saving the world, writing my thesis, etc.
i'm going to post this now because i want the feedback, even though it's not as complete as it could be. i may flesh it out as time goes on and if people want clarification.
note: i make some potentially broad and unsupported claims, such as that it's a myth that we're in iraq to spread democracy. because i'm only using these claims for the sake ( Read more... )
note: i make some potentially broad and unsupported claims, such as that it's a myth that we're in iraq to spread democracy. because i'm only using these claims for the sake ( Read more... )
hm. yes, you are right about this. there are a lot of instances where cognitive dissonance can have undesirable results, such as your abortion example. (undesirable in my view, much of the time; i'm not saying abortion is always good, or that i can even know it's moral validity for sure.) however, i do think that there are times when the emotional appeal would be very helpful. but you are right that it is not always as black and white as i was painting it.
Second, if you're not careful, it's easy to come off as wildly patronizing towards just about everybody who disagrees with you about just about anything. Saying "Everybody would agree with me if they were properly educated" is both unconvincing and insulting.
i think i understand what you think that i am saying. for example, i could argue that if only people were properly educated about factory farming, they'd realize their grave moral error and become vegetarian. except, i don't think this is actually true. i think that they need a combination of education and a lack of cognitive dissonance for their behavior to really be affected. or are you saying that i'm arguing that everyone (or, perhaps, every "good" person) would agree with me if they both were properly educated and lacked cognitive dissonance? i kind of personally believe this, but this is mostly because i'm a judgmental bastard. regardless of whether or not people agree with my personal moral opinions, the more important factor is this:
as people, especially as people in a certain culture, we share certain beliefs about what is "moral" or "immoral." i happen to believe that most people in our culture are normally empathetic toward animals and would not cage them up in small quarters with little veterinary care without feeling guilty about it. whether this is actually true or not is irrelevant, because i'm sure there are other practices which most people in our culture would agree is immoral. and i'm also quite sure that most people in our culture indirectly contribute to said practices on a day-to-day life, but employ cognitive dissonance so as to not feel guilty about it.
so it's about whether or not people disagree with me, but about whether or not people following their moral compass when they have more information and when they lack cognitive dissonance about the type of issues i've been talking about. and i happen to believe that, in most cases, they would either follow their moral compasses or feel guilty/angry/sad for not following their moral compasses.
The last thing to be careful about is that your thesis is virtually unfalsifiable.
i don't think my thesis would be "we can save the world if we eliminate cognitive dissonance." if nothing else, it's too broad. i was mostly using this as a brainstorming entry to get started on thinking about thesis topics. but yeah, your point is well taken that anything along those lines is virtually unfalsifiable, sans some magical new research in psychology. i will have to come up with something much more creative and interesting. i'll post ideas as i come up with them, in a separate comment.
Are there people who disagree with your claims?
well, lepid0ptera seems to disagree with me.
Can you rebut them?
i don't know, give me 20-30 minutes :)
Reply
Leave a comment