Jump to content

MSC

Senior Members
  • Posts

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by MSC

  1. Well, value theory specifically is the foundation. More so than any named value... that said, the value of value is a metaethical discussion for another time 😆 Well yeah if that was the only piece of evidence. Although if it was the correspondence of the interviewer and them that said it, that's a little different. Let's assume though that if class was a protected characteristic, there are lawyers out there capable of proving it to a court and that it is indeed provable. Especially in this age of information. Personally, if I was an employee at a place that turned someone away for reasons like this; I would not commit perjury to protect an employer if it was a protected characteristic and the person filed a lawsuit. I doubt I'm alone in that regard. Successful suits have been brought forward and won in regards to most protected characteristics. Why would socioeconomic group be any different if it was explicitly a protected characteristic? Of course there will be a minimum threshold for convincing evidence; but I highly doubt it would ever be an impossible to achieve threshold. Not really sure what this means to be honest. Would you consider throwing out the word scale and replacing it with spectrum? Time for a shit joke! What did the deontologist say to the utilitarian? Your guess is as good as mine!
  2. Fair question: Quality of attire, dialect/accent, self disclosure based on specific interview questions eg: "Can you tell me of a time you overcome adversity or achieved something difficult?" or simply having a personal connection with the interviewer wherein they have knowledge of your circumstances from before you even applied. Admittedly it's not going to come up in the hiring process all the time. The point is it can and has before came up. The discussion revolves around determining what ought to happen when it does come up. The ignorant application was a good way to put it. What about pragmatic application within individual holistic review? You've hit the nail on the head with the central problem around defining poverty. At the moment I'm going with income and cost of living statistics relative to country and or region. As determined by research in socio-economics. In order to arrive at a definition of poverty. Access to resources and opportunity also comes into it. Do you think it also makes sense to discuss the causal powers of increased opportunity on poverty itself? What makes them think I'd want them in the first place? 🤣 would it be wrong of me to not hire them on principle? As for social status coming up in an interview situation; see my response to swansont. Good to talk to you again btw. thanks for joining in the discussion. Is the scale any good though? 😆 that may come off a tad reductio ad absurdem but a named value, can still have a value placed on it. We are all valuing agents and positive and negative values tend to be a fundamental tool within the moral toolkit. Agree to disagree? "Omg Andy! Did you see what that last person was wearing for their interview? So trashy. Bet they got it from Wal-Mart. It's a no from me!" - hypothetical office email as exhibit A of evidence in a hypothetical lawsuit claiming breach of a hypothetical law making it illegal to discriminate based on socioeconomic circumstances. Gained easily by an outside agency with a subpoena. And where did those values, principles, convictions and beliefs come from? Of the person's drafting the document I mean. Most cases probably. The same could be true of constitution writers too. The struggle is real 😆 ethics vs pure self-interest.
  3. A good question! Which I hope I can give a satisfying answer to. I can conclude this by assuming that the moral claims being made are being made in good faith. If I trust that both sides are being sincere in their belief that what they are claiming is a moral fact (whether or not I'd dispute it as a fact or not) I can conclude they are behaving as if they are moral objectivists. By taking them at their word, that they believe as such. This is where the idea of a personal fact comes in. Person X believes Y because they say they do. Whether or not Y is a fact, does not erase that person X believes Y, as a fact about person X. So when you tell me that you believe right and wrong are subjective values, I believe that you do believe that. You are the authority on you. There is probably a logical and physical explanation as to why this is your belief. What's the phrase in psychology? "Everything psychological is biological." In the same way there is a physical and logical explanation as to why I believe what I believe. I can't speak for your subconscious. So far you've given no indication that you are lying to me or yourself about your beliefs. So I think it is safe for me to assume for now that you are arguing in good faith. Why would race, gender, age, disability or sexuality rise to the level of superseding your rights, when socioeconomic class does not? Being born Into a certain socioeconomic class is as much out of my control as what skin colour I'll have. So what is the difference? My biases in this topic stem from being born into poverty myself; that is born into a family below the poverty line, as it is defined in my home country by my own government. How relevant would you say your socioeconomic class is to your point of view? Serious question, in no way meant to be insulting. But right and wrong are values. Ultimately there were decisions made about what a societies values were in order to draw up said constitution, for each society/culture. Those intercessions could be interpreted as moral disagreements over time with say founders and contemporaries, as new information comes to light... clumsily 😆 can't agree with you more on that note! Will respond more later; RL just got urgent.
