the ultimate goal is almost universally some variant of human well-being.

Why would gene editing resulting in height equality or fixing ugliness be antithetical to human well-being?

Recently a poll done by newsweek showed close to 80% of philosophy majors - higher than any other field - supported socialism, so I'd say at least for the "philosophy student" side of things we can draw our conclusions.

Every value needs to be weighed against other values. Equality is a value, and it's a value on both the left and the right but to different extents. Equality often takes the form of empowering or leveling the playing field for disadvantaged populations. Personally, I think it's a little cold and unempathetic to basically claim that you'd just like to preserve the struggles of these disadvantaged populations for the sake of "diversity."

People are against race-mixing for the purpose of preserving diversity. Of course that's not a stance that I attribute to you, but you can't just throw out "diversity" or some other competing value when I mention "equality" and deny that we even value equality.

Well I was responding to ZBT, that's why I linked his name.

I don't mean to make this a left vs. right thing. For some people equality IS a big value, so this point probably isn't aimed at you. I feel like you're viewing this as a person attack.

The issue I'm prodding about - as the discussion has evolved - is equality of opportunity or having a level playing field which I think a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum are cool with. As technology evolves and these issues enter into the realm of possibility, what does everyone think about addressing some of nature's inequalities?

My "evidence" is the way that the ZBT phrased his response: He said there was no magic wand, and in order to reach the goal we'd have to do X, Y, and Z which are appalling. That's not dismissing the goal; that's dismissing the means.

Ok, but we already agree that the goal itself is on the table.

We can go back and forth about the means... it's immaterial. Today we're making progress with genetic editing so hopefully we wouldn't need to resort to something as invasive as surgery.

IF the option were to present itself in a non-invasive manner (which could very well not be too far off) should we do it?

This is only the tip of the iceberg: consider further, is it fair that some men have a distribution of muscles that, say, gives them an advantage when it comes to sprinting?

Sure, but nature's inequalities manifest themselves in actual, everyday life whether it's a job hunt or promotions or social activity, etc. My main reason for this thread was just to point out that today's left seems to push for equality with, say, A, B, and C but they're not interested in X, Y, and Z which end up favoring/advocating for certain groups and basically ignoring others.

The reason we're all appalled at the idea of equality of height or equality of intelligence is that we have no intuitive notion that such a project might further human welfare

Are you really appalled by the idea of equality of height? Imagine if you could wave a magic wand and from here on out all the men would be 5'10 and all the women 5'4. I understand that the actual real life means to achieving this could be objectionable, but the goal itself is hardly something that makes someone recoil.

It would level the playing field if all men were the same height. That's where equality of opportunity comes in.

Virgo, I don't actually support any if this. What I'm doing is I'm just granting the leftists this hypothetical to press on another issue.

but only the truly lost desire literal equality in wealth

I think you'd be surprised and I think you'd find a fair amount of support for this idea insofar as everyone is contributing and working hard.

EDIT: I think plenty of people just do value equality as well. Even as someone who's right-leaning the word doesn't disgust me.

If we truly value equality then why are we mostly stopping at economics? That's only one area of human life.

Well, if you spend all day hating the game and marinating on these thoughts don't be surprised if you find yourself in misery. Some thoughts that you have - and these thoughts may reflect reality - just aren't helpful and you should discard them.

In the end, I'd rather be a clueless pollyanna than live like Schopenhauer. But it's your call.

Let's just stick to the analogy of improving aspects of the game vs. not even wanting to deal with the improving or dealing with the circumstances of the game in the first place.

Well, if you're stuck in the game you might as well make the best of it... the rewards could be quite great. I think the rewards could blow you away. I do believe the reason for the game is the reward (to be specific, it's love.)

It doesn't really matter if you accept that you're in the game or not, or that you like the game itself or not... you're here, and you have one shot at this game (as far as we know) so pursue those rewards!

This is more like someone who knows well ideas like "self-improvement" and doesn't even accept the premises themselves, that others might find can be "improved" upon.

Could you give me an example?

I, personally, have identified obstacles to achieving greater happiness. I am working on breaking those down. I think if I were to break them down I would be thrilled and achieve a much higher degree of consistent happiness.

The problem in our discussion is that "the premises of life" seem to be extremely broad. Some of them might bother you, but not bother other people so it's not an inevitability.

I mean don't get me wrong... you can solve a lot of these problems. But when you just throw out like 8-9 different areas of life that people struggle with (romance, wealth, sickness, etc.) it's just so broad that it's tough for me to say anything meaningful. I'd much rather narrow the focus.

I think in general though some of it can be fixed and others you just can't. If something is unfixable you'll just have to come to accept it. The vexing ones are the ones that are maybe solvable.

The problem is that the scope of this discussion is soooo broad and we're probably experiencing different problems so that if I were to give advice it could be completely out of place or inappropriate to the situation you're dealing with.

In my case, I have... 1 or 2 main problems that I would like to fix. But I can still enjoy life. I have other areas in my life that I'm doing well with so I can sort of fall back on those.

Since I can concretely identify the issues which are causing me trouble I wouldn't really describe the problem as "the premises of life." I don't know how it is with you though.

I don't have a number for that. I think the question we should be asking is when is suicide justified.

If you're suicidal then we're no longer having a philosophical discussion: You need to go to therapy and get help. Anti-depressants can work wonders.

He was able to find meaning in his suffering. He could have killed himself at any point. There was no point which he just lied down and quit.

And for the record I don't blame people who committed suicide in those types of conditions, but it's not a certainty either.

I never said it was totally independent from past events, I'm just saying it's not a certainty given A or B. A or B could have an impact on C, but that's not to say that A or B caused C.

If you read Man's Search for Meaning it's about a guy's experience in a Nazi concentration camp. He was under some of the worst conditions imaginable, but he never wanted to kill himself or die. It's a matter of mindset.

The way I see it... there's risk factors for suicide. We can address these risk factors (poverty, losing a job, etc) but suicide is ultimately a choice that you make.

I just don't think that's how causation works when it comes to suicide.

Sure, losing your job or getting divorced or going into poverty might increase your chances of suicide but there's no 100% direct causation. Even the worst conditions like a concentration camp don't qualify as a "B" to your "C."

It's funny because everybody else seems to understand the question and I just feel like a dumb person. I know my own problems. I know my friend's problems. I don't know "life's premises."

You need to be more specific about what exactly you don't like. I can't discern it just from you mentioning "the premises of life."

I think by 'practical effects' he means the effects which actually happen on the ground, not effects that you theorize to happen. The ultimate verdict of a theory for the pragmatists would be if it actually works during its implementation, not whether the relations between the abstract ideas work out.

Maybe a thread about it would be useful.

Pierce also said: "Consider the practical effects of the objects of your conception. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object." This was his version of the pragmatic maxim.

If pragmatism is just about keeping purposes in mind then it's pretty innocuous, but I think it's founders had a little more in mind than that.

Let me try another example:

If I were to ask you to defend libertarian socialism would you respond with something along the lines of "Well, here's case study 1, here's case study 2, and here's case study 3 where the practical application of libertarian socialism led to x,y, and z as opposed to these implementations of capitalism here...."

Now, I haven't studied pragmatism academically, but from what I understand about it is that it's a ground-up approach where you're starting more with whether the approach has actually worked in the past and there's no meaningful sharp distinction between "in theory" and implementation.

I've just always read you as more of a theoretician; it would seem to me that a pragmatist's first impulse would be to respond with actual empirical data or historical fact to an issue rather than theory.

In what sense do you mean? I mean it in the sense of the philosophy called “pragmatism”, focusing on philosophical questions through the lens of what practical endeavor an answer is meant to facilitate. Do you mean some other sense?

That was the sense that I was talking about - the philosophical sense.

Obviously I don't know your whole philosophy, and yes it's your book so its your decision.

Do you remember our discussion about the existence of non-moral oughts? You said that there wasn't because the non-moral oughts in the end just basically come down to moral oughts, if I remember. You were trying to find the truth behind the language, but I just don't think this is how a pragmatist would approach it. Pragmatists would probably be more partial to ordinary language philosophy where we just take the meanings as they are commonly used in the language.

I've tended to view you as more on the abstract side of things, generally, but again it's you we're talking about so you're the authority.

From what I've read of you, I would not call your approach to philosophy "pragmatic." This isn't intended to be an insult, it's just not your approach.

Isn't the juxtaposition between analytic and continental a bit trite? Does analytic philosophy have to be defined in contrast only to continental philosophy?

Well, there's also pragmatism.

I think a case could be made for what you're saying but in my experience the two schools have veritable differences at least looking to the past. Maybe they are converging; I don't know.

If that's what you think I'm implying you are an absolute fool.

We had this exchange earlier:

If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?
— BitconnectCarlos

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.

...So in other words you'd be against the ethno-state if it included minorities.

The controversial "Nation State Law", also called "Basic Law", is not quite the same as the "basic laws of Israel". The piece of legislature I linked to has been passed in the Knesset in 2018.

It would seem to be one of the basic laws according to wikipedia.

In any case make no mistake about it; Israel is a fundamentally Jewish state and that has always been the intention since its founding.

I'm not saying that at all. Read again.

You find the basic laws of israel to be racist. the basic laws set out the very idea, the very concept of the state. they define its purpose and basic ideas.

could you tell me your version of an acceptable jewish state?

edit: you admitted earlier that you don't accept the idea of an ethno-state regardless of whether its armenia, kurd, etc. if there's minorities living under it so the implication here is presumably that israel needs to kick out its minorities for it to become acceptable in your eyes and only allow jews to become citizens.

How exactly would the oppression and discrimination of minorities contribute to that security?

Just to be clear here, you're saying that the mere existence of a Jewish state constitutes oppression and discrimination.

In any case, if Jews were to lose power then the Arabs would take control and Jews would once again be second class citizens as they are in other Arab countries and open themselves up to the possibility of massacres as they have faced in the past.

You're missing the point. You cited the basic laws of Israel earlier, which undeniably establish Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It's not vague about that. Even under a "best case scenario" you'd still be complaining because it's Jewish as opposed to Arab or Muslim. Jews are going to be favored when it comes to immigration or who gets citizenship.

I'm trying to distinguish here between what is inherently so and what is not inherently so.

If Kurdistan or Armenia included ethnic groups which are distinctly different from the other Kurds or Armenians then yes, certainly.

Well, I'm happy to hear that you're applying the same standards across ethnic groups.

From how I see it, whether it's the armenians, the kurds, or the jews all three of these groups have suffered serious mass killings and repeated historical injustice if not actual genocide (with the jews and armenians) with the primary purpose of an ethno-state (whether it be kurd, armenian, or jewish) being much needed security for those groups. It's not like the international community is going to come in and rescue them, after all. Ultimately, everyone must fend for themselves.

You realize how discriminatory this is? Imagine if the following was part of the United States constitution:

"North America is the historical homeland of white people, in which the United States was established."

"The United States is the nation state of white people, in which it realizes its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination."

"The exercise of the right to national self-determination in the United States is unique to white people."

"The State shall be open for white immigration."

Under "Connection to white people", article 6:

"The State shall strive to ensure the safety of white people and of its citizens, who are in trouble and in captivity, due to their whiteness or otherwise."

Under "White people settlement", article 7:

"The State views the development of white people's settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening."

Lets imagine you're a black man reading this. Does that sound racist to you? It should, because it is.

There is no collective white identity. It's funny you choose white here.... what about black? Asian? How about Kurdish or Armenian? If kurdistan or armenia became a nation and it was focused on securing kurdish/armenian existence and the rights of kurds/armenians would that be racist to you?

This is pretty in line with what I find too.

To OP: At the end of the day, ideas matter. You can't just choose to "not do" philosophy because it's unavoidable. Some ideas are a hell of a lot more destructive than others and lend themselves to certain types of extremely murderous behavior.

Good analytic philosophy is like a laser beam: Precise, clear, but very narrow.

Continental philosophy tends to be broader and a little more abstruse. If you receive a philosophical education in the US it's probably going to be analytic or possibly pragmatic. I've heard continental is more popular in Europe.

EDIT: Analytic philosophy can be super-critical. What we would do is basically read an article, construct the author's argument with his premises, and then basically once that's done look for potential criticisms. I always needed to be very precise with wording.

And it isn't just me who is saying this. Virtually the whole world has condemned Israel's actions in this regard. UNSCR 1544, for example. Here are some passages:

I'm fully aware that the UN has condemned Israel on quite a few occasions.

In 2016, there were more resolutions against Israel than the rest of the entire world. It was 3x more than any other country, so if you go by the UN then Israel must be the worst country.

Between 2012 and 2015, the UN General Assembly charged 86% of their resolutions against Israel.

No Israel isn't perfect, but Arabs are allowed to vote and have political representation in the government. They have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Jews are arrested in Israel for committing crimes against Arabs. If you're mad about the wall then I'm sorry but that's what happens when you repeatedly blow yourself up at bars and repeatedly go on stabbing sprees against civilians.

If aliens were to listen in and go by the UN, they would believe Israel is by far the worst country on the face of the planet.

EDIT: Oh, and the Israelis as well the US (the Palestinians won't directly deal with the Israelis) have offered self-determination the Palestinians many times among...I believe the past 3 administrations: Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The Palestinians have zero interest.

Why are you so up in arms about the Jews? I’m not a Zionist, but I think it’s disingenuous to say the Palestinians are so innocent.

Only a bad faith actor would argue that the Palestinians are completely innocent. Of course both sides have committed wrongdoings and if someone is going to take the position that the blame rests entirely on side it's not worth engaging them.

Incidents occur anywhere, between all kinds of societies. Again, it is the game that you play where you consider this sort of thing unique to Jews to justify Zionism.

Were your ancestors/family involved in this conflict? That's the key question here. I have a hard time understand why any neutral third party would be so opposed to jewish self-determination. that's really all zionism is... it's not about being mean to the palestinians it's just about jewish self determination and in turn preventing these types of massacres.