Sometimes there aren't two sides

Well who am i to say...?

from JoeUser Forums

One of the things that always bugs me is when people say things like "the truth is somewhere in the middle" between two parties.  I hear that kind of moral equivalence argument all the time. But where the heck does it come from because while technically true, in spirit it is not.

In my experience, when two parties disagree about some issue and have different versions of events, odds are that one of the parties accountings of events will be predominantly true and the other party's predominantly false. I talked to a lawyer friend of mine about this the other  day who has concluded the same thing.  In fact, as often as not, disputes arise precisely because one person is lying and the other person is telling the truth.

This got me thinking about falling outs between friends like the one I wrote in my friendship article. The events I described there aren't open to interpretation, those are the facts. Interpretation comes into play when deciding whether one party had a legitimate reason for feeling wronged or not. 

More recently, our company was involved in a lawsuit. I posted the facts as we saw them publicly which were pretty damning to our opponents. I did that because we believe in a very simple philosophy: If you practice your business honorably then you can operate transparently and the facts, when known, will always be to your advantage. But sure enough, a few people still said "Well, that's Stardock's side, I'm sure their opponents have a different take on things." My argument was that no, there wasn' t a different set of facts. There was only one set of facts.  If the case hadn't been settled, I would have been more than hapy to publicly post the complete transcripts (other than the parts our opponents consider confidential) from both sides from discovery along with affidavits from both sides.

This is doubly true when you bring things up onto the macro-scale. There is a tendency in politics to try moral equivalent arguments. It's as if it has become politically incorrect to take a stand on beliefs that are based on cultural roots rather than literal facts.  For instance, if party A believes that it is wrong for party B to kill their children and eat them as food in the service of their sun god, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that party B is in the wrong. Yet these days there seem to be many people ready to jump up and say "Well, who are we to say..."

Great evil can be done because good people don't act. Similarly, great harm can be done if we take the easy route and assume that both parties in a given dispute are in the wrong.

Sometimes, there really aren't two sides to any story.

philosophy
8,855 views 19 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
And sometimes there are. I can recall a case of my own in which I believed that I was entirely in the right, as did my opponent. During the trial, some things that I knew about came out that my opponent wasn't aware of. Some things came out that my opponent was aware that I wasn't.
The real truth of the situation turned out to be that, in fact, we were BOTH wrong. Now I would agree that if we had spent more time in discourse, the court case would never have taken place, but unfortunately my opponent was one of those highly emotional people who are very difficult to have a rational conversation with, so we wound up adjudicating a case that we should have been able to work out for ourselves.

Now, this is probably the exception to the rule. In legal cases I would agree that it probably is a case of one party telling the truth and the other is not.

But, in arguements regarding less tangible ideas, philosophy, politics, etc.... arguements between two parties on extreme ends of the spectrum, the truth probably does lie somewhere in the middle.

If you practice your business honorably then you can operate transparently and the facts, when known, will always be to your advantage


Damn shame more companies don't operate under this principle. Cudos to you for that.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

Certainly there are times when there really are two sides to the story. I hope I didn't give the impression that one side is mostly wrong and the other side mostly right.

Just that more often in not, whether it be in personal relationships or elsewhere, usually one side is mostly right and the other side mostly wrong.

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good article but, children are tasty and my sun god demands sacrifices!

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem is one of metaethics, not ethics. Almost all moral systems are basically the same, except for definitional (metaethical) issues. For example, you can share the belief that killing people is wrong with someone on the other side of the abortion debate, but not hold that fetuses are people. So hey, what do you know, there are two sides, and it's basically impossible to debate the definitional issue, because the criteria for the debate are not part of the debate itself, and so while you can choose one you can't prove it to be right.

Really though, this whole problem is solved if you just abandon ethics entirely. I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject of ethics and have yet to be persuaded that there's a good reason to uphold any system of ethics. The question is: why be ethical?

I personally believe in something called psychological egoism. This is a doctrine that says people do what they want, and nothing else. This is basically a tautology, because everything that you choose to do you choose to do for some reason, and the reason that you choose depends on the factors of your socialization and the forces that shaped your psyche. That removes us completely from the realm of right and wrong.

