When Hitler debated Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act he reminded Wells of how much he was censored, and this justified for him the passing of that law. They used these pre-existing laws to further suppress the opposition. — NOS4A2

I'm pretty sure this is a deliberate misrepresentation of history. The Reichstag Fire Decree was far worse than, and thus superseded, any relatively weak laws that might have already existed against some speech I would think. And I'm sure you know the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed by the then president of Germany at the behest of Hitler with the intent of paving the way to totalitarianism. Thus, the Enabling Act was largely passed because the Nazis were able to work from within the system to create a situation in which they could eliminate their political opponents. My guess is that this regime of violent intimidation and suppression of freedoms played a larger part in the Enabling Act being passed than Hitler whining like a little bitch for being cancelled in the 1933 debate.

Their suppression is a gift to them. — NOS4A2

Yes, it certainly plays to the victimhood narrative fascists propagate, but is that really what made the difference in the case of the Nazis? That Hitler was canceled for being an insane, dangerous moron on multiple occasions? Is suppression of lunatics really so injurious?

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being disinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Of course the fascists would, so it makes no sense to afford them the power to do so. One of the best ways to avoid fascism is to not do what the fascists do, which in your idea is to suppress portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. — NOS4A2

Then how do we stop them, NOS?

I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. — Patterner

I said "let's say" too many times, therefore?

What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money?? — Patterner

Not important, although I acknowledge it might be approaching absurdity.

It's not an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule. It's how I feel. — Patterner

It kind of sounded like you were saying it was a rule (perhaps a personal rule?), but whatever.

Let's say they aren't the most honest, moral beings running around. They certainly wouldn't have any credibility with me. So maybe they were faking, and only wanted us using up our time and resources on this useless task, then they resumed their attack after we gave them the money. — Patterner

The difference between your post and mine is that I was trying to go somewhere I find philosophically interesting, whereas you are just throwing up roadblocks.

freedom only leads to its distortion. Suppression is absolute , but distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.

In the most extreme case of having people that are working from within the system to actively bring about what might be the end of democracy, or humanity in general, I would say that freedom takes a back seat.

That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being misinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Whether or not we have actually reached a tipping point with regards to misinformation I don't know. Maybe we wouldn't even have to suppress speech. But I no longer see anything wrong with it in principle - and especially if it means saving our country.

Uuuumm, no. There is a societal concensus where "responsibility" lies. No personal injury lawyer will try to hold a citizen standing next to the lever (or someone who knows how to swim walking along the shoreline of the pond, to use your example) legally "responsible" for the trolley or pond tragedies, not because they (like you) can't concoct a legal (or "logical") argument to do so, rather because no group of 12 citizens would agree with the argument. No, the trolley maintainance people and the individual who pushed the kid are responsible. It is a common error to confuse a missed opportunity for excellence with incompetence or malfeasance. — LuckyR

Are you capable of reading? I granted your point about responsibility, saying that the person near the lever would not be literally responsible for the deaths of the people on the track:

I don't think anyone is saying that the person who might pull the lever is literally responsible for all those deaths if they don't pull it. — ToothyMaw

Neither was I saying that the bystander is responsible for the death of the drowning child. I was just trying to demonstrate that people often view inaction as being evil too:

Most people recognize that inaction can be wrong even if they don't directly cause the relevant bad outcome they could have prevented - in fact so wrong that they might break a rule against killing to prevent the outcome. — ToothyMaw

You clearly didn't take much time to read and understand what I was saying, as I literally say that they are not causing the bad outcome.

The reason why I focus on responsibility specifically is that despite your protestations to the contrary, when most answer the trolley problem they use wording such as "I could never pull the level since I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander". — LuckyR

I don't doubt this. I made no claims about the wording someone might use, and I think you are right. But the point of the OP is clearly focused on whether or not someone's desire to create better consequences might overcome their desire not to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander. Thus, he asks at what number of lives lost would one pull the lever.

As to logical criticism of action or inaction, you're missing why the trolley problem was invented in the first place. It is an example of a situation where a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox. If it was a choice between one person on one track and five mannequins on the other track, there would be a single logical answer (whereby those who don't choose it could be logically criticized), but no one would care about or repeat such a trivial "problem". — LuckyR

You are getting the fat man on the bridge vs. diverting the trolley via lever things mixed up with what is in the OP. Unless I'm mistaken the only paradox there is is that people will sometimes intentionally kill the person on the tracks via a lever but are mostly unwilling to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley because that seems more like intentional killing, when really both are clearly intentional.

a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox — LuckyR

Yeah, that's not really a paradox.

The problem, from a deontological perspective anyways, is whether you can formulate a general rule or maxim that can account for particularly dire circumstances without undermining the force of the command for all other circumstances. In other words is it possible to draw an abstract and general line between the exceptions and the rule.

