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 understand your point. Though I posit that people generally understand there are differences in taste in a way they don't understand differences in morality.
Be that as it may, my concern was more narrow, specifically that @PerseusWizardry will have a better time if he drops all of his moral questions. They are simply not questions that can be resolved through conversation or better data.
You've never changed your mind on a moral question, due to more information?
I'm racking my brain and coming up blank. As an adult I'm reasonably sure the answer is no. Have you?
Well, I'm rather young, so my "as an adult" timeframe is limited, and my memories aren't timestamped.
Maybe going from anti- to pro-sweatshop would count? I'm sure there are other specific examples. Does that count as a moral question?
For more overarching moral theory, I've become aware that there are decision-theoretical theorems that I would want whatever theory I embrace to manage to either agree with the conclusion, or disagree with the premises.
Yes, many of the questions are moral questions, but they are specific moral questions. You can point to things that could play relevant factors in their moral analysis, since we tend to moralize according to principles to some extent, it's not arbitrary.
For a lightning rod, let's look at one example he gave: “Abortion is morally permissible.” Pro
Here are some relevant questions that might affect your opinion in one way or another:
What normative ethical systems seem plausible enough to you that we should take them into account? What things might plausibly give humans moral value, under the way you think about ethical systems? How do you value animals? How do you value 3-day olds? The mentally ill? What do you think about population ethics (and, of course there are all sort of arguments there as to what systems within that make sense)? What about harms contributed to the mother? To the father? To society? Demographically, are we trending toward overpopulation or underpopulation? Aren't they cute? But don't you feel bad for that girl in Ohio? Is AI going to kill everyone before they live a proper life anyway? Might they have lasting souls? If Christianity's (or any other religion) right, will killing them send them to paradise? Or hell? What about rights—can they place an obligation for you to let them use your body, like the musician thought experiment? Do you share any guilt or praise for harms or, I suppose, benefits from differentially aborting groups that society could do better or worse with more of (see China's birth ratio)? And I'm sure there are many more.
All of these can affect your opinion on that issue, which means that arguments bringing up those features aren't useless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link