Advice Please

[andrewducker]

A long time ago, I used to believe in things like 'objective morality', 'absolute rights' and 'objective aesthetics'.  Obviously, as I grew up and started paying attention, I realised that what these actually meant was 'The way I'd like people to behave', 'The way I'd like people to be treated' and 'The way I like things to look'.

Since realising this, I've become a lot more understanding of other people, realising that if they like people behaving differently, like people to behave differently and like things to look differently, then of course they have different morality, rights and aesthetics and that's just fine.  My opinions aren't privileged over theirs and while there's no objective reason why I shouldn't go around forcing my opinions on them it makes for a quieter life if I avoid doing so unless their opinions/actions make me feel grossly uncomfortable (i.e. engaging in torture or wearing a particularly vile hawiian shirt).

However, from time to time I have to deal with people that think that these things mean more than that (although none of them have ever been able to give any reason why they do).  I find it almost impossible to negotiate with them because while I'm phrasing things in terms of what I like/dislike, or what I'm comfortable with, they're telling me that I'm categoricall wrong.  As I don't view it as possible to be wrong about these things, I'm at a loss as to know what to do.

Any suggestions?

[Poll #306886]

Comments

[freemoore.livejournal.com]

so, do you think that they are wrong to think there's a right and wrong about these things?

Re: fundamentalists

[wolfieboy.livejournal.com]

btw, isn't that mostly blank?

It really depends on how much it is worth to you and how much they are willing to listen. I've found that most fundamentalists aren't willing to listen, no matter how it is presented. If both of you are willing to invest sufficiently, then it might be possible. Some people can be swayed by logic, some by beauty, some by passion, and some induction. It's really a play by feel thing. Ultimately, you have to put things in their language that their language isn't designed to convey, so it can be very difficult and very frustrating. At times, it's really mental masturbation because neither of you will convince the other. At other times, you can gain a great friendship.

P.S. A fundamentalist is anyone that believes that their world view covers 100% of all phenomena. It has nothing to do with religion other than by example. If you try to present something that doesn't fit in their world view, you are being unscientific, blasphemous, non-objective, or a variety of other epithets...

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I found that your phrasing here


attempt to enlighten them

use their language, it's what they're comfortable with


given your usual style of writing, carries the implication that your views are privileged over theirs. You sound like a British colonialist back in the 19th century talking about "strange foreign chaps and their funny ways"

You might not have meant it to sound that way, but that's how it sounds.

Being more tolerant of other people's views isn't necessarily a sign that you're better. It's a sign that you let other people express themselves. Some people would say "That doesn't make you intellectually superior/a better person/more socially adjusted, they could say that it makes you weak, less firm in your views" and so on.

Those aren't -my- opinions, necessarily.

Oh:

As I don't view it as possible to be wrong about these things

Isn't that you telling some of "them" (assuming some of "them" read this journal) that they're categorically wrong to do what they do and think what they think, by the way?