regardless of the process? We must have axioms to use logic, we must have facts to use empiricism, regardless of the nature and direction of the process. At whatever point we engage in debate we must either have facts and axioms or we must abandon logic and empiricism.

9

Hmm. Competing goals. Seems like we’re always gonna have those in a multicultural society. The trick for society is to weed out those over which the government has no control, no mandate or no interest, and then to recognize which of the remaining are non-overlapping, which are overlapping and which are directly opposing paradigms.

Since those goals and concepts which do not directly affect each other aren’t part of your question, we’ll address the others.

Competing interests: In physics, when two or more force vectors are applied to an object, a sum vector results from the combination. In politics, applying two or more forces to an issue will result in the negation of some so that the other(s) may be misdirected. (Cynical enough?)

In reality, these issues always require a discussion of the merits of each view, applying the moral and philosophical standards of each participant (or representative). Through such dialogue alternatives to each claim can be often be reached which satisfy the core requirements of each faction (but which may not represent the full desires of any). --Keep in mind here that we’re talking about the evaluation of social goals, not of social conditions.

Ideally, social policies are decided through such compromise leading to an attempt at consensus; when consensus cannot be reached, majority rule is applied. In Happyxenoland (the utopia I just invented), I would be the final arbiter. But alas, until I’m appointed benevolent dictator, majority rule is less objectionable and more flexible than adherence to political doctrine or rule by force.

Directly opposing interests: JOKE We call this the “two party system.”

The viewpoint which is most persuasive to the greatest number gains the greatest support. Sometimes conflict escalates quickly to violence; more often it leads to separation and division, and sometimes to gridlocked ideologies. There IS no method of evaluation which can convince those unwilling to compromise. Sorry to sound so defeatist about this, but there you are; those who think in black and white will never be able see shades of gray.

10

This is not getting any clearer. Let me rephrase my question.

I am arguing social policy X. My opponent is arguing not-X. We wish to persuade have an audience of scientists and other rationalist types.

How should I argue my point? What sort of statements should I and my opponent introduce as “fact”? On what axioms should we base our deductions?

Or should we abandon empirical logic entirely? Should I merely try to present my case in the most emotional way possible and hope that my presentation is more compelling than my opponents?

11

Even more specifically, I might say that 99,999 people per year are harmed by a particular policy and claim this number is too large. My opponent says that this is an acceptable number. We have both accepted a particular fact, but our inferences completely contradict each other. How should we rationally resolve this contradiction? Or should we at all?

Merely making the claim and abiding by a vote implies that a majority opinion constitutes a legitimate fact. However, this methold offers no guidance to the individual voter except to rely on his or her own nature, regardless of inherent bias.

Take the creationist/evolution debate. The intelligent creationist says that “religious belief has equal standing to scientific empiricism when determining fact.” Do we have a basis for calling that statement irrational? If a majority of Americans vote in favor of equating religious belief and scientific empricism, are we obliged to allow our public schools to teach it as fact?

This is the real metaphysics of politics.

12

The problem is that you’re looking for absolutes to dictate actions. Since non-instinctual actions require emotions to motivate them, say one action is right is tantamount to say an emotion is right.

At the core of any argument regarding what to do, there’s going to be an unarguable desire. Either you want it or you don’t.

This applies to even the seemingly obvious. “Child molesters should be jailed.” At the core is the desire to protect children from exploitation. But if you met someone who does not share that desire, no reasoning will change his mind.

If you want something done, you must make your desires the majority’s desires. For that to work, common ground is needed. For instance, if someone is unsure where to stand on the issue of child molesting, you could state your desire. “The reason I’m think child molesters should be jailed is because I desire a society that would protect others from harm.” If he agrees with the idea of protecting others from harm, then it’s a simple matter of convincing that kids count as “others”. If not, move on.

Get enough people on your side, and you can get what you desire. Or you can overpower those you disagree with, removing their say. It’s all about getting your axioms running things. This last paragraph isn’t a suggestion, but an observation. That is the way things are.

