Hacker News Reader

Comment by NikolaNovak | Hacker News Reader

Hmm, what is a morally unacceptable debate? How is it defined and who agrees to the definition?

I've been trying very hard most of my life not to have mental or discussion taboos. I may find a position, request, action, etc disagreeable or even reprehensible, but I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo. And I struggle to visualize a debate itself that is morally unacceptable. Quite the opposite.

(on the other hand there are certainly debates I am tired of, amd frequently ponder how to handle people / situations that bring same tired arguments I've seen rehashed, and usually debunked, myriad times before. But that's not the same as morally unacceptable that's just me being lazy and or having limited time and energy on this earth :)

View on HN

Proposed definition of "immoral debates":

An immoral debate depends on the definition of a corrupt debate. A corrupt debate is where:

1) debaters willfully produce responses that contain bad arguments or logical fallacies

2) debaters willfully conduct arguments toward an audience without knowledge of logical fallacies and/or without knowledge of critical thinking

3) debaters willfully conduct arguments in a venue or theater where non-logical aspects of communication could manipulate the behavior of others, and leverage those aspects in the delivery of their arguments.

A corrupt debate is an immoral debate if performed where the debate is part of a process affecting a large number of people who consider themselves a society, because:

1) while those debating look like they are arguing and analyzing an issue, and trying to come to a logically correct conclusion, they are really manipulating an audience to effect a desired outcome,

2) if debate is the foundation of determining the direction of a society, corrupt debate skews it towards the will of specific individuals rather than objective truth.

Sounds like what the US Senate has become, unfortunately.

So basically an "immoral debate" would be one that's propaganda in disguise? But why would it be inherently immoral to knowingly propagandize a false idea? What if believing a particular false idea leads to behavior that's safer in large scale? For example, you convince everyone that, I don't know, gasoline makes you impotent. Your rhetoric is so good that everyone is convinced, even in the absence of evidence, and people stop driving so much and pollution is reduced.

Is it immoral to use rhetoric to spread false ideas for a good reason?

No, that's a dishonest debate and it's a different thing.

It is.

Following your example, you've reduced pollution, but now millions of people who work in the gasoline supply chain have lost jobs. These people get addicted to drugs, increase crime, and now you can't leave your house, but you do have clean air.

A logical debate without propaganda might have taken that into account.

Funny thing: I'd classify Plato's dialogs as immoral debates by this definition. (Admittedly that's debatable. You could say they're not debates at all, for instance.)

> what is a morally unacceptable debate?

I'm surprised that people here do not understand this point. Here some by-the-book examples that are used in ethics 101:

"what is the best way to kill grandma?" "what is a reasonable price to buy a slave?"

If you find murder or slavery immoral you are simply unable to debate on this questions because they imply acceptance of the premise.

You can, of course, express your disagreement on the whole debate.

> I see no winning outcome in making it a taboo

This has nothing to do with a taboo. It's a completely different thing.

I've taken Philosophy 101 and Ethics 101 (admittedly not much further), and I've never found an inkling that discussion/debate itself is immoral; I don't even know how you'd consider an idea, to label it as moral or immoral, without, you know, considering and debating it (internally or externally).

I can debate the best way to kill grandma; I will even find it intellectually stimulating; heck, I just spent a few minutes now that you brought it up pondering that (it's the whole "don't think of pink Elephant" schtick:); without in any way implying acceptance of the premise, condoning the action, or considering actually doing it. Does your brain work different? Can you disentangle a concept and idea from action and emotion? I don't feel you're making your point persuasively, or the choice of phrasing may be ambiguous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com