A consequentialist does not directly have this problem, the consequentialist does need to decide though how to integrate concerns about moral hazard and respect for the individual into their calculation. — Echarmion

Yes, agreed. I myself always leaned naturally towards consequentialism, so the trolley problem has always been relatively straightforward to me. The OP is clearly trying to get at whether or not, or at what point, one will make this exception to the rule of not sacrificing people for the greater good.

That being said, a deontologist could create rules such that the protection of humanity in general takes precedence over the protection of individuals by nesting them. Asimov's Laws of Robotics did this in a simple and concise manner: his Zeroth Law, which says that no robot must harm humanity, supersedes all of the laws protecting individual humans or robots. But the challenge with this approach is resolving the unexpected conflicts that arise from people (or robots) applying the hierarchy of rules in situations far less straightforward than the trolley problem.



My response is that I would pull the lever and sacrifice one life to save more lives, although I think it is a little vulgar to speculate at what threshold. My reasoning is that sometimes good rules that generally apply (do not sacrifice people) need to be broken to effect good consequences, and that to do so is not wrong just for breaking said rules. To choose any alternative - in this case inaction - to pulling the lever is wrong because more people will die than if the lever is pulled. The decision procedure implied by what I just wrote, however, is only useful because the trolley problem is a contrived thought experiment and definitely isn't reflective of how I think we should approach moral problems in our daily lives.

So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it.
— EyE

Lol so what are your thoughts on this now. — EyE

I don't have any thoughts on it, as I thought that that was the result of a misunderstanding. Do you mean what are my thoughts on the last sentence?

Let's suppose aliens come down and tell us that we're all going to wiped out unless we give the aliens any death row convict. If we do that, we'll all live. If we don't, we'll all die, except the death row convict. What should we do? — RogueAI

We should fight the aliens to the death. Not only because it's wrong to sacrifice people (Did we learn nothing from Omelas?), but also because we would be their bitches from them on. — Patterner

maybe they are doing this from a light-year away, but we know they can back up their threat, then we die as humans. — Patterner

You would sacrifice all of humanity because you personally believe not even one person should ever be forced to sacrifice their life? Even in the situation that they would be executed anyways? I mean, clearly we should draw a line with the aliens, and if they cross that line, we do indeed fight them to the death. But should it really lay where you claim it should?

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.
— Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases?
— ToothyMaw
No.

We live in societies, with laws. The point of it all is to ensure our rights and freedom, and make our lives better. Not take our freedom, quality of life, or our very lives.

But. Since we want to live in these societies, it can't always go the way we want. There are also responsibilities. As they say, freedom isn't free. There are times when we have to do what we have to do for the society. Regardless of the risk. — Patterner

Let's say the aliens do indeed come to Earth and demand a death row inmate for some known or unknown, potentially nefarious reason. Let's say the world leaders listen to you and refuse to capitulate because of their high-minded stance on never sacrificing a person unwillingly. A bunch of people's sons and daughters are then drafted to fight in a war against these far more technologically advanced aliens. Many millions of them die. While they would indeed now be defending our freedoms and lives, this would not have happened if not for adherence to an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule.

Let's say that we fight back the aliens, against all odds, and they decide to negotiate with us, demanding the United States' entire foreign aid budget as a sort of tithe in exchange for peace. This might directly result in millions of deaths but will stop the war. Alternatively, we keep the money and fight until every last human is dead. Should we accept the terms of the agreement?

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people. — Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases?

First, the trolley maintainance people are responsible for the outcome, not the bystander who happens to be near the lever. — LuckyR

And I suppose that if a child that cannot swim is shoved into the pond, you are also not responsible for the outcome of the child drowning even if you could've jumped in and saved them.

Most people recognize that inaction can be wrong even if they don't directly cause the relevant bad outcome they could have prevented - in fact so wrong that they might break a rule against killing to prevent the outcome. Thus, I think that the point of the thought experiment, as presented in the OP, is that at some threshold of loss of life, most people will take a life to save more lives. But I don't think anyone is saying that the person who might pull the lever is literally responsible for all those deaths if they don't pull it.

Second, at the time the lever is pulled (or not pulled) the exact consequences of action or inaction is not known with certainty by the bystander. — LuckyR

You are getting lost in the details; this isn't a substantive criticism. In the OP it just says you allow five people to die, or directly kill one person to save the five. There is nothing about it being "runaway" or whatever you might remember from the classic formulation of the problem, which could probably be modified to deal with these concerns.

Thus the answer is "it doesn't matter", do whatever strikes you in the moment, you're not open to logical criticism either way. — LuckyR

You very much are open to logical criticism. If you don't choose to kill one person to save a net four lives, or five, or six, or three hundred, you clearly care less about horrific consequences and more about not breaking rules, which might be considered myopic. One might even argue that you must do bad things for good consequences sometimes.

Yeah, I realized that we must have been talking about two different things. Oof.

why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. — EyE

If my logic is correct as you say, then if the lone person does not pull the lever, then the ability for six people to choose how they die is preserved or honored. I'm saying that the lone person on one of the tracks is the one pulling the lever, not me, to potentially save themselves, at the cost of the other five people on the other track. I should have made that clearer when I proposed the modified thought experiment.

Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it. — EyE

Can you expound on this? I think you are on to something, but it sounds a little circular.

their isn't 6 choices — EyE

Does the choice of the lone person not to die potentially have less value than *six combined? — ToothyMaw

When I say six choices would be preserved, I'm saying that the choice of when and where one dies for five people are preserved if the person on the lone track sacrifices themselves. I'm not saying that there are six different choices the lone person on the track could make to kill only one person on the other track, if that's what you think I'm saying.

When you sacrifice someone it means to kill them when they weren't predestined to die. You seem to look at this in a "I could have killed you if I wanted to but I didn't therefore I saved you" kinda of way. Which is unethical to say the least :lol: — EyE

I'm a little confused by this. I'm talking about the choice of the lone person on the tracks to willingly sacrifice themselves to save the five on the other track. If they chose to do so, then they would be honoring their own choice with regards to when and where they die, and for what, which is the thing you said makes saving lives important. It might be a choice made under duress, but it is still a choice; it isn't like we don't already know that one's idea of what is right and wrong can interact with whatever idea one has in one's head of the circumstances under which one might intentionally end one's life without robbing them of agency. But this point is less important than your answer to the question I asked you in my last post.

I have no idea how predestination fits into this except insofar as sacrificing oneself might prevent one from dying in the ideal way one might want to. So, with regards to this sort of ideal death, what I said earlier doesn't really apply, although it isn't clear whether you are talking about that, or just the condition of having the agency to be able to intentionally end one's life when and where one wants.

I see now that my last post wasn't particularly well-written. If I need to clarify something, just say so.

Death can come at anytime and if someone wants to invoke it they have the agency to, but not in this situation. So I guess by switching that track I honour their ability to choose. — EyE

So, for you at least, the important thing to consider here is the freedom to choose when and where one dies, and for what. That is 100% not what I expected you to say. It is an interesting take on it.

How would you apply this view on freedom in situations where it is not so cut and dry, though?

For instance, what if the lone person on one of the tracks had the ability to redirect the train such that it would kill the five? The lone person's choice over when and where they want to die could lead to five other people losing that choice. Does the choice of the lone person not to die potentially have less value than *six combined? And if so, why? If you don't impose some means of valuing and weighing freedoms against each other, I think we run into a problem that is almost intractable when we zoom out. Or at least I couldn't solve it.

*It would be six choices preserved if the lone person decided not to redirect the trolley because by definition, they would be honoring their own choice to die when they want, and this choice would allow the five on the other track to still choose when and where they die. Thus, the freedom of everyone is preserved in a selfless act. And don't say the lone person could've just stepped off of the tracks.

Sorry if I'm straying too far from the traditional trolley problem.

ultimately the decision you are making is whether you would sacrifice 1 life to save 5. That's not to say if there wasn't someone on that second track I wouldn't pull the lever because of "fate" haha, but at least then I can entertain the choice. — EyE

Why might you switch the track if doing so would save the five lives without resulting in a death?

In this way, other potnetially immaterial things like minds can exist even if they have no directly physical/tangible basis, they can be metaphysical properties that lead to actionable consequences (behaviours) via their interaction with material existants. — Benj96

So then do the metaphysical properties we attribute to minds arise from the interface between our subjective thoughts and the material reality we perceive and interact with, or do minds have the properties we might predicate to them merely because we observe how they interact with material existents (behaviors)? I ask this because if it were just the latter that made minds what they are there would be no subjective anchoring to help determine the specific properties of any minds. To make it quite literal, ascertaining some properties would be like trying to determine someone's political beliefs with a multitude of simple puzzle boxes. So, I think that to make sense of what it means for a mind to exist in terms of descriptive properties you would need to account for some subjectivity; furthermore, I think it is not that useful to try to boil it down just to interactions with material existents in the form of behaviors because subjective beliefs or qualities, which don't necessarily act in themselves, play a gigantic part in determining how one forms intentions and acts.

Hey, welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around, because I like the substance of your first post.

The train will follow its own course, and the outcome isn't determined by my selection of a track but by the natural progression of events. — EyE

It follows the course you allow it to, methinks; it isn't a deterministic process in which you cannot intervene; you can choose such that two different outcomes are possible.

If you want to frame this in mathematical terms, you must recognize that this is not a simple equation of choosing between 1 and 5 lives. The probabilities and ethical weight aren't balanced, and I’m not the one who sets those outcomes in motion. — EyE

I think the point of the thought experiment is that the two outcomes are indeed not weighted equally according to consequentialist reasoning. You are choosing between losing five lives or saving four. Not acting to save the four lives is a choice.

Furthermore, if you aren't responsible for the lives lost for not switching the tracks on the basis that you didn't actually start the train down the tracks (which I think is what you are saying), then who is? Do we just trace the chain of causes backwards until someone took an action that you would consider direct enough to cause the loss of life and impose responsibility there?

It sounds like you are making the claim that determinism leaves no room to explore a thought experiment on the basis that the ethical actor didn't create the scenario, and therefore is exempt from any sort of ethical imperative or responsibility. Is this correct?

