Why are antiracists so... racist?

[inthesomeday]

@Valessa

Once one invokes moral relativism in an argument, every single possible conclusion is ultimately based on some faithful assumption. I choose to base that faith on the value of human life, rather than on... Property rights? Or something?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Moral relativism doesn't rule out the vast majority of people sharing a common moral framework (obviously). Therefore appealing to a commonly-held moral position is a good tactic for winning people over, regardless of whether or not morality is absolute.

Where I disagree with Valessa (somewhat) is the fact that stating "people have inherent value" is essentially the same thing as saying that being nice to people and not seeing them suffer is a commonly-held moral position. I don't really see much distinction between the two things.

 

[inthesomeday]

Rather, thinking that it's bad to hurt people directly relies on the assumption that human lives have value.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wouldn't say directly. You could argue otherwise. It's just that that's what most people probably mean when they say that human lives have value.

 

[Ryika]

Rather, thinking that it's bad to hurt people directly relies on the assumption that human lives have value.

This argument doesn't even make sense.

Let's assume your life has some objective, inherent value. So what? How does that lead me to "Therefor, I should not make you my slave"?
My freaking plantation is still not finished, workers cost tons of money that I don't want to spend, and there you are, free labor and the only value I have to care about is the value that you add to my life by constructing that damn plantation of mine.

So yeah... what is this "inherent value", and what does it do if my subjective morality does not lead me to accept it as something that I have to respect? Absolutely nothing. It's just not an argument, and there's just no line of thought that can lead me to the conclusion that because this human being has inherent value I must now treat it like an equal.

What does lead us to the conclusion that slavery is something that we probably shouldn't do is the line of empathy, that I am a being who would not like having to work on a farm, you are a being just like me (<- Denying this is what allowed a lot of slavery to be done with a somewhat good conscience), therefor, I should not make you my slave. That's an argument with which you can make social progress over time.

 

[inthesomeday]

You really don't get what I'm saying so I'll spell it out.

I think human life has inherent value. That is part of my subjective and personal moral compass, I guess, but if we're going to invoke that analysis then literally any discussion of political or philosophical thought is pointless because you can simply disagree with whatever moral assumptions I make. There is no line of thought PERIOD that can convince people to realign their basic values on moral lines if we allow moral relativism into our discussions. So you're right, if you want to push the discussion all the way to the moot hill of moral relativism, then you're justified in whatever murderous and exploitative ideologies you support, because the justification becomes relative as well. That's why most people don't let moral relativism into serious discussion, because it renders said discussion essentially pointless.

 

[Gori the Grey]

you are a being just like me

But "you are a being just like me" is effectively what a lot of people mean by "have intrinsic value."

Or, to put it in your terms, about which propositions can be effectively argued for: your proposition could meet with just as much resistance as the "intrinsic value" argument by a determined opponent; in fact, the commonest way to deny someone's intrinsic value is to cast them as a being who is not just like me. Plenty of people, historically, have done just that, and that view is just as resistant to argumentation as the other.

In fact, I think you could probably more easily get someone to assent to the proposition that all humans have intrinsic value and then spring on them "how much? as much as you value yourself" and thereby get them to "are a being just like me" than you could get someone who doesn't assent to that to come over to "has any value at all."

 

[Lexicus]

I think the premise that social progress is made by "arguments" is false. For example, in the United States slavery was ended by fighting a war that destroyed the slave power, not by arguing about intrinsic human worth with the slaveholding classes.

 

[Ryika]

You really don't get what I'm saying so I'll spell it out.

I think human life has inherent value. That is part of my subjective and personal moral compass, I guess, but if we're going to invoke that analysis then literally any discussion of political or philosophical thought is pointless because you can simply disagree with whatever moral assumptions I make. There is no line of thought PERIOD that can convince people to realign their basic values on moral lines if we allow moral relativism into our discussions. So you're right, if you want to push the discussion all the way to the moot hill of moral relativism, then you're justified in whatever murderous and exploitative ideologies you support, because the justification becomes relative as well. That's why most people don't let moral relativism into serious discussion, because it renders said discussion essentially pointless.

So basically, your position is that you are doing the right thing by claiming the authority to dictate what is right, because if you don't, then people could use their own arguments to do things that you disagree with?

That sounds pretty.... fascistic to me.

But "you are a being just like me" is effectively what a lot of people mean by "have intrinsic value."

I agree that it is true for many people, but not for inthesomeday in this case.

Or, to put it in your terms, about which propositions can be effectively argued for: your proposition could meet with just as much resistance as the "intrinsic value" argument by a determined opponent; in fact, the commonest way to deny someone's intrinsic value is to cast them as a being who is not just like me. Plenty of people, historically, have done just that, and that view is just as resistant to argumentation as the other.