13

Lethal Lynx, you essentially recap my argument from the abortion thread. Common or consensual beliefs (“I desire a society that would protect others from harm”) form empirical facts to deduce/test theories and deductions (“Child molesters should be jailed.”)

The “quality of the observable fact” directly relates to the “degree of commonality of the belief.” It’s a little different than scientific empiricism: In science the facts never change (Even Newtonian mechanics is correct under most circumstances; we need Relativity and QM only when we examine unusual or extreme conditions or demand very accurate measurements). However the commonality of beliefs does change. However we are usually debating policy in the here and now; if commonality changes, we can reevaluate our theories then.

I’m not looking for absolutes, I’m looking for a framework to give debate semantic meaning. Social policy is much more complicated than physics; still that argues at least for a rigorous framework inside which we can communicate rationally.

14

I’m with Joe regarding “top down” or other variations on this theme. To state an objective or define a problem are exercises that must, by definition, be based upon some value that is axiomatic. I also agree that a majority opinion does not automatically render some belief true and ethical. Neither does a belief’s convenience to a large number of people.

Joe, your question is, how do we evaluate those notions we all hold to be self-evident and unprovable, correct? How do we prove (or disprove) an unprovable–isn’t that what evaluating an axiom means? I’m agreeing with you (I think) in my first paragraph, which must mean I agree that your question needs to be answered if we’re to establish social policy, and I’m concluding it can’t be answered (I am frustrated by my own ability to get past this very notion in other threads such as the abortion ones). Gee, glad I could help.

I’m going to keep coming back to this thread. If you pull this off, we can close down the Great Debates; everything will become crystal clear.

15

I’m not asking for proof, just agreement. For instance, scientists need not prove that primary observations constitute fact, they merely agree so. The meta-proof behind the agreement is that that it has allowed a large number of successful predictions, much larger, both in number and percentage, than any competing method.

And if we cannot find the answer to this question, we should shut down GD. Without a basis in fact, “debate” is impossible, just shouting and emotional propaganda.

16

But what does “agreement” mean with regard to “value” axioms–i.e., where what is “observable and repeatable” is not necessarily in dispute? How do you evaluate axioms except relative to other axiomatic values? It’s circular and unsolvable by definition, except in a very practical way which ignores this conundrum.

But if all you wish to do is identify something practical, since in the real world we must develop and install social policy, why not use the current method? Some variation on “majority rule” and/or “whoever is most powerful decides” has been an efficacious process for a long time, so long as we ignore any ethical problems that may arise (of course, that’s not what you’re suggesting).

Your “facts must rule the day” rebuke seems contradictory to me if there are no such things as indisputable facts–except, as you have pointed out, relative to a given set of axioms. Debate, then, may only be useful in pointing out how conclusions flowing from a given value set are not logical–e.g., if I hold that the right to life is absolute and inviolable, I can’t be for the death penalty.

17

“I’m not asking for proof, just agreement. For instance, scientists need not prove that primary observations constitute fact, they merely agree so. The meta-proof behind the agreement is that that it has allowed a large number of successful predictions, much larger, both in number and percentage, than any competing method.”

Yes, but scientist come to agreement based on the objective. You’re asking people to come to an agreement based on the subjective. Why don’t we just ask if society can come to an agreement on which ice cream is better, chocolate or vanilla?

But preferences chocolate and vanilla are hardly comparable to actions like deciding what to do with a rapist. That question needs for there to be agreement with a sizeable chunk of the population.

There is hope for people to come together. State your desire in the simplest form possible. From there, get enough people to agree with you. I believe there is only one axiom: We assume what we observe to be true. We all reason similarly (whether that’s because we observe the truth, or whether it’s just because we are from the same species, I don’t know. I guess it’s a combination.) If you can show a contradiction in someone’s philosophy/observation, you can reason to people that it is a flawed point of view.

Example:

Man 1: I am against abortion because it is the taking of a life.

Man 2: If you’re against the taking of life, then why do you support the death penalty?

Man 1: …Shut up.

