LGTBQ+, feminism, and race (all once worthy causes but resolved, and certainly not foundationally substantive enough on which to build a national policy). — Txastopher

We will ignore the "resolved" aspect for now...what "national policy" are you referring to that is based on LGBTQ+, feminism, and race?

What was the previous policy that this new one replaced?

This is actually a surprisingly common attitude, at least where I come from. People frequently talk about aborting disabled fetuses, and in the 1920s-1930s in the US they would sterilize the disabled because they viewed them as a burden or a stain on the gene pool. — BitconnectCarlos

That's fair. Aren't there still countries trying to eradicate down's syndrome? (just one extreme example I remember hearing) However, that is A LOT different from "they need to be fixed"...right? That is, "we need to take every step possible to ensure people like this do not exist"...while making no effort to actually "fix" anyone?? (you do somewhat address this later in the post)

Less severe but still shitty example of things that I have dealt with as a person who stutters: — BitconnectCarlos

"less shitty" than eugenics...still pretty jacked up behavior?!?!

-People advising me not to go into a profession which involves speaking to the public, or even doing much speaking in general (this advice may be well-intentioned.) According to them I should basically just spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week behind a desk talking to no one. — BitconnectCarlos

ugh, I can see the good intentions, but damn people. What percent of most jobs is affected if a person speaks 50% slower?? Not much, of MOST jobs, would be my thought...and you may bring something of value (luckily these days, the idea of different being good is becoming more common).

-Time constraints on presentations - say 5 minutes - where I am expected to convey as much information as a fluent speaker would in that time.
-Simply not being assigned responsibilities or roles despite everyone else getting them. For instance there was once a time where my entire class was assigned a part in the school play but I was not. This could be well-intentioned.... who knows. — BitconnectCarlos

Are you over 50? I only ask because I completed a teaching degree about 6 years ago, and they would have seriously frowned on these last two examples. And the 3rd one is super jacked up...I can NOT even see how that could be attributed to good intentions??

The main thing here is that the implication is that, as a person who stutters, I should just try to get through life without speaking or really actually socializing. Although not as bad as sterilization or death, I'd say that this does constitute ableism even if well-intentioned. — BitconnectCarlos

I think you would be surprised in schools today. It is the opposite attitude. EVERYONE can do ANYTHING. Want to be a pro athlete but have the coordination of a drunk baby giraffe? well if you put your mind to it you can accomplish anything :roll:. As much as I obviously dislike this new attitude, I can appreciate that it is a vast improvement from the attitude in play when you were in school.

It's just an awkward thing to say, because you really don't want to reduce people to just sympathy. The subtle implication in sympathy - especially in this case - is that you consider yourself above that person. Focus on something else. — BitconnectCarlos

But when I say "I feel bad" for a sick or injured person it carries no connotation of superiority...so really I just need to understand that they are viewing my words differently because of their perspective. As I said to Banno, I will make efforts to adjust my language that people find offensive, but I don't like people assuming my words mean something that they in no way say (or even imply unless you are already viewing things from that perspective). To be fair, what you have gone through is far worse than my very minor annoyance at people misunderstanding me, which is part of the reason I am willing to just change my language...if it is clear and obvious (if I am confused I am unlikely to correctly apply the changes).

Thanks for the explanations and applicable anecdotes :smile: .

fishing for sensible opinions on the matter. — TheMadFool

Well I probably am not the right man for that job :grimace:. I would think it is just a manner of phrasing as many significant questions as possible in a way that average joe's could offer a reasonable response (even questions like how far to the nearest star is beyond those that don't understand light years, for example). Additionally, the questions need to have a range of answers. Something like "which quantum physics idea shows the most promise?" would obviously be useless.

I think all of this would be fairly straightforward, if we committed to this idea of "crowd wisdom".

It sounds terrible! Would you live with your parents to avoid the responsibilities of being an adult? — Athena

No, but I might live with my parents if it gave me more freedom to live the way that I wanted.

@BitconnectCarlos

they would just view them as broken and in need of fixing.
— BitconnectCarlos

That perspective just seems dumb and detached from reality to me, and it certainly would not have any sort of supporting argument. Sorry you ever had to deal with it...