  4. True facts, incorrect conclusion. Since most sides are still claiming their views to be correct, they are still behaving as if there is an objective measure. The diametrically opposed sides are still claiming one is right and the other is wrong. Still seems like objectivism behaviors to me. To reiterate; a small group of people claiming the earth is flat, wouldn't be evidence of physical subjectivism. Debate and disagreement in no way suggest that everything is subjective. Subjectivism is a really dangerous ideology in my honest opinion. Here's an example of why: Nazi: I ought to be allowed to put Jewish people into concentration camps. Who are you to tell me I am wrong if right and wrong are subjective? This is why I reject subjectivism. Can literally be used to justify anything. It's also impossible to make the claim that right and wrong are subjective, without that claim being made objectively. If right and wrong are subjective? Isn't that claim also subjective even though it's essentially being claimed to being the only objective claim we can make about values like right and wrong? I am. Your view is essential to the measure though. That's what context relativism is all about. It's an admission; I don't know everything, I can't know everything, a group of people can know more than one person can. We are all part of the human context, moral philosophy is also a part of this context. Some comparative psychologists may even go a step further and claim is part of the context of life in general. I believe there is a wisdom or lesson to be learned from every person. So again, why do you believe that morality and ethics are subjective? Do you truly believe that or is it a cop out to avoid directly saying anyone is right or wrong? Now, I'm not suggesting that everything is black and white. But it sure as shit ain't all grey either. There are enough moral views that if each one were a colour, we could paint a massive rainbow with them. Why not in private enterprise?
  5. I agree that answers may vary depending on who you ask. However, answers may vary for many questions depending on who you ask across all academic and scientific fields of inquiry. Yet we would not assume the laws of physics are subjective, just because some people believe the earth to be flat. They are just incorrect. For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming there is an objective measure of right and wrong. If you were to start a discussion thread on why you believe right and wrong are purely subjective; I'd be happy to discuss this with you more there. As it stands; we live in a society that behaves as if there is an objective measure of right and wrong. The evidence for this, is the fact that we attempt to write laws and policies governing peoples behavior towards each other. One of the reasons I take issue with how most people use the term subjective, in regards to ethics; is that most people misunderstand what moral relativism is. To be clear, relativism is not subjectivism. Some forms of relativism are. What determines whether or not it is objectivism or subjectivism, is what a particular form of relativism is saying right and wrong are relative to. For the purposes of this discussion we will be utilizing Context relativism. Context in this sense; means the factual situation at hand based on the verifiable aspects of all parties view points and experiences. So we look at the physical facts and the personal facts. Physical fact example: Being denied a job or place in a school, due to poverty, makes it harder for the person denied to escape poverty. Personal fact example: Zapatos believes/feels right and wrong are subjective. (My usual question now when people make that claim, is to ask them, why they believe that? Up to you whether or not you'd like to answer that to us here or just yourself.) Admittedly, my views on this can be a little hard to follow if you're not as well read in moral philosophy or epistemology. However I can assure you that I'm open to be asked to clarify anything that doesn't seem to make sense. I can't say for sure whether any of my views on this are correct, but when fully laid out they are at least coherent and pragmatic... or so I'm told 😆 The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not socioeconomic groups ought to be protected too. Should they be compelled to do so?
  6. Why or why not? Let's say I'm an employer or a decision maker for college admissions; I am legally bound to not discriminate based on race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, age, sexuality, parental status and in some places, pregnancy. What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me? What is to stop me from rejecting the college application of a poor person, based on prejudices I may have against the poor in general. Ought I to be penalized if I ultimately make a decision on who gets a job; on who was able to afford an expensive suit for an interview and looked more 'elite' than somebody that can only afford an ill fitting piece from a thrift store? Should there be some kind of affirmative action for those with a long family history of poverty? Does socioeconomic class provide any kind of reliable indicator of competency or work ethic? Assuming two candidates are the same in most other regards, race, gender, qualifications etc, and the only difference is one of them comes from wealth and the other is from a working class family, am I wrong to pick the rich one? Am I wrong to pick the poor one? Is some of the bias against one group, more justified than bias against the other?