All you have to do is come with a view (preferably one that can be reduce to a sentence or two, so people can easily reference your principle<s> against many situations), check it for hypocrisies (test it against real and possible events), and put it out there. People might not agree with it right away, but give them some points to consider, and eventually they’ll change their minds… as long as they are not the stubborn emotional types.

That is the best way I can think of to get people to come to an agreement. Though it does take alot patience.

“My original position of accepting consensually accepted beliefs as axioms or observable facts and then using them to reason solutions into uncertain or controversial areas has been roundly criticized by people I both admire and abhor.”

I’m curious, did they critize its logic, or is it just that they didn’t like it?

18

First of all let me state that I think everyone agrees that as a minimum any rational philosophy should be internally consistent and in accordance with ordinary facts.

Bob Cos:

If “majority rules”, than the Constitution and Bill of Rights (for instance) has no justification, since it is explicitly and intentionally protected from alteration by a transient majority.

I don’t think we have conclusively determined there are no facts on which to base debate. There are a lot of items that can serve as facts and are objectively determinable (e.g. individual or consensual preference, the authority of various philosophers, pure immediate self-interest), we just have to decide which facts to use.

The problem is that the by accepting certain premises (e.g. the “special innocence” of the fetus), any philosopy may have internal consistency, yet completely contradict another interally consistent philosophy. Clearly internal consistency is necessary but it is hardly sufficient.

Lethal Lynx:

They’ve agreed to use objective facts, rather than other criteria, such as religious belief or political power. There’s really no way you can prove that empiricism is superior to religious faith. You just have to agree to it to do “science.”

But on what basis should I ask them to agree? Especially since, on almost every issue of importance, there is someone who holds a consistent but diametrically opposed view.

Again, if it is impossible to find a rational basis, then all we have left are force and emotional rhetoric.

I understood the fundamental objection as “propositions are true or false regardless of what people believe.” I am, however, unable to determine how to establish the truth or falsehood of a social value without regard to the beliefs of the people. My critics did not offer an alternative.

19

**
The justification, in the sense I meant it (but which is clearly unsatisfactory), is that the second the majority and/or the most powerful decide that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not the laws of the land, they won’t be. Governments topple, revolutions occur. That’s the sense I meant in referring to it as a “practical” means of determining social policy–that’s the way it has always worked.
**

**
But that’s your premise, I think, that “sound” facts don’t exist except relative to specific axioms (anyway, that’s my belief). There are many things that can “serve” as a fact, but that doesn’t make it so, except relative to a base axiom–even science presupposes an observable reality (i.e., you’re not just dreaming this reality and all its physical attributes and laws, an assumption that works quite nicely day to day). Your statement “in accordance with ordinary facts” begs the question, in this sense.

Again, how do you determine which “fact” to use as it relates to something that is not, in its essence, a physical, observable thing–how do you obtain agreement–except relative to a given axiom? I realize this is your question, but I’m concluding it’s not answerable. Which philosopher is best? What is “better,” immediate self interest or the greatest good for the greatest number? How will you determine this without first establishing an axiom set for the axioms? How do you do that?
**

**
Yep, I agree, if by sufficient you mean, “clearly establishing superiority.”

Well, clearly I don’t have one. I’m just not offering anything new here–so I’ll stop beating the same drum–but I am greatly interested in the topic and will check in to see if anything shakes me from my position.

20

Let me clarify: An ordinary fact is something directly observable by the senses. In this sense both a person’s individual preference and a social commonality of preference do indeed constitute ordinary fact. To objectively ascertain a person’s preference, you need merely ask him or her. You can use sampling and statistical methods to objectively ascertain the degree of commonality of a preference.

We have no shortage of actual objective facts that can relate directly to social policy. The question is, which facts are a priori relevant? In science, a priori relevance is trivial to establish: A scientific theory always makes predictions about specific facts. Every theory, by definition, makes certain facts immediately relevant.

I still submit that my original thesis has value: The commonality of preference and the historical effects of policy on social survivabilty form a sufficient factual basis for evaluating social policy. I challenge anyone to offer a counterexample of a rational, non-religious argument regarding social policy that does not explicitly or implicitly reference one of my criteria.