How to decide between conflicting opinions?

[fakename]

Opinions can be either right or wrong and when two persons disagree, I think that the opinion that probably implies less cost or more gain should be decisive.

However, what is the truth regarding this? If there was a way to know which opinion was true then we could decide questions better however this seems to invalidate the question in so much as knowing is not opining.

Perhaps we simply solve this problem as we solve any problem that has to do with an unsure moral option: probabilism?

Answers?

 

[davidv]

Opinions can be either right or wrong and when two persons disagree, I think that the opinion that probably implies less cost or more gain should be decisive.

However, what is the truth regarding this? If there was a way to know which opinion was true then we could decide questions better however this seems to invalidate the question in so much as knowing is not opining.

Perhaps we simply solve this problem as we solve any problem that has to do with an unsure moral option: probabilism?

Answers?

Why do you think cost or gain is the measure of truth (rightnesss) of an opinion?

In regards to what is true: What existing applicable standards apply? They are many moral circumstances where there is certainty as to the right choice. Probabilism only applies in the case of uncertainty.

 

[free_thinker]

I don’t think that an opinion can necessarily be right or wrong. It is an opinion after all. An opinion encompasses much more than someone’s feelings on something, it is a reflection of that person’s experiences, beliefs, taste, environment, and so on.

For example, two people can watch a movie. One person might love the movie, one person might think it is a bad movie. It’s all a matter of perspective. You might agree with one person over the other, but in the end can anyone really be right or wrong? I don’t think so at all.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Opinions can be either right or wrong and when two persons disagree,…

I don’t think you can demonstrate that this premise is correct.

 

[JRKH]

Mt 18:15-18…

Peace
James

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think that an opinion can necessarily be right or wrong. It is an opinion after all. An opinion encompasses much more than someone’s feelings on something, it is a reflection of that person’s experiences, beliefs, taste, environment, and so on.

For example, two people can watch a movie. One person might love the movie, one person might think it is a bad movie. It’s all a matter of perspective. You might agree with one person over the other, but in the end can anyone really be right or wrong? I don’t think so at all.

What do you mean by an opinion?

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think that an opinion can necessarily be right or wrong. It is an opinion after all. An opinion encompasses much more than someone’s feelings on something, it is a reflection of that person’s experiences, beliefs, taste, environment, and so on.

For example, two people can watch a movie. One person might love the movie, one person might think it is a bad movie. It’s all a matter of perspective. You might agree with one person over the other, but in the end can anyone really be right or wrong? I don’t think so at all.

You make a good point here.
The OP question is so open that it is rather difficult to give a definitive answer.

Of course the title of the thread indicates that these would be “opinions” that DO matter, unlike differing views on a movie. So if one assumes that these are different views/opinions on things of some import, then there does need to be a way to discern which is correct - or even if there are portions of each that are correct and portions incorrect.
That is why I posted Mt 18:15-18 earlier. The Church aids us greatly in discerning that which is correct in difficult matters.

Peace
James

 

[Eric_Hyom]

The greatest good solution to any moral problem must hang on the greatest commandments.

 

[fakename]

Why do you think cost or gain is the measure of truth (rightnesss) of an opinion?

In regards to what is true: What existing applicable standards apply? They are many moral circumstances where there is certainty as to the right choice. Probabilism only applies in the case of uncertainty.

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he says that rhetoric is about the probable and I believe that opinion is certainly a probable thing. Now rhetorical problems, he says, are solved not by demonstration or science but by cost-benefit analysis so on my interpretation I don’t so much look for the truth of an opinion but rather what I could lose or gain (and truth may be something that one could conceivably lose or gain too) by it.

Opinions are also uncertain and so probabilism seems to apply here as anywhere else.

As for the # of times a choice is certain or uncertain, it seems rather superfluous to tell since an opinion can be either certain or uncertain (though properly speaking it must be uncertain though accidentally it can be certainly held). IMO, most of life’s decisions are opinions since they are about complex particular events the content of which are clearly outside the province of the universal, that is outside the realm of knowing.

 

[fakename]

You make a good point here.
The OP question is so open that it is rather difficult to give a definitive answer.

Of course the title of the thread indicates that these would be “opinions” that DO matter, unlike differing views on a movie. So if one assumes that these are different views/opinions on things of some import, then there does need to be a way to discern which is correct - or even if there are portions of each that are correct and portions incorrect.
That is why I posted Mt 18:15-18 earlier. The Church aids us greatly in discerning that which is correct in difficult matters.

Peace
James

I just think that every opinion is either true or false. If I think star wars is a good movie, I believe I am saying something and every something must be either truly described or not (if it is to be known that is). Of course, that’s what makes aesthetics and poetics scientific in the first place; who ever heard of a science which says nothing either true or false?

 

[davidv]

In Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he says that rhetoric is about the probable and I believe that opinion is certainly a probable thing.

What meaning of rhetoric are you using in the above. It not clear how this applies to opinions and their truthfulness.

