Ideological Diversity is not a Virtue

Thanks, Pro. My opponent's case is as follows: 1. Where multiple ideologies exist, only one may be correct2. An ideology which is incorrect cannot have moral worth and should not be valuedIn response to these contentions, I will be presenting the following refutations: 1. Pro's case relies on both singular objective truth and morality, both of which he must prove exist2. Even if singular objective truth and morality exist, diversity is still a virtue to be valued First, I contend that two different ideologies may both be correct simultaneously.Only one of these has to be true in order for Pro's first premise to be invalid. 1A. A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself and yet might be true, or wrong at the same time [1].1B. Differences in ideology may appear to be opposite, when in fact they might be complimentary. For example, the philosophical proposition of Determinism posits that all of our actions and choices are inevitable [2]. On the other hand, Free Will suggests that humans have the capacity to make choices that are not inevitable [3]. Compatibilism is the belief that Free Will and Determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent [4]. Compatabilism is widely accepted by many great thinkers in Philosophy. Some contradictions are the result of dualistic thinking that create apparent conflicts, whereas thinking about something in a non-dualistic manner allows for alternative possibilities and realities. 1C. Differences in stated ideology might be a matter of perspective, that is a different way of observing the same truth or reality. It could be mere equivocation or a matter of degree. For example, if I said "Joe is here" when Joe's car pulled up to the house, you might say "Joe is not here" yet neither one of us would be definitively right or wrong. I would be correct if here was understood as being on or close to the premises, whereas you would be correct if here was assumed to be in one's presence. Therefore, multiple ideologies (stated perspectives) might simultaneously be correct without contradiction, depending on the perspective of the observer making the statement. 1D. Morality cannot be observed in nature. It is a man-made concept that is perceived based on one's nature and nurture. One's genetics and experiences (culture) dictate their preferences and moral point of view. Kant argued that one's motives dictate moral righteousness; in other words a singular moral standard cannot exist. For instance, suppose Pro argues that lying is definitively immoral because it deceives people unjustly. Now suppose it is 1940 Poland and Nazi officers ask a Jewish person to identify their religion. If the Jewish person told the truth, they would be killed by the Nazi officer. Would lying in that instance be definitively immoral? Many similar analogies exist. But suppose Pro wants to argue that Kant's value of motive dictating righteousness in and of itself presents an objective standard of morality. That is problematic because it does not answer the is-ought problem in moral philosophy; that is it does not answer how one ought to behave [5]. For instance suppose one's motive is upholding the right to life and personhood. Now suppose I have to choose which side of the abortion debate to be on. People with opposite ideologies (pro-choice vs. pro-life) might disagree on the proper position, while both simultaneously claim to value the right to life. The pro-choice camp does not believe the fetus has the right to life, whereas the pro-life group does. Therefore both groups with opposite ideology can both uphold the correct motive (assuming that motive is correct) and still simply view the situation differently. One group believes a fetus qualifies as a person because it is human; the other group does not believe a human fetus has enough sentience to have the right to life. Again the value is the same even if the ideology is different. Now consider the pro-life camp favoring war in the Middle East. Is that consistent with their pro "life" morality? What about if they also support the death penalty? What about if they spend their money on luxuries, instead of donating it to those in need and saving other people's lives? Is their alleged value of the right to life somehow negated because it is not 100% consistent? In short, morality is subjective and/or a matter of perspective. 2. Regarding knowledge, it is often said the journey is more important than the destination. Some logical paradoxes are known to be invalid, but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking. Research shows that students benefit from the challenge of trying to solve the riddles and puzzles presented by paradoxes [6] which has been specifically useful in math and science [7]. In other words, even if one singular truth exists, there is still merit in the journey of trying to find the answer. Ergo there is still value in the diversity of opinion; there is an inherent value in the discussion, exploration and acquired knowledge, practice and experience gained by challenging different ideas and considering various outcomes - as opposed to simply being told what the right answer is. Furthermore, what is right at any given time might change. For instance something that is the best option in one scenario might not be the best option in another, thus it is all the more reason to value diversity and different approaches and outcomes to different problems. That way people are more informed and prepared on the best way to handle various situations regardless of circumstance. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://philpapers.org... [6] https://books.google.com... [7] http://connection.ebscohost.com...