Sorry for not being clearer and more direct with my response to your statement, which wasn't even a yes or no question. I just kind of glazed over while reading your post because I'm a little tired of the topic.

For me it comes down to: do we want to correct for the particular injustice in the most precise, straightforward way, or do we want to make the most out of whatever money we can manage to siphon towards helping poor people of color, which includes some - but clearly not all - descendants of slaves. I would choose the former, but both positions clearly have merit.

I hope you are relating this discussion to the OP somehow.

edit: the only relevant alternative to cash payouts I can think of would be extensive government programs intended to uplift poor people of color. Sorry for not stating that directly.

If I had to answer yes or no, I would say no. I want to say that yes, the descendants of slaves should get a payout, but it is too fraught with practical problems. Not to mention it might be irresponsible to use people's money in a way that might not be effective, if effectiveness is a metric by which we should consider government spending. But that seems like a cop-out. Really, if I thought payouts could work, I would be fully in favor of paying the right people and then allowing them to do whatever they want with that money, the same way you or I can mostly do whatever we want with our own wages. How much they would get paid, I don't know. There really is no upper limit on what could be justified in theory, but we would of course want to observe some limit even if it is arbitrary.

My mind could be changed. If someone could lay out a defensible, effective, efficient plan for identifying who should get paid and how much, and it did not differ too much from my own views on the subject, then I would likely answer yes to your question.

None of that is to say that this approach would be equally effective in correcting for all other historical injustices - that is, if you think payouts would be effective in the case of slavery at all, and clearly some people don't.

But this thread isn't really about reparations for slavery in specific, so I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks for the positive affirmation.

But what is the conclusion? Can there be a conclusion? I mean, if we were to take the hard objectivist position, then how do we do reconcile that position with the endless plethora of subjective opinions encountered? Do we go through every one of them and try to reduce them to propositions about the objective world that can then be run through the metaphorical blender of objectively true utterances?

Surely if someone says something like: "I like cats because I think they are cuddly", then we kind of just have to deal with it if that is subsumed by some greater relative truth like "cats are ideal pets for people who like cuddly animals"?

I think I see where I'm going wrong. A relative truth would be that relative to a society of evangelical Christians, gay marriage is indeed wrong on the basis of their subjective belief that it is wrong. That goes further than just reporting a fact, which is what I did in my post.

It is actually presented as relativism vs. objectivism in the OP. A bunch of people, me included, got it mixed up though, presumably when they tried to refresh themselves on the whole objectivism vs. subjectivism thing.

I think something could be true independent of opinion and conscious experience per se, yet still be relative, e.g. "many people believe that vaccines are dangerous", or "many evangelical Christians believe gay marriage should not be legal". These statements are true independent of our existence, or of what you or I think, yet represent something relative (to anti-vaxxers and evangelical Christians).

So, even by the definition you supply, relative truths can exist, but they are indeed different from objective truths because they often represent subjective opinions as being true relative to a certain group of people; the potential for many relative truths is nested in the existence of subjective truths that can be factually reported.

When I read this post (mine, not yours, MoK) I can't help but feel that what I'm saying is fallacious, but I can't tell where it goes wrong.

I'm no physicist, or mathematician, but this sounds suspect. If a fact - like the laws of physics - in one universe is not the same as in another universe, wouldn't there have to be some independent reference frame against which the two can be compared to evaluate them relationally?
— ToothyMaw
Not sure what is being asked, especially since there isn't any entity necessarily doing any evaluation. For instance, in another universe, the cosmological constant might be different, which I suppose can be compared to (greater/less than relation) to each other. In yet another universe, there is no meaningful thing that could be considered a cosmological constant.

If there were something similar to Newton's laws in both
Newton's laws are pretty basic and don't so much involve things like constants, other than fundamentals like there being 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Other universes could have any values for either of these, and dimensions that are neither spatial nor temporal. Newton's laws wouldn't work in any of those. — noAxioms

You are confirming my point, I think. I'm saying that we cannot evaluate the laws of physics in two universes in some sort of relational, connected manner unless there is stuff like the cosmological constant - what I erroneously called a reference frame - in both. I was using Newton's laws as an example because my knowledge of physics is very limited. So, I think you must use the term "relative" by your own reasoning, and not "relational" - especially if you think that an evaluating entity would have to exist to connect the laws of physics in two different universes, although it is not entirely clear if you do.

Maybe I should be more direct: what exactly do you mean when you use the term relational? That is a sincere question. You might have some really good reason for using that term related to your knowledge of physics.

I think one can view many truths as being objective, and others as being somewhat subjective. Thus, I think the specific topic at hand is important in some sort of discussion of objectivism versus subjectivism.

While objectivism and subjectivism clash, I don't think I've ever heard someone argue in good faith that truth is entirely subjective or entirely objective.