Now rhetorical problems, he says, are solved not by demonstration or science but by cost-benefit analysis so on my interpretation I don’t so much look for the truth of an opinion but rather what I could lose or gain (and truth may be something that one could conceivably lose or gain too) by it.

Which when applied to a moral problem is contrary to Church teaching. To paraphase; the ends do not justify the means.

Opinions are also uncertain and so probabilism seems to apply here as anywhere else.

As for the # of times a choice is certain or uncertain, it seems rather superfluous to tell since an opinion can be either certain or uncertain (though properly speaking it must be uncertain though accidentally it can be certainly held). IMO, most of life’s decisions are opinions since they are about complex particular events the content of which are clearly outside the province of the universal, that is outside the realm of knowing.

 

[Julia_Mae]

who ever heard of a science which says nothing either true or false?

Correct science doesn’t say things are true, though it occasionally says things are not true. It says things are observed, probable or possible. It explains the way things work (theory) in more or less accurate ways.

 

[JRKH]

I just think that every opinion is either true or false. If I think star wars is a good movie, I believe I am saying something and every something must be either truly described or not (if it is to be known that is). Of course, that’s what makes aesthetics and poetics scientific in the first place; who ever heard of a science which says nothing either true or false?

I come from years in manufacturing and quality assurance…What you write above is quite correct IF there is a mutually accepted set of standards by which the thing is measured.

To use your example of saying, “Star Wars is a good movie”.
OK - by what measure?
What is the criteria for saying it is a good movie?
Are the criteria measurable or subjective?

Box office? Storyline? Special effects? Lighting? Music?
Of these, the easiest to measure is “box office” while the rest are more subjective.

Of course once we impose a mutually agreed on set of measurable standards things become less opinion and more “fact” in how they meet or fail to meet the standards set.

So I guess that from this…the way to decide between conflicting opinions is to establish standards and specifications by which to judge various elements of the opinions in question. That way the opinions cease to be opinions and become facts.

Peace
James

 

[fakename]

What meaning of rhetoric are you using in the above. It not clear how this applies to opinions and their truthfulness.

Which when applied to a moral problem is contrary to Church teaching. To paraphase; the ends do not justify the means.

I always give the benefit of the doubt to Aristotle though. After all, so much of the Church’s natural knowledge seems based on Aristotle. Therefore I follow his authority even in The Rhetoric (though Aristotle has written some problematic things).

I think that Aristotle’s formula isn’t really a decision according to the “ends justifying the means.”

Aristotle simply says that for all both non-obviously wrong things (intrinsic evils which are evil by definition), and uncertain decisions we should use cost-benefit analysis.

So that’s okay.

 

[fakename]

I come from years in manufacturing and quality assurance…What you write above is quite correct IF there is a mutually accepted set of standards by which the thing is measured.

To use your example of saying, “Star Wars is a good movie”.
OK - by what measure?
What is the criteria for saying it is a good movie?
Are the criteria measurable or subjective?

Box office? Storyline? Special effects? Lighting? Music?
Of these, the easiest to measure is “box office” while the rest are more subjective.

Of course once we impose a mutually agreed on set of measurable standards things become less opinion and more “fact” in how they meet or fail to meet the standards set.

So I guess that from this…the way to decide between conflicting opinions is to establish standards and specifications by which to judge various elements of the opinions in question. That way the opinions cease to be opinions and become facts.

Peace
James

In productions for entertainment I think one can argue that the objective standard is how it affects the audience. If it is positive, then it is good entertainment. This is because a thing’s nature is especially found in its final end, and the end of entertainment is the amusement of the entertained. Also, the final end is nobler then the ends of the creators of entertainment; the person who knows the use of the ship is more the reason for its construction than he who knows how to build it. That’s a peripatetic argument.

However, my problem is that I consider most of life to be analogous to the problem of geometry. The science of geometry considers lines that are perfectly straight, and points which are perfectly indivisible. But a real existing point may be divided and a line which appears straight may actually be bent (note how people constantly walk in circles in the wilderness while they think they are walking straight).

Likewise in ethics, and epistemology. How do we know that the good action we are taking is not like the apparently straight line in geometry? That’s why I believe the more we act, the less we can bring universal knowledge to our aid, and the less we know, the more we opine. It seems that only faith keeps us believing we are either good or evil.

Of course, this idea of mine is liable to the objection that “If we are all opining then we are never really capable of mortal sin but only venial sin. Therefore no one goes to hell and indeed, how can anyone merit heaven if he did not fully and knowingly want it?”

Yet I cannot shake my above conviction (which is pure opinion anyways).

 

[JRKH]

In productions for entertainment I think one can argue that the objective standard is how it affects the audience. If it is positive, then it is good entertainment. This is because a thing’s nature is especially found in its final end, and the end of entertainment is the amusement of the entertained. Also, the final end is nobler then the ends of the creators of entertainment; the person who knows the use of the ship is more the reason for its construction than he who knows how to build it. That’s a peripatetic argument.

