For me, better is what produces more of what you judge are favourable outcomes.
How do you determine if outcomes are more favorable without factual analysis?
If factual accuracy was important to human well being, we wouldn't have evolved so many cognitive functions that severely limit our ability to perceive things in a factually accurate manner.
We evolved to be significantly irrational in our cognition, or if you prefer only partly and intermittently rational.
That is a rather strange argument. That we are not creatures of pure Vulcan intellect is not a reason to abandon a goal of being as factually accurate in our understanding of the world as possible.
Human rights aren't based on factual accuracy. They are as made up as goblins and unicorns.
They are "made up" in the sense that all ideological constructs are "made up," sure. Numbers are "made up" in that sense. Logic is "made up" in that sense. Language is "made up" in that sense. That's rather obviously different, though, than the assertion that a magical equine exists that has a horn with supernatural healing powers.
That value preferences are subjective is not a demonstration that liberalism is
contrary to factual accuracy. Every political ideology on earth contains value judgments. Your statement was that a political ideology premise on being as factually accurate as possible would "not at all" resemble liberalism. A discussion of values doesn't demonstrate this.
They developed out of religious principles in the first place and when you remove these religious roots it is basically someone just pointing to something and saying 'we all have a right to that'.
Your initial premise is highly questionable: human rights in the modern sense are a product of our steady
loosening of religion from its hold over society. They are products of secularism.
And even if you were correct, just because we slap a religious pretext over some value doesn't give it any more intellectual or moral weight. We are still talking about people, "pointing to something and saying 'we have a right to that'." (Cf. the divine right of kings). And at the end of the day it is still up to us humans to decide whether we want a society based on xyz principles or not. And frankly, I'm quite glad I live in a secular society.
Saying 'my ideology is better than white supremacism' may be true, but it is true because you perceive it produces better outcomes, not because it is any more 'true' or 'accurate'.
Incorrect. White supremacy is based on manifestly false claims that the white race is actually superior to others- genetically, intellectually, and so forth. So from my perspective, it is a faulty worldview as a result. And because it is based on bull****, it leads to unnecessary suffering (ie "unfavorable outcomes").
Humans, just like all other species of animal, don't exist in any real sense as an abstract common group such as 'Humanity'.
Another odd claim. Do you suppose you and I have nothing more biologically in common than my cat and I do? If we do in fact have more in common, then it's perfectly factual to give our commonalities a label. The label is simply a description of the underlying fact of our commonality.
There is no factual reason to prefer a larger inclusive grouping over a smaller inclusive grouping.
Are you joking? There are millenia-worth of reasons to prefer such a thing. Tribalism has led to endless war, competition over resources, and so forth. Engaging in broader-scale cooperation with larger groups of people is a demonstrably, obviously good (ie beneficial) thing.
Any group that exists beyond the personal level is just a fictional construct anyway.
This is a weird use of the word "fictional." If I have a bunch of apples in my basket, and I describe that bunch as, you know, a bunch, that description isn't "fictional." Yes, technically the
word and the
concept are human inventions, but the inventions are simply ways to describe the reality of what is actually there, ie the apples in my basket. So describing a human group as a group is not "fictional," any more than describing you as an individual is.
None of care that much for factual accuracy, some people just think they do because they mistake their ideological preferences for objective rationality.
Strange, I never knew you claimed to be a psychic. What number am I thinking of?
We all care about what makes us feel good and that we find emotionally satisfying, a world without myths would be a most miserable place indeed.
Some of us recognize that what makes us feel good is not always what is true, and comforting falsehoods are dangerous things that can lead us to make profoundly stupid, selfish decisions that do not actually benefit us or other people in the long-term.