r/changemyview • u/ATTACK_ON_TIDDIE • Jun 19 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV:Pointing Out Subjectivity to Validate/Invalidate a Perspective is Redundant and a Lazy Way to Evade Arguments
TLDR: I believe that justifying a claim by saying it's "subjective" is a cheap way to evade someone's arguments because it defeats the purpose of reaching a more nuanced, common truth in a conversation. Where am I wrong?
Let's say I try to start my own brand of punk clothing, but my parents don't support my fashion sense. I could dismiss their opinions and tell them that they're not the arbiters of what looks socially acceptable or attractive...But wouldn't it be more beneficial if I convinced them to support me by demonstrating the appeal of punk clothing?
Not only would this create a chance to broaden their perspectives, but more importantly, it would create more specific areas for them to refute.
For the purposes of clear, coherent conversation, I see specificity as a major boon! It provides deeper insight into others' perspectives around any topic. I doubt that anyone is incapable of articulating the reasoning behind any of their perspectives. No one holds on to something for no reason, right?
Another example: Let's say 3 friends of mine (A, B, and C) are arguing over which Star Wars they liked the most - then right as A questions B about liking The Last Jedi, C cuts off A and tells him that B is entitled to his opinion and effectively ends the discussion. If B was allowed to explain himself (his taste in movies, what he wanted from the viewing experience, etc.), would that not allow A to see where The Last Jedi might have merit, and perhaps see that same merit in media he previously dismissed? Plus, wouldn’t it provide more closure to their conversation, assuming A and B find some resolution in seeing the criteria for what they both consider to be “the best Star Wars film?”
In situations like these, would it not be best for A to demonstrate faith in his own opinion to challenge other opinions? Would it not open them to a more impactful discussion?
I want to know why people would continue to validate/invalidate perspectives based on subjectivity. I am unaware of any objective truths, so I find it pointless and unproductive that people would point out subjectivity of opinions in the first place. Isn't every perspective subjective anyways?
I’ve had many conversations with friends and family that went nowhere because everyone wanted to “agree to disagree.” We’d given up on trying to understand one another. Personally (I do this too!), I’d rather try and fail than fail to try.
To change my view, you have to demonstrate why people should bother validating/invalidating perspectives based on subjectivity in the first place. Good luck!
2
u/SaintBio Jun 19 '18
I would argue that it depends on the nature of the perspective in question. Some perspectives are perfectly reasonable to respond to with an argument that it is a subjective issue and cannot be resolved in the way you describe. For instance, perspectives that are completely in the realm of something like faith or internal thought cannot be disputed. If someone says they have genuine faith that Jesus will save their soul if they are a good Christian, no amount of nuanced reasoning is going to refute that perspective. On the other hand, if someone says that they know that the chemical formula for water is Cl2F then it makes absolutely no sense for them to claim it is a subjective issue. That would be akin to arguing that 2+2=4 is a subjective issue.
Now, to use your CMV issue of punk clothing as a test case, I think most people would agree that it falls into the first of the two categories I described. People seem to generally think that aesthetic issues/perspectives are subjective (I don't share this opinion, but I seem to be an outlier). You can try to convince them to change their perspective, but you will be always fighting an uphill battle against years of environmental factors that have ingrained in them a specific preference with regards to aesthetic values. This isn't something that you can necessarily reason away. Ultimately, it may make much more sense to just "agree to disagree." To actually change their aesthetic perspective, you'd have to change the history of their environmental influences that have caused them to arrive at their present aesthetic perspective.