27 ms·

No. Immoral objective is still immoral even if backed by data supporting it. Maybe it'd be easier to parse on a less controversial example: > We should steal

by pornel 8y ago

No. Immoral objective is still immoral even if backed by data supporting it. Maybe it'd be easier to parse on a less controversial example: > We should steal things instead of earning them. Here is the objective factual and irrefutable data showing that robbery is more profitable than hard work.

mistermann 8y ago
Japan has a rather objectively ethnically nationalist stance, do you consider Japanese people to be immoral? And when answering that question, consider the possible irony of your response.
- geofft 8y ago
  As a Christian this argument doesn't make sense to me. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." It's not super difficult (nor is it a high-information-content claim) to consider an entire nation immoral for a specific thing when you believe that everyone alive today does immoral things in their own ways. And as a student of history, entire nations have certainly been immoral. The Confederate States of America is a good example, and a significant number of northerners were also morally wrong on the subject of slavery—almost all of them, a few generations back. There's also Godwin's favorite example, of course. There are the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children. There were the Indians—probably including some of my own ancestors—who practiced sati. I'm certainly not expressing an opinion about Japan; I don't know enough to have a well-informed one. But I'm not going to ignore one possible conclusion because it would force me to say that the nation is immoral. (You switch from "Japan" to "Japanese people" without support or reasoning; of course, we are talking about an organized nation and the culture and norms in power, not about ethnicity in its own right.)
  - mistermann 8y ago
    I don't disagree, but I asked a fairly specific question of someone else who was casting judgement based on the morality of a specific behavior, I would like them to defend that insult. As for your final point, go watch some man on the street interviews on YouTube and you might be surprised, this is how they generally feel, it's just not based on any form of hatred, it just is how they think. Lots of strong opinions on these topics, very few have the ability to defend those opinions.
nextlevelwizard 8y ago
I don't know if you are trying to build some kind of strawman or if you truly don't understand the difference. Simply: for you to steal someone else needs to be earning, thus you premise doesn't work. Your data would show this immediately.
- pornel 8y ago
  No, I think you're falling for exactly the problem addition of data creates: the discussion has shifted to the data, and jumped past the whole issue of immorality. It's now "we don't steal because it doesn't work (under implied assumption of some eventual equilibrium if everyone steals)". BTW, under assumption of that "we" steal from "them", and "they" don't steal from "us", the data could support stealing. The data, conditions and objectives to maximize can also imply moral judgements, but are easy to launder in datasets, e.g. "better for the economy" sounds objective, but who is given access to benefit from that economy is a very moral judgement (touching hot topics like immigration). But the data is irrelevant, because the argument should stop at "we don't steal, period".

by pornel 8y ago

mistermann 8y ago

Japan has a rather objectively ethnically nationalist stance, do you consider Japanese people to be immoral? And when answering that question, consider the possible irony of your response.

geofft 8y ago
As a Christian this argument doesn't make sense to me. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." It's not super difficult (nor is it a high-information-content claim) to consider an entire nation immoral for a specific thing when you believe that everyone alive today does immoral things in their own ways. And as a student of history, entire nations have certainly been immoral. The Confederate States of America is a good example, and a significant number of northerners were also morally wrong on the subject of slavery—almost all of them, a few generations back. There's also Godwin's favorite example, of course. There are the Carthaginians who sacrificed their children. There were the Indians—probably including some of my own ancestors—who practiced sati. I'm certainly not expressing an opinion about Japan; I don't know enough to have a well-informed one. But I'm not going to ignore one possible conclusion because it would force me to say that the nation is immoral. (You switch from "Japan" to "Japanese people" without support or reasoning; of course, we are talking about an organized nation and the culture and norms in power, not about ethnicity in its own right.)
- mistermann 8y ago
  I don't disagree, but I asked a fairly specific question of someone else who was casting judgement based on the morality of a specific behavior, I would like them to defend that insult. As for your final point, go watch some man on the street interviews on YouTube and you might be surprised, this is how they generally feel, it's just not based on any form of hatred, it just is how they think. Lots of strong opinions on these topics, very few have the ability to defend those opinions.

nextlevelwizard 8y ago

I don't know if you are trying to build some kind of strawman or if you truly don't understand the difference. Simply: for you to steal someone else needs to be earning, thus you premise doesn't work. Your data would show this immediately.

pornel 8y ago
No, I think you're falling for exactly the problem addition of data creates: the discussion has shifted to the data, and jumped past the whole issue of immorality. It's now "we don't steal because it doesn't work (under implied assumption of some eventual equilibrium if everyone steals)". BTW, under assumption of that "we" steal from "them", and "they" don't steal from "us", the data could support stealing. The data, conditions and objectives to maximize can also imply moral judgements, but are easy to launder in datasets, e.g. "better for the economy" sounds objective, but who is given access to benefit from that economy is a very moral judgement (touching hot topics like immigration). But the data is irrelevant, because the argument should stop at "we don't steal, period".