  7. Well, when yer da sells Avon... 😆
  8. If nothing is alive, there are no tangible benefits or anything left to perceive anything as good or bad. As for your claim that value is non-existent, this is moral anti-realism. By this stance, even antinatalist values are non-existent. If we follow your logic to the letter, then we need to ask why we would care either way if life exists or not. For something to be absent value, it cannot be good or bad. Either would be a value. I've done a lot of research into antinatalism over the years and been in countless debates about it. Probably some of the most heated I've ever had to be honest. So I have quite a number of questions to throw at you. Firstly: is it possible to end all life everywhere and thereby elimate all negative and positive happenings a life form can experience? If you think yes, then how do you do so without becoming a Dr Who villain? Do you have a reality bomb handy there Davros? And can you guarantee that life won't start again after you and everything else are gone? Why would life have to justify it's existence to anyone or anything, when it does in fact already exist? Life just is. There is little to no choice in the matter. Speaking of choice, I'll tackle deontological and utilitarian versions of antinatalism here: To the deontological consent argument, yes I did not consent to be alive, but I also do not consent to being dead. While I have no choice in the former, I can take my life at anytime I please. Thereby consenting to latter and giving myself choice over the former. If you ask an animal if it wants to be alive, you'll get no answer you are able to make sense of. For the utilitarian argument against suffering; if I offered to rig a button attached to a device in your brain that could put you in a state of euphoria whenever you want, would you take it? If yes, why not advocate for that instead of taking on the herculean task of convincing all life everywhere, not to procreate? Or taking antinatalism to the extreme, the killing of all life everywhere? Since antinatalism tends to be a slippery slope that can quickly devolve into justification for murder, based on a value system held by a minority of people who may or may not lack objectivity based on the suffering of their own lives, we need to be really careful in assuming it's justification is self evident. It's not self evident. Neither is atheism. I'm agnostic because I prefer not to appeal to ignorance in favour of there being a God or not. I have a tangible deity. Meaning, I have something which I worship and live for. There is nothing supernatural about it. Just life. Particularly unborn life. My kids and descendants will judge me, so I live for them. In conclusion, it seems to me that your argument for antinatalism revolves around arguing against value theory, which antinatalism has to assume in order to justify itself in the first place. So it's a bit of a contradiction. "By my value system, values don't exist." At least, that is how it reads to me. If I'm wrong, feel free to clarify your position.
  9. Contextualists miss nothing. Onus is on you to be clearer in your communication. I've asked you to clarify multiple times. Can you link me to the literature that is currently inspiring you. I want to understand, however if you will do me the courtesy of reading back some of your own writing from a different perspective, you will find that you have contradicted yourself a few times and that there are a few terms you use that need to be better defined. I agree with the sentiment of this, however there is a diversity of modal qualities to every value expressed and clear conflicts of prioritization between values. Security/Freedom is one such conflict. There is also a diversity of thought in meta-ethical dialogical positions and reducing them to something simpler than that, eliminates the subtle but profound impacts of the differences in nuance has on the modal quality of values. That's the problem we have been addressing. Your reductionism isn't helping. If we cannot discuss diversity and how it relates to equality and equity, then we cannot have the discussion at all. This is about barriers to education. Now, you can express your view, but if you cannot recognize the influence concepts or social constructs and how others view and use them, have on the barriers to equal opportunity in education, then you are ignoring the majority of the problem. A few facts to keep this all on track. F1. Not everyone shares your view on how things are, or how they ought to be. F2. Bigots exist. F3. Bad faith decisions made by biased individuals on who does or does not get into a certain school, happen. F4. There are a few different degrees and types of discrimination, direct and indirect, conscious and subconsciously. F5. Some people believe diversity exists and has value in a number of different areas. F6. Public discourse does not take these concepts lightly. Conclusion: It is not pragmatic to take the fringe belief that diversity is the antithesis of equality and claims like that require proof. Especially since the concepts 'Equality and 'Diversity have uses in a multitude of different situations. Here, we are discussing equality of opportunity. Believing in the values of equality and diversity are not mutually exclusive. There is even a way to be pro-life and pro-choice based on pragmatic modalities of the underlying values involved.
