Author: Rob Smith

This thread is not intended to argue against the value of more objectively based political decision making.Rather it assumes the positive value of such in terms of increased likelihood of progressing towards humanist goals.

I'm seeking to explore how far objectively based political decision can go and what it looks like when we get near one edge of "objectively based". I'm doing this in part because of the many examples I see of people over-estimating the lengths to which a particular approach can be effectively applied. (See D:Religion for examples of atheism and belief in scientific knowledge being pushed far beyond the reasonable boundaries.)

The issue I'm using is how we make decisions about which humanist value we prioritize when there are competing values.

Here is an article that draws attention to possible problems that can arise if we say, prioritize "happiness" over "desire". "Opinion: My New Vagina Won’t Make Me Happy"

The author makes a strong case for these being different things. Even opposed things in her case.

How do others here see such a contradiction being resolved using "more objectively based" political decision making approaches? Do others see any tension existing?

 B&B orig: 2/15/19