site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   24667 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 25, 2023

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.

8
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Most "axioms" are not axioms at all. A chicken with human-level intelligence and values would have moral worth, so the true axiom is something like "intelligence grants moral worth." Starting from that axiom one could argue that chickens have some intelligence and thus some non-zero moral worth.

I disagree; a theoretically intelligent chicken would not have moral worth because it is not a human, and ‘humans have sufficiently more moral worth than animals to justify eating them’ is a statement I consider a postulate. It doesn’t matter if whales are as smart as people the japs still have the right to eat them, and it doesn’t matter if chickens are as smart as chickens or as smart as people, I will still fry and eat them.

and it doesn’t matter if chickens are as smart as chickens or as smart as people, I will still fry and eat them.

If chickens were as smart as people there would be absolutely no justification to fry and eat them, if only because their equal intelligence implies there will probably be a time in the future when the tables are turned on who has power and you absolutely wouldn't want the chickens to start eating humans.

Of course intelligence gives rise to moral worth, and yes I will bite the bullet and freely say that some people are worth more morally than others (this doesn't mean that intelligence is the only thing behind moral worth, but it absolutely is one of them).

Of course intelligence gives rise to moral worth, and yes I will bite the bullet and freely say that some people are worth more morally than others

Wouldn’t have expected you of all people to bite the bullet and say whites can be presumed to be morally worth 25% more than Indian people, but that’s what ‘some people are worth more than others’ means when intelligence gives rise to moral worth.

Sure, I'll happily say that the average white gets more moral points than the average Indian on the intelligence portion of what determines moral worth, but there are other things which also contribute to moral worth.

Plus India is very very divided along caste lines, there has been minimal interbreeding between the high and the low over the last few thousand of years, there are identifiable genetic subgroups where the average intelligence is higher than that of white people as a whole.

Wouldn’t have expected you of all people to bite the bullet and say whites can be presumed to be morally worth 25% more than Indian people

In one factor. He said there are others, potentially many others. If you score 25% less than me on an assignment worth 1% of our final grade, that might not even make a perceptible difference in the end.

It doesn't, though. If that's your argument, then you have to explain why unintelligent humans have any moral worth. Profoundly retarded people are arguably less intelligent than squid, which at least have the ability to survive on their own , but I don't think anyone would argue that they have the same moral worth.

Profoundly retarded people are arguably less intelligent than squid, which at least have the ability to survive on their own , but I don't think anyone would argue that they have the same moral worth.

I would. I think all such people should be euthanized. They aren't really people. They're worthless sacks of flesh that just happen to have human DNA

I wouldn't go that far. Those people are still human, with a human soul. It is a sin to kill another human, regardless of how stupid they may be. You can make arguments about withdrawing intensive care if they are a vegetable who can't survive without it, but killing extremely stupid people who are no danger to anybody else when you can keep them alive at minimal cost kills a part of us as well along with it.

Even if religion isn't true, a society where everyone believes they will be questioned by God for their sins on the day of Judgement is better than one where nobody believes this. This is yet another basic "moral fact" that has been lost by the modern west when it threw away the trappings of religion.

We literally kill some brain dead people. On the limit, perfectly unintelligent (not)people have no moral worth.

He gets only the moral benefit of avoiding needless suffering, which is a lower bar of morality, applicable to animals. And he probably has people who care about him, like family, or catholics, so his value by proxy cannot be ignored by other humans.

Would you say that an intelligent alien has less moral worth than a retarded human? On what basis, genetic kindred? The alien can understand cooperation and retaliation, while the retard is morally incompetent and therefore cannot be trusted to cooperate. His own behaviour is random, morally meaningless, so our behaviour towards him loses moral meaning too. It is futile to wait for a dangerous wild animal to ‘defect’ before killing him, as we would if he were intelligent.

It is futile to wait for a dangerous wild animal to ‘defect’ before killing him, as we would if he were intelligent.

Completely agree with this.

Because multiple things grant rise to moral worth as I said in my post not just intelligence. You could have a model of the form: moral_worth = b_1*intelligence+b_2*is_human + ... + error where the ... includes other things that dictate moral worth where b_2 > 0. In this case profoundly stupid humans have a 1 for is_human and so get some moral worth from just that, while profoundly stupid chickens have a 0 for is_human so have less moral worth (according to a human, a chicken may well want to reverse things).

I can well assume that an equally intelligent human has more moral worth to an equally intelligent chicken, this is no different from the belief that an American has more moral worth than an otherwise equivalent Egyptian that so many people seem to hold without it affecting them very much at all. That doesn't mean a highly intelligent chicken has so low moral worth it's fine to eat it.

I am prepared to say that there is an IQ/functionality threshold below which a biologically-human entity could have scarcely more moral value than a squid.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats