When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

Why is society collapsing wrong?

Because you will likely die. As will your family. It seems trite to ask what value you put on your life and that of your family. I'm assuming you'd rather live than die. It's like assuming that you will run from a burning building or not jump off a cliff for the fun of it. There are some things that are inherrent in all of us. If you want to call that need to survive God given then I've no problem with that. My opinion is that it's an evolutionary byproduct and there isn't a living organism that doesn't exhibit it.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Not sure what you mean by "without any justification". They are the justification.

When you give a proposition you justify your reason as to why it's true. So if I say "it is good to give money to those who are homeless", I would need to justify my reason as to why it's true that it's good to give money to the homeless.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[Robban]

If your wife broke the promise she made and cheated on you, will you say "Its ok, I have no transcendent source for morality"?

Marriage is not an institution comparable to being in prison with no exit.

Married cannot be so closed-on that no matter what transpires ,

either husband or wife is captive forever.

By keeping that in mind both parties should work on themselves.

Who knows, they may even end up loving eachother, for real.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you're confusing what I'm saying. A rapist thinks rape is good. Is it therefore moral? According to what standard do you disagree and why is it authoritative over rapist's morality?

It's obviously not decided by personal preference. And it obviously causes harm. It is therefore a bad thing. And therefore immoral.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Because you will likely die. As will your family. It seems trite to ask what value you put on your life and that of your family

assumes an inherent value to life that you can't say exists

there are some things that are inherrent in all of us.

And? their inheritance has no inherent value unless you can provide an authoritative basis on which it does.

 

[trophy33]

When you give a proposition you justify your reason as to why it's true. So if I say "it is good to give money to those who are homeless", I would need to justify my reason as to why it's true that it's good to give money to the homeless.

The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

This begins to be as useless as talking about colors with a blind person. So I will leave it as it is. I do not want to end up with "nothing outside of my mind exists" kinds of arguments.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It's obviously not decided by personal preference. And it obviously causes harm. It is therefore a bad thing. And therefore immoral.

Your claim that harm is immoral is an assumption without justification based on your personal feelings. You need a reason to say why it's authoritative over the opposite stance; a reason that you can't provide because it shares the same justification for it's authoritativeness as you.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

This begins to be as useless as talking about colors with a blind person. So I will leave it as it is. I do not want to end up with "nothing outside of my mind exists" arguments.

No. You assume morality is inherent to existence. It's not. That's my entire point, you need a justification for moral behaviours and there exists none independent a transcendent source for morality. It's not a solipsistic argument, it's an epistemological one.

 

[Bradskii]

When you give a proposition you justify your reason as to why it's true. So if I say "it is good to give money to those who are homeless", I would need to justify my reason as to why it's true that it's good to give money to the homeless.

We have to be careful with examples like this because if one us suggests that not giving money to the homeless is immoral then you are acting immoraly taking your wife out for dinner instead of giving the money to a homeless person. But...in a relatively rich country, it is immoral that people have nowhere to live. It's harmful to them. How we solve that problem is a different discussion. But solving it is a good thing. And therefore moral.

 

[Bradskii]

Your claim that harm is immoral is an assumption without justification based on your personal feelings. You need a reason to say why it's authoritative over the opposite stance; a reason that you can't provide because it shares the same justification for it's authoritativeness as you.

Again, I'm not saying that harm is immoral. I am saying that harm is something to be avoided. So something that causes it is wrong. And we THEREFORE describe that something as being immoral.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Again, I'm not saying that harm is immoral. I am saying that harm is something to be avoided. So something that causes it is wrong. And we THEREFORE describe that something as being immoral.

Why should what you consider to be immoral be authoritative versus a rapist or murderer? and why is the standard which you base it on authoritative over their conception of morality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not necessarily.

Absolutely necessarily. Was it King Henry the 8th who couldn't make a son?

Maternal hormone levels (and other biological factors in utero)

We call those biological factors genetics.

For example, it's been documented that gay men are more likely to have older brothers, and this is thought to be related to immune differences in later pregnancies in the mother.

And the age of the father upon conception. Genetics.

But if we take discrimination against women as an example,

You haven't shown any such discrimination is even happening.

Again, consider the survey I linked. Literally says they're discriminating against white men....no reason they couldn't do the same for women if it were happening.

that doesn't only suddenly kick in when someone is being considered for a C-suite position.

How would you know? The leadership position you've described yourself in isn't one with any definable failure.

The same for other factors. It's the cumulative affect of all of those instances of facing barriers which ends up with fewer women at very senior levels.

Guess what? Most men won't make those positions either. Is that also because of discrimination? By definition they are the fewest available.

Of course it does. In a society where gender matters in all kinds of ways,

Like?

having other people recognise and interact appropriately

That you believe there is itself an appropriate way to interact with gender means that you yourself hold biases regarding behavior towards men and women.

