PHIL 347 Week 8 Discussion including Responses; When the People You Love Dont Think Like You

Week 8 Discussion: When the People You Love Don’t Think Like You Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, pick one point of view from the five questions above that you find particularly repugnant – one that you think is completely unjustifiable. If you were in conversation with such a person, how could you ethically respond to the statement of such a point of view? Keep in mind that you are expressing a value opinion, which requires ideological reasoning, so you may want to review Chapter 13. As you form your response, keep in mind the following; these are things you need to think about but not necessarily to write about in your initial post: Reflect if you are using System-1 or System-2 thinking? Are your responses tinged with cognitive bias? Do you think there is a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman? Do you think there is a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust? Follow-Up Post Instructions Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification. Answer: This week, we were asked to take into consideration five significant social views. Of the five, the one I found particularly repugnant is, “How about someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate change?” Most of the other opinions somewhat make sense due to the fact they cannot be justified with facts as much as this one. For someone to assume that humans have no impact on the conditions that cause climate change would be inappropriate. Despite finding the idea repugnant, I would still respectfully listen to the judgements and evidence used to support the opinion. According to the text, strong critical thinkers seek to discover the basis of the ethical disagreement instead of calling the person a fool or an evil person (Facione, 2016). If I were to be in a conversation with someone who thinks humans have no impact on climate change, I would very likely propose facts rather than use my own opinions. For example, I would say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world, have concluded that there is more than a 95% chance that human activities over the past 50 years have attributed to the constant warmth of the planet (NASA, 2020). In addition to approaching the argument with facts, I would attempt to find a way for the disagreement to be solved in a way where both interests are fulfilled. Lastly, as Facione states, I would respond to a disagreement like this wit