NOW, is me saying "sorry you had to deal with that" a type of pity or a declaration that you had "problems" that I did not?...what I mean is, isn't any feeling bad on my part an acknowledgement that "those people" (sorry, using super-discriminatory language to make the point clearer) are in some way worse-off than myself? If I feel bad, it implies that I am happy I am not that way...? — ZhouBoTong

I think I just answered half of my own question. My statement of "sorry" above should be fine because I am sorry you had to deal with discrimination. But if I said "sorry you had to deal with that disability", would that be the problem I described above? (the problem being that it is insulting to a...I was about to say "disabled person"...is that even an appropriate phrase or is calling someone disabled, ableist?)

You're not even trying. Come back when you want to learn. — Banno

hahaha, at the very least I am putting in more effort to learn than you are to help me.

I am not particularly worried that my perspective is harmful, so if it isn't a worry for you, I think we are good here.

they would just view them as broken and in need of fixing. — BitconnectCarlos

That perspective just seems dumb and detached from reality to me, and it certainly would not have any sort of supporting argument. Sorry you ever had to deal with it...

NOW, is me saying "sorry you had to deal with that" a type of pity or a declaration that you had "problems" that I did not?...what I mean is, isn't any feeling bad on my part an acknowledgement that "those people" (sorry, using super-discriminatory language to make the point clearer) are in some way worse-off than myself? If I feel bad, it implies that I am happy I am not that way...?

I would rephrase in terms of the privileged being unable to see their privilege, — Banno

I would say that I see my privilege every time I see a disabled person. But this recognition of privilege will tend to be shown as pity...which as I understand it is insulting to some people (which is confusing because if that one aspect of their life {the disability} is not deserving of pity then why am I privileged?).

Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...?
— ZhouBoTong



Justice. — Banno

So I should consider it an injustice that they don't make many movies that I like anymore?

I am trying to learn when preference is just preference and when is it discrimination?

They have no idea what's going on. If I want to understand blindness would I just go to some random person who can see and tell them to explain it to me or should I actually go within the blind community? — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think I have said anything that would disagree with this, but please point it out if I did :grimace:

Yes I was thinking about that but the point of the wisdom of the crowd, if there's any, is that expertise is, paradoxically, unnecessary. — TheMadFool

That was exactly what I was unsure about. Wouldn't the people answering at least have to understand the question? If I ask a 4 year old how far to the sun they might answer "bananas".

I have little clue as to the details on how a system for acquiring knowledge this way would look like. Do you have any ideas? — TheMadFool

Nothing to it, but to do it :grin: IF (big if) we can establish that this does work across the board, then we just need to start asking questions to large groups of people. The internet should make it pretty darn easy.

But I feel you had something a bit more specific in mind...what were you thinking?

That is, what you describe is not abelism. — Banno

And yet a third party watching my behavior would not be able to tell the difference? So the disabled person would still be offended and ask that I change my behavior...?

Contrast two descriptions of using a wheelchair. An amputee finds that with a chair they are able to go to cafes, to shop, to attend concerts, to participate in society. But then someone describes them as being "confined" to their chair. That view is a media cliche, one that preferences the perspective of the able bodied to that of the disabled. — Banno

Why is wrong to preference the perspective that the majority of people have...? I get this is very loaded and all sorts of racism/sexism etc actions occur as we prioritize a particular perspective...but in any other arena it is just accepted that people prefer what they prefer.

I am not pretty and I am also very socially awkward. Should I be demanding that all the pretty and charming people start communicating from my perspective? Isn't this where this sort of reasoning is headed? (please do not say this is slippery slope nonsense - I may be wrong, but that is not why) Should all the low IQ people demand that the rest of us communicate from their perspective?

Is there some simple categorization I am missing that makes it obviously OK to discriminate in situation X, but it is a huge problem in situation Y? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell people to stop being dicks?

The Wisdom of the Crowd means I would like to ask whether it can be used as an effective tool to gain knowledge or not? — TheMadFool

Interesting topic. Are you asking this question as a type of "wisdom of the crowd" situation? Because otherwise, I would just want to see a whole bunch of trials using thousands of people answering a variety of questions and see how accurate it is. It does look interesting...and wikipedia has a couple examples where it pretty much worked as you describe.

My mind has some serious doubts it would actually work most of the time...but those are much more feelings, than any sort of evidence.

Also, if it does work, does it work in practical situations or just in the "guess how many jellybeans in the jar" situations?

