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 -
Humans do not agree what is "net-positive moral utility". For instance I think about it from of Christian virtue ethics, not in form of utility.
Right is a legal fiction, basically a strongly worded law. From where I stand, right was always the other side of duty. As soon as people renege on said duty, rights stops existing. We see it again and again. Right to privacy of correspondence is in article 12 of Universal Human Rights. It basically stopped existing after decades old creeping process of governments spying on said correspondence, people do not feel duty to resist it so the right stops existing, and not enough people care.
Even skipping what "high-performance society" even means as it by itself is value and thus morality laden statement, rights as was said are social constructs. If enough people think that sacrificing hearts to the blood good or that tears of newborn children are perfectly fine price to pay for greater good, then such thing will be enshrined as a law. Maybe even a right - people have right to live their free lives enabled by tears of newborn children. What is life of a child in face of all the other things that are valued in society, children will be sacrificed to the Moloch of these rights. All of the aforementioned things be it surrogacy or euthanasia are also argued in terms of rights: right to family life, right to bodily autonomy or whatnot. In the end the rights have to be evaluated by somebody if they clash, they can be amended or suspended as during COVID. Nothing will happen if right is stepped upon or changed: no smiting, nothing will physically shatter.
In the end we live in a society that we live in, we have laws based on values and ethical system accepted through culture in the society, which are in turn informed by theology of decision makers and general population in their day to day activity. This world is the result of that.
Yes, I find it quite plausible that a deontological defense, particularly one grounded explicitly in Christian moral premises, could be more robust than the secular-humanist sketch I provided here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link