- Joined
- Feb 18, 2021
- Messages
- 140
- Reaction score
- 54
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Some ponderings of philosophical traps in political thinking... Mainly about "both sides do It"...this post may contain some ideas for posters seeking truth in matters, or may have some ideas of interest to aid moderators a bit in their work.
One logical fallacy is a bit like "birthday fallacy" of assuming that since everyone has a birthday, therefor everyone must have SAME birthday. This is of course wrong. A bit similar way one may instinctively think that "both parties have lying politicians - therefor both parties must have AS MUCH liars and lie as much ". This is of course a fallacy, no logic dictates so. Since the idea of one party being all-good and the other all-evil, with one doing always right and the other always wrong is false also - this in my opinion is self evident and need not be argued further - the relevant question in choosing a party in a two party system may well be questions like which party more often breaks election promises, has more corruption scandals and so on. The right moral choice imo - if we consider politics without political ideologies - in "both sides do it" issues would be to determine which party does more wrong, then support the better party, and also reminding it has room to improve its morals too. Both Obama and Trump broke election promises; but if Trump did so more, that is one good argument why Obama was a better president, while he made some things wrong too. Both 6/1 and BLM vandals who took part in looting and such need to be condemned; but the former moreso imo because it was a bigger offense and based on a lie. This kind of things are difficult to evaluate though.
Another important difference in "bothsiderism" is whether or not the commenter is willing to condemn his own side doing wrong thing also. Very often the commenter is not and then the whole argument just falls to pieces. Morality must be based on logical rules and same for all regardless of things like political party. If the argument is that both A and B do wrong, A is ok in doing wrong because B do it too. then by the same logic B is ok in doing wrong also because A does it too. So, for example if someone argues in a threat about Trump wrongdoing that Trump ought to be excused because Hillary or Obama or some other democrat did something bit similar too (probably not by saying exactly so, but clearly meaning so), then by the same logic there is nothing wrong with what Hillary did either and she must be excused because "some con does something similar too". This is what the argument would lead to, though it is of course also what a partisan sycophant can not admit. So when stripped of all pretense the whole argument would be like "as a moral nihilist I do not really think there is anything wrong doing X but I am trying to pretend otherwise (to others or to myself) because it would advance my own aims.
So, in my opinion, as a generalisation - when someone says or clearly means that "politician in my party does nothing wrong/ought to be excused of the matter under discussion, because some other does something similar too- then the commenter imo deserves all the ridicule he gets. However, if the commenter is openly admitting that it is wrong that party A does X. and then proceeds to point that party B does something similar too, the comment imo is often good and honest one, and ought to be treated with consideration (provided it does not lead to twisting the thread to off-topic matter). Imo people just would do well to remember that "both sides do it" must by no logical authomatics lead to conclusion that "both sides do it AS MUCH". That "politicians in both parties lie" must be no mean authomathically mean that "they both lie AS MUCH".
One logical fallacy is a bit like "birthday fallacy" of assuming that since everyone has a birthday, therefor everyone must have SAME birthday. This is of course wrong. A bit similar way one may instinctively think that "both parties have lying politicians - therefor both parties must have AS MUCH liars and lie as much ". This is of course a fallacy, no logic dictates so. Since the idea of one party being all-good and the other all-evil, with one doing always right and the other always wrong is false also - this in my opinion is self evident and need not be argued further - the relevant question in choosing a party in a two party system may well be questions like which party more often breaks election promises, has more corruption scandals and so on. The right moral choice imo - if we consider politics without political ideologies - in "both sides do it" issues would be to determine which party does more wrong, then support the better party, and also reminding it has room to improve its morals too. Both Obama and Trump broke election promises; but if Trump did so more, that is one good argument why Obama was a better president, while he made some things wrong too. Both 6/1 and BLM vandals who took part in looting and such need to be condemned; but the former moreso imo because it was a bigger offense and based on a lie. This kind of things are difficult to evaluate though.
Another important difference in "bothsiderism" is whether or not the commenter is willing to condemn his own side doing wrong thing also. Very often the commenter is not and then the whole argument just falls to pieces. Morality must be based on logical rules and same for all regardless of things like political party. If the argument is that both A and B do wrong, A is ok in doing wrong because B do it too. then by the same logic B is ok in doing wrong also because A does it too. So, for example if someone argues in a threat about Trump wrongdoing that Trump ought to be excused because Hillary or Obama or some other democrat did something bit similar too (probably not by saying exactly so, but clearly meaning so), then by the same logic there is nothing wrong with what Hillary did either and she must be excused because "some con does something similar too". This is what the argument would lead to, though it is of course also what a partisan sycophant can not admit. So when stripped of all pretense the whole argument would be like "as a moral nihilist I do not really think there is anything wrong doing X but I am trying to pretend otherwise (to others or to myself) because it would advance my own aims.
So, in my opinion, as a generalisation - when someone says or clearly means that "politician in my party does nothing wrong/ought to be excused of the matter under discussion, because some other does something similar too- then the commenter imo deserves all the ridicule he gets. However, if the commenter is openly admitting that it is wrong that party A does X. and then proceeds to point that party B does something similar too, the comment imo is often good and honest one, and ought to be treated with consideration (provided it does not lead to twisting the thread to off-topic matter). Imo people just would do well to remember that "both sides do it" must by no logical authomatics lead to conclusion that "both sides do it AS MUCH". That "politicians in both parties lie" must be no mean authomathically mean that "they both lie AS MUCH".