[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I don't think this is a matter of failure to identify biases, it's a matter of taking the view that certain principles lead to better results in general, and so should be adopted as a matter of general policy. I am open to being convinced that those principles should be replaced as you suggest (I think it'd be easier to persuade me in an individual case than as a general proposition but I won't rule it out).

Better results is a matter of perspective though, isn't it? Liberalism has left plenty of casualties in its wake over the last few centuries.

I do think that the only thing I'm absolutist about (and maybe not wholly absolutist but for all practical purposes we might as well assume so) is the necessity of freedom of expression of ideas. It seems to me that in the absence of our ability to resolve disputes on any issue by talking them through, we're going to end up resolving disputes on that issue through violence. There isn't a third option. So to the extent the discussion makes someone uncomfortable, well, the alternative is uniformly worse.

Right, but at some point you're going to reach intransigence on virtually any topic. There are still people in the world who believe that slavery is completely acceptable and are going to be unmoved by virtually any argument to the contrary. At some point you have to take a stand on what is an acceptable viewpoint in your society and what isn't. We're not going to reopen the slavery debate on university campuses just so we can give an audience to dissenting viewpoints.

I don't know that I'd call it biased; I think there's a self-awareness to the application of these principles that you're operating on the premise that they're applicable in the current context. I guess you could say I'm biased in that I'm probably going to fall back on classical liberal principles as a default, so if that's what you mean, sure, I'd have to agree.

That's precisely what I meant. In any discussion on values and their priorities, you're likely going to agree with whatever aligns closest to your preexisting liberal views. We've been brought up to believe in the supremacy of liberalism and individualism, and very rarely been exposed to the damage caused by these ideologies

Well, it seems to me that if there is an instance where rights-based doctrine produces conclusions that make practical sense, then let's use rights-based doctrine; if there are reasons for looking through a different prism in a particular context that are convincing let's go that way.

But your opinion of what makes practical sense is going to be framed by which values your prioritize. There is very rarely an objective practical sense when we're speaking about abstract values.