P.S.: I hope this isn't a threadjack. If it is feel free to set me right.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
have yet to be persuaded that there's a good reason to uphold any system of ethics


hmmm, how about civilized society? You can't maintain any sort of civilized society without an agreed upon system of acceptable behavior a.k.a. morals a.k.a. ethics.

Without a system of ethics in place it is impossible to maintain any sort of cohesive society. All members of a society must agree in principle to a pre-determined set of rules that all are expected to live by in order to maintain order and establish a productive civilization. Without this system of ethics, no society can exist. Anarchy is the result.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm all for eating children. With Chipotle mayonaisse and a big Kaiser roll. Besides that, well written, Brad, and perceptive as always. But who am I to say?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Quite right, MasonM, I too like civilized society quite a lot. There's all this stuff I enjoy about it, and so I am moved in my own interest to sustain that society. But not by ethics or morals. Enjoying something like society doesn't mean that society is right or wrong, or that acting so as to uphold society is right or wrong. Further, I've been socialized to enjoy certain behaviors and disapprove of others, but I'll get to that later.

You may have noticed that societies propound ethics. Think of it like societal evolution: those societies which fail to inculcate in their members a stance which upholds the society will not last very long. That's why you see a lot of societies with ethical system. They are the ones left standing.

So this socialization works well to sustain societies, but does that mean that there are things which are right and wrong? Not really. It mostly means that there are effective behaviors and ineffective behaviors, and societies enforce these behaviors with all manner of formative education.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
P.S.: Yummy children. Mmmmmmm. I like kaiser rolls, but prefer a horseradish sauce, lettuce, and tomatoes.
P.P.S: All rolls should be Amorosos rolls. If you are from the Philly area I know you will feel me here.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daniel, I'm afraid you completely missed the point.

There's all this stuff I enjoy about it, and so I am moved in my own interest to sustain that society. But not by ethics or morals.


A civilized society is impossible without a system of ethics in place. It is this system of ethics that makes a productive and civilized society possible in the first place. (Sociology 101)

Perhaps you should re-read what I stated earlier on the subject as a response to what you originally said about not seeing any reason to uphold a system of ethics.

I'm not sure if you didn't understand what I wrote, are being intentionally obtuse, or I just didn't state it clearly enough. I thought it was pretty clear, but then, hey, I could be wrong about that.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you want to broaden the definition of ethics so far as to make it completely meaningless, well, that's another debate. What I'm talking about, MasonM, is ethics meaning right and wrong. But that's not how societies work - they work by effective and ineffective.

I hold that civilized societies are in fact possible without ethics. I think that the term ethics is masking the reality of the situation, which is that people do what they want to do because that's all anyone does. If what they want to do falls under an ethical system, fine, call it ethical. My position is: right and wrong don't exist outside of the classifications of ethics. So when a society exists, it has certain mores, and these mores are like the genes of a society. They are propogated by the process of socialization, and if this fails to occur then the mores are lost, as is the society. If the mores aren't effective (i.e.; killing all children is the right thing to do) then the society fails because there's no one left in it.

So wrt what people want to do, this is informed by socialization and other factors of psychological formation. Calling the behavior that socialization encourages ethics is a misunderstanding of the concept, because what society propulgates is not right and wrong, but what works and what doesn't.

You said ". . .agreed upon system of acceptable behavior a.k.a. morals a.k.a. ethics." To be very clear, I am arguing said behavior is not ethical or moral, it's effective or ineffective. These aren't just different words for the same concepts. Right and wrong appeal to something beyond what works and what doesn't. There is no authority except the world as to whether something works or doesn't. So this isn't even a matter of relative versus absolute morality, it's sidestepping that whole issue.

To sum up, I hold that ethics is bunk, and that what people do is what they want to do and nothing else. An a posteriori justification for ethics is bunk, because right and wrong are inherently a priori issues. (A translation into actual English - you can't give as a reason for ethics that civilized societies are enjoyable, because ethics is not determined by enjoyment of the outcome, it's its own category.)