  10. I see what you mean now. Maybe if you were more concise and not so intentionally ambiguous, there would be less shite in your word salads. Are you perchance a ghost? Because almost all of what you were saying, sounded like woo. It didn't really make much sense and was kind of hard to read because it sounds like you're trying to cultivate mystique and making fallacious appeals to science in an attempt to strengthen whatever it is you're trying to claim. Then there is this; Neurological, Genetic, Cultural and biological diversity are in no ways "subjective". It sounds to me like you're trying to abstract away from simply saying "I don't see colour or differences in peoples." Which I think is just you lying to yourself about having subconscious biases, because admitting you have them, would make you seem, in your eye's at least, less good or intelligent. You misunderstood completely when I said; Assume everything or assume nothing on a case by case basis. Meaning, upon examination of the objective context, which includes the individuals involved subjective beliefs, as it will factor into what is happening, in a given situation deduce whether or not discrimination is going on, and the type and degree of it. It's simpler but probably more appropriate meaning; consider all sides, empathise with and understand how and why different people may view the same situation differently. Give yourself the fullest view of a situation as you can, research it, double/triple check, be rigorous and accept that you fallible humanity will never lead you to a perfect answer. Just a best guess. (Unless it's the hard sciences of course. 9 is the perfect answer to what is the square root of 81.)
  11. So I saw a few comments I wanted to address; @dimreepr regarding the "benevolent" dictator, is there a specific historical example that you can think of that was definitely benevolent when they became dictator, and stayed that way? Conflicts between rights, like the right to good health and the right to freedom of movement have often been settled by the fact that all of our claims to rights, rely on the right to life and good health. There are moral grounds for medical professionals to subject people to medical treatments against their will. Conservatorship and stewarding for the mentally ill. I imagine there are probably many refusing vaccines who could be suffering from an environmentally caused form of panic disorder. If you are unconscious with a life threatening injury and next of kin cannot be found, chances are they will treat you up to and including life saving surgery. Without asking your permission, but assuming it. Only reason they would not, is if you had an official DNR order. I'm a little surprised the precedent for human rights in a pandemic has not been brought up. During the Spanish flu (H1N1 type a) of 1918, refusing to wear a mask in public, straight up got you arrested, in the USA at least. Can you imagine what they would have done with people refusing a vaccine for that, if they had one at the time? As it stands, 50,000,000+ worldwide died during the Spanish Flu. 5,000,000+ have currently died of covid, vs 50,000,000 whom have contracted it. The death toll of the Spanish flu in the USA, is around 200k lower than the current covid death toll. Now, the population of the USA has grown around 3 times as much, so by rate, the spanish flu killed a higher percentage of the population, yet the population at the time also lacked the potential to reach the sort of numbers we could see soon with the right mutations of the coronavirus with a far higher population. For me, it ultimately comes down to this, I can self isolate, get a vaccine, wear a mask, and can temporarily give up my freedom for the common good of all, a number of times in my life, but I can only die once. With death, the only thing I have close to rights then, is last rites. It's the end of freedom, health, marriage, owning a business and watching my daughter grow up. So people nutting up, vaxxing up and shutting up would be great. Or maybe we can just declare all the antivaxers mentally ill and just give them the vaccine whether they want it or not. Hey, it amounts to self harm if we just let them go out and get covid, plus biological assault of others. I think in some places, even pre-pandemic, you could get charged with assault for sneezing on someone. Especially if it is maliciously done, like spitting on someone. It's weird, even though nobody is eating each other, this stuff feels like a zombie apocalypse, the antivax crowd are pretty brainless.
