Why are antiracists so... racist?

[Perfection]

That sucks, but objectively, what do they do? Beat up minorities? Torch black churches? Or just say mean stuff? How does it compare to ISIS-style bigotry?

Of course they're not as bad as ISIS members, but it's a problem I have more familiarity with, and am more capable of doing something about. It therefore is reasonable for me to focus on that sort of bigotry over ISIS-style. I am not the UN commission on human rights.

 

[Ryika]

Do you silly fussers really think I meant every single person is born with identical abilities??? Obviously not! Human beings are born with equal intrinsic value, and every human life ought to be treated, from the start of their life, with equal dignity and respect. I think it's incredibly obvious that's what I meant.

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.

Is it okay if I agree that the "intrinsic value" of humans is indeed equal, but think that that value is 0?

If we accept, then, that every human has equal value in their life, we arrive at the logical conclusion that, regardless of individual abilities-- which very rarely make any difference to an entire society made up of 7 billion human beings-- every person deserves to have the basic provisions of life.

I agree that every person should have the a guarantee for the basic provisions of life and should be guaranteed to get the help they need if they, through their own shortcomings or external factors, are unable to help themselves, but that's because every person is a sentient being that is capable of suffering. No pseudo-religious "intrinsic value" needed to arrive at that conclusion, just a basic moral framework.

Organizing society meritocratically (which isn't even really the case today, but seems to be the ideal y'all are getting at) is directly antithetical to this obvious conclusion.

You're jumping from one thing to another. Even if we go with the premise that there's some "intrinsic value" to human life, the value that they can add to society in any given position is clearly not equal. A good manager will lead a company into a prosperous future, a clueless moron will lead a company down the toilet.

More so, meritocracy has lead to the most successful and prosperous societies that exist today, and such societies are the only societies that can even afford to have large social safety nets, so for the goal of allowing every person to live a good life, meritocracy is the ideal tool.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Is it okay if I agree that the "intrinsic value" of humans is indeed equal, but think that that value is 0?

I would agree with it. But I'd say the majority of individual humans never really have any measurable value beyond 0 anyways and trying to order them is a waste of time.

Even the "important" people of today will become a footnote in just 20-30 years. I mean the death of a well known person results in a headline but will get forgotten within a year past occasional mention. Most people? Whether that person is a billionaire or a bum, if they die today, it's unlike most people would care by next week beyond people that knew them.

 

[inthesomeday]

TIL (unsurprisingly) that this liberal doesn't value human life

 

[Manfred Belheim]

every person deserves to have the basic provisions of life. Organizing society meritocratically (which isn't even really the case today, but seems to be the ideal y'all are getting at) is directly antithetical to this obvious conclusion.

Ehh... there's basic provisions, and then there's everything else. If the meritocratic organisation applies only to the everything else part, then there's no conflict whatsoever.

 

[Ryika]

TIL (unsurprisingly) that this liberal doesn't value human life

It's so interesting to see people read something on the surface level, not think about it for even a moment and still assume they have already reached a reasonable conclusion. You should really do yourself the favor and entertain what other people have to say, and think about why they might mean by it, instead of just assuming the first thing that comes to your mind.

So let me lend you a hand and explain to you why your argument about "intrinsic value" is dumb and worthless, which is that it has no persuasive power whatsoever. If a person does not agree that all people have the same "intrinsic value" and instead thinks that white people have way more "intrinsic value" than black people for example, then there's nothing you can say to persuade them, and you admit to that, because you have that "If you think it does I am going to stop responding to your messages."-part, which really just translates into: "I have no arguments, so if you disagree with me, I can't and won't do anything about it!".

