What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

Great Debates
781

Or, in the alternative, it must be able of at least some, let me even suggest, any discrimination between valid and invalid conclusions.

Is it a “penetrating” analysis to suggest a reasonable argument must not require one to oppose same-sex marriage if the majority opposes it because they believe same-sex marriage causes outbreaks of velociraptor attacks?

And as I pointed out in response to your global warming example, I think it is quite reasonable to say “I don’t know the answer–so I’ll let the majority decide, and then acquiesce in the decision they make.” That is called not voting.

One can do so and remain agnostic on an issue.

That is quite different from saying “I don’t know the answer–so I’ll let the majority decide, and then agree with the position they choose, and take it to be my own.” That is, I contend, only reasonable if the position our voter adopts is reasonable.

One cannot be agnostic on an issue after doing so–by definition.

Just so I’m clear: Is your argument that our hypothetical voter should not vote, or that they should adopt the majority position?

You see, here is where you lose me: I’m not arguing that deep or meaningful review is necessary.

I am, however, pushing back against an argument that would, by its own terms, support any position the majority takes, whether based on reasonable argument or not, whether based in facts or not. Do you dispute that this is a necessary conclusion of your argument?

To frame it in a hypothetical: 51% of voters think same-sex marriage should not be permitted, because they believe same-sex unions lead to velociraptor attacks. (or, if you prefer, any other patently unreasonable justification).

Whether or not your voter knows that, do you agree that your argument would have him adopt the majority’s position, even though it is not just wrong, but (assuming, as I do, arguendo, that it is the sole argument), simply unsupportable? I think the majority already does do more or less what I suggest: they do some, whether minimal, or complex, review of the majority’s position. They ask “does that make any sense at all?” before endorsing a position.

My next point is that I think that you do, at least implicitly, accept that some evaluation of the majority’s position is necessary. To show why, let’s go back to my evolution example. You posited under your argument:

(1) it would be unreasonable to vote that evolution was incorrect, even if the majority believed so and so voted. That is because the position taken by the majority is factually incorrect.

(2) it would be reasonable to vote to teach creationism in schools if the majority so voted, even if you knew creationism to be factually unsupportable, because it is a policy question.

Where do you get that distinction? I contend it is because the position adopted by the majority in (1) is not supported by reasonable arguments, and the position adopted by the majority in (2), you contend, is at least more debatable. Or is there something magical about a policy question that makes it free of any link to reality?

I think that what you are doing there is exactly what I contend your argument requires to be reasonable—to have some element of testing the position taken by the majority, whether minor, or substantial.

And if you do that, then we’re back where we started–that your argument only works if the position taken by the majority is in some way, reasonable. And so it simply begs the question .

782

It might be – if the individual doesn’t know that the majority’s opposition is grounded in velociraptor attacks. If he simply doesn’t inquire deeply into the reasons, but is guided solely by the view that “This is a democracy, and I don’t want to see the majority’s views overrun by the minority.”

If that’s the case, sure.

783

Would you still say this if polls showed a strong correlation between position on a given subject and education, say?

784

Because your reasonable voter is conflating issues. The two issues he is conflating are:

  1. I am of the opinion that SSM should be illegal.

  2. I am of the opinion that the majority should rule, and for as long as the majority opposes SSM, I think that it should be the case that the law makes it illegal regardless of my opinions on the matter.

The two issues are easy to conflate, because if you hold the second it’s easy to decide that your opinion doesn’t matter - but it’s based on an inherently flawed understanding of how voting works, and if you think about it for a moment, following this practice would be self-destructive to democracy.

In a democracy, a rational person votes the way they want, and then the voties are tallied to determine what the majority wants. A person who does not vote as they wish is undermining the very principle voting relies on - that it accumulates and tallies the opinions of the populace.

What happens when a person tries to “vote the majority”? It means that they’re suverting the voting system itself. What would happen if every person believed that SSM should be legal, and mistakenly believed that the majority disagreed with them (perhaps based on the results of the last poll or vote)? What would happen would by they’d all lie, and the next poll would also show the false numbers.

So, voting your silly perception of what the majority wants is antithetical to democracy, and (so it follows), forming your personal opinion on the matter based on your silly perception of the majority’s desires is ludicrous as well. For democracy to work, you have to form your own opinion, and state it honestly.

But, what if you have no opinion? Presumably even if we misunderstood voting enough to give this argument credence, we must not hold any strong opinions to the contrary or those contrary opinions would override the “hive-mind” argument’s conclusion. So, what should you do if you have no opinon at all on the matter? Then should you vote your guess as to what the majority wants?

Answer: No. In this case, the rational person abstains. Unlike voting your anti-democratic guess, this doesn’t break the vote and it allows you to learn, and implement, what the majority actually wants. Succinctly, if you want to serve the will of the majority, then guessing what it is and siding with them based on your guess is irrational.

I will add that it is rational to say, “I support SSM, but recognize that it lost the referendum and so it won’t be made law - and I shouldn’t try to take steps to override the result of the referrendum (like conquering the country and imposing my will by fiat).” So, it’s not irrational to act in comliance with a majority rule that you don’t agree with. But to base your opinions on the majority opinion is irrational.