(Upon doing a little research some people do indeed argue all truth is subjective)

How do you define the truth? — MoK

I think this post is getting at exactly that - is the property of being true based on facts that are verifiable independent of our feelings, or is the property of being true based on subjective experiences? Or at least, that's what I would like to think.

To say, for instance, that objectivism doesn't recognize context is a little strange:

relativism encourages us to acknowledge the plurality of perspectives and accept that truth may be shaped by our experiences and contexts. — Cadet John Kervensley

It may be problematic to see relativism or objectivitism as an ultimate 'truth'. That is because they are both perspectives. Saying that may amount to relativism in some respects. However, relativism may go too far in reducing all matters of 'truth' to the subjective, which may rule out the shared and intersubjective elements are missed. This can apply to most aspects of 'truth', including morality. Both the subjective and objective matter in thinking about the construction of 'truth and need to be juggled effectively. — Jack Cummins

I think I agree with this. And I think the main, practical distinction between the two is that one is experienced by a mind, and that a truth can be subjectively true just on the basis of being related to that experience with no other evidence being required. On the other hand, when one asserts an objective truth, one is expected to back it up. These two differing expectations lead to a useful delineation between the truths derived from, say, literature and science.

For example, the laws of physics or mathematical truths are often cited as examples of objectivism in action.The laws of physics are not necessarily the same from one universe to the next, so that would be an example of relativism (or relational, as I tend to use the word, to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity theory, which is something else). — noAxioms

Okay, I'm no physicist, or mathematician, but this sounds suspect. If a fact - like the laws of physics - in one universe is not the same as in another universe, wouldn't there have to be some independent reference frame against which the two can be compared to evaluate them relationally? The laws of physics in one universe could be so different from another that they cannot be compared via knowledge of the two alone. I mean, if there were something similar to Newton's laws in both, just changed a little (which would have massive consequences I'm sure), maybe then, but what if fundamentally they are nothing alike? I think you have to use the term "relative", because relational implies some sort of connection.

All of that might be an admitted layman just shouting into the void, and if so, please correct me.

You're repeating the exact same pattern with different words - connecting all men to rape, this time through masculinity. — Tzeentch

The point of invoking that example was to show that we can indeed connect a group identity to the really bad acts of a subset of that group, even without predicating the capacity to do those acts to some inherent quality of the group. Men largely have the characteristics associated with masculinity, and some of those characteristics manifest in bad things, such as rape. So, while clearly not every man is a rapist, many men possess the characteristics, to some degree, that might lead a man to rape a woman. There is a sort of continuum for many traits, which, in this case, would be some mix of physical aggression and entitlement.

This way of looking at it is even more straightforward in the case of the relationship between (the not monolithic groups of) white people and people of color:

I think this kind of analysis applies straightforwardly to white people discriminating against people of color: white people largely have a blind spot that allows for discrimination against people of color by virtue of viewing the issue the way you do: that we live in a fair society and if poor people of color cannot uplift themselves, it is due to their own choices and shortcomings. You don't have to be a raging racist to be complicit in this mechanism, and so I think it is mostly acceptable to talk about white people at large in negative ways. — ToothyMaw

You should respond substantively, instead of getting indignant. Or at least be substantive in your indignance.

You're repeating the exact same pattern with different words — Tzeentch

I'm not sure which pattern you are referring to, as I have indeed repeated myself a number of times in this thread.

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women.
— ToothyMaw

So you're a sexist too.

Great. — Tzeentch

Noting where I said that it is masculinity, and not something inherent to men: how am I a sexist for saying that?

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?
— ToothyMaw

People aren't fruit. We don't treat fruit as individuals. We do with people. Kind of proving my point there, buddy. — Tzeentch

That you took what I wrote so literally is surprising. It was intended to show that I think your arguments are absurd, unserious boilerplate garbage and worthy of ridicule.

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people.
— ToothyMaw

Which begs the question why you can't stop talking about this feature that apparently doesn't define the groups, but which you chose to name the groups after anyway. — Tzeentch

The reality is that, historically, people have been subdivided into groups based on their race, and, because of all the insane shit that has happened, and the slightly less insane shit going on today, we are kind of forced to deal with these abstractions. Do you think I enjoy talking about people of color as a group? Because I don't; ideally there would be no reason to do that.

If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist?
— ToothyMaw

Mostly this is just a vacuous statement. But yes.

Really what you are implying is "Men are rapists" - strictly speaking true, because some men are indeed rapists.

However, it's your failure to delineate and the insiuation that connects all men to rape that is particularly pernicious. — Tzeentch

I would argue that there are characteristics connected to masculinity, and thus men, as a group, that largely cause some of them to assault women. So, even if not all men are rapists, many men have the relevant attributes rapists have to at least some degree (and those attributes might even be good in limited amounts). I think this kind of analysis applies straightforwardly to white people discriminating against people of color: white people largely have a blind spot that allows for discrimination against people of color by virtue of viewing the issue the way you do: that we live in a fair society and if poor people of color cannot uplift themselves, it is due to their own choices and shortcomings. You don't have to be a raging racist to be complicit in this mechanism, and so I think it is mostly acceptable to talk about white people at large in negative ways.

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing?
— ToothyMaw

Yes, and clearly so.

The practice of trying to simplify large demographics into monolithic groups with a fixed set of characteristics is inherently dehumanizing. and inherently racist. It's the definition of racism, in fact - it's just taking place under another guise. — Tzeentch

Where did I attribute a fixed set of characteristics to anyone? White people discriminate against black people regularly, and this discrimination is particularly one-sided and pernicious. If I were to say that men ought not rape women, would you say that that is dehumanizing and sexist? I mean, sure, not every man is a rapist, but we know that if a woman is raped, it is almost certainly by a man, right?

Who are these 'Black People' who apparently form a homogeneous group of needy victims looking to be saved and taken pity on, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by? — Tzeentch

What are these "juicy apples", that so apparently form a homogenous group of sweet fruits looking to be peeled and eaten, with skin color for some reason being the primary trait we define them by?

Maybe my small European brain can't fathom the profundity of combatting racism by making people's skin color and race their defining features. — Tzeentch

I think we can talk about black people without saying that being black is the defining feature of being a black person. Same goes for white people.

I said nothing about solutions, but such generalizations to me seem the product of dehumanization, and a part of the problem. — Tzeentch

If I were to say: white people ought not discriminate against black people as much, and ought to listen when black people claim they are experiencing discrimination, would that be dehumanizing? I mean, I'm not saying either group is less than human, am I? That seems to be the kind of position you think you are attacking, but your objections would fall flat short of someone saying something massively stupid.

What I'm saying is more along the lines of this: people living in the United States, who are almost certainly the beneficiaries of slave labor, ought to compensate the descendants of slaves, many of whom likely agree such an action would be just.

"The descendants of slaves" is a well-defined group, not some vague abstraction that subsumes people's individuality. The same goes for "people living in the United States". Neither group is:

a non-existent abstraction — Tzeentch

One might have to ask themselves from where this desire comes to view people, rather than as individuals, as inherently part of a non-existent abstraction onto which one has slapped all kinds of nasty labels. The answer is usually pathological in nature. — Tzeentch

Okay, nobody has unreasonably abstracted anybody in this thread as far as I know. So, you can drop that, please. Furthermore, the desire to throw these roadblocks up whenever a decent discussion could be had about resolving systemic issues facing minorities, or righting wrongs related to those issues, is actually indicative of a pathological inclination towards aggressively trying to 'keep the peace'.

Upon re-reading your comment I think you are saying directly that reparations could be justified a hundred years ago. My argument still stands, however.

No - a hundred years ago, maybe - and I am rather skeptical about people claiming victimhood in this case. — Tzeentch

First off, clearly many of the descendants of slaves believe that they should be compensated, as the overwhelming majority of people of color believe the descendants of slaves should receive compensation.

Second, you aren't answering my question directly: I'm not asking if you think the effects of slavery last until today, I'm asking if you would agree that reparations could theoretically be justified, and you seem to imply that you think it could have been a hundred years ago.

If that is the case, I lay out the following argument:

(1) There is a relationship between the magnitude of the evil of an action and the magnitude of its bad effects such that more evil actions generally have worse, longer-lasting effects.

(2) I believe the magnitude of evil of slavery is such that it could have bad effects lasting until today.

(3) Thus, if you claim that the bad effects of slavery are no longer in play, and thus were not as severe as I claim, then we at least partially disagree on the magnitude of evil of slavery, or you object to (1).

If you do not object to (1), then you need to explicitly defend the position that slavery is less evil than I say it is, or else grant that reparations could be justified today much like your claim that they could be justified a hundred years ago. And I say slavery is one of the evilest things one can enact on a people.

If you want something to feel guilty about the US has no shortage of atrocities it has committed in the here and now, and has never so much as apologized for. The victims are often still alive, and usually not doing well. Vietnamese mothers are still giving birth to deformed babies as a result of Uncle Sam's Agent Orange treatment. — Tzeentch

Yes, that makes me feel guilty too. And I would be in favor of righting that particular wrong if it could be achieved.

People who were never slaveowners paying "reparations" to people who were never slaves all on the basis of skin color is one of the most silly and racist things I've ever heard argued by "serious" intellectuals. — Tzeentch

Like I said in the OP, it would be on the basis of being the descendants of slaves, not merely on skin color. Furthermore, I believe that slavery, and the destructive policies that kind of piggy-backed on it, are severe enough to warrant compensation given my pre-existing ideas of justice. If you agree with me on the effects of slavery and policy, and have a sense of justice like mine, then I think you are the one with blinders - more specifically, a selective view of when to apply that sense of justice.

If you thought slavery were as deleterious as I say, and had generational effects lasting to today even, would you agree that reparations could be justified?

Also: I'm no intellectual, let alone a serious one.