If on the other hand you accept that all value that human life has is not intrinsic, but a result of our internal moral framework transcribing it onto other people, then you have all the arguments you need for why we should treat each other as equals. The ability to suffer is the most obvious case. Why should we avoid slavery? Because there are people who suffer greatly in such a system, which you can show to people and persuade a population. Not because "People have intrinsic value." That's no argument for anything. It's a nice metaphor to use as a slogan, but if you actually think there's such a thing as intrinsic value and really think that disagreeing with that idea means a person does not "value human life", then you should really go back to square 1 to make sure you understand how that metaphor came to be, and realize that such a think of "intrinsic value" does not actually exist.

 

[inthesomeday]

So let me lend you a hand and explain to you why your argument about "intrinsic value" is dumb and worthless, which is that it has no persuasive power whatsoever.

Okay! All ears.

If a person does not agree that all people have the same "intrinsic value" and instead thinks that white people have way more "intrinsic value" than black people for example,

Oof never mind

 

[Traitorfish]

Is it okay if I agree that the "intrinsic value" of humans is indeed equal, but think that that value is 0?

That's a coherent if pessimistic position. It forces us to think critically about how humans beings can live alongside one another. The problem is when people start arguing that some are just naturally better than others, and that the inferior should not only allow the superior to oppress and exploit them, but should be grateful for the opportunity to be oppressed and exploited by such fine people.

 

[inthesomeday]

I'm not sure I'm willing to enter actual political discourse with somebody who does not value human life. Maybe a vague and impractical discussion of philosophy but no further than that.

 

[Akka]

I'm not sure I'm willing to enter actual political discourse with somebody who does not value human life. Maybe a vague and impractical discussion of philosophy but no further than that.

That's literally the first paragraph :

It's so interesting to see people read something on the surface level, not think about it for even a moment and still assume they have already reached a reasonable conclusion. You should really do yourself the favor and entertain what other people have to say, and think about why they might mean by it, instead of just assuming the first thing that comes to your mind.

 

[Berzerker]

I might conclude the world would be better off without us given our propensity for destroying other life - and therefore assign negative 'value' to human life. But maybe the design requires the destruction of life to create new life, extinction events appear to drive evolution by getting rid of the dominant life forms. On the other hand, why blame an African Bushman for what 'civilized' people are doing to the world? I'd think he has more value than us folk burning coal or something else to heat water so we can argue on the internet. I think we owe the 'primitives' an apology for concentrating poisons and dumping them everywhere.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's so interesting to see people read something on the surface level, not think about it for even a moment and still assume they have already reached a reasonable conclusion. You should really do yourself the favor and entertain what other people have to say, and think about why they might mean by it, instead of just assuming the first thing that comes to your mind.

So let me lend you a hand and explain to you why your argument about "intrinsic value" is dumb and worthless, which is that it has no persuasive power whatsoever. If a person does not agree that all people have the same "intrinsic value" and instead thinks that white people have way more "intrinsic value" than black people for example, then there's nothing you can say to persuade them, and you admit to that, because you have that "If you think it does I am going to stop responding to your messages."-part, which really just translates into: "I have no arguments, so if you disagree with me, I can't and won't do anything about it!".

If on the other hand you accept that all value that human life has is not intrinsic, but a result of our internal moral framework transcribing it onto other people, then you have all the arguments you need for why we should treat each other as equals. The ability to suffer is the most obvious case. Why should we avoid slavery? Because there are people who suffer greatly in such a system, which you can show to people and persuade a population. Not because "People have intrinsic value." That's no argument for anything. It's a nice metaphor to use as a slogan, but if you actually think there's such a thing as intrinsic value and really think that disagreeing with that idea means a person does not "value human life", then you should really go back to square 1 to make sure you understand how that metaphor came to be, and realize that such a think of "intrinsic value" does not actually exist.

I disagree. If you pursue a reductionist approach to everything, then it just ends up like the little kid asking "why" constantly. Case in point. If you want to argue that slavery is bad because people suffer greatly, I could ask, well, why is people suffering bad? If people don't have intrinsic value, then it makes sense that their suffering is of zero value. But slavery creates something. You've created value out of something worthless. So why not enslave these people? It works in Civ, after all. Angry citizens have no value, so you destroy them to create something that has value.