P.S.: Don't tell my I didn't understand what is posted. That I disagree with you doesn't make me stupid or ill-informed. Same goes for you - I don't think less of you because you disagree with me. Let's totally drop the personal aspect, because I don't care about it, and I like a good, clean debate more than personality conflicts.
P.P.S: I've had my Soc 101 and many others besides, though I am a Philosophy major.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
That I disagree with you doesn't make me stupid or ill-informed.


I couldn't agree more. I didn't intend to give that impression. I simply stated that it appeared to me that your response indicated that you failed to understand the point I was making. If you perceive this as some sort of personal attack, then you read more into the statement than was intended. The limitations of text-only I'm afraid. No personal attack was either voice nor intended.

You made a reference to "a system of ethics". This is what I was addressing. Perhaps our debate stems from how we define the word ethics?

ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession or society.

This is the definition, used by sociologists, that I am speaking of. "Right" and "wrong" are defined by the system of ethics utilized by a particular group, in this case, a society. It is the very set of rules upon which the society is founded, without which that society could not exist.

You stated that you saw no reason to uphold a system of ethics, and I used a civilized society as an example of a reason to uphold such a system of ethics. Any member of a society that does not abide by that societies ethics is, by definition, a criminal.

And while I also disagree that "right" and "wrong" do not exist objectively, that is an entirely different subject.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
On the main issues it apears we basically agree. So hey, cool! The rest of this post can be disregarded unless you have an interest in hashing out where our confusion came from. I think it's worthy to look at, and so I will. Follow along if you want, and I'll try not to be too personal about it. As for what I mistakenly perceived as a personal comment, I apologize. Something very similar to what you said was said in another thread, and I over reacted this time.

I'm curious, but when did you go to school? I'm not saying this to be offensive, but the discourse is radically different where I study, and I thought that maybe it isn't where you are so much as when you learned some of this. The discourse is now mostly post modernist. This changes the approach to cultures and societies. They are no longer viewed as civilized or not civilized, because this is a different value problem. Rules and standards are now refered to as mores and taboos and such, for the similar reason of not wanting to paint different practices as unethical.

So sociology tends not to deal too much with ethics anymore. It still deals with standards of behavior, of course.

I'm using the word ethics in the philosophical sense. There are many interpretations of it in this field, due to the nature of philosophy. I think I can argue pretty effectively that anything that is not "right and wrong" style a priori ethics is in fact psychological egoism at work, and if you want to get into that, I'd be happy to as well.

Oh, and I guess to look at
"Right" and "wrong" are defined by the system of ethics utilized by a particular group, in this case, a society. It is the very set of rules upon which the society is founded, without which that society could not exist.
I'd have to say that it's unlikey that you'll find much of a system to social mores. Most US societies are highly pluralistic, and so don't have simply one system, though they share many values.

At this point I'm just exploring, not really arguing. Maybe we'll both learn something!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
And while I also disagree that "right" and "wrong" do not exist objectively, that is an entirely different subject.


I don't think it is an entirely different subject, but yeah, that will probably come up quite a bit if we keep chatting. It's a metaethical concern, and should probably be part of the discourse, though it may be insoluable.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
How true that is. It reminds me of what some people say about religious beliefs, about each one having some truth to it. It's possible that only one belief is true while all others are wrong or all are wrong as well.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daniel;

As for what I mistakenly perceived as a personal comment, I apologize. Something very similar to what you said was said in another thread, and I over reacted this time.


I understand completely as some people do tend to reduce discussion to personal insults. I find that to be counter productive and demonstrative of a lack of intelliegent recourse.

The discourse is now mostly post modernist. This changes the approach to cultures and societies. They are no longer viewed as civilized or not civilized, because this is a different value problem. Rules and standards are now refered to as mores and taboos and such, for the similar reason of not wanting to paint different practices as unethical.


The terms "mores" and "taboos" are terms that have been in use for a long time. If one actually looks up the definitions of these terms as they apply to our discussion they, combined, basically mean "system of ethical standards". The post-modern difference is not in the terminology, but in the interpretaion and handling of the terms. I find that particular mentality to be somewhat absurd for the simple reason that it is an attempt to look at a grouping of "rules" that define what is considered "right" or "wrong" by a particular group while at the same time completely ignoring these concepts of "right" and "wrong" as invalid. I find that a bit unrealistic in the context of studying a social group, but I do understand that is the prevalent school of thought in universities today.

