I have to wonder whether that approach is the legitimate way to de-priviledge it. Do you have any evidence to suggest that emotion is better than logic when it comes to making public policy decisions? I can name dozens of times when it was clearly a mistake, but I have a difficult time thinking of one area where it worked for the best.
I get the impression that people on the board are using "effective" in the sense of "made a good decision," not made the decision a specific person wanted them to make.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone on the board questions the fact that emotion can influence decision. We're questioning whether it should.
citing the Patriot Act doesn't aid your case.
I have to wonder how the legal realists account for the case where a man willed his income to the person who murdered him, and the courts upheld giving him the money -- even though they pointed out in their decision that it felt like the unjust choice. (This was before they passed laws prohibiting murderers from profiting from their crimes.)
How did I miss this little discussion? There is no law without language, no language without rhetoric, no rhetoric without emotion. The distinction between logic and emotion is largely a false one, and certainly so in the domain of the law or in any other social/political sphere.If Liberty won because of their superior use of emotion or rhetoric, then they won in the manner that all lawyers do.Down with logocentrism!
if I'm remembering my neurology classes correctly, there isn't a substantial overlap between the areas responsible for emotion and the ones responsible for mathematical logic.
Then how do you account for people who change their mind when they see the effects of their actions? Let's take, for example, the people who voted for Bush and are now giving him abysmal job approval ratings -- and saying that they wished they had voted for Kerry.
In public policy, people start with statistics. They're not always perfect, but they can give you the general picture.
I agree that there are [occasions when it is a false distinction. But there are other times when it clearly isn't. Let's take, for example, HIV/AIDS. We think that encouraging abstinence, monogamy, and -- "if you aren't going to abide by the first two" -- condoms is a good thing. However, by endorsing the idea that you don't need condoms with someone you trust, women are using birth control pills instead of condoms when they sleep with their boyfriends. As a result, rates of HIV/AIDS are skyrocketing among women, especially black women. It's why public health officials think that current AIDS prevention strategies are problematic, but virtually everyone else thinks they're good.
Actually, no. It takes a bit of introspective effort, but you can train yourself to detach emotionally from what you read, as well as to be aware of how words' connotations -- and how to restrain those judgmental tendencies until all the facts are in.
In my case, at least, emotion is much more positive than logic. I just can't get around how emotion doesn't lead to quantatively better public policy decisions, especially as it pertains to public health issues.
If that's the case, then they're using "respect" and "loyalty" in a sense that differs substantially from daily useage.
I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying it's not universal. Look at Peter Singer and his statements on infanticide. (He says that at an emotional level, he doesn't like his own argument, but that he can't fight with the logic. And so far, no other bioethicist has been able to either.) Look at mathematicians who study differential equations. Look at chemists playing with plastics.
Now you're just playing with words by ignoring the context (which is why I added the preceeding discussion back in) and misinterpreting how people are perceiving time. "Good decisions" are largely considered to be "good decisions" when the people who made them don't change their mind about the decision after the fact.
QuoteQuoteIn public policy, people start with statistics. They're not always perfect, but they can give you the general picture.Oh. My. Gosh. You sound as though you believe statistics are outside the realm of rhetoric.Now you're just putting words in my mouth, and in doing so, turn me into a strawman that I am not. And that's where I end the discussion. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it with someone who feels the need to resort to dressed-up logical fallacies at my expense. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you did it before, and clearly I was wrong in doing so.
QuoteIn public policy, people start with statistics. They're not always perfect, but they can give you the general picture.Oh. My. Gosh. You sound as though you believe statistics are outside the realm of rhetoric.
"You're talking as though there is a "good decision" that is somehow inherently good, outside of the arguments in its favor. How would you know it is good without talking about it (i.e., making arguments for and against it)?"
This is an excellent discussion to watch. I think that you would get to the kernel of your disagreement if you picked, and stuck to, one example and whittled it down to its essence. I rather wish you wouldn't, though, because it's fun to watch the range of arguments and cases being deployed.
Quote from: LitDocBut, for clarification, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I said, "You sound as though you believe..." -- no words in your mouth.Ah, so the person whose argument hinge upon upon words' unstated connotations is how relying exclusively upon a dictionary definition, and expecting us to ignore what the context was clearly indicating that he was trying to do? The word "hypocrite" jumps to mind.On the plus side, you have now reminded me why it's a bad idea to give anyone the benefit of the doubt.
But, for clarification, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I said, "You sound as though you believe..." -- no words in your mouth.