Furthermore , the point of an argument is not necessarily to persuade the other side of anything. Even when people "win" an argument, it doesn't effectively destroy the other side. The point of a debate after all, is to get both sides of the argument presented to everyone listening.

Moral systems do not work in a naturalistic sense, since it is more or less exclusive to humans, and human thought. And thus I find a lot of this attempt to chase at objectivity is at best a futile pursuit. And just as arbitrary as any other human thought.

As a side note, all this hilarious talk about organizing by merit is missing something huge. When you are judged by your merit , it is not your value as a human being but your merits in whatever you are being judged. Such as:

You're jumping from one thing to another. Even if we go with the premise that there's some "intrinsic value" to human life, the value that they can add to society in any given position is clearly not equal. A good manager will lead a company into a prosperous future, a clueless moron will lead a company down the toilet.

More so, meritocracy has lead to the most successful and prosperous societies that exist today, and such societies are the only societies that can even afford to have large social safety nets, so for the goal of allowing every person to live a good life, meritocracy is the ideal tool.

Sorry for singling this out, but...

When we talk about quality of managers, we're talking about exactly that. Is the person of value as a manager, not their value as a human being. When you hire someone, you don't want to hire the best human being. You want to hire the best person for the job. And it's not just about skill; they also have to be willing to work for what you pay them for too.

 

[bernie14]

.....When we talk about quality of managers, we're talking about exactly that. Is the person of value as a manager, not their value as a human being. When you hire someone, you don't want to hire the best human being. You want to hire the best person for the job. And it's not just about skill; they also have to be willing to work for what you pay them for too.

so, are you saying that, aside from whatever value the generic human being may have, "the best person for the job" has additional value?

 

[Archon_Wing]

so, are you saying that, aside from whatever value the generic human being may have, "the best person for the job" has additional value?

In that context, yes.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Okay! All ears.



Oof never mind

Lol, did you really give up reading at that point? Jaysus...

 

[Ryika]

I disagree. If you pursue a reductionist approach to everything, then it just ends up like the little kid asking "why" constantly. Case in point. If you want to argue that slavery is bad because people suffer greatly, I could ask, well, why is people suffering bad? If people don't have intrinsic value, then it makes sense that their suffering is of zero value. But slavery creates something. You've created value out of something worthless. So why not enslave these people? It works in Civ, after all. Angry citizens have no value, so you destroy them to create something that has value.

No, this argument does not address the issue. This question here...

I could ask, well, why is people suffering bad?

...does not make sense, because whether suffering is bad was never part of the question, whether we want to prevent the suffering of people, that is the important part. I'm not making an argument for moral absolutes after all, I'm just explaining how you can use subjective morale standards that are shared by the majority of people, to get that majority of people on your side, while "People have inherent value!" does not do that, it's at best a statement from assumed moral authority towards people who already agree with that conclusion, and at worst a religious statement that is not backed by any though processes at all.

inthesomeday is just not making an argument, he's taken a conclusion that society has arrived at in the past and has no way to back it with a reasoned thought process. As such, he needs people to already agree with him, because he does not have the ability to explain why his position is "good". He is a person who must assume authority and is unable to properly engage counter-arguments, which is why this...

Oof never mind

...is his response to being faced with a hypothetical person who might disagree with him. His whole position is "Agree with me, or I will ignore you!" - very weak point. Right conclusion of course, but built on faith, not on reason.

Furthermore , the point of an argument is not necessarily to persuade the other side of anything. Even when people "win" an argument, it doesn't effectively destroy the other side. The point of a debate after all, is to get both sides of the argument presented to everyone listening.

