3 ms·

I think we are moving well outside the Overton window with your example though. The specific things being balanced in this case are a quality improvement in a

by TimPC 5y ago

I think we are moving well outside the Overton window with your example though. The specific things being balanced in this case are a quality improvement in a specific student's education against a resource necessary for a student to receive education. By advancing the idea that the later claims don't have moral priority over the former you seem to be contradicting the idea that every child has a right to an education. I don't think you meant your statement that way but that is the effect of ideas like "every child has an equal claim to public funds and it is immoral to allocate resources so unevenly." Vastly unequal allocations of public funds are simply necessary to meet special needs so if we want to provide those kids an education we have to accept that consequence even if we have desires to spend the money elsewhere.

helpfulclippy 5y ago
You seem to be appealing to the presumed moral superiority of your position. Others disagree, both with your expectation of what is a right and what must be done to respect those rights. The existence of vouchers demonstrates that they exist and in sufficient numbers to get their way in at least some areas. We live in a pluralistic society, in which compromises between differing moral systems are required. Someone with either of the alternative claims I listed (fund the high achievers who are most likely to repay society, fund all kids the same) has every bit as much claim to moral righteousness as you, and every bit as much right to invoke the word “scam” to describe your preferred policy. Planting your feet and asserting your moral correctness, as evaluated by you, doesn’t change that.
- TimPC 5y ago
  Yes, we live in a pluralistic society. We still have a certain amount of base values and organizations and institutions that accompany that. The right to an education is enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly. I think there is some value in establishing the fact that the positions you initially argued were morally neutral are now being established as moral positions. There is also some merits to the discussion of the consequences of each of these policies. You've advanced two positions that take money away from special needs students for other students in ways that deny their right to an education. I'm glad you now somewhat acknowledge that consequence by appealing to arguments that seem to amount to "Education is not a right and even if it is, that doesn't mean special needs assistants are necessary to provide that right." I think it's useful to expose the position that is a consequence of a seemingly much more benign funding claim. I suspect many people might have a surface level agreement with the initial funding policy but will nonetheless reject the idea when they see the consequences on the right to education. Just because we have different moral positions doesn't make all positions equally valid and exploring the consequences of moral positions is still a useful exercise.
  - helpfulclippy 5y ago
    0. I'd say if you want case studies in how little agreement there is in moral reasoning, look no further than attempts to turn such lofty ideals as UN covenants and declarations into actual public policy! Countries wildly differ in their interpretations of these things. Even within those interpretations, they implement them differently. Within those implementations, people in those countries still disagree with the principles of those declarations. And in any case, the US is not even a party to the one you mentioned. 1. "I think there is some value in establishing the fact that the positions you initially argued were morally neutral are now being established as moral positions." I've been quite consistent here. In regards to your claim that my top post was morally equivocating funding gifted kids and special ed kids, I pointed out that wasn't doing any such thing because I made no moral claims in the first place. I stuck to what was either quantitative (my district allocates $61/yr to TAG students), or clearly demarcated subjective opinion. ("I think...") You then made categorical claims about what "moral basis" might exist: specifically, that there is no moral basis for kids to be entitled to the average amount of spend, and that there's no moral basis in favor of funding gifted kids at the expense of reducing special ed funding from their present levels. The purpose of my listing those two other positions is because they are clearly based in reasonably common moral principles that lots of ordinary people hold, and lead to exactly the positions you're thinking have no moral basis. I certainly don't claim those are morally neutral -- the whole point is that they are not. 2. 'You've advanced two positions that take money away from special needs students for other students in ways that deny their right to an education. I'm glad you now somewhat acknowledge that consequence by appealing to arguments that seem to amount to "Education is not a right and even if it is, that doesn't mean special needs assistants are necessary to provide that right."' When I argue that a thing isn't necessary to respect a right, then that's not even "somewhat" of an acknowledgment that failing to provide it is a denial of that right... it's exactly the opposite! :)

by TimPC 5y ago

helpfulclippy 5y ago

You seem to be appealing to the presumed moral superiority of your position. Others disagree, both with your expectation of what is a right and what must be done to respect those rights. The existence of vouchers demonstrates that they exist and in sufficient numbers to get their way in at least some areas. We live in a pluralistic society, in which compromises between differing moral systems are required. Someone with either of the alternative claims I listed (fund the high achievers who are most likely to repay society, fund all kids the same) has every bit as much claim to moral righteousness as you, and every bit as much right to invoke the word “scam” to describe your preferred policy. Planting your feet and asserting your moral correctness, as evaluated by you, doesn’t change that.

TimPC 5y ago
Yes, we live in a pluralistic society. We still have a certain amount of base values and organizations and institutions that accompany that. The right to an education is enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN General Assembly. I think there is some value in establishing the fact that the positions you initially argued were morally neutral are now being established as moral positions. There is also some merits to the discussion of the consequences of each of these policies. You've advanced two positions that take money away from special needs students for other students in ways that deny their right to an education. I'm glad you now somewhat acknowledge that consequence by appealing to arguments that seem to amount to "Education is not a right and even if it is, that doesn't mean special needs assistants are necessary to provide that right." I think it's useful to expose the position that is a consequence of a seemingly much more benign funding claim. I suspect many people might have a surface level agreement with the initial funding policy but will nonetheless reject the idea when they see the consequences on the right to education. Just because we have different moral positions doesn't make all positions equally valid and exploring the consequences of moral positions is still a useful exercise.
- helpfulclippy 5y ago
  0. I'd say if you want case studies in how little agreement there is in moral reasoning, look no further than attempts to turn such lofty ideals as UN covenants and declarations into actual public policy! Countries wildly differ in their interpretations of these things. Even within those interpretations, they implement them differently. Within those implementations, people in those countries still disagree with the principles of those declarations. And in any case, the US is not even a party to the one you mentioned. 1. "I think there is some value in establishing the fact that the positions you initially argued were morally neutral are now being established as moral positions." I've been quite consistent here. In regards to your claim that my top post was morally equivocating funding gifted kids and special ed kids, I pointed out that wasn't doing any such thing because I made no moral claims in the first place. I stuck to what was either quantitative (my district allocates $61/yr to TAG students), or clearly demarcated subjective opinion. ("I think...") You then made categorical claims about what "moral basis" might exist: specifically, that there is no moral basis for kids to be entitled to the average amount of spend, and that there's no moral basis in favor of funding gifted kids at the expense of reducing special ed funding from their present levels. The purpose of my listing those two other positions is because they are clearly based in reasonably common moral principles that lots of ordinary people hold, and lead to exactly the positions you're thinking have no moral basis. I certainly don't claim those are morally neutral -- the whole point is that they are not. 2. 'You've advanced two positions that take money away from special needs students for other students in ways that deny their right to an education. I'm glad you now somewhat acknowledge that consequence by appealing to arguments that seem to amount to "Education is not a right and even if it is, that doesn't mean special needs assistants are necessary to provide that right."' When I argue that a thing isn't necessary to respect a right, then that's not even "somewhat" of an acknowledgment that failing to provide it is a denial of that right... it's exactly the opposite! :)