shminux comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

157 Post author: Yvain 27 August 2012 03:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)

Comments (1742)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 29 August 2012 03:10:08PM -1 points [-]

I agree that many Americans assert that EP justifies sexist actions.

I agree that effectively nobody asserts that having sensory organs which can distinguish sex justify sexist actions. Nor did I claim anyone did.

My assertion was, and is, that the presence of those organs, much like the presence of those justifications, contributes to sexist actions that would not occur in their absence.

I assumed your objection was to the sexist actions, and the justifications were objectionable merely because they enabled those actions. In which case it seems that anything else that equally enabled those actions would be equally objectionable.

But, sure, if you're concerned specifically with asserted justifications rather than with the actions themselves, then I'm entirely beside your point.

Unrelatedly: lacking a justification for X != believing X to be unjustified.

Comment author: Decius 29 August 2012 09:08:38PM 1 point [-]

The ability to notice a difference irrelevant to a decision is not in the same category as the belief that a difference which is irrelevant to a decision is, in fact, relevant.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 29 August 2012 09:12:31PM 0 points [-]

True.

And the existence of a field of study that can be used to justify such a belief is in yet a third category.

Comment author: Decius comment score below threshold [+] (32 children)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 31 August 2012 04:00:59PM 3 points [-]

Previously you defined sexism as something which must be inherently unjustified, or else it doesn't fit your defintion.

Now you're effectively said that if "This field of study encourages unjustified actions" is equivalent to "This field of study is unjustified". (in regards to gender matters, i guess).

Since EVERY field of study will effectively directly or indirectly encourage some unjustified actions for some people, you've effectively declared every field of study unjustified.

I suggest you try and do some serious work towards trying to unconfuse in your mind your labels of various social phenomena and your moral judgments -- and also your ideas about what is with your ideas about what should be.

Comment author: Decius 31 August 2012 04:26:44PM -1 points [-]

Can you provide an example of something that you, or a significant number of people, would call sexist that you think is inherently justified?

Now you're effectively said that if "This field of study encourages unjustified actions" is equivalent to "This field of study is unjustified"

More accurately "This field of study encourages wrongful thinking." and "This field of study has a negative aspect." More semantically pure "This field of study is sexist" is equivalent to "This field of study is used to create invalid justifications", because a field of study cannot take actions like encouraging behavior; nor can an object be justified or unjustified; only agents can take actions, and only decisions can be justified or unjustified.

If every field of study is used to create invalid justifications, then every field of study has at least one negative aspect.

What caused you to think I was speaking in moral terms, rather than descriptive terms?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 31 August 2012 04:59:38PM 0 points [-]

What caused you to think I was speaking in moral terms, rather than descriptive terms?

When someone's talking about justified actions, I expect they mean morally justified. If they're talking about justified beliefs, I expect they mean epistemically justified.

You spoke about decisions, so I assumed you meant moral justification of actions.

Can you provide an example of something that you, or a significant number of people, would call sexist that you think is inherently justified?

For a consequentialist like myself actions are morally justified by their consequences, not "inherently".

But here, I'll provide one of each -- action and belief which may not be inherently justified but they're also not inherently unjustified.

I think that most people (including me) would concede the sexism of pornography, i.e. the objectification of women, but I'm far from certain that pornography is morally wrong as a whole, even when sexist.
Discussing even theoretically whether male brain structure might allow greater proficiency on average with e.g. mathematics or science would be treated as sexism by most people. But there's no inherent reason to know for certain that there do not exist such differences between average male and average female brains.

Comment author: Decius 31 August 2012 05:42:09PM 1 point [-]

I'll grant that the objectification of people is wrong from a consequentialist perspective, barring any redeeming factors. I'll also point out that any action (like supporting a given field of study) that has negative consequences which exceed the positive consequences is immoral from a consequentialist perspective. I'll refrain from making any claims about whether supporting any specific field is a net negative.

No, I think that actions are 'justified' when the expected consequences are in accordance with the values of the actor. Actions are only 'moral' in my view when they are made with the mutual consent of all participating actors. A decision such as destroying one's own private property and making oneself sad as a result are moral but unjustified in my view; from a consequentialist view, that would be immoral.

Unjustified actions are not always immoral, but do indicate suboptimal decision making and poor mental hygiene. Being able to recognize those decisions in oneself and others is important.

I rage against the sexism that results when the possible fact "There is a difference between male and female brain chemistry with this result" becomes "This is proof that one sex is [universally|locally] inferior". Not because I have a moral obligation to prevent as much harm or create as much good as possible, but because I have a philosophical need for people, who are metaphysically equal, to be treated as metaphysically equal.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 31 August 2012 06:47:29PM 4 points [-]

Actions are only 'moral' in my view when they are made with the mutual consent of all participating actors.