Personally I agree that reparations are good in theory, but I am skeptical about the viability. For example, if we are going to help disadvantaged people, why limit it just to descendants of slaves? — Igitur

I categorically think we should help disadvantaged people in general, and reparations is just one part of that. But, like I said to T Clark, it is also about justice. If we want to claim we believe in just treatment, then reparations are a no-brainer: people should be paid for the work they do, and if they cannot be paid for the work they do directly, we should compensate the people most proximal to that theft of wages.

And is trying to make this fairer even feasible? I agree that we should if we could, but we would need more information than we have to avoid just giving benefits to those with certain backgrounds, which will cause at least some political backlash, and if that is inefficient, then shouldn't we just spend that money on creating a fair and equal world that's better for everyone? — Igitur

I think that if we improve everyone's lot through policy, then people are less likely to lash out over perceived unfair treatment. If everyone just got a check from the government to sustain them while they mostly get to pursue whatever they want, for example, they probably wouldn't care that much if we tried to give the descendants of slaves something extra. So, yes, we should make the world fairer and more equal, and in turn I think that that will make the distribution of reparations less controversial in the absence of a way to make it a really efficient, fair process.

Undoubtedly the most important thing, really, is to make the world better for people, but I would like to see reparations not just because it would do that, but also because it would be the just thing to do.

Can't tell if moron or troll. You have 100 posts and have been a member for 5 years, so it seems very unlikely that you would lurk so long just to get this one off.

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations.
— ToothyMaw

Florida’s teachers are now required to instruct middle-school students that enslaved people “developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”...DeSantis has repeatedly defended the new language
— AP - DeSantis is defending new slavery teachings. — T Clark

Yeah, I wasn't aware that it extended to brainwashing children. That's messed up.

those future generations would likely suffer worse effects from the society declaring "hey we paid our debt, it's over, problem solved, let's do whatever we want to whomever we want".
— LuckyR

This is a very good point. I should have included it in my list of good reasons not to give reparations. — T Clark

That's why we should continually advocate for change and constantly remind people of the grotesque, unjust disparities between different groups of people - in terms of both class and race. Reparations and effecting political change are not mutually exclusive. Do you think someone who cares about the working class like Bernie Sanders would just retire to some beach in Florida if we implemented reparations? Or would he continue to fight for people, black, brown and white, to have better lives? If people begin to listen less, then we dial it up until they listen again. For me it's pretty much that simple.

I see no problem with an aggrieved party seeking damages and retribution from their exploiters wherever and how it can be done. — NOS4A2

This is good. But the exploiters are no longer alive, clearly.

Should the estates of slave-owners and the wealth that they stole still exist, perhaps that can be done. — NOS4A2

I think you know that I'm suggesting that our government ought to pay for these damages.

But if you’re going to implicate anyone but the guilty parties — NOS4A2

Not doing that.

First off, no, I don't believe that, and second, should we not try to compensate people at all even if it isn't nearly enough? Do you think that no reparations is the same thing as some reparations?
— ToothyMaw

No, we should not. It is offensive to suggest that it can be done. And can we maybe address the case of mixed race folk both paying and receiving reparations presumably in some amount proportional to their ethnic origins? — unenlightened

Okay, well, it remains that we can do something, even if it isn't nearly enough, if we were to just resolve to do so. In fact, I think doing nothing is far more offensive. We can't be bothered at all to, say, offer more housing grants for people so as to help uplift them because it is offensive to try to help them? What kind of backwards reasoning is that?

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions
— ToothyMaw

I understand what you were trying to say, but I stand by my judgment it is insulting and demeaning. — T Clark

What about it is insulting and demeaning? Is it offensive to acknowledge the realities of people who are systematically marginalized like "crack whores" (your words not mine)? I mean, nothing will leave you poor and marginalized like a crack addiction, and I would say this of any white person too.

As I said, it won't work and it'll make things worse. We don't need justice, if that's what reparations really is. Is money to middle class black people but nothing for poor whites and Hispanics justice? We need to make things better. — T Clark

I'm not disputing that we need to do the things you claim we need to do to make things better. I just think, as I have said before, that if we were to care to apply our standards of justice consistently, we would support reparations.

This seems a little glib.
— ToothyMaw

It's not glib, it's vague. I wasn't trying to provide a list of possible solutions. Here are some - Universal Basic Income, political support for labor unions, changes in tax policy, political action to get rid of racial reactionaries. Most efforts should be aimed at class differences, not racial ones. Improving workers finances won't solve the problem, but it will make it a different problem. — T Clark

Yes, I agree, all those things would be good.

And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness.
— ToothyMaw

Wokeness isn't spooky and it isn't a term I like, but it's the term typically used these days and you know what I mean. What's the right word? If you think it isn't a real thing, then you don't really understand what's going on. Trying to make white people feel guilty gave Ron DeSantis the opening to claim that slavery benefited blacks. — T Clark

And, your protestations of innocence non-withstanding, reparations is part of the same package. — T Clark

I think that if someone can be persuaded that slavery benefited people of color at all, then they are a hopeless moron that could be persuaded of almost any right-wing bullshit regardless of the way some small number of people frame their arguments for reparations.

