3 ms·

Some X are only bad because they are wrong. Some X would lead to a complete overhaul of morality if they where right (like this one we are discussing). And some

Some X are only bad because they are wrong. Some X would lead to a complete overhaul of morality if they where right (like this one we are discussing). And some X are bad no matter what. On this specific case, if it happened that some physical feature of people predicted violent behavior or whatever, we would probably have to push "violence treatment" into a medicine area. So the fact that it is wrong is extremely important to how we react to it.

masfuerte 2y ago
We have known for centuries that we are all born with propensities towards this and that, but that we are also able to make choices. The fact that we can now discover the genes behind a particular propensity does not make the actions you take any or more or less of a personal responsibility than they were a century ago. There are good arguments on either side of the debate but discovering the underlying physical mechanism doesn't make any difference. Even if we discover, say, a violence gene, we can't usefully test for it because it may be present and inactive or there may be other violence genes as yet undiscovered. It doesn't tell you anything at the individual level. Genetic fatalism is currently fashionable but it is not a fact.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  You are just repeating that X is false. Everybody knows it's false, except some racist people irrationally trying to justify their biases. That doesn't change the fact that if it was true, the morality around it would have complete different dimensions, and none of what is talked about it would make any sense.
AbrahamParangi 2y ago
I appreciate this very reasoned response and I think we are on the same page. I am saying that I think people are in general quite unable to think or talk clearly about the truthfulness of statements where if they were true it would upend their morality. The solution to this problem is either moral flexibility (which I do not suggest) OR a moral stance which is not dependent on the material facts. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.

masfuerte 2y ago

We have known for centuries that we are all born with propensities towards this and that, but that we are also able to make choices. The fact that we can now discover the genes behind a particular propensity does not make the actions you take any or more or less of a personal responsibility than they were a century ago. There are good arguments on either side of the debate but discovering the underlying physical mechanism doesn't make any difference. Even if we discover, say, a violence gene, we can't usefully test for it because it may be present and inactive or there may be other violence genes as yet undiscovered. It doesn't tell you anything at the individual level. Genetic fatalism is currently fashionable but it is not a fact.

marcosdumay 2y ago
You are just repeating that X is false. Everybody knows it's false, except some racist people irrationally trying to justify their biases. That doesn't change the fact that if it was true, the morality around it would have complete different dimensions, and none of what is talked about it would make any sense.

AbrahamParangi 2y ago

I appreciate this very reasoned response and I think we are on the same page. I am saying that I think people are in general quite unable to think or talk clearly about the truthfulness of statements where if they were true it would upend their morality. The solution to this problem is either moral flexibility (which I do not suggest) OR a moral stance which is not dependent on the material facts. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.