This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think I misunderstand forms.
The central cases of formal causes are, geometric proofs right? I'm saying that since 134981765480 and 134981765481 are mathematically distinct, a rudder made out 134981765480 atoms is formally distinct from a rudder made out of 134981765481 atoms. If you abstract and zoom in just a little, everything can be framed as a form. Material differences become differences in electron shells with formal electrodynamic implications.
Any 'human truth' that disregards this difference is really just a 'human heuristic' that evolved for a reason.
is "I care about this change because it's formally different" the real, base reason for any belief? Why is "this" formal shift one we care about and not the 134981765480 atoms to 134981765481 atoms formal shift. This isn't a trick question. In the case of rudders it's clear that these changes in form don't change the ability to steer. It's clear that formal changes that affect the implications relating to crossing the ocean on this vessel, are the aspects of form we care about, and are the aspects of form we simplify our description of these objects to. For Zygotes I expect there is also a real and valid answer. I would just like to find that answer. Final causes seem more suited to give me the sort of answer that I'm expecting than formal causes.
Nothing is stagnant, microforms are always changing. Not all microformal changes matter, many get glossed over in our language on purpose. I can see why this formal shift is crucial to the reproductive cycle such that it merits it's own name. 'Conception' is a perfectly cromulent name. But this isn't an explaination of why this formal shift is more sacred than the formal shift from other structures to sperm or the formal shift that produces eggs or the formal shifts in the 'distance from sperm to egg geometric relation'.
You don't need to justify anything to me. You can just value what you value. But I think these values are historically subsequent to zygotes being an investment. As zygotes become less of an investment and more copyable I suspect ethics will evolve to value them less.
I don't think I agree with that. They have different materials. I would say they both share the form of a rudder. The material is not the form. Maybe this image helps clarify?
Well, we are talking about human morality here, and why a human understands one situation to be moral and another not to be moral.
Maybe try to apply it to something else, like the difference between a bullet in the chamber and a bullet two inches from your brain. It's like you're saying, "both situations are different forms of space-time, so why would one have moral significance from another?" But that would be generalizing out past the point of morality. Morality lies in the interplay between ideas and substances, not on the level of string vibrations where all is equal.
If you look at the situation rightly, you would recognize that a bullet heading towards your brain has a significance that a bullet in a chamber does not. And likewise, if you look at the difference between gametes and zygotes, you will see the difference of moral significance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link