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 -
Based on this
...it seems like your test for permitting gross hypothetical questions is whether they force the person being asked to consider deeper questions of genuine weight. That seems fair enough-- I wouldn't support gross questions for the sake of gross questions. But I think you're missing the point of the cow question specifically, and the point of grossness in moral dilemmas in general.
The question I have actually heard asked several times-- the dog/mother question-- is empirically successful at getting people to consider questions of:
...and it also reinforces group bonds by showing each other that we can discuss contentious topics without attacking someone for saying the wrong thing. It is my opinion that these topics are neccessary and proper discussion material, not just as a matter of public policy, but as a matter of identifying what sort of values the people you're among hold. I would argue that the cow question, seriously pondered, would serve a similar function.
Now, that alone doesn't justify making the question gross. I can forsee your counterargument that if you want to discuss those topics, it's possible to just discuss them instead of posing a hypothetical. But the purpose of the grossness is additionally to determine whether people will change their answer based on the salience of the question (as opposed to the fundamental moral rules being queried.) We can ask the trolley question with famous pieces of artwork, or even other people's pokemon cards, instead of humans. In theory people should reason about the question purely based on whether they're utilitarians or deontologists... but in practice, many people will change their answer because their moral principles are inconsistent or nonexistent. Elevating the emotional impact of the scenario while keeping the fundamentals the same is a way of catching out those people.
My test for permitting very unpleasant questions is whether their usefulness justifies the great displeasure, and whether the displeasure is actually required for the usefulness. As you later intuit correctly.
There's some inferential gulf here, I guess. IMO those fundamental moral principles really aren't all that rigorously formulated and applied in real life. People changing their views depending on the subject matter instead of working on purely abstract principles seems normal and highly advisable. Examining yourself and coming to the conclusion that - descriptively - you resonante most strongly with deontology or utilitarianism or virtue ethics seems fine. Turning prescriptive, i.e., deciding that only one of those is absolutely correct and that you must rigidly apply only one such philosophy under all circumstances, seems abnormal, impractical and like philosophy turning inwards to uselessness.
Uncharitably, by the logic of your paragraph quoted above, you're not just filtering out people who don't do abstract reasoning correctly, or people who prefer not to discuss gross matters, but also the many, many people who see philosophy as a toolbox to actually use rather than as a set of toy ideas.
I like this metaphor of philosophy-as-toolbox because I believe very strongly that people should care about the condition and efficacy of their tools. That means testing their morals against toy problems so they know, in advance, what guiding principles they should use in a real crisis. It is hopefully unlikely that any one of us will be asked to fuck a cow, but many of us will be called to decide whether to euthanize pets, or vote for politicians with a stance on animal welfare, or serve on a jury considering allegations of sexual assault. It's true descriptively that people go through life without rigorously applying their stated principles-- and that's lead to no end of infuriating moral tragedies that I would rather avoid. The consequences of rigorously applying moral principles and seeing them fail is that you get to re-evaluate your principles and do better next time. The consequences of doing whatever feels good in the moment is how we get ordinary citizens convinced they're morally blameless while carrying out genocides.
Which infuriating moral tragedies are those?
As a toy example, insufficient donations to bed net and vitamin supplementation charities as compared to, say, dog cancer charities. I think fewer people would give to the latter instead of the former if they did the self-examination necessary to see that they were acting according to aesthetic principles rather than their own fundamental morality, and save lives in the process.
Isn't that just revealed preferences at work? People don't actually hold the moral beliefs they socially profess adherence to; feeling like they do something for dogs really does matter more to them than actually doing something for africans. It's not an inability to get their priorities straight, but the correct assumption that they're better off pretending to hold the socially correct beliefs.
...and that's one of the things I would like to identify by posing philosophical thought experiments, yes.
If someone has my beliefs, and understands that, I would like to identify that and make friends with them. I someone has my beliefs, and doesn't understand that, I would like them to get better at implementing my (our) beliefs. If someone has not-my beliefs, and tells the truth about that, then we can at least discuss in good faith how to compromise. If someone has not-my beliefs, and lies about it, then they are an enemy agent and I would like to identify that.
Well by those standards you're living in hostile territory and almost every human being you ever encounter is your enemy.
Yes, most people aren't suitable for being more than peripheral acquaintances. Luckily my circle of actual friends is well-filtered-for, and I reap the benefits thereof.
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