That is kind of my point. If you allow yourself to use unrealistic hypotheticals in a moral discussion, you are being way too easy on yourself.
If you can't find a real world example to defend your view, there is very probably something wrong with your view.
Actual morality can always be defended with actual examples or at the very least plausible hypotheticals.
This is so completely wrong I barely know where to start. Your post is essentially a rejection of rational thought. It's anti - intellectual.
Hypotheticals, in the context of moral reasoning, are thought experiments. You develop a theory, and to test that theory, come up with hypothetical scenarios where your theory might be applied.
Unrealistic hypotheticals, ones that could conceivably happen but almost certainly won't, are called corner case hypotheticals. Their purpose is to put a theory under the most strain possible to see if it holds up, or if its logic fails. It may be easy to stick to a theory of morality on a day to day basis, but it's in the extreme cases you don't foresee that it really matters that you have it right. The utility monster is a common one used in reference to consequentialist morality.
If you simply go ahead with a theory of morality (which is all a political ideology is - an answer to the question of "how should we act" ) because it's not producing absurdities or harm in immediate, local cases, you're going to end up with a flawed theory that over time leads you gradually further astray from the ideal you were hoping to promote. This is why thought experiments are important (and why critical reasoning courses should be mandatory in high school, but that's a separate topic).
Of course this is all moot in this context because I can't recall bringing any weird and crazy hypotheticals into play.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Holy moly. So basically you have no idea what you're talking about?
CSPANVerified@cspan
Rick Perry: "After being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of @Energy, I regret recommending its elimination."
It is refreshing though to see someone acknowledge that they were previously wrong. Too many politicians/people are completely incapable of this.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Yeah the Rick Perry thing is kind of meh. I mean we already know the man is, well, stupid. But he seems to now have a better idea of what his position entails, which is much more than I can say about Betsy DeVos or Ben Carson. He's at least trying which is good.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
It is refreshing though to see someone acknowledge that they were previously wrong. Too many politicians/people are completely incapable of this.
You have to wonder how the staff at the DOE were feeling about the appointment. I wouldn't doubt this is more for their benefit. Not that it isn't sincere, but a public mea culpa probably goes a long way to smoothing over some hard feeling
I actually find it kind of scary that they fold nuclear weapons under the DoE. I understand why they do it, but it still just feels like something that should be handled by the military.
you're going to end up with a flawed theory that over time leads you gradually further astray from the ideal you were hoping to promote.
If I move away from an ideal I once held because it never led to desirable real world consequences, I consider it progress.
Quote:
Of course this is all moot in this context because I can't recall bringing any weird and crazy hypotheticals into play.
Agreed. You are arguing besides the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
The only problem with this line of reasoning is it won't allow anyone to be a libertarian. Their schtick really only works with hypotheticals and ignoring real world consequence.
Being mandatory or not is beside the point when internal company politics are at play.
seriously? that's what you thought I meant? women shouldn't speak out of turn?
how about the fact that companies often have policy in regards to speaking with the media, or criticizing their workplace on social media.
It's not the place of most employees to speak about their company, especially when they may not have the full story and know what they're talking about.
from time to time I have contact with elected officials that I have great distaste for. know what I do? I keep my mouth shut and do my job.
I don't go ranting on facebook that my moral principles are compromised because my company has dealings with someone who I disagree with on personal levels and may find repugnant.
If her principles were so firm that she couldn't do her job, put in your resignation and leave, don't try and make yourself into a martyr in the media..
seriously? that's what you thought I meant? women shouldn't speak out of turn?
how about the fact that companies often have policy in regards to speaking with the media, or criticizing their workplace on social media.
It's not the place of most employees to speak about their company, especially when they may not have the full story and know what they're talking about.
from time to time I have contact with elected officials that I have great distaste for. know what I do? I keep my mouth shut and do my job.
I don't go ranting on facebook that my moral principles are compromised because my company has dealings with someone who I disagree with on personal levels and may find repugnant.
If her principles were so firm that she couldn't do her job, put in your resignation and leave, don't try and make yourself into a martyr in the media..
Did you even read the article? She posted it on her private instagram, which was then obviously shared by one of her friends.
It's freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want in private, and while social media isn't that private, this was not a public or widely shared account. This is no different than if you told your friend that you dealt with some politician you didn't like, and they went running to the media to cause a rift.
She made no attempt to make herself a martyr in the media. What are you talking about? She did just as you said, she quit.
Fascinating world we live in where you can't even tell your friends about moral conflict you're having without some guys on the internet telling you to shut your mouth or quit.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I actually find it kind of scary that they fold nuclear weapons under the DoE. I understand why they do it, but it still just feels like something that should be handled by the military.