  12. Firstly, by 'good' I mean conducts itself ethically. There are a few aspects to address with this question. Answers ought to take into account; 1. How this platform monetises and to what extent it does so? Does it just cover it's operating costs and staff man hours or does it make a profit? To extend this question, what does it do with this profit? 2. What does it do with users data? Does it have ads driven by the selling off of marketing data? Another question buried there, is who owns data pertaining to an internet user? The user or the data gatherer? 3. How does it manage moderation and censorship? Bare minimum adherence to the law or sets of guiding principles the users themselves have a hand in making? Those are just the two options based on opposite ends of a spectrum, I am not positing that as a binary choice. A programmer friend and I were discussing this at length the other day, neither of us believe any of the current platforms do enough to be ethical. Currently, I am grounding my perspective of the good, as that which is a net positive for life, biologically/psychologically. Feel free to critique that though. I get that rational meaning through conveyance, is a difficulty that most take for granted, so if I've not made sense at any point feel free to say. Happy to try to elaborate more when I see where people are at with this. I feel that if I don't address those 3 aspects of this question, then I won't be able to be certain of an answer to the main question. Thanks in advance, for any thoughts you contribute towards this discussion. The concerns which led me to this question, stem from the harmful consequences wrought by platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter etc. From screen addiction, to the spreading of misinformation and either a lack of justifiable censorship or over-censorship. I personally feel, that going forward, the discussion around this question is only going to get more prominent and that it is one we should all be asking ourselves and each other as much as we can. Optional homework: If you would prefer not to comment, I request that you have this discussion with at least two people you are comfortable with, then ask them to do the same. For those of you who would like to know moore about the original version and inspiration of this question... You just got a hint. If the hint was missed, The Heavy have a song titled after the question. Peace.
  13. I have to disagree with this claim. Not that this definition isn't the non-standard one, you're correct there. However, standard definition does not necessarily mean the correct definition, nor does it mean the only standard. Strict singular definitionalism is rejected not only by philosophers, but by the people that write the laypersons dictionary. Like most issues in ethics, it is rarely so cut and dry. I find that more often than not, whether or not any action is justified depends greatly on the context the action is happening in. Even when it comes to protected characteristics (which tend to vary based on local and national laws and policy) there are a number of contexts where most legal experts and ethicists will agree that discrimination based on even a protected characteristic, is in fact justified. Whether it's not letting any blind person, except for Mr LaForge, fly a commercial airliner.. Or any plane for that matter, telling a trans woman she cannot be your surrogate because she hasn't got a womb (differentiating between gender and biological sex + yes, Monty Python is awesome) a person with Parkinsons can't be a surgeon and a 5 year old cannot run for Congress. Those are a few examples off the top of my head but there are lots more I could use. The word 'Discrimination' does, can and ought to mean unjustified discrimination, except in the contexts where it does not. There is no other word for me to really use when I mean unjustified discrimination (bigotry doesn't tick all the boxes for me), yet at the same time, no other word for me to use when I mean justified discrimination, that make them both clearly distinct from the other. I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens. Your last line seems strange and I wonder if you can be convinced to shed more light on what you mean by it? Are you saying the inverse, absolute conformity is the epitome of equality? A virtue theorist could argue that if diversity is a collective virtue, it is the golden mean between absolute conformity and pure individuality. For the individual, this means individualisation for the purpose of bringing a broad range of skills, aptitudes and value to the collective. For the collective, this means conforming to a shared value of diversity, for the sake of our survival.
  14. Tell me something I don't know, or tell this to someone that doesn't know, makes no nevermind to me
  15. Is autistic, human? Doesn't feel like it to me. Feels like I'm an alien on a strange world where up is down, down is up, kindness is hatred and hatred is kindness.
  16. I have a legal right to request that all content contributed by me on this site, be removed, I revoke permission for its use. This is currently a request, but I can get legal aid and make this court issue if my rights are not respected.
  17. Shit.. I'm of sound mind then. My psychiatrist never inferred or declared me non compos mentis, but then I haven't seen him in two years and cannot get another currently.
  18. Are autistic people of sound mind? I looked up definition of sanity and it used the word normal. I'm not normal... That being said, who exactly is normal?
  19. I've yet to meet anyone with a sound mind and our species is careening towards environmental disaster. Are any of us of sound mind? My loved ones tell me I am of sound mind, everyone else treats me like I'm crazy. So is it permissable for me to kill myself?
