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 -
So would you accept an outcome where it is never publicly revealed that the Mona Lisa was destroyed, a very convincing forgery is put on display in it's place, and everything continues on as before, with the broader public none the wiser?
People are still, presumably, getting the same benefits from what they believe is the actual Mona Lisa.
It sounds like, morally speaking, this is what you think SHOULD be done to prevent all those dust specks from hitting people's eyes.
No, because I think blissful ignorance is a flaw in utilitarianism and people only benefit here because of blissful ignorance.
It's not a flaw so much so as utilitarianism never claiming to provide omniscience.
If there are deontologists keenly feeling a disturbance in the Force, as a billion art aficionados cry out in pain, then I've yet to meet them.
More options
Context Copy link
So what is the moral harm in the lie, if we assume we cannot un-burn the Mona Lisa?
I will grant for this conversation that we'd prefer the Mona Lisa not be destroyed. But once it is done, you are not in favor of avoiding further harm that would result from people knowing it was destroyed?
Because once it's gone, no amount of money can retrieve it, nor will punishing the parties who destroyed it bring it back.
So what possible benefit is there to publicizing the fact of it's destruction?
Because then people would know the truth. I can't stress enough how unimpressive arguments for noble lies always seem from the outside. The truth makes a powerful enemy and you are forever committed to opposing it once you justify lying. There are some toy examples like the Nazis at the door while you harbor a Jewish family you know they'll kill where lying is worth it but that's using lying as a weapon to fight an enemy you're too cowardly or unable to use more lethal weapons against, it is not a lie that you are deploying on your own people.
I do not consent to reality being fabricated around me because some people I dislike think it is the best for me. These people are my enemies.
That poses the question on the other end, though, if destroying the Mona Lisa was worth it if it serves to expose the ignoble lie that Miles, and not Andi, was the one who created the Billion-dollar company.
You should therefore, at least, empathize with Helen's position where she was literally standing there watching people fabricate a reality around her which wasn't even the best for her in any way. A bunch of enemies conspiring to fool everyone else in order to keep their status quo.
This seems like the ultimate issue with the "torture vs. dust specks" comparison, though. Which principles are we committed enough to that we could justify destroying a priceless cultural artifact? Destroying the artifact causes small discomfort to millions or billions, but not destroying it leaves one person in extreme despair.
If the argument is that we should never destroy cultural artifacts then okay... but does that mean it is okay to allow thieves and murderers to lie their way out of punishment, and to maintain fabulous wealth in exchange for such a principle?
I have not watched this movie so I can't comment on this.
Sure, if that was happening I oppose those people.
The question of whether it's worth it to destroy an artifact for some unit of utility and the question of whether it's justifiable to lie about it to mitigate that utility loss are very different. I don't have a strong opinion on what someone would need to trade the Mona Lisa for in order for it to be reasonable. Consulting the market value of the Mona Lisa($900 Million at last sale but probably much more) and givewell's estimate at the cost of saving a marginal life $4-20k seems like quite a few lives if one were to naively do the math, not that I think that is a very good idea but it's the kind of maneuver you commit yourself to when you try to base everything in the utilitarian arguments. And it's totally useless at comparing something not so easily quantified like the value of truth to a society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're analyzing it using utilitarianism containing the very flaw I pointed out.
The harm is caused by the Mona Lisa being destroyed. Telling people makes them aware of the harm. The fact that people are more upset when they know of it than when they don't doesn't mean that letting them know about it caused the harm, and counting it as though it did is a flaw in utilitarianism.
How?
I'm confused as to what actual loss is sustained by the burning of the Mona Lisa vs. some piece of random art that was not world famous.
Because the main reason the Mona Lisa is important is because of it's fame/notoriety to other people.
And that fame/notoriety isn't diminished by it's destruction.
People value the existence of the Mona Lisa. Destroying it destroys something which people value.
It is a flaw in utilitarianism that utilitarianism fails to count people's preferences being frustrated as a loss when they don't know that their preferences have been frustrated.
It's not a flaw so much so as utilitarianism never claiming to provide omniscience.
If there are deontologists keenly feeling a disturbance in the Force, as a billion art aficionados cry out in pain, then I've yet to meet them.
More options
Context Copy link
Unless I'm mistaken you're directly invoking a utilitarian argument for why the Mona Lisa has value.
Because people could, in theory, value the copy of the Mona Lisa just as much as the original... if they don't know it is a copy.
Else, from whence could the value come?
If the value is based on the fact that people value it, this gets to my point that replacing it with a copy prevents the actual harm in question.
You seem to be tying the whole situation to how much 'good' people experience due to the existence of the Mona Lisa, and that sounds like Utilitarianism to me.
Deontology would be "It is bad to destroy rare works of art in all cases."
Virtue Ethics would be something like "Good people don't destroy cultural artifacts."
Your ethical basis is, what?
The "they don't know if it's a copy" part is where utilitarianism breaks down. Utilitarianism can't handle situations where people want X, but falsely believe that X. According to utilitarianism, making them falsely believe X is just as good as X being true.
If the Mona Lisa has been destroyed, the belief "the Mona Lisa exists" is a false belief, and the "benefit" from that false belief shouldn't count as benefit. (And taking away the "benefit" shouldn't count as harm.) Utilitarianism would count it.
Unless there would be an immense amount of disutility created from either people believing X, or from them eventually finding out X is false.
I think there are situations where lies are harmless, even if later discovered.
The utilitarian calculation need not rest on the assumption that the lie will remain intact indefinitely.
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
More options
Context Copy link