I agree with this, but it's based on a false assumption that I was making the point that you have to persuade the other side. I did not say that, and obviously it's not how debates work. If you want to have your position gain ground in wider society, you have to persuade the people in the middle, including those that are somewhat on your side, and those that are somewhat on the other side, because those are the people that you can persuade, the people in the opposite camp are likely just as convinced as you that they're right. But to convince the people in the middle, you need a proper argument, a line of logic that people can understand and follow, just making a statement about intrinsic value does not do that.

Moral systems do not work in a naturalistic sense, since it is more or less exclusive to humans, and human thought. And thus I find a lot of this attempt to chase at objectivity is at best a futile pursuit. And just as arbitrary as any other human thought.

We agree on this as well, moral values are not objective as they're fundamentally built on the preferences of individual humans. What is however true is that humans as a whole tend towards certain principles of fairness, and that's what one can tap into, what one has to tap into if one wants to persuade minds.

Sorry for singling this out, but...

When we talk about quality of managers, we're talking about exactly that. Is the person of value as a manager, not their value as a human being. When you hire someone, you don't want to hire the best human being. You want to hire the best person for the job. And it's not just about skill; they also have to be willing to work for what you pay them for too.

Yes, which is why meritocracy is just fine, even though all humans have the same value (independent from whether that value is 0 or not). This means that it is perfectly possible to have a society that values and rewards merit, while still assuming that inherently all humans should be treated with basic dignity and get what they need to live a decent live, even if they can't contribute much to society. I'm not the one who wants to change that, inthesomeday is:

If we accept, then, that every human has equal value in their life, we arrive at the logical conclusion that, regardless of individual abilities-- which very rarely make any difference to an entire society made up of 7 billion human beings-- every person deserves to have the basic provisions of life. Organizing society meritocratically (which isn't even really the case today, but seems to be the ideal y'all are getting at) is directly antithetical to this obvious conclusion.

Most, if not all, meritocratic societies of today have arrived at the conclusion that you have to create a baseline for those who cannot contribute much, and then on top of that, you build a system of reward for those who add high amounts of value to the system. Well, that's the theory at least, of course our societies are not perfect, which is why we should continue to work on making them better, not give up on meritocracy and push everybody down to the lowest denominator.

 

[Archon_Wing]

...does not make sense, because whether suffering is bad was never part of the question, whether we want to prevent the suffering of people, that is the important part.

And how would you ever prove such a thing? If you cannot prove why suffering is relevant, then it would matter little either way.

I'm not making an argument for moral absolutes after all, I'm just explaining how you can use subjective morale standards that are shared by the majority of people, to get that majority of people on your side, while "People have inherent value!" does not do that, it's at best a statement from assumed moral authority towards people who already agree with that conclusion, and at worst a religious statement that is not backed by any though processes at all.

It's certainly possible. I'm sure over in North Korea, they wouldn't share such an opinion. But in all seriousness, a lot of us live in democracies, where each member gets a single vote regardless of everything else. So while not universal, it's a common theme in most modern places.

You just have to accept that it is not possible to start a conversation with someone who cannot agree on premises. It doesn't really invalidate the argument though, just becomes in someone's head, it doesn't make sense.

I agree with this, but it's based on a false assumption that I was making the point that you have to persuade the other side. I did not say that, and obviously it's not how debates work. If you want to have your position gain ground in wider society, you have to persuade the people in the middle, including those that are somewhat on your side, and those that are somewhat on the other side, because those are the people that you can persuade, the people in the opposite camp are likely just as convinced as you that they're right. But to convince the people in the middle, you need a proper argument, a line of logic that people can understand and follow, just making a statement about intrinsic value does not do that.

Sounds better. It seems like I wasn't able to gather that from the previous text. Although, what about those people that just want to be told what to do and not have to think? Oh wait, there's a lot of that too. =p

Yes, which is why meritocracy is just fine, even though all humans have the same value (independent from whether that value is 0 or not). This means that it is perfectly possible to have a society that values and rewards merit, while still assuming that inherently all humans should be treated with basic dignity and get what they need to live a decent live, even if they can't contribute much to society. I'm not the one who wants to change that, inthesomeday is:

I actually agree with this. These things aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact screwing with these things in the name of justice just causes a different group of people to be stomped on so others can sleep well at night.

