This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So would you accept an outcome where it is never publicly revealed that the Mona Lisa was destroyed, a very convincing forgery is put on display in it's place, and everything continues on as before, with the broader public none the wiser?
People are still, presumably, getting the same benefits from what they believe is the actual Mona Lisa.
It sounds like, morally speaking, this is what you think SHOULD be done to prevent all those dust specks from hitting people's eyes.
No, because I think blissful ignorance is a flaw in utilitarianism and people only benefit here because of blissful ignorance.
So what is the moral harm in the lie, if we assume we cannot un-burn the Mona Lisa?
I will grant for this conversation that we'd prefer the Mona Lisa not be destroyed. But once it is done, you are not in favor of avoiding further harm that would result from people knowing it was destroyed?
Because once it's gone, no amount of money can retrieve it, nor will punishing the parties who destroyed it bring it back.
So what possible benefit is there to publicizing the fact of it's destruction?
You're analyzing it using utilitarianism containing the very flaw I pointed out.
The harm is caused by the Mona Lisa being destroyed. Telling people makes them aware of the harm. The fact that people are more upset when they know of it than when they don't doesn't mean that letting them know about it caused the harm, and counting it as though it did is a flaw in utilitarianism.
How?
I'm confused as to what actual loss is sustained by the burning of the Mona Lisa vs. some piece of random art that was not world famous.
Because the main reason the Mona Lisa is important is because of it's fame/notoriety to other people.
And that fame/notoriety isn't diminished by it's destruction.
People value the existence of the Mona Lisa. Destroying it destroys something which people value.
It is a flaw in utilitarianism that utilitarianism fails to count people's preferences being frustrated as a loss when they don't know that their preferences have been frustrated.
Unless I'm mistaken you're directly invoking a utilitarian argument for why the Mona Lisa has value.
Because people could, in theory, value the copy of the Mona Lisa just as much as the original... if they don't know it is a copy.
Else, from whence could the value come?
If the value is based on the fact that people value it, this gets to my point that replacing it with a copy prevents the actual harm in question.
You seem to be tying the whole situation to how much 'good' people experience due to the existence of the Mona Lisa, and that sounds like Utilitarianism to me.
Deontology would be "It is bad to destroy rare works of art in all cases."
Virtue Ethics would be something like "Good people don't destroy cultural artifacts."
Your ethical basis is, what?
The "they don't know if it's a copy" part is where utilitarianism breaks down. Utilitarianism can't handle situations where people want X, but falsely believe that X. According to utilitarianism, making them falsely believe X is just as good as X being true.
If the Mona Lisa has been destroyed, the belief "the Mona Lisa exists" is a false belief, and the "benefit" from that false belief shouldn't count as benefit. (And taking away the "benefit" shouldn't count as harm.) Utilitarianism would count it.
Unless there would be an immense amount of disutility created from either people believing X, or from them eventually finding out X is false.
I think there are situations where lies are harmless, even if later discovered.
The utilitarian calculation need not rest on the assumption that the lie will remain intact indefinitely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link