785

Just to be sure I understand–must your voter then vote with, and agree with the majority, or simply step back, and not vote? Either ensures that the majority’s decision is not overruled by the minority.

However, the first also serves to obscure what the majority thinks (assuming our voter remains personally agnostic on the issue) (since if an unknown number of people adopting your argument vote with the majority, it will be impossible to tell what the real majority thinks)

Also, of course, under your argument, our voter must remain as ignorant as possible about the reasons for the majority’s vote–since, as you admit, your argument is not applicable to a majority, who must base their decision in some other justification, and since we have, so far, only been presented with one argument (this one) which is even conceivably a “reasonable” reason to oppose same-sex marriage, (such that any others would be unreasonable)-and since you admit that if he discovers that the majority’s arguments are unreasonable, it would no longer be reasonable to vote with and adopt their arguments (while it would remain reasonable to remain agnostic and refrain from voting in such a situation)

786

this was going to be my next step–but has already been well said. The point is that the argument on the table seems, at best, an argument to acquiesce in the majority’s decision, and to not vote.

But, position (2) above, not voting and acquiescing in the decision, simply isn’t opposition to same-sex marriage. It is choosing not to take a position for or against.

787

Again, in this case the person has no opinion on the result in question. They do not care. As such they cannot be said to support or oppose the result itself. They merely support the majority opinion and assume, whatever it is, that it is the right decision not because the result is actually the best choice (remember, they have no opinion one way or another) but because it is best to let the majority decide even if the result is wrong.

788

Ooh. This brings up an interesting point.

So far, the only even possibly reasonable (which I do not yet concede, but let’s assume it is, arguendo) argument to oppose same-sex marriage is that presented by Bricker–to agree with the majority position.

That argument has two interesting elements.

First, Bricker admits that it would not be reasonable if used a majority. It just wouldn’t work, or would lead to an absurd conclusion.

Second, Bricker seems to accept that it would be unreasonable for a voter to use that argument to adopt the majority’s position if he subjectively knows that the majority’s conclusions are based on unreasonable arguments or false factual premises. I think that is also definitional–an argument is unreasonable if it forces a voter to adopt a position or endorse an argument he knows to be wrong.

(can you see what it is yet?)

Putting those things together, it seems that our voter must willfully avoid thinking about why the majority holds its position, in order to use Bricker’s argument to oppose same-sex marriage.

If he does think about it, and realizes that there seem to be no reasonable arguments in opposition that could be held by a majority, the necessary conclusion is that the majority supports its position for unreasonable reasons.

Now, I know that is deeper that we can demand or expect of most voters–but it is a very pretty logical conclusion, no?

It also reinforces the point I think that is becoming clear–that the argument we’re debating now, offered but not endorsed by Bricker, is at best a reason not to vote, and not to upset the majority position. And that just plain isn’t opposition to same-sex marriage.

789

On the flip side, the opposite is also true. Is there a rational reason to support SSM that is unique to SSM and doesn’t apply to any other issue? I can’t think of any. That’s why trying to limit the argument that way is useless. It just leads to “Yeah, but besides that, there is no good reason” ad infinitum.

790

The opposite is absolutely not true. Plenty of pro-same sex marriage arguments cannot be generalized to any other issue. Note the point made about the argument Bricker is working with is not that it can be made about some other things, but that it can more or less be used to support, quite literally, any other position, including, for example, the exact opposite of the point he is using it to support. (“a majority supports same-sex marriage, so I will not disturb that conclusion”).

So, to start:

Equal protection arguments only apply to privileges given by the government (such as marriage). I can say “same-sex couples have an equal protection right to marriage,” but cannot say “we all have an equal protection right to free McDonalds cheeseburgers”, but you can use Bricker’s argument to say “the majority thinks we should have free Mcdonald’s cheeseburgers, and I will not upset that conclusion”

Similarly, arguments about the benefits society gains from ensuring children are raised in marriages, and hence, why same-sex couples, who do raise children, should be allowed to marry, applies to, well, same- and opposite- sex marriage.

Fundamental right to marriage arguments (we treat marriage to the competent adult of your choice as a fundamental right–and so it should be extended to same-sex couples) apply to, well, rules restricting the right to marry.

(note, I am using the “reasonableness” test–not whether the argument persuades (I think that they do, but that’s beside the point), but whether they are consistent, reasonable, and based on premises that are not patently untrue)

791

“Because people are specifically denying them the specific right of SSM, which like a host of other similar rights and similar cicumstances, they should not be denied.”

792

I can think of a problem with that argument as stated. The goal is greatest contentment; yet, if the only measure that needs to be taken is that of people one way or the other (assuming that people will vote for what will make them more contented), then it makes the assumption that, on this issue, there is no significant different in the amount of possible contentment/unhappiness per person. That is, if we have 10 people, 4 who vote for SSM and 6 who vote against it, to claim that all we need to do to measure the overall contentment is to look at those numbers and see a difference of 2, implies that those 4 people gain roughly the same amount of contentment as do 4 of the 6. In other words, the idea that those 4 could be contented to outweigh the 6 - or, on the other hand, that the 6’s majority in contentment stakes could be weighed even more heavily - is ignored.

