> Not meaning this in a combative fashion, but why is only what you think right in this case?
The law of noncontradiction: to believe X is necessarily to believe they the belief in not-X is incorrect. One may believe it is right to tolerate or accommodate the incorrect belief, but that's not the same as viewing it as correct.
> The law of non-contradiction is valid for mathematics and propositional logic, not politics and ethics.
The law of noncontradiction is valid everywhere. One can have a meta-ethical view (which would apply to politics insofar as that depends on ethics) that ethical propositions are neither true nor false but simply subjectively preferred behavior or subjectively opposed behavior, but then one wouldn't actually believe any subordinate ethical proposition to be true; noncontradiction would still hold just fine.
But lots of people believe that ethical propositions can be true or false even if they accept some area of preference, and anyone who believes a particular ethical proposition is true must also believe that any contradictory position (the simplest case of which is simple negation) is false.
If you accept 'areas of preference' don't you also accept that other positions, even those in direct conflict with your own, are not necessarily wrong or false, but could simply be different?
> If you accept 'areas of preference' don't you also accept that other positions, even those in direct conflict with your own, are not necessarily wrong or false, but could simply be different?
If you accept areas of preference, then your beliefs in those areas are not of the form ‘X is right’ or ‘X is wrong’ but ‘X is my preference’ or ‘X is not my preference’. A statement about someone else's preference in that area does not conflict with yours even if the preferences differs (‘A prefers X’ does not contradict ‘B prefers not-X’.) Any statement of universal truth by a third party in the area of preference conflicts with the belief that it is validly an area of preference, OTOH, and cannot simultaneously be viewed as anything but incorrect while believing the area to be validly one of preference.
And as far as the law is concerned. The only “ethics” that the government should legislate are behaviors that infringe on someone else’s liberty/property/rights.
If someone feels that drug abuse is “unethical” shouldn’t matter as long as the drug addict is not breaking into your home or otherwise causing you harm.
I think ethics do (or should) play a part in large areas of politics, e.g. taxation, healthcare, foreign policy, criminal justice sanctions, et.c. Governments should legislate based on more than economics alone.
I agree but the war on drugs and deciding that someone should be convicted for using or buying drugs is based solely on someone’s personal belief about what someone else should do with their own body.
Yes, and we should wary of anyone who proposes to forcfully enslave others for simply excersizing their liberty to consume drugs w/o a permit from a prescriber.
The law of noncontradiction: to believe X is necessarily to believe they the belief in not-X is incorrect. One may believe it is right to tolerate or accommodate the incorrect belief, but that's not the same as viewing it as correct.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction