Bias equals wrong

Post Reply New Topic

Lol!

Suppose he was objectively right for being biased in favor of whatever....?

ruveyn

Then he'd be objectively right, requiring his opposition to resort to character assassination in order to attempt to discredit him.

The ends do not justify the means. A decision reached by a flawed process is inherently flawed.

In administrative law, if a tribunal gives a person subject to the tribunal to have a reasonable apprehension of bias, then that suffices to compel the replacement of the tribunal. Even if the tribunal arrived at an otherwise sound decision, the failure of procedural fairness is fatal to the decision.

Now, obviously the standards of public law do not necessarily apply to other fora, but if we are to suggest that a person is, "objectively right," then we must examine the issue free from that person's bias. Which rather reinforces the idea that bias is fatal to objective decision making.

If the ends be just than any means are permissible. Or even if they are not permissible once the end is reached the argument is over. Morality (which is what you are invoking) is opinion, not fax. Morality is doxa, not logos. Morality is someone's opinion on what is right or wrong. And we all know what opinions are. Opinions are like the rectum. Everybody has at least one.

Facts and brute force rule. Opinions are dreck.

ruveyn

But if the means are unfair, the end cannot ever be just, because justice will not be seen to have been done.



I have invoked nothing of the sort. My analogy is drawn from law, which is, if anything, an entirely amoral creation.

I agree that morality is inherently personal, and for precisely that reason I strive never to seek to impose my morality on any other individual.

However, ethics and law give rise to principles of general application, of which audi alteram partem is but one.