4 ms·

You really can, though. This discussion is considered “solved” in most of the so-called civilized world. Your argument could be equally applied to other topics

You really can, though. This discussion is considered “solved” in most of the so-called civilized world. Your argument could be equally applied to other topics that were once debated hotly but now are mostly considered “solved”, such as “is it good to have slaves”, or “should women be allowed to vote”.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
“Solved” ≠ “simple”. There's a consensus on the right answer, but that doesn't make the reasoning trivial. • “Is it good to have slaves”: they're people, so they shouldn't be enslaved. (Almost axiomic, with the same reasoning in consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethical systems.) • “Should women be allowed to vote?”: they're people who are affected by policy, so yes, they should be able to decide it. (See: the whole justification for democracy in the first place; it just falls out. … Should children be allowed to vote?) I don't think you can come up with something so simple for abortion, unless it's one of the axioms of your ethical system. That's more a function of our (relative) lack of understanding, rather than the problem being intrinsically complex… probably.
- nautilius 5y ago
  Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. But imagine stepping out from your time machine to 1860 Richmond, VA, I don't think many people would agree with your first point, that now seems so obvious. It's a sign of the immense cultural progress we made that you can now state your two points as truisms. Let's not forget that there was a whole war fought about whether your point one holds value or not - more than 600,000 people were killed trying to find an answer to this question (almost as many as died due to COVID in this country so far). Our cultural values will continue to evolve, things that are heavily debated today will seem as plain as the two points you raise are for us today.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. Slavery didn't carry on so long because people “weren't sure whether it was okay”. It carried on because the powerful wanted slaves. The history of slavery discourse is the history of people inventing new reasons that it's actually a good thing – but the reasons it's a bad thing stay the same, and were even known and remarked upon in Ancient Greece. Women had the vote in 1264, when the House of Commons was first formed in England, and they had the vote in 1295 when the then-King officially declared the House of Commons part of parliament. In fact, England had universal suffrage (albeit hampered by the lack of secret ballot) until 1430, when it was restricted to forty-shilling freeholders. Are you really saying these are hard problems? These are problems that were introduced as a means of enabling the concentration of power. The ethics of abortion is a problem introduced by our biology; why would you even expect it to be so easy?
    - nautilius 5y ago
      So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Everyone always agreed and of course still does that all humans are created equal and deserve the same rights, regardless of religion, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, but the powerful elite overruled the peace loving and embracing populace? How convenient! That’s a steep argument that I will not even engage with. You throw around numbers, but it looks like there’s quite a bit of history and current events for you to read up on. The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, that some groups are simply fundamentally, biologically, inferior. It leaves me completely speechless and disgusted that you come forward and deny that.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        > So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Nope. In Ancient Greece, basically all non-slaves benefited from slavery, and ultimately they didn't do anything about it. Within their culture, they had the right to do bad things (slavery) to those they defeated in war; their society was structured such that it required slaves, and most not-enslaved people were okay with that… or, at least, few objected enough to try to put a stop to it. The “oh, but they're actually inferior, and naturally deserve this” arguments came later. I'm making specific claims, not the general ones you think I am. In Ancient Greece, it was merely the powerful, not the powerful elite, who upheld slavery – even though the word had negative connotations in Plato's time. In England, it was the upper classes that imposed restrictions on voting, and the lower classes who made themselves a massive nuisance until those got progressively relaxed… but it was also a rebellious noble who introduced the House of Commons (for largely self-serving reasons) in the first place. In America, it was mostly slaveholders who argued that slavery was good actually. (I don't know much about US history, though, and you can easily cast doubt on this assertion by showing me a slavery apologist who wasn't a slaver.) > The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, Eventually, yes. But this particular excuse was just one in a long, long line of excuses. It's rare for one group to oppress another on ideological grounds when they aren't getting something else out of it; the “ideological grounds” are a mere farce. Somewhere around the 1350s (± 20 years; I haven't looked into it recently, and I'm no good with dates), the House of Commons became responsible for deciding taxation, a right the barons claimed for themselves in 1215 with the Magna Carta. The justification for this was three-fold; in order for a tax to be just, it must: • be demonstrated, by the king (the one who imposed taxes), to be necessary; • be to the benefit of the community; and • be approved by the community. This is, fundamentally, the justification for democracy. This is the logic that says all taxpayers should have the right to vote. Why, then, was the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885, page 11: https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/10/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/...)

