3 ms·

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 i

by 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.

by dictum 9y ago

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.