This seems like a sensible post as far as it goes. You correctly point out that while several of these statements are technically true on their faces or in a certain sense, they are often used in a different way in order to shut down valuable engagement.
However, it does seem like you dismiss some of these statements way too easily.
I agree that sometimes you should "force" your views on the battlefield and say that people aren't entitled to opinions. But the overwhelming majority of the time, that's a bad idea. Citing nazis and aparthid are the brutal exceptions which prove the value of the rule. And some views are in fact so inconsequential or personal that they shouldn't be endlessly debated by moralists of any kind!
The question is how to distinguish what's worth arguing about, perhaps with a slight presumption towards "no" when someone asks you to stop.
I also respectfully disagree with your take of what Piers Morgan did in that clip comparing Truss and Churchill. While he might have inexcusably implied that the panelist throught Truss was *going* to be as good as Churchill, the comparison between the two was quite laughable if one has done a cursory inspection of why Churchill did well and how that situation compared to Truss. Drawing on the unique circumstances of Churchill shouldn't have caused anyone to update very much about Truss' chances.
Let me use an example:
1. I am young and have not really done anything of global importance
2. When Napoleon was my age, he had also not done anything of global importance
3. Therefore it's still posible that I become as great as Napoleon
This argument is technically true. Many things are "possible". And yet I think this is something worthy of derision. Making this argument shouldn't cause anyone to update on my chances of being as great as Napoleon, and the implication that I have the potential (above the ordinary) to be so great is baseless. So I have either made a trivial claim, or an unjustified one.
Now, if I added more facts, that could change. If I was the first American Samoan to graduate from west point in artillery and led cadets to victory in field exercises against experienced officers, like Napoleon supposedly did in school, then that would significantly increase my chances of being a great historical figure.
As for "we've been doing X for hundreds of years", I agree that this probably has no deep intrinsic moral relevance. At the same time, it can be a powerful functionalist argument, since longstanding practices are often longstanding because they work. Or because they socially entrench themselves. Or because its easy. Its not great, but it's not nothing.
Finally, hypocrisy. One again, you're *technically* right that hypocrisy doesn't have any effect on objective morality. At the same time, hypocrisy can be strong evidence that you shouldn't trust someone's moral arguments.
An easy example. Let's say an ethicist says you should buy Vaseline glasses, because they are super duper ethical. The ethicist also buys only Downsen glasses and refuses to invest in Vaseline stock. This seems like a good reason to discount what the ethicist is saying, particuliarly if you cannot check her ethical analysis yourself.
I'm not sure any of the stuff above reflects actual disagreement, but typing up my thoughts here was helpful for more fully understanding your article. Cheers.
On the comparison front, I think it's possible that I could've done a better job of clarifying. My position is not that all comparisons are valid. Of course there will be some comparisons that are inaccurate. However, if that happens, like in the Truss/Churchill example, we should be able to explain why. The correct response from Piers should've been "Well, Churchill went on to be successful for X reason, which doesn't apply to Truss".
Instead, he tried to shut down the whole project of comparing because of his admiration of Churchill and disapproval of Truss. He just felt like it was inappropriate to mention them in the same breath (I also think he was pandering).
To use your Napoleon example, if I wanted to explain why that comparison doesn't work, I should say "Well Napoleon had already achieved these things by your age, and you haven't, which means you're different" rather than saying "You can't compare yourself to Napoleon!". You can totally compare yourself to Napoleon. There will be some ways you're similar and some ways in which you aren't. If you're not similar in terms of potential, I should be able to explain why that particular comparison doesn't work.
This seems like a sensible post as far as it goes. You correctly point out that while several of these statements are technically true on their faces or in a certain sense, they are often used in a different way in order to shut down valuable engagement.
However, it does seem like you dismiss some of these statements way too easily.
I agree that sometimes you should "force" your views on the battlefield and say that people aren't entitled to opinions. But the overwhelming majority of the time, that's a bad idea. Citing nazis and aparthid are the brutal exceptions which prove the value of the rule. And some views are in fact so inconsequential or personal that they shouldn't be endlessly debated by moralists of any kind!
The question is how to distinguish what's worth arguing about, perhaps with a slight presumption towards "no" when someone asks you to stop.
I also respectfully disagree with your take of what Piers Morgan did in that clip comparing Truss and Churchill. While he might have inexcusably implied that the panelist throught Truss was *going* to be as good as Churchill, the comparison between the two was quite laughable if one has done a cursory inspection of why Churchill did well and how that situation compared to Truss. Drawing on the unique circumstances of Churchill shouldn't have caused anyone to update very much about Truss' chances.
Let me use an example:
1. I am young and have not really done anything of global importance
2. When Napoleon was my age, he had also not done anything of global importance
3. Therefore it's still posible that I become as great as Napoleon
This argument is technically true. Many things are "possible". And yet I think this is something worthy of derision. Making this argument shouldn't cause anyone to update on my chances of being as great as Napoleon, and the implication that I have the potential (above the ordinary) to be so great is baseless. So I have either made a trivial claim, or an unjustified one.
Now, if I added more facts, that could change. If I was the first American Samoan to graduate from west point in artillery and led cadets to victory in field exercises against experienced officers, like Napoleon supposedly did in school, then that would significantly increase my chances of being a great historical figure.
As for "we've been doing X for hundreds of years", I agree that this probably has no deep intrinsic moral relevance. At the same time, it can be a powerful functionalist argument, since longstanding practices are often longstanding because they work. Or because they socially entrench themselves. Or because its easy. Its not great, but it's not nothing.
Finally, hypocrisy. One again, you're *technically* right that hypocrisy doesn't have any effect on objective morality. At the same time, hypocrisy can be strong evidence that you shouldn't trust someone's moral arguments.
An easy example. Let's say an ethicist says you should buy Vaseline glasses, because they are super duper ethical. The ethicist also buys only Downsen glasses and refuses to invest in Vaseline stock. This seems like a good reason to discount what the ethicist is saying, particuliarly if you cannot check her ethical analysis yourself.
I'm not sure any of the stuff above reflects actual disagreement, but typing up my thoughts here was helpful for more fully understanding your article. Cheers.
On the comparison front, I think it's possible that I could've done a better job of clarifying. My position is not that all comparisons are valid. Of course there will be some comparisons that are inaccurate. However, if that happens, like in the Truss/Churchill example, we should be able to explain why. The correct response from Piers should've been "Well, Churchill went on to be successful for X reason, which doesn't apply to Truss".
Instead, he tried to shut down the whole project of comparing because of his admiration of Churchill and disapproval of Truss. He just felt like it was inappropriate to mention them in the same breath (I also think he was pandering).
To use your Napoleon example, if I wanted to explain why that comparison doesn't work, I should say "Well Napoleon had already achieved these things by your age, and you haven't, which means you're different" rather than saying "You can't compare yourself to Napoleon!". You can totally compare yourself to Napoleon. There will be some ways you're similar and some ways in which you aren't. If you're not similar in terms of potential, I should be able to explain why that particular comparison doesn't work.