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'm friends with many people that I disagree with, including on this topic. I wrote that I'm not willing to extend a friendly welcome to the position, and I stick by that. As covered, I don't think it's a simple difference, but one of the worst, most immoral positions that is within the realm of normal beliefs in the United States. I'm fine with being friendly with people that hold very bad positions, but I am not inclined to dress up my opinion of the position in niceties. My reaction to is comparable to my reaction to someone saying that minor-attracted people should be allowed to satisfy their urges or that it's actually fine to rob someone if they have more money than you. I'm capable of having the discussion, but my reaction is that these positions really are just evil and need to be defeated.
So the idea that any killing is wrong is one you equate with thinking pedophilia is ok? That seems wildly skewed. I'm not a Christian let alone a Catholic but I think the position that killing is wrong is definitely morally defensible certainly an order of magnitude more than the idea that pedophilia is ok.
Why do you think it is so evil to not want to kill people? I can certainly understand from a utilitarian perspective that you might argue the benefits outweigh the costs for certain people, or that executing people might be the lesser of two evils, but why is not wanting to do it literally evil in and of itself?
Generally I find your views very understandable (even if I don't always agree with them) but I am honestly somewhat surprised and confused that you hold such an absolute position on this that NOT wanting to kill people is itself evil.
I don't know. I was trying to write up a coherent response, but I think @ControlsFreak did it better below than what I was accomplishing. My reaction to it is as innate as it is against pedophilia (which is not to say that the two positions are equally bad, just that it seems equally obvious to me). This is absolutely not a utilitarian position and a contrary utilitarian argument wouldn't change my mind even a little bit.
If you don't know then that is the only answer you can give.
I know pacifist Quakers who do literally believe all killing is wrong. I don't agree with them, but I do understand their position and I don't think I would call them evil, though I do think their position can lead to negative outcomes (if you have to kill someone in self-defence/defence of others, not doing so is probably net negative in my view).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But not as, like, a rational, 'seeking Truth' sense of "morally defensible", right? I had thought that somewhere between here and here we shed the concept that moral concepts were rationally defensible, determinable, etc. in some sort of objective way, and it was instead just people's emotions/feelings/vibes. So when you ask:
you're actually asking, from your meta-ethical perspective, something like, "Why is three green?" You have completely hidden first principles that make your question incoherent and impossible to answer. That really undercuts what I think is an implied argument from incredulity, where one asks what is merely a difficult question from a position of first-impression skepticism, being open to a plausible answer and interpreting a lack of a complete and convincing answer as evidence against the position. No, your prior meta-ethical position is such that this question is impossible to answer, either for or against, because you actually think (when pressed) that your own question is an incoherent one. You're not asking it to rationally grow closer to some truth of the matter.
...or have you changed your mind, and you now think that there is some sort of concept of "evil in and of itself"? If so, what would that concept be?
Are we revisiting this again? I am asking why he thinks this is evil based upon whatever HIS moral intuitions/precepts/constructions. Just because I don't share them doesn't mean I can't understand them in other people.
I know people who believe all killing is wrong and I understand why they do and why they think that position is good. @Walterodim thinks (I believe) that someone who believes all killing is wrong is evil and I am trying to see what drives that belief from HIS perspective.
My moral positions don't have a bearing here because I don't share either his moral position or theirs, but I can understand theirs and am now trying to understand his. I am asking him essentially to explain in his meta-ethical perspective (as you put it) why he thinks this. The answer may be he doesn't know, which is a fine answer.
If someone tells you three is green, then asking them to explain why is three green is a reasonable question for which they may or may not have an answer. It just is, is a reasonable answer, as is because God said so, or because (insert 500 words about synethesia). But without asking the question I don't know if i will get an answer that helps me understand that person better or not.
You can understand someones meta-ethical system without having to share it. I am not asking to get closer to THE truth I am asking to get closer to understanding HIS truth. Because he is regular poster I get quite a lot of value out of reading.
I'm missing anything in here about how the concept "evil in and of itself" is a coherent thing for you to say or to request. I'm missing anything about what it means for something to be "morally defensible", and whether or not that involves concepts like being rationally defensible, determinable, etc. As such, I still do not even know how to parse your original comment, and nothing in your latest comment helps me in any way to do so.
I didn't invoke your object-level moral positions. I invoked your meta-ethical positions and demonstrated how they undermined the very language you used in constructing your position and questions. Note that you did invoke your own moral positions with "That seems wildly skewed" and "I think the position that killing is wrong is definitely morally defensible certainly an order of magnitude more than the idea that pedophilia is ok". You're not JAQing off here ("Just Asking Questions"); you're making an argument, but it's incoherent given your meta-ethical positions.
He didn't say that three is green. He said something else. You have the position that results in your question being akin to asking him to show that three is green, with the implied result being that if he can't make it "defensible" according to what appears to be an incoherent concept of "defensible", then his position must be wrong.
Because once again HE said it was evil. Thus HE has some definition of evil. Whether I have one or not doesn't matter. I am asking HIM to tell me about his definition of evil. I am really confused about how you seem not to get this point.
As to the rest, again my point is I think if you asked the average person if supporting pedophilia was morally similar to being against people being killed I think most would not equate those two views.
I am not making any argument about whether his position is right or wrong. I am saying I can't currently understand it, and asking him to explain. Which he has said he cannot do as it is just something he feels. I accept that as a coherent answer.
You always seem to be reading these as weird gotchas or that I am trying to prove people wrong. Simply read my posts and assume I am trying to understand here and things will make a lot more sense. I don't care if he is right or wrong, I care somewhat about trying to understand a mindset I do not currently understand. I like @Walterodim and think he is an excellent poster. I think his position is out of step with most people, but that is nothing new here on the Motte, and it is possible I am wrong about that.
He said that he thought it was evil. You asked him to show why it was "evil in and of itself", which is different than simply saying that he thinks it's evil. That's a question at the level of essences.
I'm missing anything about what it means for something to be "morally defensible", and whether or not that involves concepts like being rationally defensible, determinable, etc.
I don't really care either. I care whether or not you're actually acting consistently with your professed meta-ethical beliefs or whether they're just strategically-claimed.
In and of itself within his framework. And he could have answered no. Its not an accusation, its an exploration. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. But I can't know unless I ask.
There are a couple of issues here, one is that you think my philosophical underpinnings come in to play in surface level questions. Most of my surface level positions are entirely normie, even if my reasonings are not. You can't actually determine if i am holding my beliefs honestly or not from the vast majority of the questions I ask because I simply use the mundane, normal language I use talking to anyone. I am not constructing my questions, as if I am in an academic setting.
And secondly, why would it matter? Whatever the intentions behind my beliefs the question, it stands or falls on its own. If I accuse someone of lying, or have questions about their beliefs, then my meta-ethical beliefs have no impact on the truth of my accusation or the usefulness of the question. Play the ball not the man so to speak.
I'll reiterate again, the vast majority of people (including me, and it seems Walterodim) are not always constructing every single question, discussion or stance based upon first principles. I am certain some of my positions are inconsistent because of that. I have not interrogated every single one. So that they are inconsistent would not be evidence of whether I hold my positions strategically or not. Just that I like most people (as near as I can tell) are not perfect reasoning machines.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link