It's unfortunately the case that change happens over time, and only in steps that need to be taken one after the other, so there are clearly situations where neither argument works, because society isn't ready for them yet. However, I would claim there is no moment in time where his statement converts people, and my argument does not do the job, while there is clearly a point in time where my argument would work, and his statement would not work, as my argument is what leads to his statement.

In fact, I think you could probably more easily get someone to assent to the proposition that all humans have intrinsic value and then spring on them "how much? as much as you value yourself" and thereby get them to "are a being just like me" than you could get someone who doesn't assent to that to come over to "has any value at all."

I disagree. Again, why would a person out of nowhere be willing to accept the notion that the black guy over there, who was not seen to even be a human being until this moment, has just as much value as they have?

It's the same thing as saying: "Look at that pig over there. It has the same value as you have, you shouldn't put it into that tiny box." Would you buy into that if you're a farmer? That a pig has the same value as you have? I certainly wouldn't. But if you can demonstrate that the pig has a capacity to suffer that allows us to approximate how they must probably feel? What their lives are like? Over time, people would push for change if the issue is prominent enough.

I think the premise that social progress is made by "arguments" is false. For example, in the United States slavery was ended by fighting a war that destroyed the slave power, not by arguing about intrinsic human worth with the slaveholding classes.

Arguments were what led people to change their mind about slavery, which ultimately led to the war that freed them.
Violence can, and sometimes must, clearly play a role, but the dominant opinion must be challenged first.

 

[inthesomeday]

So basically, your position is that you are doing the right thing by claiming the authority to dictate what is right, because if you don't, then people could use their own arguments to do things that you disagree with?

No, my position is that if you think some human person can dictate what is right then there's really no point in thinking or talking about politics.

That sounds pretty.... fascistic to me.

>Silly liberal continues to demonstrate lack of understanding of what fascism is

 

[Ryika]

No, my position is that if you think some human person can dictate what is right then there's really no point in thinking or talking about politics.

So who said a human person can dictate what is right then? I certainly didn't.
And why do you specify "human" person, you're not secretly a god believer are you?

Silly liberal continues to demonstrate lack of understanding of what fascism is

I think it's close enough.

 

[inthesomeday]

So who said a human person can dictate what is right then? I certainly didn't.

So basically, your position is that you are doing the right thing by claiming the authority to dictate what is right

Hm...

And why do you specify "human" person, you're not secretly a god believer are you?

Nope

I think it's close enough.

"DAE morality is literally fascism XD"

 

[Ryika]

Hm...

Yes, I was under the assumption that you claim that ability for yourself based on your previous posts. Given that you said "That's why most people don't let moral relativism into serious discussion, because it renders said discussion essentially pointless.", and had introduced the term after I had explained how moral values are subjective, but should be subject to discussion, I was under the impression that you think your moral compass is beyond questioning. It certainly seems to be on the topic of whether humans have inherent value, given that you didn't want to respond to people who might disagree that merit does not increase a person's "inherent value".

Nope

Did you ever think that maybe you should become one?

"DAE morality is literally fascism XD"

Praise Kek.

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: Please leave the *****/meme language out of debates on CFC. Most instances are used for trolling or mocking the other person which falls under the flaming/trolling rules.

 

[inthesomeday]

Yes, I was under the assumption that you claim that ability for yourself based on your previous posts. Given that you said "That's why most people don't let moral relativism into serious discussion, because it renders said discussion essentially pointless.", and had introduced the term after I had explained how moral values are subjective, but should be subject to discussion,

Moral values being subjective makes them beyond discussion, because they exist purely theoretically and have no means of physical classification or analysis.

The only way that we can discuss moral values is if we accept some basic given or assumed truth about morality, because there is no way to discuss them objectively if we consider them subjective. They have no objective metrics to analyze them by if they are subjective, and thus cannot be compared. I guess they can be literally described, but discussion is a little bit pointless without some level of comparison or interaction between ideas.

I was under the impression that you think your moral compass is beyond questioning.

I'm definitely not under that impression. I think that it is roughly impossible to question something that you think is completely subjective. IE, no piece of art can be objectively considered good or bad because any metrics one attempts to apply to it cannot account for its subjective nature; likewise, if we try and argue philosophy in the context of moral relativism, then any points we make against one another will be ultimately irrelevant because the basic assumptions of morality that are required for political discourse are thrown away as subjective as well. Morality is, in effect, a closed circuit of logic, and throwing out that circuit renders any arguments within it moot.

It certainly seems to be on the topic of whether humans have inherent value, given that you didn't want to respond to people who might disagree that merit does not increase a person's "inherent value".

I maintain that. If the basic moral assumption that all people are born equal is thrown out as subjective, which is so fundamental to my entire ideology, and the other person has subjective moral values that contradict equality from birth, then there is no possible logical way that I could persuade them otherwise, simply because they chose to invoke relativism in morality.

Any argument that takes place in the realm of ideas, outside of physical, verifiable reality, must have certain assumptions about the interaction of ideas with the natural world. Otherwise the argument is baseless and pointless because there are no parameters for its existence.

