There seem to be plenty of cases where some seems to think it’s a perfectly sensible use of their time to be an activist in favour of law X, and other people think it’s a perfectly sensible use of their time to be an activist against law X. Same goes for politician Y or party Z. And people also seem inclined to donate money for/against law X / politician Y/party Z.
(In your lists, Effective Altruism, World Peace and Global Warming don’t fall under this pattern, but immigration, crime and maybe educational policy do)
Two possible explanation:
People are stupid, and pick causes for reasons that are very unrelated to how good they actually are → in this case, additional effort figuring out which causes are actually worthwhile seems much better.
People are actually acting out of self-interest, in order to give “their group” more power and prestige and influence as opposed to “their group”, in which case, it’s not irrational, but it’s also not really something that admirable either.
There’s also the combination, where hapless irrational activists are suckered into spending energy in support of something that is just some kind of power play by a group they’re not really part of.
Anyway, “read and learn” seems better both for figuring out which issues are worthy of support, and for figuring out how to better support those issues.
There are several ways to understand “people have different values”:
The easy case: Japanese people in Tokyo value each other more than they value Mexicans in Mexico, and vice-versa. This falls squarely in my second category. I don’t think there’s too much debate about whether those people “really” value each other that way.
The tougher case: some people claim to value, say, “freedom”, whereas others claim to value “marriage” or “respecting your elders” or “art” or “self-actualization” (and more complicated values). And often those differences will lead to political opposition, trying to pull laws one way or another.
BUT, I think that this is the wrong approach. Saying “our values are different” is a curiosity stopper, people should investigate whether they really have different values, or whether they just disagree about something empirical (like “does grading children help them learn in the long run?” or “which of social taboos around sex, or sex education is more effective at preventing unwanted teenage pregnancies?”), and people should spend more effort trying to resolve their differences and/or look for compromises that satisfy everybody, rather than taking sides and defending “their side”.
people should spend more effort trying to resolve their differences and/or look for compromises that satisfy everybody, rather than taking sides and defending “their side”.
Case in point. This a value judgement that not everybody shares.
Calling this a “value” does not clear things up here (I view the word “value” with suspicion, it’s a bit of a curiosity stopper).
If by that you mean a terminal value, then I don’t think humans really differ much in terms of terminal values (except when it comes to “I value myself, you value yourself”, etc.), though they may often act as if they did (i.e. consider their “enemies” to be mutants) - I think people (even here) are too quick to claim that their values are Terminal Values That Can’t Be Changed And Are Not Up For Discussion.
If you mean instrumental value, then maybe all people don’t share that value, but they should (because it indirectly helps them reach their other values), for roughly the same reason should cooperate on the prisoner’s dilemma with “others like them”.
Well, “stupid” in the broad sense (as in “all humans are stupid, not “muggles who haven’t been Enlighthented By Saint Eliezer are stupid”) - if two people have different information and come to different conclusions, and notice they disagree, they should still be able to try to share that information see if it makes them closer, rather than going “OMG you must be evil!!!”.
There seem to be plenty of cases where some seems to think it’s a perfectly sensible use of their time to be an activist in favour of law X, and other people think it’s a perfectly sensible use of their time to be an activist against law X. Same goes for politician Y or party Z. And people also seem inclined to donate money for/against law X / politician Y/party Z.
(In your lists, Effective Altruism, World Peace and Global Warming don’t fall under this pattern, but immigration, crime and maybe educational policy do)
Two possible explanation:
People are stupid, and pick causes for reasons that are very unrelated to how good they actually are → in this case, additional effort figuring out which causes are actually worthwhile seems much better.
People are actually acting out of self-interest, in order to give “their group” more power and prestige and influence as opposed to “their group”, in which case, it’s not irrational, but it’s also not really something that admirable either.
There’s also the combination, where hapless irrational activists are suckered into spending energy in support of something that is just some kind of power play by a group they’re not really part of.
Anyway, “read and learn” seems better both for figuring out which issues are worthy of support, and for figuring out how to better support those issues.
This ignores quite a few other possible explanations. The most obvious to me is that people have different values.
There are several ways to understand “people have different values”:
The easy case: Japanese people in Tokyo value each other more than they value Mexicans in Mexico, and vice-versa. This falls squarely in my second category. I don’t think there’s too much debate about whether those people “really” value each other that way.
The tougher case: some people claim to value, say, “freedom”, whereas others claim to value “marriage” or “respecting your elders” or “art” or “self-actualization” (and more complicated values). And often those differences will lead to political opposition, trying to pull laws one way or another.
BUT, I think that this is the wrong approach. Saying “our values are different” is a curiosity stopper, people should investigate whether they really have different values, or whether they just disagree about something empirical (like “does grading children help them learn in the long run?” or “which of social taboos around sex, or sex education is more effective at preventing unwanted teenage pregnancies?”), and people should spend more effort trying to resolve their differences and/or look for compromises that satisfy everybody, rather than taking sides and defending “their side”.
Case in point. This a value judgement that not everybody shares.
Calling this a “value” does not clear things up here (I view the word “value” with suspicion, it’s a bit of a curiosity stopper).
If by that you mean a terminal value, then I don’t think humans really differ much in terms of terminal values (except when it comes to “I value myself, you value yourself”, etc.), though they may often act as if they did (i.e. consider their “enemies” to be mutants) - I think people (even here) are too quick to claim that their values are Terminal Values That Can’t Be Changed And Are Not Up For Discussion.
If you mean instrumental value, then maybe all people don’t share that value, but they should (because it indirectly helps them reach their other values), for roughly the same reason should cooperate on the prisoner’s dilemma with “others like them”.
Why?
Another is that people have different information, which leads them to different conclusions. You don’t need to be stupid to be wrong.
Well, “stupid” in the broad sense (as in “all humans are stupid, not “muggles who haven’t been Enlighthented By Saint Eliezer are stupid”) - if two people have different information and come to different conclusions, and notice they disagree, they should still be able to try to share that information see if it makes them closer, rather than going “OMG you must be evil!!!”.