The idea of a missing mood, from following the link to Bryan Caplan’s article, seems to amount to two ideas:
“I think it has more costs than other people think, so even if someone thinks the benefits outweigh the costs, if they’re not taking the costs seriously enough, they have a missing mood.”
“I think it has more benefits than other people think, so even if someone thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, if they’re not taking the benefits seriously enough, they have a missing mood.”
These are, of course, two sides of the same coin and have the same problem: You’re assuming that the first half of your position (costs in case 1, benefits in case 2) is not only correct, but so obviously correct that nobody can reasonably disagree with it; if someone acts as they don’t believe it, there must be some other explanation. This is better than assuming your entire position is correct, but it’s still poor epistemic hygeine. For instance, both the military hawks example (case 1) and the immigration example (case 2) fail if your opponent doesn’t value non-Americans very much, so there are lower costs or benefits, respectively.
Beware of starting with disagreement and concluding insincerity.
The idea of a missing mood, from following the link to Bryan Caplan’s article, seems to amount to two ideas:
“I think it has more costs than other people think, so even if someone thinks the benefits outweigh the costs, if they’re not taking the costs seriously enough, they have a missing mood.”
“I think it has more benefits than other people think, so even if someone thinks the costs outweigh the benefits, if they’re not taking the benefits seriously enough, they have a missing mood.”
These are, of course, two sides of the same coin and have the same problem: You’re assuming that the first half of your position (costs in case 1, benefits in case 2) is not only correct, but so obviously correct that nobody can reasonably disagree with it; if someone acts as they don’t believe it, there must be some other explanation. This is better than assuming your entire position is correct, but it’s still poor epistemic hygeine. For instance, both the military hawks example (case 1) and the immigration example (case 2) fail if your opponent doesn’t value non-Americans very much, so there are lower costs or benefits, respectively.
Beware of starting with disagreement and concluding insincerity.