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 know. You just run into places in these discussions where you're clearly in need of a common touchstone, even if we can't get back.
True. But, practically, internal dissension seems more relevant than the inability to get the entire human race to agree. Nobody in America is overly bothered by the fact that Saudis have a different moral code.
Although the balance has shifted with how connected we are.
This is the majority of philosophers btw. I personally don't take a strong stance on metaethics (another way to put it is that I'm too lazy to read enough to formulate one and always puts it off) but that always gives me pause here. What many people find very unintuitive is the consensus position.
It doesn't disprove the "narrow is the path and few find it" argument if even otherwise healthy people have issues that require correction imo. Seems like it does the opposite.
The standard for any treatment (or social convention for that matter) has never been that it's 100% successful.
I actually think that's part of the problem: society is constantly being overturned in the name of smaller and smaller minorities until we hit one where the tradeoffs for doing so are actually serious and visible.
The situation before the general pullback, where public cachet was redistributed to a small number of people who would likely be even smaller given healthy puberty, combined with credulous diagnosing and taboos against "conversion therapy" seems totally backwards.
I meant it in the broader sense. I suppose what the Greeks would call eudaimonia and now philosophers translate as "human flourishing", to avoid exactly these problems.
And I suppose that's a coherent personal position. However, society clearly has certain standards for medical treatment.
Yes, it would be better if everyone was given accurate information on blockers. But that's not the only medical ethic. It seems like we have some pretty high standards for things like amputations which is precisely why exuberant claims were made about the necessity of transition to save a child's life. Even my opponents have implicitly yielded the point: the goal is not short-term gender euphoria in exchange for things we know tend to give people meaning like the ability to experience sexual pleasure and have children or not suffer side-effects from cross-sex hormones.
It's to literally save lives and improve human flourishing. It is not like your own personal decision to spend $3 on a lottery ticket (which costs you almost nothing and doesn't require any medical professional to be complicit).
Maybe that's what I see myself as doing, but for society.
The arguments against a lot of TRA claims and medical practices to help them are usually on pragmatic grounds.
I've done my best to explore what drives philosophers to endorse objective morality, and found all their arguments lacking. It would help if the people who believed in objective morality could agree with each other on what it looked like, but alas.
I belong to the most oppressed minority of all,
gamers, individuals. It doesn't get any smaller than that.I also strongly value personal liberty. It's far from my only consideration, but it is a powerful one. The same arguments, namely paternalism, thinking that you can't allow such far-fetched thinking, would also restrict me.
I'm willing to support people in their quest for personal liberty, even if I think they're misguided, for the same reason that you want the right to free speech to cover heinous kinds as well. Nobody needs to have speech that's popular and favored protected by law.
Society isn't actually a monolithic entity (I'm not claiming that you're saying this, you appear to appreciate nuance). It's made of individuals, and some of them, like medical professionals or regulators, have disproportionate influence.
As the former, if not the latter, I consider it my duty to explain my views. At the absolute very least, I'm painfully self-consistent, and many of my opponents (the average philosopher, for example) aren't. There's plenty of vagueness and moral gray in that field, let alone when it becomes political.
It is certainly not consistent. As @RovScam helpfully illustrates in his own comment, it is trivial to consider an isomorphic example where almost nobody would consider it their business to interfere if the patient, their parents and the treating physicians were all on board.
Modus ponens, modus tollens. I've addressed the specific example of elective limb amputation before. To summarize, if the person was otherwise sane (or at least had capacity), couldn't be dissuaded despite plenty of effort, found a surgeon willing to help, and could afford it, then I see that as entirely fine. I wouldn't like to pay for it with my taxes, there are better things to waste them on.
Young teens make many life changing decisions with uncertain payoffs. Opting for a less conventional field of scholarship might be one.
"We know that leaving school at 11 and then tilling the fields leads to a satisfying and happy life, why bother with the stress and expense of uni".
If someone is busy sacrificing their ability to party with friends in high school in exchange for grinding for med school, what of it? They'd definitely be getting more sexual pleasure in the short term, and likely have more kids if they didn't have to finish residency.
The issue is that the people you're trying to look out for vehemently disagree on what counts as human flourishing. They certainly don't appreciate your attempts to dictate what they should choose, even if you good intentions.
If money is the biggest factor, then I have little objection to saying such procedures shouldn't be paid for by the public, any more than breast implants or a boob job typically are. I say typically for a reason, because someone who had a mastectomy for cancer might qualify.
The core of this is that meme:
"I consent." Says a distressed young child. "I consent." Says their worried but loving parents, and some doctor making sure they're ticking the consent boxes. "I don't-" Says someone whose consent seems entirely unnecessary to me, at least when they're not paying for this.
As a matter of such longstanding custom or clear law that it can easily be said to be "society's" position.
If we lived in a libertarian world where people were expected to take on all of the costs of a procedure and balance the risks themselves I think your personal take would be coherent for society to adopt.
In practice, neither of those things may be the case. Society collectively pays for a bunch of services and we insist on rigorous epistemic and ethical standards even when people might willingly take the risk. Even the people arguing for the specific case we're discussing pay deference to that expectation.
I think this status quo has a lot to recommend it but, even if I could be convinced it should change, I'd like to know why this topic (given how I feel about the object-level issue) should motivate that change.
tl;dr: They can have it when I have the same easy access to steroids.
The consequences of majoring in programming right now with AI is unclear. The consequences of lopping of your limb are.
We seem to think that matters, which is why one involves far more ethical requirements.
I'm not sure they actually do though?
The argument for gender affirming care has always been that it will reduce things like suicide rates and suicide ideation and the comorbidities associated with trans identification and thus it functions as medicine, as it's commonly understood. The controversy is about whether gender affirming care achieves some broad definition of human flourishing but the general goal it should be achieving if it is effective medicine (and a brief, heroin-like moment of bliss doesn't count) doesn't seem to be controversial.
The whole emotional blackmail line of "dead son or live daughter" has this assumption built in.
If it turns out that the evidence isn't good for this then their case falls apart by its own standards.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link