5 ms·

> that's why politics isn't a solved problem There's another problem: under certain viewpoints, it's unethical to not send the bastards to a concentration camp

by dictum 9y ago

> that's why politics isn't a solved problem There's another problem: under certain viewpoints, it's unethical to not send the bastards to a concentration camp, gulag, etc.

beaconstudios 9y ago
of course, and ethics and politics can not only be radical or common for their time but with the shifting of the overton window, historically radical or common views can switch places (consider the radicality of being a monarchist now, or a modern liberal in 1400AD).
bjl 9y ago
Except not all viewpoints are valid or true. If (as a vast majority of philosophers think) morality is objective, then those people are simply wrong about what is ethical/unethical.
- gnode 9y ago
  Error theorists would argue that no moral viewpoints at all are true.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    I'm not sure what implications you want people to draw from that statement. It's hard to argue that murder is OK, for example, so it's hard to argue that laws are all subjective expressions of power.
    - tremon 9y ago
      But your example is begging the question. If you frame killing a human being as murder, you've already decided that it's unjust or unlawful. How about the death penalty, euthanasia, extrajudicial execution, war, honour killing or jihad/crusade? In all those cases, the killing party believes their actions are fully justified.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Nobody argues that there is no such thing as murder. It's not begging the question just because people don't agree about edge cases.
        gnode 9y ago
        You're right; I don't think anyone here is arguing murder isn't real. The argument is that murder is not an objective truth, but rather a subjective truth. This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about murder, just that murder is a conceptual reality.
      - michaelt 9y ago
        Isn't that just a tautology, though? I mean, if someone says "No moral viewpoints are more or less true than others; a person acts ethically as long as they think their actions are fully justified" and "People only do things they think are fully justified" then immoral action is impossible.
    - gnode 9y ago
      I was only drawing attention to an alternative meta-ethical philosophy. You can't talk about murder objectively because murder is subjective. In a legal context, jurisdictions differ over what circumstances make a death considered murderous, just, accidental, or even causal.
golergka 9y ago
Jumping straight from the politics of taxi regulation to nazis and death camps. Right.
- dictum 9y ago
  If I were discussing the politics of taxi regulation, I'd be ashamed of my comment. But I'm not. It's a general observation on the difficulty of defining what is ethical and how even those who call for ethics can have different ethical systems/principles - not even prompted by the text itself. Honestly, adding disclaimers, hedges and requests for charitable readings in every reply gets old.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    Perhaps it would be worthwhile, then, to speak in ways which require a less exceptional effort of charity on the part of your audience. I mean, I have no idea what point you were trying to make by that, but I totally get why people reacted badly to it. It seems on balance to be adding much more heat than light, and I think there might be an interesting conversation here which is not yet being had as a result. (eta: I see in my first reading of the thread parent that I missed a negation, which rather changes the sense of the thing. Prior statement stands, but I no longer feel the need to eye you suspiciously sidewise as I say it.)
  - golergka 9y ago
    There is pretty widespread consensus on the difference between topics where different viewpoints are valid and acceptable (taxi regulation) and not so (murdering people that didn't commit any violent crimes). There is no difficulty in allowing different ethical systems and still have some boundaries on things that a certainly unethical.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      > pretty widespread consensus on... where different viewpoints are not so valid and acceptable (murdering people that didn't commit any violent crimes) I take your point, and I agree that it's worth separating debate over practicalities and small influences from debate over basic humanity. One allows for "but I still think you're well-intentioned" and the other doesn't, so only one can be sustainable within a community. But... it's also worth remembering how far from universal even our consensus views are. I can think of a half-dozen contexts in the world today where people explicitly reject the proposition "it's wrong to murder people who haven't committed violent crimes". In many of those contexts, they're serious enough to actually go out and do that murder, and be judged favorably for doing so. I don't disagree with you, I'm not going to knowingly invite those people over to dinner. I just think it's worth remembering how little of morality is certain across times and cultures.
gnode 9y ago
Perhaps a closer to home viewpoint for Americans would be: whether it's unethical / unjust to not execute a murderer.
- leetcrew 9y ago
  a swift and painless death is ultimately more humane than a lifetime behind bars with no hope for release, imo. unfortunately the US system combines the worst of both worlds. the few who are executed only die after years of agonizing "will they or won't they" through the various levels of appeal. and after all that we still end up exonerating people posthumously.
  - gnode 9y ago
    > a swift and painless death is ultimately more humane than a lifetime behind bars Many would argue it's unethical for anyone to make that decision on someone else's behalf. The fact that so many death row convicts appeal their death sentence until the bitter end would imply that they themselves don't agree with your belief.
    - leetcrew 9y ago
      > The fact that so many death row convicts appeal their death sentence until the bitter end would imply that they themselves don't agree with your belief. it doesn't necessarily imply that. at each point in the appeal process, there remains the possibility of having one's case thrown out altogether or reducing the sentence even further than natural life. even if you prefer death to life in prison, it would still be rational to pursue any chance of getting out entirely or getting a substantially reduced sentence. that said, if I could implement any policy I wanted, I would choose for life to be the most severe sentence but give the inmate the ability to choose death if they prefer.