Is that a mere simplification of your deontology? Because if it's the totality thereof, I find it very easy to construct counterexamples where it'd be really eccentric to proclaim them immoral... e.g. you see a two-year old child lean dangerously over an open window and you pull him back, lest it falls -- even though it doesn't consent and might even cry in protest.

Or you are a doctor and perform an operation to save the life of an unconscious patient that was in a car accident. You don't have their consent because they're unconscious and can't provide it -- does it mean the action of saving their life isn't moral?

Comment author: [deleted] 01 September 2012 12:41:26AM 1 point [-]

I think IAWYC, but I'd steel-man Decius and assume that young children unconscious people, etc. wouldn't count as “actors” and thus such actions wouldn't be more immoral than, say, replace a broken string in a guitar without its consensus.

continue this thread »

Comment author: Decius 01 September 2012 01:35:43AM 0 points [-]

It's not the totality thereof- contract theory is also included with the concept "It is possible to consent to actions in the future in a manner which may not be unilaterally revoked."

I can't explain why the social contract or geographical government has jurisdiction over a new actor who does not choose to accept it.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 September 2012 06:28:02AM 2 points [-]

Not because I have a moral obligation to prevent as much harm or create as much good as possible, but because I have a philosophical need for people, who are metaphysically equal, to be treated as metaphysically equal.

What kinds of experiences would you expect in a world where (some?) people are metaphysically equal that you wouldn't expect in a world where people are not metaphysically equal?

Comment author: Decius 01 September 2012 02:02:57PM 0 points [-]

If my premise that people are metaphysically equal is wrong, then something which is not part of this universe has privileged access over something else which is not part of this universe.

I would, for example, expect the same entity to make decisions for two physical bodies, or for psychic phenomena to exist and not have a physical basis, or for consciousness to persist after death differentially depending on the conscious entity; in general, things would have to be able happen without a physical basis and differentially based on the metaphysical person.

Since I posit that the metaphysical person exists only as a moral abstraction (and can thus be defined to be equal), such evidence that 'personhood' is an actual concrete thing, and that some 'personhoods' were inherently superior in an objectively measurable way would falsify my moral beliefs. I also suspect that it would be problematic for all moral systems.

Comment author: V_V 01 September 2012 09:41:31AM 1 point [-]

I'll grant that the objectification of people is wrong from a consequentialist perspective, barring any redeeming factors.

Isn't consequentialism intrinsically objectifying? It doesn't treat people as right holders but as means to the end of achieving desirable world states.

Comment author: Decius 01 September 2012 01:52:32PM 0 points [-]

It can also treat people as the ends, instead of the means, of desirable world states.

I intuit that there is also something along the lines of 'equal objectification'; if everyone, including oneself, is objectified equally, is that really objectification? I don't know and must consider that.

continue this thread »

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 31 August 2012 09:01:42PM 1 point [-]

but because I have a philosophical need for people, who are metaphysically equal, to be treated as metaphysically equal.

I invite you to consider the possibility that what people are, and how people should be treated as, may possibly be two different things. If they're not "metaphysically equal", perhaps it's still best that they be treated as such.

Comment author: Decius 01 September 2012 01:28:32AM 0 points [-]

If things are different in a significant way, it is appropriate that they are treated as different.

It is a premise of mine that people are metaphysically equal; to delve further into that we need to discuss what 'people' means. I doubt that you will find such a discussion rewarding.

continue this thread »

Comment author: [deleted] 01 September 2012 12:45:25AM 1 point [-]

A decision such as destroying one's own private property and making oneself sad as a result are moral but unjustified in my view; from a consequentialist view, that would be immoral.

This confuses me: I self-identify as a consequentialist myself, but I wouldn't call an action which harms you but no-one else “immoral” (but I'd call it stupid).

Comment author: TheOtherDave 01 September 2012 01:11:32AM 1 point [-]

I'm not at all sure what it means for an act to be immoral, under a consequentialist moral frame, if not that it leads to the loss of value. Can you expand on this?

continue this thread »

Comment author: V_V 01 September 2012 10:05:37AM 1 point [-]

think that most people (including me) would concede the sexism of pornography, i.e. the objectification of women, but I'm far from certain that pornography is morally wrong as a whole, even when sexist.

Why do you think that pornography is sexist? There are male porn stars too.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 29 August 2012 10:49:16PM 2 points [-]

Um... OK. I'm tapping out here.

shminux comments on The noncentral fallacy - the worst argument in the world? - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (1742)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (1742)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login