He asked a wide group of individuals, drawn from diverse backgrounds ranging from mathematicians to salvage experts to guess the submarine’s location. The group’s average guess was just 220 yards from the location where the Scorpion was eventually found." — jgill

Well there is one more example (and somewhat practical no less) :smile: I would point out that this "wisdom of the crowd" is actually a crowd of knowledgeable and experienced experts...so I am not sure what exactly the rules of "crowd wisdom" are...but it is still an intriguing topic that seems to have some promising potential applications.

Do you think this is saying the same thing as you said above? — Banno

I don't think so...am I wrong?

If I am not wrong, then my point is that most scenarios that people might see as ableism, are actually just what I described.

What do you think? Tell me where you are in your own thinking. Feel free to be guided by the article. — Banno

I thought I did in my previous post...let me know if you were looking for something more specific.

http://cdrnys.org/blog/uncategorized/ableism/ — Banno

A question or two as I try to work through my ableist tendencies :grimace: And feel free to take me to task, but please do so specifically...I obviously do not understand the general point being made in that link.

If I assume that most people (whether an amputee or not) would prefer to have all their limbs and that they are fully functional...am I being ableist? Isn't that all that is happening in most of these cases of ableism? I get that what is true for 90% of people says nothing about any one individual. But on average, it just seems accurate (true)?? Most humans would also prefer to be smarter, better looking, and more talented. Is this in some way discriminatory to those that are uglier, dumber, or less talented??

This is not coming from a place of "they need to be cured" but rather "I would not want to be in that position". I could be trained to not SAY THINGS that imply I would not want to be in that position, but this does nothing for the FACT that I prefer not being disabled.

A sick person is not "worse" than a healthy person. However, most of us prefer to be healthy. Isn't this the same for disabled people?

The way ableism is described it seems like any condition preferred by a super-majority is somehow discriminatory to those that prefer something else??

If someone tells me my behavior is offensive to them, I will make an effort to change my behavior that relates to them. It does not mean I have any reason to apply that changed behavior to the rest of the world.

It is the Christian Right that supports the conservative presidents and the skyrocketing growth of our military budget and wars fought without being budgeted, such as Bush's invasion of Iraq. The mentality is also what gave the world Hitler. These folks know the will of God is what they want. They know this by faith not reason. — Athena

So this is one of the reasons I vote Democrat. But I am not convinced the average Democrat is any more reasonable than the average republican, I just like where their faith is taking them better. If a magical deity suddenly gave Democrats what they wanted, we would live in a perfect, peaceful utopia. If a magical deity suddenly gave Republicans everything they wanted, we would have America in the 1920s with better technology....pretty pathetic, have some damn ambition Republicans. But I am not convinced either group has a reasonable and achievable plan to get where they want to be.

I think I would agree with you pretty consistently on government policy (besides automation, based on reading below). But if we are trying to suggest one side has better thinking skills, I am not convinced (although Trump's support does have me closer than ever to agreeing with you on this, haha).

The masses are too ignorant to have power. — Athena

Do we expect this to change? Or should we just start coming up with a better option than democracy? I actually largely agree with this idea, but I get the sense from you that you are very much in favor of increasing democracy and personal liberty. How will democracy ever work if the masses are too ignorant to realize their power?

Also, if we wanted MAXIMUM personal liberty we could NOT have democracy, right? It would only be a matter of time before someone voted in a way that would limit personal liberty.

far too many are thrilled by the idea of robots running everything. — Athena

Put me in that boat (not that our technology has reached that level). I have had enough of the world being run on emotion and opinion.

As weird as this may sound, I am happy to give up some autonomy if it means increasing my liberty. That may sound like a contradiction, but it works. If I live under a dictator, but doing so gives me access to a free education, then I have given up some autonomy in exchange for some liberty. The problem with dictators is that some are awful tyrants. History does not show that dictators are inherently bad. It just shows that one bad dictator can undo the progress of multiple generations. I am not worried about living in a "free society" (yes, yes, only the privileged mind of someone living in a free society could say such a thing :roll:), I am worried about the things I am free to do.