When you read about what happened during the Cuban missile crisis and how many of Kennedy's generals wanted all out nuclear war with Russia, it's a damn good thing they put their nuclear arsenal under the control of a civilian department
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hemi-Cuda For This Useful Post:
When you read about what happened during the Cuban missile crisis and how many of Kennedy's generals wanted all out nuclear war with Russia, it's a damn good thing they put their nuclear arsenal under the control of a civilian department
DoE doesn't control usage of the weapons, just the maintenance. Kennedy stopped their use, not the DoE.
Yeah, and I don't have any problem with this. The entire point of the back and forth was that you don't have to subscribe to identity politics to defend these rights and support the women who are being affected - and in fact there's absolutely no rational reason to do so. It doesn't make sense.
How does it not make sense? If my concern is the personal, social, and economic well-being of women, then these measures should concern me. My concern for women as a group doesn't preclude me from concerns about other groups or individuals, nor does it preclude me from seeing this as an infringement on individual liberties.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
My concern for women as a group doesn't preclude me from concerns about other groups or individuals, nor does it preclude me from seeing this as an infringement on individual liberties.
What? How can you possibly show concern for a select group of humans without making sure to acknowledge the value of classic liberalism and ensure that minority rights are only to be academically categorized as "human rights."
Abortion is a woman's right? No rubecube, it is a human right. Yes, a woman may be a human, so technically you are completely right and there's literally zero point outside semantics in making this very important distinction, but really we need to look deeper and acknowledge that this is simply some special-case perversion of the human right to body determinism!
When someone tells me they're eating pepperoni pizza, I say "No, you're eating pizza, the type of pizza is a societal construct that only serves to further divide pizza into subgenres where we risk the fracture of the pizza concept as a whole... and pizza is great."
... #AllLivesMatter?
The Following 25 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
What? How can you possibly show concern for a select group of humans without making sure to acknowledge the value of classic liberalism and ensure that minority rights are only to be academically categorized as "human rights."
Abortion is a woman's right? No rubecube, it is a human right. Yes, a woman may be a human, so technically you are completely right and there's literally zero point outside semantics in making this very important distinction, but really we need to look deeper and acknowledge that this is simply some special-case perversion of the human right to body determinism!
When someone tells me they're eating pepperoni pizza, I say "No, you're eating pizza, the type of pizza is a societal construct that only serves to further divide pizza into subgenres where we risk the fracture of the pizza concept as a whole... and pizza is great."
... #AllLivesMatter?
Early POTY contender.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following User Says Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
How does it not make sense? If my concern is the personal, social, and economic well-being of women, then these measures should concern me. My concern for women as a group doesn't preclude me from concerns about other groups or individuals, nor does it preclude me from seeing this as an infringement on individual liberties.
Because it entails that the reason women should be permitted to have abortions is because they are women - that there's something specific to women that grants them this right inherently (or as a necessary result of some other right granted to women inherently owing to their sex). The rational answer is that a right to abortion flows from other more fundamental principles that apply to everyone regardless of their identity or membership in a subgroup of humanity. There are no rights that should accrue to anyone as a result of their sex. There's no reasonable basis for saying that identity matters to our conclusion that pro-choice is the right place to stand here.
It's not a matter of being concerned about two things at the same time. It's about looking at the issue - should we permit legal abortion or should we outlaw it - and asking, "why are we in favour of legal abortion?" There's no reasonable answer to that question that anyone has put forward yet as to why the right to have an abortion is derived solely from a group identity; from women's status as women.
The fact that women are the only ones in the position to avail themselves of this instantiation of the more fundamental principles of self-determination and control over one's own body (and by the way I'm open to the possibility that that list isn't exhaustive) is a matter of biology, not morality.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Because it entails that the reason women should be permitted to have abortions is because they are women - that there's something specific to women that grants them this right inherently (or as a necessary result of some other right granted to women inherently owing to their sex). The rational answer is that a right to abortion flows from other more fundamental principles that apply to everyone regardless of their identity or membership in a subgroup of humanity. There are no rights that should accrue to anyone as a result of their sex. There's no reasonable basis for saying that identity matters to our conclusion that pro-choice is the right place to stand here.
It's not a matter of being concerned about two things at the same time. It's about looking at the issue - should we permit legal abortion or should we outlaw it - and asking, "why are we in favour of legal abortion?" There's no reasonable answer to that question that anyone has put forward yet as to why the right to have an abortion is derived solely from a group identity; from women's status as women.
The fact that women are the only ones in the position to avail themselves of this instantiation of the more fundamental principles of self-determination and control over one's own body (and by the way I'm open to the possibility that that list isn't exhaustive) is a matter of biology, not morality.
how high am I right now?
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