I'm curious, but when did you go to school?


This is a part of why we have differing viewpoints on this topic. I could tell by your view of the subject that you were a good deal younger than I, probably early twenties. I do not say this as a slight to you, it's just that people that age tend to be far more idealistic than realistic. Again, that is no insult, it's just a sociological and psychological truism. I first graduated college in 1984. I was a little older than most of my graduating class because I had enrolled in college after getting out of the military, so even then my world view was somewhat different than those of my college peers as I had far more real world experience than they had at that time. I'm sure from your perspective at this moment in time, that may seem to be a somewhat arrogant or condescending remark on the surface, but believe me when I say that your perspective of the world does change as idealistic theories are filtered through the lens of actual experience.

I say that I first graduated in 1984 because I have attended schools periodically throughout my adult life since that time. I am also something of a professional student, both formal and informal, as I am always studying and learning. I believe that stagnation is death, and that includes the mind.

On the main issues it apears we basically agree


True, although our definitions and applications of terminology differ somewhat. I am more of a science oriented person where you are a Philosophy major. I find that Philosophy deals far more with abstracts than science does, hence a differing school of thought. Nothing wrong with that, but it can make communication confusing at times hence our misunderstanding with regard to what we each refer to as "ethics". which means one thing to me, and something completely different to you.

I have truly enjoyed this discourse on the topic. You state you positions and ideas quite well, but I'm afraid we may both be guilty of hi-jacking Brads original thread. Sorry Brad, it was just such an interesting discussion I couldn't help myself.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"In my experience, when two parties disagree about some issue and have different versions of events, odds are that one of the parties accountings of events will be predominantly true and the other party's predominantly false."

"For instance, if party A believes that it is wrong for party B to kill their children and eat them as food in the service of their sun god, I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say that party B is in the wrong."

I think most people agree with the first quoted statement above. The reason they want to hear party B's side of the story is because party A might be hte one that is lying. You see this all of the time in politics. Bush said this! Kerry said that! In either situation, I don't trust the person making the claim and go read the transcript (if I can find it). In a lot of cases, the claim being made is factually true in that Bush or Kerry did say something, but misleading in that it is out of context or some other such thing. Sometimes the claim is dead on. Either case is important. I find that, in politics at least, there are very few people I trust to give me the full story or the straight facts. It could be that some party B member said "My wife and I are going to a picnic where we will eat some veal cutlet sandwiches and sit in the sun. We love sitting in the sun!" or some such thing which was distorted and rephrased (veal=baby cow which is just like baby humans, right!? And loving the sun obviously means they worship the sun, right?) until you get the quote listed above. Obviously, my example is crude and absurd, but so was the original quote:P

This is why I tend to want to hear the other side of the story. Often other facts come out or I find that the person making the claim is the one who is lying about the facts. Obviously, if you go to great pains to always tell the truth, and someone doesn't immediately trust you, it hurts. But someone who doesn't know you doesn't have enough information to just take your word for it...
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, Selene is a total troll. They oughta ban that IP address from posting.

Back to the fun stuff: So yeah, I'm not really prepared to debate the values of postmodernism. It's a whole movement, so it's a very broad term. I'd also agree that a lot of it is silly. But then, it has many persuasive arguments. Many many. One of the arguments that I find persuasive is that terms like "civilized" are basically colonialist residue. So chuck 'em out of the discourse, and it's more fair to everyone. But as I said, I can't argue for the framework, because I both don't want to bring things in that aren't here already, and because I am not that certain of it. That said, it has much less to do with idealism than you think, and much more to do about fair communication. If you've read another thread in which I've participated (the one about "legalizing prostitution") you'd see that I use non-gendered terms like sex workers. It's a matter of style, mostly.

I guess I also debate in the NW US, and that's informed my debate style, because the judges can be communists, and are at least firmly po-mo in their expectations of discourse.

Your guess about my age is spot on, by the way. I turned 21 yesterday.

OK! I'm done my total threadjack! When I get a chance I'll make a new thread about ethics and the validity thereof.