3 ms·

A justification of what, though? It isn't a cohesive argument on it's own but it is important perspective. If a significant fraction of societies have arrived a

A justification of what, though? It isn't a cohesive argument on it's own but it is important perspective. If a significant fraction of societies have arrived at policies that contradict your worldview I think that ought to give you pause. (Note that I say that as someone who holds far more extreme views about legal freedom of expression than the vast majority of people out there.) That's getting somewhat off topic though. In the context of this thread it's merely the observation that attributing this to "puritans" or "christianity" or "US history" is rather misguided. The US and western Europe are very much the outliers here.

anonym29 1y ago
Are you defending the morality of authoritarian states imprisoning journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups? It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of promoting these practices, just asking you to clarify your position.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  I am expressing neither support nor opposition to any particular policy position in that comment, merely putting forth the general principle that any time you find yourself to be an outlier you should very carefully examine how that came to be. It's a natural extension of Chesterton's fence. I think it also follows from such a principle that in general the relevant reasoning should be explicitly articulated when discussing the topic. > It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. Suppose that a thing is explicitly chosen by the majority of the world's population, or dictated by the majority of governments, or imposed by the majority of cultural norms. I am suggesting that dismissing it in favor of your own reasoning is fine, but that doing so lightly is arrogant and misguided.
  - anonym29 1y ago
    What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Humans engaged in tribalistic groupthink committing moral atrocities is a tale as old as time. It is never wise to accept a majority or status quo position reflexively without thoroughly interrogating the ideas held within. A great deal of majority positions are morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible, and that has always been the case throughout human history. Human sacrifices of the innocent were not a "different culture", they were barbaric murders that were always wrong. They were also normative in much of the world for much of human history. The values espoused (but not always upheld) by western societies that many of us take for granted today are the exception to the rules throughout human history - rules that promoted needless bloodshed, widespread suffering, and persecution of the innocent. It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. To assert otherwise isn't simply innocuously defending pluralism, it's defending atrocities. All life is inherently valuable and I will not apologize for asserting that, no matter how many billions of people disagree for tribalistic, persecutory reasons.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      > What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Perhaps the fact that you made a claim without bothering to explain this supposed "extensive, careful, and deliberate thought" of yours? Also the fact that your tone generally comes across as ideologically charged; in my experience zealots rarely engage in patient critical thinking. Certainly I don't suggest that one should blindly favor the status quo when given the chance to think things through. However absent careful thought the status quo is the obvious default. When in Rome and all that. There is nearly always a reason that things are done the way they are done although often the particulars will be quite convoluted. > It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. Is it really your intent to imply that I have called for such? That is quite the wild leap. I feel compelled to object that the turn this exchange has taken does not come across as being one of good faith.

anonym29 1y ago

Are you defending the morality of authoritarian states imprisoning journalists and nonviolent political opposition groups? It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of promoting these practices, just asking you to clarify your position.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fc417fc802 1y ago
I am expressing neither support nor opposition to any particular policy position in that comment, merely putting forth the general principle that any time you find yourself to be an outlier you should very carefully examine how that came to be. It's a natural extension of Chesterton's fence. I think it also follows from such a principle that in general the relevant reasoning should be explicitly articulated when discussing the topic. > It's one thing to recognize that it happens, another to recognize the practice as legitimate, virtuous, or even desirable. Suppose that a thing is explicitly chosen by the majority of the world's population, or dictated by the majority of governments, or imposed by the majority of cultural norms. I am suggesting that dismissing it in favor of your own reasoning is fine, but that doing so lightly is arrogant and misguided.
- anonym29 1y ago
  What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Humans engaged in tribalistic groupthink committing moral atrocities is a tale as old as time. It is never wise to accept a majority or status quo position reflexively without thoroughly interrogating the ideas held within. A great deal of majority positions are morally reprehensible and ethically indefensible, and that has always been the case throughout human history. Human sacrifices of the innocent were not a "different culture", they were barbaric murders that were always wrong. They were also normative in much of the world for much of human history. The values espoused (but not always upheld) by western societies that many of us take for granted today are the exception to the rules throughout human history - rules that promoted needless bloodshed, widespread suffering, and persecution of the innocent. It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. To assert otherwise isn't simply innocuously defending pluralism, it's defending atrocities. All life is inherently valuable and I will not apologize for asserting that, no matter how many billions of people disagree for tribalistic, persecutory reasons.
  - fc417fc802 1y ago
    > What gives you the impression that I might be offering my critiques lightly or arrogantly, as opposed to only after arriving at them through extensive, careful, and deliberate thought? Perhaps the fact that you made a claim without bothering to explain this supposed "extensive, careful, and deliberate thought" of yours? Also the fact that your tone generally comes across as ideologically charged; in my experience zealots rarely engage in patient critical thinking. Certainly I don't suggest that one should blindly favor the status quo when given the chance to think things through. However absent careful thought the status quo is the obvious default. When in Rome and all that. There is nearly always a reason that things are done the way they are done although often the particulars will be quite convoluted. > It is not arrogant to assert that loss of innocent human life is reprehensible and the societies that normalize it should be condemned. Is it really your intent to imply that I have called for such? That is quite the wild leap. I feel compelled to object that the turn this exchange has taken does not come across as being one of good faith.