 

[Bradskii]

assumes an inherent value to life that you can't say exists

The authoratitive basis is you, running from the burning building. It's you fighting off the man who wants to assault your wife. It's you not crossing the road against the lights. It's you, proving to me in countless ways that you value your own life and those close to you. And guess what...it's the same for everyone. Do you think that the mouse runs from the cat because it thinks that it's life has an inherrent value. Does the amoeba recoil from something toxic because it does the same?

Every living thing that didn't have some self preservation instinct is no longer with us. They are all dead. Leaving those who do have it. Like you and me.

 

[Bradskii]

Why should what you consider to be immoral be authoritative versus a rapist or murderer? and why is the standard which you base it on authoritative over their conception of morality?

I'm not making the call. It's whether something is harmful or not. Period. And if you don't think that murder or rape causes harm, them I'm at a loss as how to continue. There may well be circumstances where we disagree. But extreme examples as you have given are not a good idea in determining what those are. But, it really beats me, they are the default that people arguing as you are always take.

To help you out, I'll give you an example where there is obvious disagreement. Drug laws. Is it immoral to have none? Is it moral to reduce them? Well, good question, Brad. What is the best moral position? And do you know how it would be argued? Yes, you do. We'd each put forward out own opinion on how much harm would be done following certain policies.

 

[Paidiske]

We call those biological factors genetics.

Ah, no. Genetics is about what genes you have, and how/when/how strongly those genes are expressed. If, for example, maternal diet alters her hormone levels, that's not about genetics of the developing foetus at all.

You haven't shown any such discrimination is even happening.

Here's an interesting article unpacking underlying causes: Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths

How would you know? The leadership position you've described yourself in isn't one with any definable failure.

I sure as heck know the positions I couldn't even apply for because they aren't open to women.

Guess what? Most men won't make those positions either. Is that also because of discrimination? By definition they are the fewest available.

Ana, you're missing the point. If you're at a disadvantage due to your sex all the way through your career, the cumulative effect of that will hold you back from realising your potential, whatever the limit of your personal potential happens to be.

Like?

Well, you've identified the question of use of gender-segregated public spaces. But it matters even in things like whether you carry a social penalty for dressing in a way you personally find comfortable.

That you believe there is itself an appropriate way to interact with gender means that you yourself hold biases regarding behavior towards men and women.

The variety here can be from the very simple (using the correct pronouns for someone) to the more sophisticated recognition of boundaries. And sure, some of that is being socially re-negotiated (I recently had a guest express astonishment that my husband does most of the cooking in our household), but some of it is (or should be) pretty clear. Not that long ago I had to explain to a bloke why it was inappropriate to mail me a gift of lingerie...

 

[Bradskii]

Not that long ago I had to explain to a bloke why it was inappropriate to mail me a gift of lingerie...

No. No way. Just...what? I had to wipe a Coopers off my screen after reading that.

And in passing, I'm enjoying the jousting. Although it seems to me to be some sort of penance you are doing.

 

[Paidiske]

No. No way. Just...what?

Yes way! I'm not sure what he was thinking, and I'm pretty sure I really don't want to know.

But, you know, some people will try to tell you women face no issues, as women, in the workplace...

(Sorry about your screen).

And in passing, I'm enjoying the jousting. Although it seems to me to be some sort of penance you are doing.

I'm glad someone's enjoying it. Not so much penance as an awareness that silence would let the Overton window slide into depressing territory...

 

[Bradskii]

Not so much penance as an awareness that silence would let the Overton window slide into depressing territory...

Not a term I've come across before. Now I'm a little less ignorant. One of the benefits of the forum.

But having educated myself, it seems like a window through which someone who is in a position to influence what could be generally acceptable might look. A moving feast without doubt. But in your case, you are doing what can only be described as sterling work in defining what that should be. There are 1500+ views on this thread. I can only hope that there are many people following the discussion.

Truth be told, if this was boxing, I would have stopped the fight a long time ago. But like boxing I know it's wrong to take pleasure in watching someone being beaten. But I enjoy it at some level. If I was Catholic I'd have to confess it...

 

[trophy33]

There are 1500+ views on this thread. I can only hope that there are many people following the discussion.

I dont think the views are unique views. When there are 20 posts on every page, and there are 76 pages, 76*20 = 1520 page refresh/views. So even just two people can make that, if they keep the conversation long enough.

I actually guess that these forums are kind of dead, about the same 20 people are making all the posts, threads and views. Which can be also seen from the topics that are repeated over and over again or from the fact that I am frequently informed I am in the top 15 or 20 posters of the week, even though I am not too active, here.

 

[Bradskii]

I dont think the views are unique views. When there are 20 posts on every page, and there are 76 pages, 76*20 = 1520 page refresh/views. So even just two people can make that, if they keep the conversation long enough.

I actually guess that these forums are kind of dead, about the same 20 people are making all the posts, threads and views. Which can be also seen from the topics that are repeated over and over again or from the fact that I am frequently informed I am in the top 15 or 20 posters of the week, even though I am not too active, here.

I think that the big benefit of forums like this is that you get your opportunity to present your arguments for what your opinions might be against others who hold opposite views. And if you are honest, you can determine if they hold up. You can then present them in other arenas confident that they hold up.