3 ms·

"Are we really still talking about "natural imperatives"?" I am puzzled by this sort of comment. There are certainly things that I do as a male that I conside

"Are we really still talking about "natural imperatives"?" I am puzzled by this sort of comment. There are certainly things that I do as a male that I consider to be built in behavior. I do not see any reason to think that women would not have similar.

wpietri 15y ago
What's natural isn't necessarily right; what's right isn't necessarily natural. Respectively those are the naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy. The reason people object to the naturalistic fallacy in arguments on this topic is that it is typically used to argue for the status quo by people who benefit from the status quo. If you would like to see an example of it in action, read the Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession and the Cornerstone speech. There you can see rich white people explaining how black people are natural slaves, unfit to any higher role in society. Which was certainly a convenient argument for them to make.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  I have no interest in ethics, certainly not universal ethics. All I'm saying is that "everybody is the same" type positions ignore reality.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    Nobody is taking an "everybody is the same" position. People are taking an "everybody should have the same opportunity" position, which is an ethical stance. The root comment in this chain claims that women's natural imperative is to raise children, with the implication that encouraging women to do startups is therefore wrong. That's also an ethical stance, one justified by the naturalistic fallacy. All animals, people included, have built-in behaviors. But that tells us nothing about what the right behaviors are.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      "everybody should have the same opportunity" I don't believe anybody is seriously opposing that position. I certainly am not. It seems to me that you are seeing an argument where none exists.
      - wpietri 15y ago
        You expressed puzzlement that somebody was objecting to using the natural fallacy to justify discrimination. I tried to explain.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        No, I really don't think that is what I did.

wpietri 15y ago

What's natural isn't necessarily right; what's right isn't necessarily natural. Respectively those are the naturalistic fallacy and the moralistic fallacy. The reason people object to the naturalistic fallacy in arguments on this topic is that it is typically used to argue for the status quo by people who benefit from the status quo. If you would like to see an example of it in action, read the Texas Declaration of Causes of Secession and the Cornerstone speech. There you can see rich white people explaining how black people are natural slaves, unfit to any higher role in society. Which was certainly a convenient argument for them to make.

burgerbrain 15y ago
I have no interest in ethics, certainly not universal ethics. All I'm saying is that "everybody is the same" type positions ignore reality.
- wpietri 15y ago
  Nobody is taking an "everybody is the same" position. People are taking an "everybody should have the same opportunity" position, which is an ethical stance. The root comment in this chain claims that women's natural imperative is to raise children, with the implication that encouraging women to do startups is therefore wrong. That's also an ethical stance, one justified by the naturalistic fallacy. All animals, people included, have built-in behaviors. But that tells us nothing about what the right behaviors are.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    "everybody should have the same opportunity" I don't believe anybody is seriously opposing that position. I certainly am not. It seems to me that you are seeing an argument where none exists.
    - wpietri 15y ago
      You expressed puzzlement that somebody was objecting to using the natural fallacy to justify discrimination. I tried to explain.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        No, I really don't think that is what I did.