5 ms·

OK - then I challenge you - how would you describe the moral or ethical status of racism? Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all? Seems

OK - then I challenge you - how would you describe the moral or ethical status of racism? Can we draw any moral or ethical conclusions about it at all? Seems like this "what's the proper way to use the word objective" discussion misses the forest for the trees ...

pandaman 6y ago
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean, moral status is a concept applied to living things, not abstract concepts[1]. And I have no idea what "ethical status" is. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/
- adamsea 6y ago
  Fair. But, I think we're kind of losing the thread here. Let's just pretend the post that kicked off our conversation said "Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is bad" instead of " ... objectively bad", and carry on from there. Because it's not about the use of the word "objectively". It's about the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States, and people who are dying because of how the current administration has mis-handled the Covid-19 pandemic. And white supremacy being a destructive force in U.S. culture, society, and politics. Let's talk about those, instead of the proper use of the word "objectively".
  - pandaman 6y ago
    If you look up thread, the post that kicked it is, paraphrasing, "Possibilities for social interactions at the workplace are diminishing due to the extreme partisan divide", let's call this "side A". And all the rebuttals for this were, again paraphrasing, "I dunno man, I can freely interact and if you cannot - something is wrong with you personally", let's call this "side B" So far we have two opposite opinions. Neither is objective and both reflect the poster's experience if we assumed good faith, as we should. Next step, the side A brings in evidence: allegedly you cannot openly support conservative views in many coastal firms. It's not some strong, factual evidence but hearsay. Nevertheless it is an argument. So what does the side B do in response? It proclaims that conservative views are inherently, objectively bad and thus cannot be possibly supported at workplaces. If you drop "objectively" from it then it's not an argument at all. It would actually mean that side B agreed with the side A: yes, you cannot show your views because we don't like them, deal with it! It also fortifies the original argument about the partisan divide. But no, the side B does not agree. The side B makes an argument that supporting one of the two major parties and/or a president of the USA is inherently bad so this is not a partisan issue at all. It's just a fact of life: water is wet, sky is blue, Trump is evil and so are you. So you want to discuss why you think Trump is evil? I, honestly, don't care. Neither I want to explain why I think he is not. I can, however, discuss, why neither party is objectively good or evil.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      Eh, I suggested talking about "... the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States ..". But look man. A part of me wants to back you into a corner, rhetorically. But honestly this conversation really isn't helping anyone. We're both probably rage-posting at this point. I think all this started with someone saying that "racism is objectively bad." To circle back to that, it's my own belief that the killing of George Floyd was a terrible reminder of how white supremacy subtly functions in our society, and, of our responsibility as citizens to work to improve our Union and make a more just society. I think that doing that would ultimately be to everyone's benefit, because I believe that an injustice done to one person is, eventually and ultimately, an injustice done to everyone. We're all from the same (human) family, at the end of the day. My arguing with you probably didn't help either of us. That's my bad.
      - pandaman 6y ago
        For my perspective of this whole argument I will try to make a non-partisan analogy (if such thing is even possible in modern times). Consider two mathematicians, Alice and Bob, solving the same equation f(x) = 0. Alice found the solution to be x = 1 but Bob found x = -1. Maybe Alice has made a mistake, maybe Bob has, maybe both, maybe neither and both 1 and -1 are roots for this equation - we don't know yet. Now, imagine that instead of discussing their findings directly and arguing about them, both made some judgment about their answer and discussed just the result of that judgment. E.g. Alice asserts that the answer is positive and Bob insists that the answer is negative. How well would they fare if one side, say Bob, insisted that the other side claims that -1 is positive and hence is completely nuts and objectively cannot perform as a mathematician due to inability to compare -1 to 0? And no, Bob does not think questioning correctness of his answer by Alice is feasible because people who do not understand that -1 is negative do not deserve a courtesy of an argument. I posit that even if both agree on what numbers are positive and negative there is no discussion and no agreement possible unless both sides allow to discuss the roots of the equation.
        adamsea 6y ago

pandaman 6y ago

Sorry, I do not understand what you mean, moral status is a concept applied to living things, not abstract concepts[1]. And I have no idea what "ethical status" is. 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/

adamsea 6y ago
Fair. But, I think we're kind of losing the thread here. Let's just pretend the post that kicked off our conversation said "Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is bad" instead of " ... objectively bad", and carry on from there. Because it's not about the use of the word "objectively". It's about the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States, and people who are dying because of how the current administration has mis-handled the Covid-19 pandemic. And white supremacy being a destructive force in U.S. culture, society, and politics. Let's talk about those, instead of the proper use of the word "objectively".
- pandaman 6y ago
  If you look up thread, the post that kicked it is, paraphrasing, "Possibilities for social interactions at the workplace are diminishing due to the extreme partisan divide", let's call this "side A". And all the rebuttals for this were, again paraphrasing, "I dunno man, I can freely interact and if you cannot - something is wrong with you personally", let's call this "side B" So far we have two opposite opinions. Neither is objective and both reflect the poster's experience if we assumed good faith, as we should. Next step, the side A brings in evidence: allegedly you cannot openly support conservative views in many coastal firms. It's not some strong, factual evidence but hearsay. Nevertheless it is an argument. So what does the side B do in response? It proclaims that conservative views are inherently, objectively bad and thus cannot be possibly supported at workplaces. If you drop "objectively" from it then it's not an argument at all. It would actually mean that side B agreed with the side A: yes, you cannot show your views because we don't like them, deal with it! It also fortifies the original argument about the partisan divide. But no, the side B does not agree. The side B makes an argument that supporting one of the two major parties and/or a president of the USA is inherently bad so this is not a partisan issue at all. It's just a fact of life: water is wet, sky is blue, Trump is evil and so are you. So you want to discuss why you think Trump is evil? I, honestly, don't care. Neither I want to explain why I think he is not. I can, however, discuss, why neither party is objectively good or evil.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Eh, I suggested talking about "... the immoral and unethical (and probably illegal) behavior of the current President of the United States ..". But look man. A part of me wants to back you into a corner, rhetorically. But honestly this conversation really isn't helping anyone. We're both probably rage-posting at this point. I think all this started with someone saying that "racism is objectively bad." To circle back to that, it's my own belief that the killing of George Floyd was a terrible reminder of how white supremacy subtly functions in our society, and, of our responsibility as citizens to work to improve our Union and make a more just society. I think that doing that would ultimately be to everyone's benefit, because I believe that an injustice done to one person is, eventually and ultimately, an injustice done to everyone. We're all from the same (human) family, at the end of the day. My arguing with you probably didn't help either of us. That's my bad.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      For my perspective of this whole argument I will try to make a non-partisan analogy (if such thing is even possible in modern times). Consider two mathematicians, Alice and Bob, solving the same equation f(x) = 0. Alice found the solution to be x = 1 but Bob found x = -1. Maybe Alice has made a mistake, maybe Bob has, maybe both, maybe neither and both 1 and -1 are roots for this equation - we don't know yet. Now, imagine that instead of discussing their findings directly and arguing about them, both made some judgment about their answer and discussed just the result of that judgment. E.g. Alice asserts that the answer is positive and Bob insists that the answer is negative. How well would they fare if one side, say Bob, insisted that the other side claims that -1 is positive and hence is completely nuts and objectively cannot perform as a mathematician due to inability to compare -1 to 0? And no, Bob does not think questioning correctness of his answer by Alice is feasible because people who do not understand that -1 is negative do not deserve a courtesy of an argument. I posit that even if both agree on what numbers are positive and negative there is no discussion and no agreement possible unless both sides allow to discuss the roots of the equation.
      - adamsea 6y ago