The above pretty much boils down to “Quality is determined by the customer”.
Now whether that is always a good thing or not……

However, my problem is that I consider most of life to be analogous to the problem of geometry. The science of geometry considers lines that are perfectly straight, and points which are perfectly indivisible. But a real existing point may be divided and a line which appears straight may actually be bent (note how people constantly walk in circles in the wilderness while they think they are walking straight).

Likewise in ethics, and epistemology. How do we know that the good action we are taking is not like the apparently straight line in geometry? That’s why I believe the more we act, the less we can bring universal knowledge to our aid, and the less we know, the more we opine. It seems that only faith keeps us believing we are either good or evil.

You are quite correct in recognizing that the reality of something (in time and space) is nearly always less perfect than the theoretical (Ideal). Your example of Geometry being a very good point. Yet - the ideal is what brings structure and aim and allows for correction. It provides the measure by which to assess the degree of perfection or imperfection in something.

Of course, this idea of mine is liable to the objection that “If we are all opining then we are never really capable of mortal sin but only venial sin. Therefore no one goes to hell and indeed, how can anyone merit heaven if he did not fully and knowingly want it?”

Yes you are quite right. However, if one pursues this course, one can wind up suffering from scruples and/or OCD. The Church recognized this and spoke to the matter.
The Catechism speaks to this matter in it’s discussion of sin:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
So - Where the “Ideal” is that we have full knowledge and complete consent, the practical application is that knowledge and consent are sufficient to know that it is sinful, and freely choose to do it.
The Church considers a child of 7 years old (in general) to be capable of the understandings and actions in the above quoted paragraph. It is for this reason that children of this age routinely make their first confession and first communion.

So one might ask… if a 7 year old can understand this, why is it that adults seem to struggle with it so much?

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

 

[Julia_Mae]

It seems that only faith keeps us believing we are either good or evil.

Then the faith is misplaced as we are certainly not good, Jesus has told us so. We are, IMO, not evil, either. We are beings of freewill capable, in normal circumstances of making choices.

Of course, this idea of mine is liable to the objection that "If we are all opining then we are never really capable of mortal sin but only venial sin.

But the opinion relative to the action is the true basis of moral decision-making. Intent is everything: do we intend the benefit to ourselves at the expense of another, or do we intend the benefit of another? Or do we intend some other thing?

Does it mater what is objectively most beneficial to whom? I say no. It matters, to God at any rate, what we intend by our actions.

 

[fakename]

The above pretty much boils down to “Quality is determined by the customer”.
Now whether that is always a good thing or not……

You are quite correct in recognizing that the reality of something (in time and space) is nearly always less perfect than the theoretical (Ideal). Your example of Geometry being a very good point. Yet - the ideal is what brings structure and aim and allows for correction. It provides the measure by which to assess the degree of perfection or imperfection in something.

Yes you are quite right. However, if one pursues this course, one can wind up suffering from scruples and/or OCD. The Church recognized this and spoke to the matter.
The Catechism speaks to this matter in it’s discussion of sin:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
So - Where the “Ideal” is that we have full knowledge and complete consent, the practical application is that knowledge and consent are sufficient to know that it is sinful, and freely choose to do it.
The Church considers a child of 7 years old (in general) to be capable of the understandings and actions in the above quoted paragraph. It is for this reason that children of this age routinely make their first confession and first communion.

So one might ask… if a 7 year old can understand this, why is it that adults seem to struggle with it so much?

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James

So you believe that only some amount of knowing is necessary for a mortal sin to exist?

 

[JRKH]

So you believe that only some amount of knowing is necessary for a mortal sin to exist?

I believe what the catechism (in the above quoted section) says.

I’m not sure what you mean by “only some amount of knowing”…

Peace
James

 

[edwest2]

Opinions can be either right or wrong and when two persons disagree, I think that the opinion that probably implies less cost or more gain should be decisive.

However, what is the truth regarding this? If there was a way to know which opinion was true then we could decide questions better however this seems to invalidate the question in so much as knowing is not opining.

Perhaps we simply solve this problem as we solve any problem that has to do with an unsure moral option: probabilism?

Answers?

Opinions don’t matter. The truth does. Please don’t listen to media lies that say it’s OK “to agree to disagree.” It’s irrational. Someone is wrong and someone is right. Period. Sure, on very rare occasion, you and I may find ourselves in a difficult situation where the choice is not obvious, but the last place to turn to is an internet forum.

If we are going to take life seriously then we need to consult with someone who knows what they are talking about. For Catholics, it’s the Catholic Church and her teachings, not some new, new, post-modern (whatever the heck that means) line of baloney. For most of us, life is not a series of “things that we’ve never encountered before.” For most of us, life is our daily routine - going to work, paying the bills, going to the supermarket, spending some time with family and friends, and with God in prayer.

When you know the right answer, there is no other right answer.

Peace,
Ed