 

[Akka]

I actually agree with this. These things aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact screwing with these things in the name of justice just causes a different group of people to be stomped on so others can sleep well at night.

You're getting it ^^

 

[Ryika]

And how would you ever prove such a thing? If you cannot prove why suffering is relevant, then it would matter little either way.

I do not have to prove it, most people's moral framework dictates that preventing suffering is an important factor. That's the only reason the argument works, because it gives you a common starting point with most people.

It's certainly possible. I'm sure over in North Korea, they wouldn't share such an opinion. But in all seriousness, a lot of us live in democracies, where each member gets a single vote regardless of everything else. So while not universal, it's a common theme in most modern places.

You just have to accept that it is not possible to start a conversation with someone who cannot agree on premises. It doesn't really invalidate the argument though, just becomes in someone's head, it doesn't make sense.

Yeah, but the point is that "Let's prevent human suffering" is a starting point that does not require anything other than the basic moral assumption that most people have. Even in North Korea people will probably say that, the difference being that they'll likely be more accepting of "allowing suffering as long as it's for the greater good", if they're told it's necessary.

"Every person is worth the same." is the conclusion of a process of moral maturing that society as a whole has already gone through, that many people are taught. Requiring people to already agree with that statement, is like saying: "Okay, I want to debate whether abortion is moral, but only with women who have already aborted at least 3 fetuses." ...that's a really dumb example of course, but it gets the point across I think. If a person says "I'm willing to argue, but you have to first agree with me.", that sort of defeats the purpose of the argument.

Sounds better. It seems like I wasn't able to gather that from the previous text. Although, what about those people that just want to be told what to do and not have to think? Oh wait, there's a lot of that too. =p

Well, I would think that these people are already rather invested in either of the two camps and likely not the ones who you can convince.

I actually agree with this. These things aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact screwing with these things in the name of justice just causes a different group of people to be stomped on so others can sleep well at night.

At least if it's done by discriminating against individuals. I think social mobility is one of the key factors of a "fair" society, and upwards mobility does require a certain amount of bias towards the people who start of in worse places than others.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I do not have to prove it, most people's moral framework dictates that preventing suffering is an important factor. That's the only reason the argument works, because it gives you a common starting point with most people.

Ah, so we eventually do have to have some degree of "faith" in what a bunch of people think?

And I dunno, history seems to run counter to that assertion. Perhaps only reduce it to suffering that people can see, or doesn't involve them or their close ones would probably be more accurate.

Yeah, but the point is that "Let's prevent human suffering" is a starting point that does not require anything other than the basic moral assumption that most people have. Even in North Korea people will probably say that, the difference being that they'll likely be more accepting of "allowing suffering as long as it's for the greater good", if they're told it's necessary.

"Every person is worth the same." is the conclusion of a process of moral maturing that society as a whole has already gone through, that many people are taught. Requiring people to already agree with that statement, is like saying: "Okay, I want to debate whether abortion is moral, but only with women who have already aborted at least 3 fetuses." ...that's a really dumb example of course, but it gets the point across I think. If a person says "I'm willing to argue, but you have to first agree with me.", that sort of defeats the purpose of the argument.

Well, to me both are things that society has taught people and that democracy being popular enough has generally make both fairly common. But I really just don't see the distinction.

Well, I would think that these people are already rather invested in either of the two camps and likely not the ones who you can convince.

I like to think some "go with the flow" because they really don't care either way. Whether this is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion.

At least if it's done by discriminating against individuals. I think social mobility is one of the key factors of a "fair" society, and upwards mobility does require a certain amount of bias towards the people who start of in worse places than others.

Yea. But this often leads to its own power struggle where often some oppressed groups are favored more than others and that causes a lot of problems. Though certainly in an ideal system this doesn't happen.