wizzwizz4 5y ago

“Solved” ≠ “simple”. There's a consensus on the right answer, but that doesn't make the reasoning trivial. • “Is it good to have slaves”: they're people, so they shouldn't be enslaved. (Almost axiomic, with the same reasoning in consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethical systems.) • “Should women be allowed to vote?”: they're people who are affected by policy, so yes, they should be able to decide it. (See: the whole justification for democracy in the first place; it just falls out. … Should children be allowed to vote?) I don't think you can come up with something so simple for abortion, unless it's one of the axioms of your ethical system. That's more a function of our (relative) lack of understanding, rather than the problem being intrinsically complex… probably.

nautilius 5y ago
Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. But imagine stepping out from your time machine to 1860 Richmond, VA, I don't think many people would agree with your first point, that now seems so obvious. It's a sign of the immense cultural progress we made that you can now state your two points as truisms. Let's not forget that there was a whole war fought about whether your point one holds value or not - more than 600,000 people were killed trying to find an answer to this question (almost as many as died due to COVID in this country so far). Our cultural values will continue to evolve, things that are heavily debated today will seem as plain as the two points you raise are for us today.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > Oh, it obviously isn't simple, otherwise it wouldn't have taken so long to abolish slavery and let women vote, I couldn't agree more. Slavery didn't carry on so long because people “weren't sure whether it was okay”. It carried on because the powerful wanted slaves. The history of slavery discourse is the history of people inventing new reasons that it's actually a good thing – but the reasons it's a bad thing stay the same, and were even known and remarked upon in Ancient Greece. Women had the vote in 1264, when the House of Commons was first formed in England, and they had the vote in 1295 when the then-King officially declared the House of Commons part of parliament. In fact, England had universal suffrage (albeit hampered by the lack of secret ballot) until 1430, when it was restricted to forty-shilling freeholders. Are you really saying these are hard problems? These are problems that were introduced as a means of enabling the concentration of power. The ethics of abortion is a problem introduced by our biology; why would you even expect it to be so easy?
  - nautilius 5y ago
    So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Everyone always agreed and of course still does that all humans are created equal and deserve the same rights, regardless of religion, gender, skin color, sexual orientation, but the powerful elite overruled the peace loving and embracing populace? How convenient! That’s a steep argument that I will not even engage with. You throw around numbers, but it looks like there’s quite a bit of history and current events for you to read up on. The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, that some groups are simply fundamentally, biologically, inferior. It leaves me completely speechless and disgusted that you come forward and deny that.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      > So you’re saying there doesn’t exist (and never did) racism nor misogyny, never antisemitism, but it was always a plot of the few powerful? Nope. In Ancient Greece, basically all non-slaves benefited from slavery, and ultimately they didn't do anything about it. Within their culture, they had the right to do bad things (slavery) to those they defeated in war; their society was structured such that it required slaves, and most not-enslaved people were okay with that… or, at least, few objected enough to try to put a stop to it. The “oh, but they're actually inferior, and naturally deserve this” arguments came later. I'm making specific claims, not the general ones you think I am. In Ancient Greece, it was merely the powerful, not the powerful elite, who upheld slavery – even though the word had negative connotations in Plato's time. In England, it was the upper classes that imposed restrictions on voting, and the lower classes who made themselves a massive nuisance until those got progressively relaxed… but it was also a rebellious noble who introduced the House of Commons (for largely self-serving reasons) in the first place. In America, it was mostly slaveholders who argued that slavery was good actually. (I don't know much about US history, though, and you can easily cast doubt on this assertion by showing me a slavery apologist who wasn't a slaver.) > The ethics of women voting, slavery, and the Holocaust were argued on the same biological basis, Eventually, yes. But this particular excuse was just one in a long, long line of excuses. It's rare for one group to oppress another on ideological grounds when they aren't getting something else out of it; the “ideological grounds” are a mere farce. Somewhere around the 1350s (± 20 years; I haven't looked into it recently, and I'm no good with dates), the House of Commons became responsible for deciding taxation, a right the barons claimed for themselves in 1215 with the Magna Carta. The justification for this was three-fold; in order for a tax to be just, it must: • be demonstrated, by the king (the one who imposed taxes), to be necessary; • be to the benefit of the community; and • be approved by the community. This is, fundamentally, the justification for democracy. This is the logic that says all taxpayers should have the right to vote. Why, then, was the right to vote restricted to forty-shilling freeholders (landowners with at least 40 shillings' annual rent) in 1430‽ Well, “elections had been crowded by persons of low estate“, of course. (Charles Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales: The Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise, 1832-1885, page 11: https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/10/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/electoralreformi00seymuoft/page/...)