No. I'm using pedagogy in it's strict sense here, in that no actual direct teaching took place. Sapolsky even tested directly for this with the tribe when the alpha males first came into it from the nearby Forest Troop. He says

The lack of contingency in thet reatment of transfer males by residents argues against instruction; commensurate with this, there is relatively little evidence for‘‘instruction’’in nonhuman primate cultural transmission
— Sapolsky RM, Share LJ (2004) A pacific culture among wild baboons: Its emergence and transmission — Isaac

Fair enough...I don't think the New York Times article I read went that deep :grimace:

I have a few more questions related to this, but I would expect them to be annoying at some point (if I just need to spend time reading and researching feel free to say so), so only if it is somewhat enjoyable for you:
Why did the new alphas that entered the group NOT assert dominance? I am struggling to see how they were prevented from doing so, without being taught to not do so? Or is it just because the teaching was not INTENTIONAL? I am struggling with the word "direct" because I could learn "directly" by imitating social norms...I guess pedagogy is about teaching not learning (so that is part of my error)...but I never really considered that the teaching had to be intentional?

Yes. I'm sort of retired now, but my academic career has been in social psychology. My wife's a child psychologist though, with a special interest in education, so it's more dinner-table conversation stuff that I've picked this up from, rather than my own work. — Isaac

Both of those answers explain a bit. I have always done reasonably well in school, but if I don't use a piece of information, the knowledge quickly deteriorates. You seemed to have all the details on this one just ready to go...so that is why I asked (I also very much enjoy talking to people who really know a subject because they can just give me the important bits without all the fluff - although at some point I am sure it gets old for them, so I take what I can get :smile:).

Margret Donaldson is good on undermining a lot of the Piaget stuff. She doesn't throw it out or anything, but it's remarkable what she gets the children to do (which Piaget said they couldn't) when they're in a less stressful environment. Stephen Shanker is doing some work on the link between stress and educational ability at the moment which might also be of interest, but again, I don't want to derail the thread. — Isaac

Sounds interesting. I may look for some of this stuff. And if I am ever in another thread on related topics I will know who to tag :smile:

Thanks for the info.

Nothing makes people more willing to fight for what they believe than the notion that they know the will of God and are fighting for God. — Athena

History shows this is certainly true. However, I sometimes think it is the "knowing" part that is more dangerous than the "will of God" aspect. Don't get me wrong, the "will of God" has a long history of convincing people they "know" what is best. But I worry that any moral system that people consider to be "objectively correct" would lead to strong feelings, which have the potential to be acted upon (but I can agree that religion has been the biggest cause of this up until now).

Isn't it awful when there is nothing to argue. — Athena

hahaha, right?

we lost the memory of what science (reason) has to do with over coming evil and what morals have to do with liberty and democracy. — Athena

Interesting topic. After thinking about it for a bit I have a question...do you think our belief in a more inclusive and egalitarian society has anything to do with this loss? Perhaps an equal percent of the population (or even a little higher than in the past) agree with the importance of science and reasoning, but now the masses have more power in society? I certainly believe that more power for the masses has many benefits, but it seems there will have to be downsides as well (at least in the short term anyway).

This is why when the Roman and Greek documents were rediscovered and literate people knew Greek and Latin we had the renaissance bringing a love of reason back, — Athena

This is part of what I was referring to above. The Renaissance brought a love of reason back to a tiny percent of the population (and I would be fairly confident it was not much different in greek/roman times). The Gutenberg Press was only invented half-way though the renaissance so we know that, primarily, only the clergy and super-rich had access to texts for most of this time period...the Protestant Reformation occurs at the end of the Renaissance, largely as a result of more people reading (and more bibles available to be read).

So I guess I am just questioning if there was ever a time when a majority of people preferred reason over intuition and/or superstition. But I certainly agree that we should make more effort to get there.

That pedagogic education played absolutely no part whatsoever in maintaining the more egalitarian society created by the sudden removal of the alpha males. — Isaac

Isn't the idea of new baboons coming into the tribe and trying to assert dominance then being shunned and shown by the rest "this is not how we do things around here"...a type of pedagogy? I understand this new pedagogy was worthless until the large die-off of alphas...but I am not sure we can entirely dismiss the role of the new social norms...and I hope that with a little extra intelligence (perhaps very little haha) humans can potentially replicate the positive results without mass killings/dyings? I get I am into somewhat (understatement) hopeful/wishful thinking here...but it doesn't seem entirely absent of reason or evidence.

A quick run down of the issues with Kohlberg. — Isaac

Well thank you. As I wrote that I was thinking that I was taught this stuff in my education classes...and education departments are not exactly know for their rigor.

that there is a strong disconnect between making culturally appropriate moral judgements and behaving in a manner consistent with those judgements. — Isaac

Well that certainly seems accurate (I personally even maintain certain morals that I HOPE I stick to in some serious emotional situations, but I have not convinced myself of my moral fortitude until I actually experience it).

As people like Jonathon Haidt have said, much of this moral judgement is post hoc rationalisation for actions which we took for more basic behavioural reasons anyway. — Isaac

Seems reasonable. I like to chalk up much of "morality" as grey area stuff where the answer doesn't really matter either way, so hopefully this helps me avoid this a little...but I am sure I still do it more than I like to think.

Kohlberg's stages are not cross-cultural. They basically reflect Western modern cultural institutions in various forms, — Isaac

I didn't know this, but it is no longer surprising to learn that some concept was only ever analyzed from a purely western perspective then applied to everyone.

it's not necessarily about developmental stages as it is is about an assessment of the appropriate moral codes to apply in different circumstances. As a child grows up in a culture their circumstances change and different moral approaches become more suitable to their situation. — Isaac

Nothing here that seems unreasonable.

Are you a professor? Or some sort of sociology professional? I just mean...why do you know all this?

Just in case you know even more...should I dismiss Piaget's stages of cognitive development or Erikson's stages of (I don't even remember, maybe social development?)?

Thanks again for the info. I may have to spout off more often on things I know just a little about to see if anyone wants to give me the whole story :smile:

The level of moral judgement a person attains depends on the person's belief system and education. — Athena

So to begin, this is absolutely right. I am not sure exactly how much of this Kohlberg takes into account when he says only 25% of people go beyond level 4.

Now if the belief system explains it is our nature to be evil and therefore there must be authority over the people, then the stage of moral development will remain low. — Athena

Well that certainly provides a potential explanation of a large chunk of the planet not reaching higher levels of moral reasoning.

That is a totally different level of thinking than average Christian thinking, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher order thinking. — Athena

Well I know Texas has a rather pathetic history of educational practices...so that seems fitting.

Text books in Texas are very much controlled by Christians, however, when teachers protested teaching creationism and having it put in science text books, the supreme court ruled against including creationism in science books and against teaching it as science. That is, at the supreme court level, reason trumped religious belief. — Athena

Yep. They also had to change certain history textbooks they were using that referred to slaves as workers (I think a lower court was enough to reverse that one) :yikes:

Texas is even worse because of their influence on the textbook industry. Texas has a single board that picks the textbooks for THE WHOLE STATE. Whereas states like California have each district pick books. This means that textbook companies cater to Texas' whims because one sale can float the whole company...which means the rest of us are occasionally stuck with Texas' garbage textbooks.

We desperately need to return to understanding what morality has to do with liberty and what education has to do with good moral judgement or the lack of it! the 1958 National Defense Education Act decision to end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church, was a huge mistake! — Athena

For sure. Also it is strange because one can't teach say, history or literature, without introducing some serious moral considerations.

When the only God is an impossible to believe God, the nation is split between the believers in that God and non believers. — Athena

Unfortunately in this country (USA), us non-believer are still outnumbered by at least 6 to 1 (maybe more like 9-1, I still don't think atheists plus agnostics adds up to 10% of the US population). People are quick to drop religion, but it takes longer to dismiss those nagging supernatural feelings.

The union of our nation that was built on reason, is being shredded! Our liberty is being destroyed and our growing dependency on authority over us is frightening. — Athena

I am not sure how I feel on this. Some days I see the religious "nones" increasing and people generally being more open to (and demanding of) peace. But then the next day, I see the push toward the idea that "all opinions are equal" and wonder if that idea is the death of democracy.

Well, I was expecting to argue a bit more...but I think I agreed with almost everything :up:

The level of moral judgement a person attains depends on the person's belief system and education. — Athena

I have to run for the night but your very first sentence is actually something I considered adding to my post. I definitely look forward to reading the rest. If I have not responded in the next couple days, please give me a "bump" reply as a reminder...I should get to it tomorrow though :smile:

There's a case study of chimpanzees, I don't recall the attribution of now, — Pfhorrest

Crazy story! It can be found with a quick google search. It was baboons not chimps, but otherwise, it pretty much went down as you said. Not sure if there are implications for human society, but very interesting nonetheless.

What are your thoughts? — IvoryBlackBishop

Well according to Kohlberg's stages of moral development law and order (deontology and rule following) is stage 4 of 6. Kohlberg estimated that only 20-25% of people reach stage 5 or higher. So according to him, it seems like society might go to a bad place without laws. Of course we could replace secular laws with religious ones that are not enforced and maybe that would work. But this one theory at least suggests that some sort of imposed rules are needed for most people.

I am not sure if I agree with Kohlberg or not, but I will certainly admit it is likely much more complicated than one of Kohlberg's charts would suggest.

When will this madness stop? — Wallows

I don't know. Americans love chants like "we're number 1" and of course "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

Those chants just seem stupid if you aren't at the top.

Seems like pretty good justification for war mongering to me :grimace:

You're right, if we get rid of the government-enforced power to contract, or the government-enforced claim to property in the first place, — Pfhorrest

hahaha. Somehow, I don't think that is what he meant. Well played :smile:

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, instead of creating an array of life forms that live in perfect cooperative harmony, with no predation or parasitism, no aging, etc? — Pfhorrest

:up:

But there is still a relative difference in the relationship between two events, or two states of affairs, basically the same as cause and effect. — Pfhorrest

Agreed, but only from one exact perspective. You are describing (I am simplifying for clarity - I do not think these are your exact thoughts on the issue) something along the lines of: 1 leads to 2, which leads to 3...and so on.

Just like a number line has potentially infinite points between 1 and 2, I would say that each end has potentially infinite causes. So to say that any single end can justify a mean, seems crazy. However, if we analyze the situation as a whole, it seems reasonable to think that a greatly positive end could make a mildly negative mean acceptable (I am not using the word "justify" but I think this still sticks with the spirit of "ends justify the means")...and beyond that, we only have to accept the mild negative in the short term. Just recognizing the mild negative allows us to seeks future solutions that achieve the same ends without any negative means. But in the short term, I could be willing to accept a mild negative for the sake of bigger gains (aren't humans and systems constantly making these calculations as they make decisions anyway?).

Hmm. Pfhorrest. I shouldn't think that would be possible. — tim wood

Haha, and I am a bit rambly myself, so we could quickly get out of hand. I will try to remember my brevity lessons from Terrapin Station.

I see it as like valid inferences, and the normal bidirectional view of ends justifying means as like the fallacy of affirming the consequent. — Pfhorrest

I did read everything, but I can only agree if "ends" and "means" are distinct entities. But I have been trying to say that I can't see them as different. Anything we call "means" can serve as "ends" for another event...and the "ends" of the current event will proceed to be means for the next event. So to say we have to analyze them in one direction is hard to understand.

Some balloons get so big they're hard to see around. I think I'm accomplishing something if I can stick a pin it it. — tim wood

Fair enough, and I appreciate the effort...in my next reply to phorrest I will do my best not to add too much air to the balloon :smile:

The correct formulation is that the ends justify some means. — tim wood

Works for me. Sorry if I am rambling about ends and means in 2 or 3 different threads right now.

Now all that remains is to settle on what "justifies" means. — tim wood

Haha, these discussions actually had me going to the stanford.plato site searching for definitions of "ends" and "means"...it seems the terms are too fundamental for them to even bother (there are pages on recognizing when people are being used as a "means", but no definitions of those words)...and if you are making fun of me for harping on about semantics...I probably deserve it :grin:

I don't feel comfortable extending his conclusion that far. — BitconnectCarlos

Very interesting, as I am leaning toward counting that as a premise more than a conclusion. Perspective really changes things, haha.

I can't imagine he'd portray a man who makes an honest day's living as, say, a manual laborer as a parasite. — BitconnectCarlos

Well they sure do leech off the doctors every time they get sick. And don't forget the way they just pile all their garbage on the curb once a week and expect the trash people to pick it up. Yes, I am exaggerating for effect...but doesn't this seem like the type of perspective the creator of this film may have had?

Then there's people who just work for themselves who'd fall outside the scope of what he's saying here about parasitism. — BitconnectCarlos

Unless they are off the grid and 100% self sufficient, I think they still "rely" on other people. While reliance is not parasitic, I believe that is the leap the creator is making (not that he made a movie that impacted me in any way other than mild interest mixed with mild boredom).

The poor family here was quite pernicious. — BitconnectCarlos

I definitely agree that they commit the more immoral acts in the film (both in quantity and severity). That is why I say the rich people parasite thing is more of a premise than a conclusion - and as you and JohnRB have pointed out, if it is a conclusion it is VERY POORLY DEFENDED BY THE FILM. Boon Joon and those who enjoy the film have already accepted that rich people are part of the problem. It doesn't matter that they don't do much that is immoral in the film, they MUST have done immoral deeds in the past or they would not be rich (I do not really believe this...maybe to a very limited extent - but it seems a clear premise of the film). Also throw in the Jesus perspective, and they are immoral for holding onto their wealth instead of giving it all to the poor (again, an extreme perspective).

If we go back to the director's quote: "But if you look at it the other way, you can say that rich family, they're also parasites in terms of labor. They can't even wash dishes, they can't drive themselves, so they leech off the poor family's labor. So both are parasites." - He seems to be saying that wealthy families who employs maid and drivers are parasites..... it doesn't make a lot of sense. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree this is nonsense. Are the rich people actually incapable of washing dishes? Or have they decided they really don't like it so they would rather pay someone else? The director's use of "can't" instead of "don't" shows the warped perspective he is coming from (he seems to actually believe the rich CAN'T wash dishes or drive cars. Does he also believe that rich people CAN'T drink tap water? All evidence shows they never do it, so it must be the case that they CAN'T :roll:).

Islamic law is a "self-obligation", i.e. self-discipline. Nobody in particular told me to start keeping its rules. If I break these rules, I do not expect anybody to show up at my house to blame and shame me. Still, self-discipline gives a lot of satisfaction. It mostly makes you feel better, and in that way, contributes to your happiness. The idea of "fitrah" is that we are naturally predisposed to enjoy keeping Islamic law. Of course, you can only figure that out by trying ... — alcontali

Seems we are on a similar track :smile:. However, I struggle to accept that most Muslims (or Christians) can ignore the everlasting punishments and/or rewards on offer. It sounds like you are trying to "do good for the sake of good", but I am not sold that most religious people (or secular folk for that matter) operate at that level.

However, once one makes a decision to act, the ends are always already connected to the means. So in terms of practical decisions, ends and means are always one package, to be evaluated as a whole.

You can look at a specific course of action and ask whether or not your chosen means to arrive at your desired end is moral. You cannot evaluate either ends or means separately or establish a general principle that "the ends justify the means".. — Echarmion

Good stuff :up: I think your first paragraph captures what I have been rambling on about for pages in just a few lines.

Or too inadequate. I think some experience is required to do this. I don’t know what would contribute to that experience. Even with experience maybe only so many would be up to it. Anyway I’m not sure if this is really the subject of the OP. — Brett

I agree that experience is important, but part of the point of these intellectual exercises is that they are BEYOND experience. Notice that I can only sacrifice my life for the good of other people once. I can't experience that action and learn from it. So the thought experiment is actually as close as I can get to personally experiencing it (I can admit that watching another human go through the real experience might be closer...but that is pretty much never going to happen either).

I do agree that these thought experiments are very much "inadequate" (that is why I say "I like to think I would do it"). But they are as close as most of can get to the actual experience.

And yes, it is very easy (especially for me) to get off topic in these threads...I think we are only one or two posts removed from the original topic...so I have done worse :grimace:

For means to invalidate ends sounds like it's saying that some ends have to be given up on because they would require unacceptable means. — Pfhorrest

That is pretty much what I meant.

I imagine you meant the other way around: ends can invalidate means. — Pfhorrest

Nope, but that is true too.

a means can be shown bad because of it leading to bad ends. — Pfhorrest

only as much as they can be shown to be good as they lead to good ends. We don't KNOW that the bad results were caused by THOSE means?

But a means can't be shown good for it leading to good ends, as it's sometimes possible to achieve good ends by bad means, but that doesn't make those bad means therefore good. — Pfhorrest

Yep, but as I said, it would also sometimes be possible to achieve bad ends using good means. Surely what you are arguing has to work both ways? (in fact, I agree if we say it goes both ways, if it only works in one direction, I need an explanation)

The part about the implied "because of the consequences" seems redundant because "ends" and "consequences" are basically synonyms. — Pfhorrest

Agreed. I added that "because of the consequences" to imply that the means have additional consequences of their own separate from the intended "end".

It is tied to this statement:

There are no (unless conceptual) permanent ends. — ZhouBoTong

So all means are ends in another context and vice versa.

Perhaps I am using "means" wrong? I am thinking of "means" as the things that lead to ends.

@JohnRB@BitconnectCarlos Good stuff :up:

I would think that, like most art, it just doesn't communicate THE message anywhere near as clearly or obviously as those who love the work suggest it does.

Pretty much every argument against you has been related to what the filmmaker intended...but your argument is more along the lines of "I know what they intended...I see no evidence that they accomplished that". And no one seems willing to provide details from the film to counter your assertion.

If this were actually real the rich guy has given that family a huge pay raise and probably taken them out of poverty. But nah he's a parasite. — BitconnectCarlos

Just to add a little balance and argue against you for one point...Isn't the director really suggesting we are ALL parasites? I get that "parasite" is very extreme, but they may just be pointing out that we all rely on each other. All of us who are part of society rely on many other people (many of whom we have never met or never will), Parasite may just be emphasizing this reliance using a weak parasite metaphor? I still agree with most of your analysis though.

Isn’t it a luxury to sit around theorising about this idea and very likely never, ever having to make a decision, and yet there are those out there who must make these decisions. — Brett

We are in a nice position to sit around and debate this stuff. If we were actually in the thick of it we (most people) would be too emotional to do anything close to an objective analysis. So we do it now, with no skin in the game so to speak, so that one day when the pressure is on, we can remember our conclusions that we arrived at in a less emotional state...I wish we knew all world leaders had honed their morals to such an extent.

That's why consequentialism is wrong. Ends can't justify means. (But they can falsify them). — Pfhorrest

There are no (unless conceptual) permanent ends. So a good consequentialist would take that into account. Similarly they would view "ends justify the means" as a poor statement. They would say something more like "it is possible for means to invalidate ends" and there would be an implied "because of the consequences" (which are impermanent and constantly changing so only really considered in an aggregate that our brains can comprehend) since they are consequentialists.

I think I consider myself a consequentialist, but I am thinking through some shit here...so feel free to take it to task.

I don't see how anyone can watch that Helsinki performance and still believe that Trump is acting in American interests. Not possible.

As for the Democrats acting lawlessly - that has no foundation in fact. But again, there are no facts in Trumpworld, so as you say, pointless to argue. — Wayfarer

It's a crazy world we live in. People pointing at a blue sign and telling me it is yellow...and they really think they are telling the truth as far as I can tell :yikes:

Also, if killing myself brought about world peace, then I would line up in front of the firing squad tomorrow. — Noah Te Stroete

Haha, my thoughts exactly (although whether I would go through with it is still unknown - I like to think I would).

in reality I fail to see how this would bring about world peace. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, probably not a very realistic scenario...just using extremes to simplify the morality.

My example about exterminating a minority, unfortunately, is all too common a situation in the history of humanity. Except, of course, peace never followed and the intended ends were never realized. Much like almost anything in the politics of a nation. the ends are almost never realized. — Noah Te Stroete

And this fact (that ends are rarely realized) just further adds to our analysis of which means are acceptable - we had better lean toward not using "evil" means as we will likely fail to reach our desired end anyway.

My position can be illustrated with an example. Suppose a nation was deeply divided at the point or almost to the point of a civil war. Suppose the end goal is to unify the country, a very good goal. Then suppose the ruler of this country decided the quickest and easiest way to unify the country was to vilify a minority group, convincing the populace that ridding the country of this minority would solve nearly all of their problems. The country unified and exterminates the vilified minority. Let’s even say that afterwards there were decades of peace.

Not even then do I agree that the ends justifies the means. — Noah Te Stroete

Well I think your example shows we are in agreement. I would say that is a good example where the means DO invalidate the ends. However, if I just have to kill one person for that lasting peace, PERHAPS the ends are worth it? And if that one person is me, then problem solved, the most morally admirable behavior would be to kill myself (whether I can live up to these lofty standards is another question).

However, some ends can be brought about by many different means, provided the means aren’t exactly evil. — Noah Te Stroete

Agreed. I MIGHT (would need details of each situation) even accept a little bit of "evil" if it brings about a lot of good.

I feel like "the ends justify the means" is more colloquial than much of this discussion implies. I can agree with those that are saying "an end can never justify a mean"...of course they are right, in what way would an end JUSTIFY a mean?? It barely even makes sense as a statement from that perspective.

However, when I hear "the end justify the means", I think what is actually being said (or intended) is typically something along the lines of "the means do not invalidate the end". From this perspective, is there still a problem?

@180 Proof As the most recent defender, and a consistent strong proponent of "ends never justify means", what do you think? If my post is not clear enough, let me know and I can try giving examples.

@Noah Te Stroete As someone whose view I agreed with (and still do), I just wanted to make sure you do not disagree with my concessions (I like to think my overall point is still 100% in agreement with what you said earlier in the thread).