Did you ever think that maybe you should become one?

Nope. Religion requires relativism to be applied to reality, which is actually quite objective.

 

[Ryika]

Moral values being subjective makes them beyond discussion, because they exist purely theoretically and have no means of physical classification or analysis.

The only way that we can discuss moral values is if we accept some basic given or assumed truth about morality, because there is no way to discuss them objectively if we consider them subjective. They have no objective metrics to analyze them by if they are subjective, and thus cannot be compared. I guess they can be literally described, but discussion is a little bit pointless without some level of comparison or interaction between ideas.

This is ridiculous and nonsensical. I can ensure you I have had many discussions about my subjective interpretation of what is and is not moral with other people who have decided what it and is not moral. The fact that there is no "ultimate truth" to make one moral choice "right" over all other moral choices, does not mean that you can't discuss them and come to conclusions, just as you can literally discuss about everything that involves opinions.

And in fact, even if there were such a thing as "objective moral values", how would that change anything about the discourse? We clearly don't have access to these objective, moral values as evidenced by the fact that society agrees on very little when it comes to morality. It's again ironic how close this is to invoking a god.

I maintain that. If the basic moral assumption that all people are born equal is thrown out as subjective, which is so fundamental to my entire ideology, and the other person has subjective moral values that contradict equality from birth, then there is no possible logical way that I could persuade them otherwise, simply because they chose to invoke relativism in morality.

Any argument that takes place in the realm of ideas, outside of physical, verifiable reality, must have certain assumptions about the interaction of ideas with the natural world. Otherwise the argument is baseless and pointless because there are no parameters for its existence.

The problem is that it's so fundamental to your entire ideology that you are unable to entertain alternative viewpoints and dismantle them, which is again because you have no basis for why it is a good moral basis, you just assume that it is.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The issue I have with is this process of "getting something". Heaven doesn't simply drop good fortune into their laps. There's a whole apparatus constructed to ensure that some get, and others do not.

Sounds like you want to decide who gets rather than other people...

You understand that "equal" does not mean "identical", surely? We're talking about the value of a human life, not about effectiveness in some contrived competition.

Equal and identical are among the synonyms for each other in the dictionary. Let's not work off made-up language. It seems you don't dispute the facts of my point.

Remember, we're not post-scarcity. Are you saying causal reality is contrived? That's a strange position to take, but regardless of whether it is, you can't get away from competition for resources, and it's going to be decided by *something*.

I already supported equality in the legal sense earlier. The notion that one person is allowed to take resources from another does not guarantee or even imply equality, and leveling out resources irrespective of performance is a recipe for disincentivizing work in an environment where scarcity is a real limiting factor.

Yeah, some people are born with better potential for bicep development than others, or superior cognitive abilities. This does not mean their life has any more intrinsic value than others. If you think it does I am going to stop responding to your messages.

Doing that is the forum equivalent of covering your ears and yelling. It is intellectually rude and disrespectful, but it's your choice to make.

Absolute morality is an evidence-less sink hole. What standard of living do you assert people "deserve" under the condition that they do nothing to attain or provide resources themselves?

 

[Traitorfish]

Equal and identical are among the synonyms for each other in the dictionary.

Jeez, you're not even joking, are you?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Jeez, you're not even joking, are you?

That's my line. You willing to actually participate in the discussion or not ?

~~~

As to the "inherent value" topic, value itself is a human construct. A carbon atom on Mars doesn't assign any more value to a baby born in Kazakhstan tomorrow than it does whether Pluto is a planet. A single carbon atom has no cognition, to our knowledge.

Whatever value we assign to people, value is still something derived and held by people, not an inherent property of matter. It is conceivable to have a set population assign no value to lives, and history shows us emphatically that some societies have certainly assigned non-equal values to people from birth. Our societies assigns different value to different people based on their actions, something with which nearly everyone here agrees and operates under as a normal portion of their societies...quite possibly everyone on this subforum.

I do not agree with a stance like "slavery is okay" and think those kinds of society would suck, but it shows that the notion of "inherent" value is misguided and inconsistent with reality. Formulating arguments on it is irrational. The responsibility for assigning value to populations is on the societies that do so, not on alleged inherent properties of matter. Inthesomeday is essentially saying that he/she assigns value to all lives equally (though whether this is acted out in practice is debatable), and goes on to claim that anybody who disagrees is wrong because reasons to the point of not being willing to discuss on a thread intended for discussion...you could make a case to do some pretty cruel or unfair things with similar reasoning.

 

[Berzerker]

Absolute morality is an evidence-less sink hole. What standard of living do you assert people "deserve" under the condition that they do nothing to attain or provide resources themselves?

Absolute morality stems from a universality of opinions, nobody wants to be murdered, therefore murder is immoral... We take care of all sorts of people who cant, from children to the elderly and infirm.