4 ms·

But the moral alternative to the fact that “intelligence is mostly genetic” isn’t to ignore and/or deny the fact (which many people on the left, and most of ma

by tomp 6y ago

But the moral alternative to the fact that “intelligence is mostly genetic” isn’t to ignore and/or deny the fact (which many people on the left, and most of mainstream media try to do), it’s “treat people as individuals” (exactly what was the moral alternative before knowing this fact).

Animats 6y ago
This is a classic problem in philosophy, called the "is-ought problem, or "Hume's law". Hume argues that you can't get to a moral conclusion from facts alone. This is the sort of thing discussed in graduate courses in philosophy. Yet it causes us no end of political trouble when "what's morally right" and "what's reality" come into conflict. This approach conflicts with the notions of "natural law" and much of Christian morality. It's a rather alien concept to most people. This leads to pressure to try to alter facts to fit a moral scenario.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I'm not sure this is even that though. Suppose you have 1000 applicants and 900 slots. 900 of the applicants are white, 100 are black. In traditional racism you give all 900 slots to the 900 white applicants. Using a woke quota system you would have to arrange for it to be exactly proportional, i.e. 810 white and 90 black, even if that required taking race directly into account in order to force the numbers. Using some kind of merit-based evaluation, you might have 830 slots go to white applicants and 70 to black applicants. The first system is clearly morally wrong, but it's also misaligned with the optimal allocation. The second system has the same issue as the first; it's basing the decision directly on race even when it doesn't align with merit. The biggest criticism of the third system is that maybe your metric for evaluating merit is imperfect, but it might still be pretty good. And other than that it's clearly the one with the moral high ground. So where is the moral question? The moral system and the optimal system are the same one. All that's left is the technical question of how to implement a more accurate measurement of merit, if possible.
- lovecg 6y ago
  Sure you can. Morality is hard wired into our brains by evolution. We’re not yet capable to understand all the details of how brain works, but it’s all there in theory. It’s understandable that this line of thinking would not be possible in Hume’s time, but we know quite a bit more to move past some of these ideas.
Noos 6y ago
The problem is if the alternative is the same as the prior condition, why are they bringing it up? hint-it's to treat people not as individuals at all, the genetic basic of intelligence is generally brought up to justify discrimination. It's the same problem as arguing no free will; if the ultimate end is the same as if we had it, why are you bringing it up? But usually people want to order society around that truth, not just score points in a debate.
- tomp 6y ago
  I'm a matematician, so from my perspective, figuring stuff out without having a clear idea how/if it will be useful doesn't sound weird at all. In fact, it's where most of the fun is!
- Aapje58 6y ago
  This possibility is nearly always discussed in the context of whether racial differences in outcomes are solely due to discrimination or whether there are other factors in play. Other explanations than genetic differences and racism are also often discussed. This is important because the claim that racial gaps are solely due to racism is used to advocate for far-reaching reforms, which have huge risks and which won't actually close the gap if racism is not the cause or at least in the way as is claimed.

by tomp 6y ago

Animats 6y ago

This is a classic problem in philosophy, called the "is-ought problem, or "Hume's law". Hume argues that you can't get to a moral conclusion from facts alone. This is the sort of thing discussed in graduate courses in philosophy. Yet it causes us no end of political trouble when "what's morally right" and "what's reality" come into conflict. This approach conflicts with the notions of "natural law" and much of Christian morality. It's a rather alien concept to most people. This leads to pressure to try to alter facts to fit a moral scenario.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
I'm not sure this is even that though. Suppose you have 1000 applicants and 900 slots. 900 of the applicants are white, 100 are black. In traditional racism you give all 900 slots to the 900 white applicants. Using a woke quota system you would have to arrange for it to be exactly proportional, i.e. 810 white and 90 black, even if that required taking race directly into account in order to force the numbers. Using some kind of merit-based evaluation, you might have 830 slots go to white applicants and 70 to black applicants. The first system is clearly morally wrong, but it's also misaligned with the optimal allocation. The second system has the same issue as the first; it's basing the decision directly on race even when it doesn't align with merit. The biggest criticism of the third system is that maybe your metric for evaluating merit is imperfect, but it might still be pretty good. And other than that it's clearly the one with the moral high ground. So where is the moral question? The moral system and the optimal system are the same one. All that's left is the technical question of how to implement a more accurate measurement of merit, if possible.
lovecg 6y ago
Sure you can. Morality is hard wired into our brains by evolution. We’re not yet capable to understand all the details of how brain works, but it’s all there in theory. It’s understandable that this line of thinking would not be possible in Hume’s time, but we know quite a bit more to move past some of these ideas.

Noos 6y ago

The problem is if the alternative is the same as the prior condition, why are they bringing it up? hint-it's to treat people not as individuals at all, the genetic basic of intelligence is generally brought up to justify discrimination. It's the same problem as arguing no free will; if the ultimate end is the same as if we had it, why are you bringing it up? But usually people want to order society around that truth, not just score points in a debate.

tomp 6y ago
I'm a matematician, so from my perspective, figuring stuff out without having a clear idea how/if it will be useful doesn't sound weird at all. In fact, it's where most of the fun is!
Aapje58 6y ago
This possibility is nearly always discussed in the context of whether racial differences in outcomes are solely due to discrimination or whether there are other factors in play. Other explanations than genetic differences and racism are also often discussed. This is important because the claim that racial gaps are solely due to racism is used to advocate for far-reaching reforms, which have huge risks and which won't actually close the gap if racism is not the cause or at least in the way as is claimed.