by dictum 9y ago

> that's why politics isn't a solved problem There's another problem: under certain viewpoints, it's unethical to not send the bastards to a concentration camp, gulag, etc.

beaconstudios 9y ago

of course, and ethics and politics can not only be radical or common for their time but with the shifting of the overton window, historically radical or common views can switch places (consider the radicality of being a monarchist now, or a modern liberal in 1400AD).

bjl 9y ago

Except not all viewpoints are valid or true. If (as a vast majority of philosophers think) morality is objective, then those people are simply wrong about what is ethical/unethical.

gnode 9y ago
Error theorists would argue that no moral viewpoints at all are true.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I'm not sure what implications you want people to draw from that statement. It's hard to argue that murder is OK, for example, so it's hard to argue that laws are all subjective expressions of power.
  - tremon 9y ago
    But your example is begging the question. If you frame killing a human being as murder, you've already decided that it's unjust or unlawful. How about the death penalty, euthanasia, extrajudicial execution, war, honour killing or jihad/crusade? In all those cases, the killing party believes their actions are fully justified.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Nobody argues that there is no such thing as murder. It's not begging the question just because people don't agree about edge cases.
      - gnode 9y ago
        You're right; I don't think anyone here is arguing murder isn't real. The argument is that murder is not an objective truth, but rather a subjective truth. This doesn't mean we shouldn't care about murder, just that murder is a conceptual reality.
    - michaelt 9y ago
      Isn't that just a tautology, though? I mean, if someone says "No moral viewpoints are more or less true than others; a person acts ethically as long as they think their actions are fully justified" and "People only do things they think are fully justified" then immoral action is impossible.
  - gnode 9y ago
    I was only drawing attention to an alternative meta-ethical philosophy. You can't talk about murder objectively because murder is subjective. In a legal context, jurisdictions differ over what circumstances make a death considered murderous, just, accidental, or even causal.

golergka 9y ago

Jumping straight from the politics of taxi regulation to nazis and death camps. Right.

dictum 9y ago
If I were discussing the politics of taxi regulation, I'd be ashamed of my comment. But I'm not. It's a general observation on the difficulty of defining what is ethical and how even those who call for ethics can have different ethical systems/principles - not even prompted by the text itself. Honestly, adding disclaimers, hedges and requests for charitable readings in every reply gets old.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Perhaps it would be worthwhile, then, to speak in ways which require a less exceptional effort of charity on the part of your audience. I mean, I have no idea what point you were trying to make by that, but I totally get why people reacted badly to it. It seems on balance to be adding much more heat than light, and I think there might be an interesting conversation here which is not yet being had as a result. (eta: I see in my first reading of the thread parent that I missed a negation, which rather changes the sense of the thing. Prior statement stands, but I no longer feel the need to eye you suspiciously sidewise as I say it.)
- golergka 9y ago
  There is pretty widespread consensus on the difference between topics where different viewpoints are valid and acceptable (taxi regulation) and not so (murdering people that didn't commit any violent crimes). There is no difficulty in allowing different ethical systems and still have some boundaries on things that a certainly unethical.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    > pretty widespread consensus on... where different viewpoints are not so valid and acceptable (murdering people that didn't commit any violent crimes) I take your point, and I agree that it's worth separating debate over practicalities and small influences from debate over basic humanity. One allows for "but I still think you're well-intentioned" and the other doesn't, so only one can be sustainable within a community. But... it's also worth remembering how far from universal even our consensus views are. I can think of a half-dozen contexts in the world today where people explicitly reject the proposition "it's wrong to murder people who haven't committed violent crimes". In many of those contexts, they're serious enough to actually go out and do that murder, and be judged favorably for doing so. I don't disagree with you, I'm not going to knowingly invite those people over to dinner. I just think it's worth remembering how little of morality is certain across times and cultures.

gnode 9y ago

Perhaps a closer to home viewpoint for Americans would be: whether it's unethical / unjust to not execute a murderer.

leetcrew 9y ago
a swift and painless death is ultimately more humane than a lifetime behind bars with no hope for release, imo. unfortunately the US system combines the worst of both worlds. the few who are executed only die after years of agonizing "will they or won't they" through the various levels of appeal. and after all that we still end up exonerating people posthumously.
- gnode 9y ago
  > a swift and painless death is ultimately more humane than a lifetime behind bars Many would argue it's unethical for anyone to make that decision on someone else's behalf. The fact that so many death row convicts appeal their death sentence until the bitter end would imply that they themselves don't agree with your belief.
  - leetcrew 9y ago
    > The fact that so many death row convicts appeal their death sentence until the bitter end would imply that they themselves don't agree with your belief. it doesn't necessarily imply that. at each point in the appeal process, there remains the possibility of having one's case thrown out altogether or reducing the sentence even further than natural life. even if you prefer death to life in prison, it would still be rational to pursue any chance of getting out entirely or getting a substantially reduced sentence. that said, if I could implement any policy I wanted, I would choose for life to be the most severe sentence but give the inmate the ability to choose death if they prefer.