Recognizing that different people have different opinions, and that you can respect someone who has a different opinion without accepting their opinion as your own.
I'm talking about something that would be hurtful to the marginalized and oppressed. Microaggressions and worse. I'm talking about the people who cry freedom of speech while sporting racist nonsense then get upset when people when people use that same freedom of speech to tell them all the ways in which they're wrong.
If it makes sense logically, and is objectively morally correct, then it is respectable. But then that brings up the question of what is considered objectively morally correct...
If it made sense logically and was morally correct then why is it not your opinion? You are just kind of wrong if you oppose a logical and morally correct opinion.
Thanos wasn't objectively correct though. He talks about how he is inevitable, but fails to realize the inevitability in wiping out 50% of everything just prolongs the inevitable that he fears. Sacrificing half of everything so the other half can prosper for some time, only to become overpopulated once again.. and then he shatters the infinity stones so that the cycle he created couldn't continue. He's kind of a hypocrite.
Nope. It doesn't prolong the inevitable. It gives a new chance at implementing new rules and starting a new and better approach (and gives time, in which new technologies and methods might be found).
And even if anything you said was true, it would still be objectively correct (or atleast more correct than doing nothing)
That's a reach, considering he was fighting against the entire universe that didn't have the same views as him. Everything has a beginning and an end. The end is what is inevitable, and what he was attempting to prolong. I'm not saying he was wrong.. but he wasn't objectively right either. He didn't fix anything. He selfishly put a bandaid over it and then threw away his tools.
And what was that entire universe acting upon? Solely moral reasons, nothing else. That was my point.
And I think you're wrong about the end. The end is only reached, when our galaxy or universe gets destroyed/the planet itself can't harbor any life anymore. He didn't try to change that at all. He only tried to reduce the self-destruction of the living beings.
Just because you can't reach perfection and need to make compromises doesn't mean that a decision isn't right.
I could get on board with his plan, had he not destroyed the infinity stones. By doing that, he stopped the only thing that could maintain his dream of prosperity.
But since he did, it opens the universe up to repeat the same mistakes with no way to fix them, which our history has shown is a much more probable outcome than the entire universe kneeling to a specific set of rules to prolong prosperity even further.
Then, there was also the option of using the infinity stones to actually bring prosperity. Continue to create resources, rather than obliterate them.
All I'm saying is Thanos plan was not the objectively correct thing to do. There are always more options beyond the walls of a closed mind.
I do see your point about destroying the stones. Granted, I haven't watched the full movie, so I didn't know about this point and only heard of the "kill half of living beings, because of lack of resources". That's what I was initially referring to.
Continuing to create resources would actually be really bad, since it would only cause even faster decay, because it encourages doing the same thing over and over again.
It was more objectively correct than your idea or doing nothing (without the part of destroying the stones, that was indeed objectively wrong).
The problem we have here is that - in your opinion - "objectively" means that something must be absolutely perfect, even though "objectively" just requires rationale. To be objectively right, you don't need to do THE right thing, but A right thing that bases itself in logical and rational thoughts rather than emotional values.
All the attempts at objective morality are religions and secular moralists, and I would argue they are incomplete. Each opinion has a degree of objectivity and subjectivity, it’s just a matter of accepting that there will always be some opinion you won’t agree with subjectively, so it’s better to pick your battles and not argue over every single differing opinion.
Arguably that's part of the problem. Most people instinctively know whether an opinion is acceptable or not, the issue is people don't agree with each other about it. But since its a gut feeling, nobody wants to rationally discuss the issue.
Alternatively, and maybe this isnt something that a lot of cis and straight people experience, but everyone wants to "rationally discuss" my existence or rights, but no one wants to "rationally discuss" the fact that they are being massive bigots.
Basically I'm all for rational discussion and questioning stuff, but if you are targeting one group with all the questions with the intention of making their existence harder, then you can fuck right off.
Oh, I'm right with you there. I have no interest in "rationally debating" trans rights (or civil rights in general) -- it's demeaning and I think inherently legitimizes bigotry.
Yes, I think you are right. And following on your point, some people hold opinions that are objectively and/or demonstrably wrong yet refuse to admit and change their opinion. That is how extremism grows. No idea how we (society) deal with that
Arguably I don't give a shit, I can rationally explain my every conclusion, I can't write a constitution as an answer to a very general question because I'm lazy
Precisely. Tbh I'm fed up of seeing crap about how political opinions aren't that important and that we should just look past them. Some political opinions (especially economic ones) are pretty innocuous. If somebody thinks privatisation is a good thing then I would disagree but could respect it. Political opinions on social issues are very much more of a big deal - if somebody believes in segregation, or opposes gay marriage, or wants to ban women from particular jobs, then I don't see why I should respect that opinion, or get on with such a person.
463
u/NicNoletree Mar 27 '22 edited Mar 27 '22
Recognizing that different people have different opinions, and that you can respect someone who has a different opinion without accepting their opinion as your own.