A short and related article I stumbled upon: "Getting Serious about Seriousness, Aristotle on the meaning of Spoudaios," by Matthew Lu.

I think the claim is supported logically by the fact that no purely logical reason for considering races to be inferior or superior seem to be possible. If they were possible, it should be easy enough to find them, or they certainly should have been found by now, and yet they have not been, and seemingly cannot be, found, hence the conclusion that they at least do not seem to be possible.

But that's the very thing the racist denies, they will point to decades of studies on intergroup IQ scores, peer reviewed studies on rates of violent crimes when controlling for income, historical differences in regional development, etc.

The "race realist" (like the "gender realist") often comes armed with a wealth of scientific studies. And they can also point to no small number or cases where people have been persecuted for, or driven out of the sciences for daring to contravene the "social construct" or "no differences narrative," hence casting aspersions on "scientific consensus" as being manufactured by fear of accusations of "racism."

Stephen Pinker has some good stuff on this. The most common response to this issue, something like what you're saying, implies that: "if there are actually meaningful differences between races, then racism actually wouldn't be bad and maybe we should even become racists." It forces anti-racists to have to litigate the interpretation of expert data like IQ studies, behavioral genetics, etc. and get into debates about statistical controls, etc. because they have already accepted premises like: "if there is intergroup variance in anything other than the 'physical' (i.e., the mental) then racism is actually acceptable." Indeed, the "meritocracy" imagined by modern liberalism would tend to suggest this.

This is a problem that is very widespread and I think it stems from an inability to ground human dignity and worth in anything in post-modern liberalism. So racism has to be opposed on the grounds that is a transgression of the liberal ideal of individuals getting proper deserts for their actions. The transgression of racism in neo-liberalism is not the dehumanizing and alienating circumstances of the urban and rural underclasses afterall, but rather that membership in this "lower class," and more importantly membership in the small, and ever shrinking "winner class" are not evenly distributed across racial categories, implying that some exceptional individuals are not receiving appropriate desert.

For instance, a common position for both leftist elites and guys like Charles Murray is that automation, AI, etc. will deprive a vast underclass of work and make them dependent on "the state." And while both argue that standards for this underclass should be improved (they have instead been declining by many measures), they think its existence is inevitable. Racism then, is about the relative rates of people of x group making it to the upper class, whether we should expect that this is proportional to population statistics or whether we should expect between group variance in attainment to this class. The problem is not the "meritocracy," but only whether the meritocracy is effectively sorting winners from losers based on the "right" criteria, and not depriving would-be exceptional individuals from exceptional individual status.

The racists' case is thus made easier, since it becomes an argument about proper sorting. The wealth gap between white and black Americans is now larger than it was under Jim Crow (and the Arab-Jewish gap in Israel). Yet if this can be shown to result from proper "data-driven decision-making" and meritocracy, so much the worse for equality. Hence, we get debates over whether credit scores are "structural racism," because they are an example of a mechanism effecting such outcomes.

Race and sex, being highly visible and biological, are the preferred identities of analysis here. They are "constructs" but they are the focus precisely because exceptional individuals cannot yet transcend them if they choose to. Whereas class, religion, ethnicity, regional background, etc. tend not to be a focus, because the upwardly mobile individual is responsible for transcending (and really abandoning) them.

This is a problem that is very widespread and I think it stems from an inability to ground human dignity and worth in anything in post-modern liberalism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ding ding ding. :up:

See also:

My suggestion would be to think about a vegetarian who confronts you, "No species is, tout court, inferior to another." Do you have to stop eating meat? Is their claim falsifiable? Does "tout court" have a discernible meaning in that context? If we cannot enslave those of a certain race, can we enslave those of a certain species?

(Of course it is possible that this suggestion will only confuse you - haha. Still, if natural reason can make these sorts of judgments about species, then at least some "tout court inferior" claims are not nonsensical or unfalsifiable. Note too that racism only came to an end with substantive answers to the falsifiability question. Racism would never have come to an end if we just claimed that the racist had the burden of proof (because the burden of proof is culture- and time-relative).) — Leontiskos

Another observation is that “being at cross purposes” seems to play a fairly significant role in dismissal. — Leontiskos

One thing I am interested in understanding are the cross-purposes involved in more minor dismissals. When people aren’t engaging rationally, what exactly is it that they are doing instead? What is their purpose or telos? (I have noticed that the number of people who restrict themselves to rational inquiry is incredibly small, even on a philosophy forum.)

In the U.S. Trump provides a good example. He dominates political discourse, and there are lots of people who say they want to discuss politics, but what they actually want to do is beat the anti-Trump drum. Rational discussion of a political issue strikes them as a distraction, and sooner or later they find their way back to their telos of beating the anti-Trump drum. One is then presented with the simple choice of either providing the person with the anti-Trump catharsis that they desire, or else finding an interlocutor who is able to engage in more interesting activities.

That sort of thing is a type for what happens in so many pseudo-intellectual dialogues. There is a feigned interest in X while the true interest lies in Y (and it is precisely the dissimulation which is frustrating). Soon enough focus is lost and the person falls back into the rut of their pet thesis or their pet modus operandi.* That shift is most readily apparent when one is faced with one’s own cognitive dissonance, and thus flees into safe, familiar platitudes. In severe cases the person’s whole approach becomes bound up with justifying that flight from genuine philosophical discourse.

In these more minor cases we should try to work through the problems, but how is that done? One way is by enforcing <standard Socratic principles of dialogue>. Another is by becoming painfully clear about what thesis the person is arguing for and what arguments they are relying on to support it (i.e. a move towards formalized argumentation).

Yet the root problem is a bit deeper, and regards a rectification of the sub-philosophical telos. This is where Socrates really shines, and he usually preempts the whole issue by asking his interlocutor if they want to engage in dialogue at the outset. The general idea is to somehow persuade or encourage one’s interlocutor to engage in real philosophy instead of simply regurgitating the half-baked thoughts that have been floating around their heads for the last 15 years.


* This is precisely the age-old problem of <rationalization> or subordinating reason to the passions.

We are judging an action or behavior, and we agreed that such a judgment is a moral judgment — Leontiskos

No we haven't. Your quoted exchange (assuming I agreed) doesn't show this. It shows that a "moral dismissal" results from a "moral judgement". That moral judgement is not assessed.

Then give your definition of 'judgment.' It seems to me that looking at the rubric and determining which answer is correct will require a judgment, namely judging which answer is correct — Leontiskos

Then computation is judgement. I reject this. Deliberation is judgement (assuming it results in something). Marking the exam without a set rubric (i.e I must know hte answers and judge whether student has gotten it right) would be this.

it seems ad hoc to exclude the judgment of the comedian from being a moral judgment — Leontiskos

This could be right, ubt I'd have to review the discussion and I'm not in place to do so right now. I cannot remember exactly what I excluded there.

If you need a 10-foot pipe and you examine two possible candidates, you are inevitably involved in judgments, no? — Leontiskos

Perhaps I should have used the term 'schedule'. An actual, written schedule of right responses.

No we haven't. Your quoted exchange (assuming I agreed) doesn't show this. It shows that a "moral dismissal" results from a "moral judgement". That moral judgement is not assessed. — AmadeusD

Okay, let's look. Here is the exchange laid out:

Nevertheless, let's save the term "moral dismissal" for the situation where you dismiss someone based on a moral judgment of their own actions or behavior. Ergo: "I am dismissing you because of such-and-such an action of yours, or such-and-such a behavior of yours, and I would do so even if I had ample time to engage you." — Leontiskos

You responded:

I think this is the right way to think of a 'moral' judgement in this context. — AmadeusD

Note that your response has to do with a moral judgment, not merely a moral dismissal. The idea here is that to morally judge someone is to judge their actions or behavior. If you want to propose a different definition of moral judgment, then you can of course do that.

Then computation is judgement. I reject this. Deliberation is judgement (assuming it results in something). Marking the exam without a set rubric (i.e I must know hte answers and judge whether student has gotten it right) would be this. — AmadeusD

Yes, I think computation involves judgment. If I give you a math problem you will require judgment in order to solve it.

Here is a definition of judgment that seems fine to me:

The central problem is that of understanding the capacity of the mind to form, entertain, and affirm judgements, which are not simply strings of words but items intrinsically representing some state of affairs, or way that the world is or may be. The affirmation of a judgement is thus the making of a true or false claim. — Judgment | Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

(I would say that judgment already involves affirmation, but that's a minor difference.)

This could be right, ubt I'd have to review the discussion and I'm not in place to do so right now. I cannot remember exactly what I excluded there. — AmadeusD

<Here> is the post where I spoke about a comedian's ability to read the room.

Perhaps I should have used the term 'schedule'. An actual, written schedule of right responses. — AmadeusD

Whether rubric or schedule, I think both involve judgments. It's just that they involve simple or relatively easy judgments.

If I give you directions to my house you will still be involved in judgments. "Drive north on Central avenue, take a left on 22nd street, and arrive at the third house on your right, which is green." You are merely following directions and rules, but you are still involved in judgments. For example, the judgment of whether this street is 22nd street.

ou responded: — Leontiskos

To the fictional quotation. In that context that is the right way to think about a moral judgement. I am unsure that you could say i've agreed to the moral judgement being made. No, I don't mean on the facts - I mean, i would not take it as given that the conception in that quote is a moral judgement. In the event, I do think it is - so, I've probably just been unnecessarily confusing in this part of the exchange. To be clear: I think that is the right way to think about moral judgement in the context of dismissal - I am unsure a moral judgement is occurring in the quote.

Yes, I think computation involves judgment. If I give you a math problem you will require judgment in order to solve it. — Leontiskos

That would include machines 'judging'. That does not currently seem at all open to us.

Whether rubric or schedule, I think both involve judgments. It's just that they involve simple or relatively easy judgments. — Leontiskos

I would not want to say that recognition alone (which a schedule requires, and naught else) is judgement. Perhaps I need a better 'version' of 'judgement' to support this. But it seems to be pretty obviously the case that machines do not judge in the way we want to say humans do (or, higher animals in general). It may be that an adequate definition of judgement has to include literally ever act (given every act is a version of "this/that".

For example, the judgment of whether this street is 22nd street. — Leontiskos

No, that's not up to me. Either when i get there there's a 1:1 match between you directions and my location, or there is not. I do not judge whether that is the case - it either is or isn't and I observe which it is. However, that analogy doesn't hold with my point - if you gave me an active, working Google Maps. I closed my eyes, followed the directions(pretend for a moment this wouldn't be practically disastrous lmao) and then the Maps tells me i've arrived - that's what I'm talking about. I am literally not involved in any deliberation - I am, in fact, still taking instruction. It would have been a judgement whether to actually engage this course of action, though, to be sure.

To be clear: I think that is the right way to think about moral judgement in the context of dismissal - I am unsure a moral judgement is occurring in the quote. — AmadeusD

Hmm, okay. Well maybe the rest will help clarify some of this.

That would include machines 'judging'. — AmadeusD

No, I don't think machines "judge," hence the scare-quotes on both our parts. Thus when we talk about a human "computing" and a machine "computing" we are talking about two different things. One difference is that human computation involves judgment whereas machine computation does not.

I would not want to say that recognition alone (which a schedule requires, and naught else) — AmadeusD

I want to say that a schedule requires following, no? If I am to keep a schedule then I must recognize what I am to do, and then do it, no? Else, a schedule that no one is following is apparently not functioning as a schedule at all.

But I think the act of recognition involves judgment too. "This is 22nd street," or, "This is not 22nd street," are both acts of recognition and also judgments.

It may be that an adequate definition of judgement has to include literally ever act (given every act is a version of "this/that". — AmadeusD

Good, and this is perhaps one of the more foundational places where we may be disagreeing, because I think every choice involves judgment. Still, I am happy to distinguish speculative from practical judgment.

No, that's not up to me. Either when i get there there's a 1:1 match between you directions and my location, or there is not. I do not judge whether that is the case - it either is or isn't and I observe which it is. — AmadeusD

My point was that judgments must be leveraged in order to follow the directions. But is your claim here true? When you get to the end of the directions do you observe whether you have arrived, or judge whether you have arrived? In either case it would seem that you must decide whether you have arrived at the destination, no?

However, that analogy doesn't hold with my point - if you gave me an active, working Google Maps. — AmadeusD

I actually meant to include that scenario, but forgot. :up:

I closed my eyes, followed the directions(pretend for a moment this wouldn't be practically disastrous lmao) and then the Maps tells me i've arrived - that's what I'm talking about. I am literally not involved in any deliberation - I am, in fact, still taking instruction. — AmadeusD

I don't think closing your eyes helps you avoid judgment. To decide to obey (Google Maps) is a judgment. To decide when to turn your steering wheel with your eyes closed in relation to the instructions you are hearing is a judgment. I think auditory directions involve judgment just as visual directions involve judgment.