  20. Pretty straightforward. Should killing yourself be morally acceptable as a right to choose?
  21. Psh, everyone is off-topic in this thread. Opened it up thinking I was going to get to discuss Hume, no takers. Everyone just wants to pile onto the 'crazy' person and ignore absolutely everything said in the OP like it just doesn't fucking matter at all. So what is the hole in my argument? You might as well just say what it is since no one is on topic here. So is anyone going to even try to stay on topic or address any of the OP seriously? Cuz it seems to me like it's just becoming a thread where people pile onto me, call me bitchy, tell me to write less, infer that I can't read etc. It's fucking sick. Just talk about the fucking subject matter I am sick to fucking death of having conversations where people seem to judge me for having fucking feelings. Just everyone fuck off if you're not going to read the OP and stop using me as your bully boy target. Just picking on disabled people at this point.
  22. No, I don't. It's a good point to make and I had a feeling you would make it. So I prepared an answer in advance. Affirmative action is not discrimination based on racial traits but a racial history of injustice. Although, I suppose you could argue for when the period of restitution and reparation should end? I don't know. If the inverse scenario had been true, and whites had been enslaved on mass and brought to Africa to work against their will, then todays affirmative action would be for the benefits of that white history of being victims of a great injustice. It isn't solely based on race. Your arguments didn't even strike me as eugenics, I would have said something if any of them had struck me as such. You made your point in that thread that your ultimate fears in regards to affirmative action, reside in overcompensation leading to a different kind of racism or unjust prejudice. What you didn't suggest, was that current and ongoing systems of inequality are justified based on inherent superiority of one groups genes over another. Eugenics lite, for lack of a better way to describe what I mean. I could try and expand more, but I'm going to make more of an effort to be more concise and to the point, as INow suggests. So I'll try to refrain and stick to a more casual flow of conversation. Results may vary...
  23. You mean just in the forum setting right? That isn't the only reason you might not be able to say something concisely. Depends on how complex and elaborate what you're talking about is. I barely write more than a small essays worth at a time. Maybe the mistake I make is thinking that just because I take the time to write it, others will put the same amount of time into reading it? The annoying thing about writing a book, is slow feedback. I don't really know how you put a decades worth of research into something concise enough to be short, sweet and simple. The closest I can get to that; reality and existence are complicated, it isn't short, it isn't simple or easily describable, that is the simplest truth there is. I'm a devil is in the details and nuance type. If people want something that can fit into a tweet or makes a nice sounding short quote for someones yearbook, that is not philosophy or ethics... Oh my, how the tables have turned. I sound like the older ones just saying that and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but despite my ignorance and rejection of it at the time, they were right... I'll take your advice though, that the forum venue is not the place for my windbag proclivities and that I am wasting my time writing at length when time to read is not something everyone has. That being said, be aware that your advice runs counter to others on this same forum, which is that I should expand more. Unless you think the criticism, that I write too much when I should write little, and too little when I should write more, would be a valid criticism to make of me? You can answer that honestly without fear of me snapping back you by the way. You've displayed to me, a level of linguistic precision that I envy, within the ethics threads. You are also direct and to the point. I can't believe I'm saying it, but I actually trust you to objectively critique my approach, as you've displayed a great deal of competency in your arguments for affirmative action. As we'd say in Scotland; go oan san, intellectually roast me mate! Gi me the fear.
  24. This is a good example of what we would call a white lie. When people are talking about lying, they are really only talking about one form of falsehood. It often ends up being a catch all term for all falsehoods. If you present what you believe to be the truth with a clear argument and justification for believing in that claim, by way of logical consistency and preferably evidence, you should not stay quiet about it or lie about it. To be clear though, just because you are not lying about what your belief is, does not mean you are not just wrong and engaging in a falsehood. However, if your argument runs the risk of being dangerously misconstrued, you have a duty to stay silent and be careful about who you are speaking to about it. Once you've said what you say, it is out there in the world and it is your epistemic responsibility to make sure it is not misinterpreted in a way where an outcome that you did not want comes to fruition. Like an argument being used to advocate violence against a group, or an argument that claims superiority of one group over another, which can be misconstrued as justification for said violence. If you believe you can make an argument for a moral claim and are confident it will not be misinterpreted to ill effect, then by all means speak it from the hilltops. Reality does not have to match your confidence however and you can still choose poorly. This is why Wittgenstein only released one book while he was alive and why he detested people taking notes of what he said in casual conversation. Words are dangerous. Talking about ethics, is very dangerous and is very high stakes. A lot of people do not appreciate or understand the gravity of this. It's one thing to be wrong when making claims about what the answer to a mathematical problem is, being wrong in ethics, can have some very far reaching consequences. Nietzsche for example is often greatly misunderstood and misinterpreted to ill effect for him and his readers.
