3 ms·
Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that our modern interpretations of age of consent may be a fad? Or that one day science may provide incontrovertible
by detuur 3y ago
Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that our modern interpretations of age of consent may be a fad? Or that one day science may provide incontrovertible evidence that racism is entirely rational and appropriate?
Arguing these is pointless, because they are violate dogmas that underpin our modern ideology. They are not up for argument. If another ideology suggests that racism is actually a-ok, then we consider it clearly flawed, because dogmatically, ideologies that come to that conclusion must be flawed. And not just flawed, because these fundamental dogmas are what shapes our notions of "good" and "evil". Not adhering to these dogmas makes you evil.
I must add, this is not a fallacy of some sort. If I were thrown into another society where everyone approves of racism, I am still attached to my personal dogmas. I would consider such a society unjust and warped. As a matter of fact, there's plenty of personal dogmas our current society violates, and I consider our current society and its ideology unjust and flawed.
Which raises another point, which is that our society does not have a monolithical ideology. It has an emergent ideology that arises from common agreement, but there's plenty of people in our society these days who disagree with several of the dogmas. And that's what makes them "bad" or "evil".
The only way to argue someone out of a personal dogma is to convince them that whatever your dogmas are is reflective of absolute good, evil, and/or truth. This is the subject of what is likely one of the oldest philosophical debates and has spawned several religions.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago> Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that This is not a two sided discussion where each camps agree in block with a set list of propositions. It's also not manichean with things being either completely true or false, right or wrong or, good or evil. You are not either for or against. If you believe that, you are the problem. We should be able to explore these subjects in their full complexity with the disagreement that entails. It's not even possible anymore in academia.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago> If another ideology suggests that racism is actually a-ok We almost universally agree that racism is not ok but what's racism? Some think affirmative action is racist.
- DeathArrow 3y agoYou mentioned about you. Your thoughts, your opinions, your dogmas. The society is far greater than you. Different people have (and have the right to have) different opinions.
- Ygg2 3y ago> Do _you_ want to be on the side that argues that our modern interpretations of age of consent may be a fad I mean it is a fad just a centuries old one. My opinion is that morality is essentially a tips and trick of how to survive passed in a game of generational telephone. E.g. ancient Greek hated cannibalism but practiced pederasty. Cannibalism can lead to catching prions and going crazy. For them it was god's punishment. Pederasty probably didn't have as many negative side effects at that time. Proclaiming superiority over our predecessors is short lived. Imagine if there were two races of butterflies, one gray one white. The white blend better on trees and thus survive more, so white butterflies start arguing they are morally superior (favorite of God, etc.) to the gray ones, but that quickly changes once pollution grays the trees making now white butterflies the more visible prey.
- DeathArrow 3y agoImmanuel Kant had the idea of a supreme morality test. All things done by an individual which extended to all individuals would mean human kind extinction are imoral. All the rest are not imoral. So killing, cannibalism and pederasty are obviously imoral.
- Ygg2 3y agoI understand cannibalism and killing, but how exactly would pederasty applied to everything lead to human extinction? Die-off from lack of breeding? Sexually transmissible diseases? In both cases you could also construct homosexuality as immoral
- mecha_ghidorah 3y ago> So killing, cannibalism and pederasty are obviously imomral. Actually cannibalism is just eating of people, there is no requirement that said people get butchered for it. Someone might ritualistically eat an elder in their community to gain part of their wisdom for example, but there is not a requirement that they slay that elder first - they may just wait for them to die