On those grounds, I would argue that a voter who believes that on this issue - and, indeed, on any issue - that is it reasonable to assume that people will find their happiness affected to a very similar extent, similar enough to accept simple majority as an accurate measure of that effect - could not be described as reasonable. You could certainly make an argument on the basis of a simple majority being enough, but I think you’ve accidentally added some problems in with the argument you’re making in general. That particular one isn’t reasonable.

793

Well, if the voter felt that way about every issue, he wouldn’t bother voting at all. We couldn’t say he was opposed to SSM based on homophobia - indeed we couldn’t say he was opposed to anything on any grounds.

Anyway, I stand by an earlier observation - this hypothetical person is like the zero case in a mathematical proof; correct but trivial and outside an effort at completeness, useless.

794

It doesn’t matter, because the pro-SSM people aren’t ( on the whole ) being hypocrites. For example, probably any argument for SSM could be used to support heterosexual marriage as well - which the pro-SSM people have no problem with.

It’s a problem for the anti-SSM side because many of their supposed reasons for opposing SSM would require them to take positions they refuse to take, if applied consistently. Like the “marriage is about children!” people who aren’t also calling for making infertile marriages illegal. That’s part of what qualifies them as “unreasonable”; they aren’t at all consistent.

795

This is actually a good point - outside a logic textbook, arguments don’t exist in a vacuum. An argument that requires you to close off or ignore obvious facts and implications to make with a straight face is made from irrationality and based in irrationality, even if the limited argument contained only in the text is logically valid.

Similarly, it is irrational to make arguments that require you to ignore facts that you know are true. This becomes a problem pretty fast in a thread like this, where you get educated as to your factual misconception in a hurry. (And, as a bonus, called a bigot.)

However I will note that you can have an anti-SSM argument that requires no irrationality; you do it by making a straightforward error. The argument that beliefs should be shaped to a perception of majority rule is flawed at a logical level, but if you don’t notice the flaw, you can honestly believe that the argument is a reason to oppose SSM without being additionally irrational.

796

Voting with the majority isn’t rational. It’s the action of a moron. There has still been no rational argument against SSM.

If you decide that voting with the majority is rational, it isn’t a argument against SSM, it’s a argument for blindly accepting blindly the tyranny of the majority. It is simply the mewling cry of a sheep unable to think for himself.

Can we get back on track and get a rational argument in here?

797

[nitpick*

You can be irrational without knowing you are irrational. Ignorance I do not think gets you off the hook on this count.

[/nitpick]

798

Hmm, I don’t know that you can be considered irrational for accepting an argument that seems valid to you, even if you arrive at this conclusion hastily with only cursory consideration. Obviously it’s better to scrutinize and consider everything you believe, but it’s not irrational not to.

Of course, this only lasts until people start pointing out the errors in your argument to you. At that point, if you hold onto your argument without successfully countering all the objections to it, then you are behaving irrationally.

And also, this presumes that the reason you accepted the argument was that it actually seemed sensible to you, on the basis of your (perhaps poor) understanding of the argument itself. If you decided it was good only because you aleady liked the outcome it supported, and not because the argument itself seemed reasonable to you, then accepting the argument on that basis alone is irrational - even if the reason you actually like the argument is not itself irrational to the degree that, say, homophobia is.

I’m pretty sure the “majority rule” argument was made in honest error - though of course it was made hastily and with only cursory consideration, due to Bricker’s haste to demonstrate that it was possible to be anti-SSM without being a bigot.

799

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought maybe it was going to be about efforts to ban smoking.

Then I thought maybe it it would be about denying people the right to work without joining a union.

Or given the headlines of the day, I thought it might be about preventing an employer from hiring people without also having to pay for their health insurance or pay a fine.

Or about forcing people to buy health insurance or risk a fine or jail time.

Then it occurred to me that maybe it would be about denying two people the right to trade with each other because someone else thought the trade was not ‘fair’.

Then I thought maybe it was about forcing employers to pay a certain minimum wage, even if there was an employee who was freely willing to work for less.

Or perhaps it would be about forcing a businessman to pay to install handicap facilities even though he employs no handicapped people.

Of course, there was an outside chance that it would be about forcing people to hire certain percentages of minorities, or women, or the handicapped.

Or it could have been about forcing people to use CFL bulbs, even if they like incandescent better.

I suppose it could have been about taking away people’s choice to buy a vehicle without an airbag, because they have better uses for their money, or punishing people who buy vehicles that don’t get a certain level of mileage, even though they’re paying for the gas out of their own pocket.

Or it could be about forcing a radio station to meeting nebulous ‘community standards’ or risk being forced off the air.

I guess I was wrong. As it turns out, only right-wing people are trying to impose their values and choices on others. Who knew?

800

This statement seems to return to the premise that we must be able to generalize this method to everyone, or it’s not rational. Our hypothetical person is using this system alone. You cannot advance any aspect of “…but what if everyone did it?” to vitiate the rationality of his position.

And your claim for the necessity of voting as you wish is false on its face, as many of the year 2000 Ralph Nader voters can readily attest.