  25. A thick concept description toward airing a grievance publicly if it is required. Or maybe people who bring lawsuits are just having a "bitch session" too? This is an example of throwing an eggshell onto the ground. If you find it tasteless for people to air their grievances in a public setting, then your issues are with natural responses towards perceived misuses of authority. Last time I tried to deal with this in a PM, I was banned. So maybe with a little empathy you can perhaps understand why I felt the need to make it public? Since it seemed like the only way to have a reasonable discussion where one side wasn't silenced completely. Just so you know, the issues have been resolved, in part because I aired them here. If you don't want me to take things personally, don't describe my behaviour as bitchy in anyway. I detest the use of thick concepts to describe peoples behaviour and if your desire is to NOT escalate things, don't use that word unless you are actually talking about a female dog. This is what I meant in my earlier comment when I asked if it was somehow distasteful for a man to display or admit to hurt feelings. To the point where you'd use the term 'bitch session' as a means to shame me into not breaking that cultural taboo again. Too bad, I'm a man, I have feelings, the only thing wrong about my sharing that publicly are peoples attitudes towards that act being so negative in the first place. Take out mating from that definition and you have broad eugenics. Who decides what is and isn't a desirable trait and is any desirable trait always a desirable trait? Advocating for selection criteria based solely upon inherited traits, internal or external, is eugenics. It's a slippery slope to be on, because if you can justify selecting who gets an education based solely on what one or a majority group of people decide is a desirable trait, then why not just go the whole nine and claim the genetically "inferior" should just be destroyed so they stop trying to get into school and demanding things like equality of opportunity? In philosophy and ethics, a lot of people get caught up in finding the right definition for a word, instead of the right definition within a certain context. A quick look at any dictionary will display clearly that few words have only one meaning. If it is a philosophy dictionary, that reality becomes even more apparent. This is a science forum, ethics is a social science. Like any other science, it has it's own vocabulary and definitions are relative to the context in which they are used. Linguistics is also a science and that too has theories which revolve around meaning of a word being relative to the context in which it is used. However, this should not be taken to mean that the meaning of a word is subjective and that we can use any word to mean anything whenever we want, that would be chaos. No, it has to make contextual sense. This includes the etymology of a word, it's past and current uses, the history behind the use of a word. The history of the theories of eugenics, does not end at selective mating, but using genetic criteria to be selective about everything, from who gets to have freedom, rights, opportunity, resources, everything. The question that I've yet to hear a eugenics advocate answer, from minor eugenics to extreme eugenics, who exactly decides what is and is not a desirable trait and what gives them the authority to make those judgements? This is the sort of thing I compulsively perseverate over. Using those words very specifically, compulsive and perseverate. That way people will maybe be open to the possibility that I take things personally because I cannot forget and it actually takes a lot of effort for me to just move on with no resolution to a problem. This is something most autistic people have a problem with. It doesn't make me bitchy nor does it make me a bad person. If people would remember that I do infact have an ASD diagnosis, maybe they'd understand why I communicate differently and also why selecting based on neurology is abhorrent to me, I don't know if you've ever come across an autism hate site, but people there regularly argue that people like me be aborted and go so far as to put out misinformation that autism can be cured by drinking bleach. Parents have actually believed this and tried to force feed bleach to autistic children. Ethical discussions, tend to be all eggshells. It's not always fun, it is not comfortable, these sorts of talks are difficult to have and even the best of us lose our heads. I stand by my categorization of VenusPrincesses claims as eugenics. I've also given them the opportunity to rephrase it since maybe they aren't aware of the history of eugenics nor it's different modal applications.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.