One difference is that human computation involves judgment whereas machine computation does not. — Leontiskos

Yes, nice. So far, so good.

But I think the act of recognition involves judgment too. "This is 22nd street," or, "This is not 22nd street," are both acts of recognition and also judgments. — Leontiskos

In this case, it seems one of my later comments will come in handy.. Let's see...

Good, and this is perhaps one of the more foundational places where we may be disagreeing — Leontiskos

b-b-b-b-bingo. Nice. Always good to find the niggle.

In either case it would seem that you must decide whether you have arrived at the destination, no? — Leontiskos

No. I decided to trust the app. It tells me - I obey the relayed information. Note that I could be in Guam. But i judged the app to get me to wherever you live.

To decide to obey (Google Maps) is a judgment. — Leontiskos

Yep, as above. That I have arrived is no longer up to me. I don't have the ability to judge it otherwise on the assumption I will hold to the jdugement about Google maps.

I think auditory directions involve judgment just as visual directions involve judgment. — Leontiskos

Yes, I can see why too. But I think jdugement should be a little more circumscribed to capture how it is used.

To decide when to turn your steering wheel with your eyes closed in relation to the instructions you are hearing is a judgment — Leontiskos

Nah, that's input-> output in this scenario. If I crash, I crash.

No. I decided to trust the app. It tells me - I obey the relayed information. Note that I could be in Guam. But i judged the app to get me to wherever you live. — AmadeusD

Sure, you can decide (judge) that the app is to be trusted. Sort of like how you can trust a taxi cab driver to get you to your destination. Still, at the end of your journey you still have to judge that the app or cab driver is telling you that you have arrived (even though you are trusting them at the same time).

A case where no subordinated judgment occurs would be when you go under general anesthesia for surgery, simply trusting that you will wake up on the other side. Waking up is not a judgment, and so in that case there is only one act of trust-judgment. You are trusting that the judgments of others will cause you to wake up.

Yes, I can see why too. But I think jdugement should be a little more circumscribed to capture how it is used. — AmadeusD

Similar to "moral," philosophical definitions of "judgment" are going to be more precise and encompassing than colloquial definitions. That's why I used the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. If we go with colloquial definitions then we will run into things like the Sorites paradox mentioned earlier, and the reasoning will not be watertight. We can do that if we like, but then we no longer have a warrant to complain that the reasoning isn't watertight. If we want watertight reasoning then we must abandon vague definitions.

Nah, that's input-> output in this scenario. If I crash, I crash. — AmadeusD

It would be rather strange for someone to try driving somewhere and not care if they crash. To crash would be to fail to achieve your goal, and therefore you are generally always trying not to crash when you are driving somewhere.

Still, at the end of your journey you still have to judge that the app or cab driver is telling you that you have arrived (even though you are trusting them at the same time) — Leontiskos

This flows back to whether or not you require every mental action to be a judgement. I do not - so, on my view this is a recognition only. I have simply taken what I've been told "We're here!" and run with it. I've not assessed it in any way (other than to pick up which words were aimed at me... is that hte judgement you mean? That's what Im calling recognition, to be clear).

A case where no subordinated judgment occurs would be when you go under general anesthesia for surgery, simply trusting that you will wake up on the other side. — Leontiskos

This is analogous: I judged my condition, the surgeon and medical advice, and the prognosis to go under the knife (or, anaethesia as you note). In the former, I could literally be unconscious, and be schluffed out of the car, and I'd still be wherever I actually was, regardless of whether it was 'correct'. Is it just that I am conscious you're wanting to hang something on, in that example?

If we want watertight reasoning then we must abandon vague definitions. — Leontiskos

I don't quite think this is available to us, so I'm happy with that. Although, I think the problem is actually that people have different ideas of what's captured by the concept (even on the definitions given by x or y source).

generally always trying not to crash when you are driving somewhere. — Leontiskos

Correct. But I've designed a scenario where I am not engaged in the prior activity, in terms of judgement. I can judge that hte crash fucking sucked, but I made no attempts to divert, or incur a crash.