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 -
If Alice tortured Bob until he begged for death, then handed him a gun, I would think we agree that Alice murdered Bob; you can stop reading now if we don't.
If Alice hired Carol to torture Bob, with Alice only handing him the gun, I'd think we still agree.
Taking a third leap: Carol, of her own accord, tortures Bob. She gives Donald a gun and tells him that Bob will kill himself if he gets it. Donald chooses to give Bob the gun.
We could then swap out Carol for an uncaring universe and torture for suicidal depression.
I expect we differ either on whether Donald is a murderer, or whether we can make the analogy, and I'm curious about your reasoning either way.
If you deny somebody their free will entirely, and then give back a tiny bit of it, only enough to kill themselves and thus escape further torture - it's not an exercise of a free will. There's torture involved. Just as "your wallet or your life" is not exercise of free choice. If Alice tortured Bob, until he begged for death, then Bob got hold of a gun, shot Alice, escaped the torture chamber, and lived happily ever after - that would be a restoration of the free will.
Torture is a willfull act. Depression isn't. If you have means to stop somebody's suicidal depression, by exercise of your own free will, then you should do it. But somebody getting sick is not a willful act of anybody. When it is a willful act (driving somebody to suicide by means of physical or psychological torture, or other means) then it is commonly regarded akin to murder. The difference is in the presence or absence of the willfull act, you can't just "substitute" it away, it changes the whole picture.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, no, we can't, not without changing the situation enough that earlier moral intuitions may not apply.
Like I said, I expected that to be a point of contention. I'm looking for a reason why.
Carol seems morally irrelevant here. Donald has no influence over Carol's actions, and Carol only provides information and resources. Suicidal depression is like torturing someone until they beg for death insofar as it is causing pain for someone until they want to die, which seems like a morally equivalent swap. Where do we disagree?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link