I read the following article by Jesse Bering.
The Myth of Rational Debate
Bering asks:
Ask yourself if there are any empirical facts that would cause you to reconsider your stance on capital punishment.
No, I don't think so. It's true that I think some people are innately nasty. And this idea we lack free will, or that our essence is wholly a result of the environment, is complete confused nonsense. I even reject the idea that we are merely the result of our genes and environment — though of course they hugely affect our behaviour. So that would tend to make me approve of capital punishment.
But I kinda feel it's barbaric and repulsive and I'm averse to it. However, if there were an unmistakable deterrent effect, then I feel I should reluctantly approve of it. But inevitably, there will be those who are innocent who are executed. So that would be unbelievably awful. So I would be extremely reluctant to approve of it even if a significant deterrent effect were demonstrated.
Of course, the author is simply pointing out that virtually none of us change our minds regardless of the evidence. We rationalise away any contrary evidence or reasons opposing our beliefs. We dig our heels in, shun counter-evidence, read evidence supporting our beliefs and ignore and dismiss evidence opposing it. Especially with stuff like whether there's an afterlife or whatever. I've felt for literally decades that the rationality of most human beings is vastly overstated.
Also see my Capital Punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment