Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcNeT
Is it more or less convenient than acting like there's no progress to be made in controlling inappropriate behavior?
|
No one is saying this. Why is it all or nothing with you lot?
All that's being claimed is that while this open discussion about things that have been bottled up in society is largely healthy and productive and will hopefully move us forward toward healthier relationships between men and women, there are some troubling aspects to it as well, and some issues that will undermine the goal. I think some seriously awful, and in some cases criminal, people had to be made an example of, but mob justice always yields collateral damage and there are some terrible ideas catching on. Mike Cernovich just used this panic to get Sam Seder blacklisted. Do you really want to give a guy like that a weapon to wield? Just one of many examples.
Quote:
Why does everything have to be quantified with you lot?
*BEEP BOOP* YOU CANNOT SUE ME. MY TOUCH ON YOUR ELBOW ONLY LINGERED FOR 1.37 SECONDS, THEREFORE IT DID NOT REACH THE 2 SECOND ILLEGAL CARESS THRESHOLD. *BEEP*
|
This is a complicated question. If I were to give you a simple answer, it's this: right and wrong cannot be reduced to the whims of a particular group of people at a given time. What you intuitively feel as right and wrong is a piss poor guide; a couple of hundred years ago people were perfectly morally comfortable with the concept that the white race was superior. And you think that finally, just now, you've got it figured out?
The arrogance. How do you decide what's right? Moreover, why is your standard of what's right preferable to Charles Manson's? Is it just majority rule?
The answer is a series of values that you can defend not by reference to themselves (e.g. not a dead dogma), but by reference to general principles. The answer to "how ought we to act" has been basically a top 3 question for the human race for thousands of years. So there isn't necessarily a series of rules for particular cases, but if you're a hedonistic rule utilitarian, you might ask, "will following this course of action tend to produce more happiness in general" ? Answer that question as best you can, and act accordingly. Or maybe you have another principle you find convincing enough that you can defend it to the rule utilitarian. Either way, at least you're attempting to be guided by reason, not your gut and not what people around you are influencing you to think. Individuals are smart (well, some). People are basically always stupid and capricious.
Unfortunately, if you don't just act as you feel, ethics is really hard and just about no theory is perfect. Sometimes even in trying to follow the rules you think make the most sense you'll screw up. But you need some touchstones or you'll just end up following the mob of the moment, another relic of history.