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered?
— ToothyMaw

This is another one of those presumptuous, condescending statements we were talking about. You can't set yourself up as a spokesperson for black people. — T Clark

Maybe it is presumptuous, but I am not claiming to be a spokesperson for anyone. I'm just trying to have some empathy. If people don't feel the way I do about it, or think that it is a useful question, I'm okay with that. I can try to reel it in a little.

That you ask this question suggests that you think some sum of money can compensate for centuries of total exploitation. — unenlightened

First off, no, I don't believe that, and second, should we not try to compensate people at all even if it isn't nearly enough? Do you think that no reparations is the same thing as some reparations?



I was wondering when you would turn up.

Much of Washington D.C. was built by slave labor. There is some serious back-pay owed, perhaps even to the descendants of those who were forced to work on it. Apparently documents which record who worked there still exist so it is conceivable that their descendants could be found and the US treasury pays what is owed.

But beyond that it cannot go. None of the victims nor the perpetrators are alive. Restitution is impossible. — NOS4A2

Okay, consider this:

If you, and all of your family members, and all of your friends' family members, and yours and their grandparents, and yours and their grandparent's grandparents were subjected to slavery for hundreds of years, only to be abused and treated as second class citizens even after being freed, never to see a dime in compensation for virtually all of that work, would you want your descendants to be disproportionately impoverished and derided as part of a legacy you could not have possibly changed? Or would you at least want them to be compensated somewhat for the exploitation you had suffered?

I understand that no one person has occupied the space between slavery and the modern day, but I don't think we would have to guess what they would think about it if they did: people should get paid for the work they do and compensated for the serious wrongdoings they incur - even if the capacity to do so is somewhat obfuscated by time. If you see something wrong with extending reparations to people born after the initial wrongs have taken place, then I assure you that you hold important distinctions more arbitrary than that in your head.

The damage of the slave trade and colonisation is irreparable. Reparations are for white people's benefit, to assuage their guilt; they cannot conceivably compensate for or repair what has happened. — unenlightened

If this were true, then why are the majority of people of color in favor of reparations? Would reparations not be giving the people who suffered the most from slavery and racist policies what they think they deserve? And would that not be more than just an attempt to assuage guilt if the intent were to provide these people such an outcome?

I still think the only reasonable conclusion is to implement reparations.
— ToothyMaw

I strongly disagree. For the record, I am a 72 year-old, white, liberal American. Am I correct in assuming you are also white? — T Clark

Yes, I am also white.

That one cannot draw a crisp, unambiguous causal line from the plight of a former slave to that of one of their descendants, a crack-addicted prostitute living in a ghetto for instance, is not evidence of a lack of such a line;
— ToothyMaw

Outrageous. If nothing else, this statement shows the lack of seriousness of your argument. I think most black people would be angered by using crack whores as representative of their race in modern America. — T Clark

I am using that example to represent some of the most extreme conditions - the predicaments I alluded to in the preceding paragraph - some people of color face. I do not think that it is at all "representative of their race", as I am not trying to represent a race in my argument. And you are not really addressing that argument here. Also: do you know the meaning of the word plight?

There are approximately 47 million black people in the US, including those of mixed race. How much are we going to give each of them? $10,000? That would cost a total of $470 billion dollars. How much difference would $10,000 make? Sure, it would make a big difference for many people and a very big difference for some. Would it change the racial atmosphere for the better? Would it erase the racial disadvantage? No. We'd end up back in the same world we started in with a vast well of white resentment added to what is already there. — T Clark

For me, reparations aren't just about erasing the problem, it's about justice - due compensation. It doesn't have to fix everything; it is a goodwill gesture towards making things a little righter. If we want to change the plight of people of color - especially those who have it the worst - then we clearly do in fact have to change white people's attitudes and strip down the parts of the institutions that still disadvantage them.

give white people and black people a common purpose. — T Clark

This seems a little glib. Yes, giving people a common purpose is often times an effective way of breaking down barriers, but what about when the material disparity between two groups is the result of, and is enabled by, the agenda of the dominant group? A useful ally is not necessarily a respected comrade - or even a human being treated with a commensurate amount of dignity.

We've already seen much of America kick-back against what they call "wokeness," the essence of which, as I see it, is that everything wrong is white people's fault and it's ok to treat them with contempt. — T Clark

I think most Americans don't care much about errant social justice provided it doesn't directly affect them. And note that, nowhere in this thread, nor in my OP, has anyone expressed the sentiment that white people are responsible for everything that is wrong and should be hated. Yet you felt as if you had to invoke the spooky specter of wokeness. Strange. It's almost like it's a lazy device used to bolster insubstantial arguments.

I mean, clearly no one living today is at fault for slavery, but yeah, that kind of was white peoples' fault, wasn't it? Just not yours or mine?

Maybe that's what you call justice - give them a taste of their own medicine - but it won't work. — T Clark

No, the justice is for the people most heavily affected by slavery and continued traumas. I don't think a single white person today should suffer for the crimes of any slave masters that existed before them.