Philosophy Discussion Forums

It would be easy to accept people as they are if they stopped trying to be what they are not.

Greta wrote:A quick question so I can understand where you are coming from ... Do you think it's ethically okay to harass people for being born the way they are?

Well, on a more serious scale, we do also kill people for being born the way they are, and most people support it for the same reason we harass yet other people for other reasons still. It's in the nature of all living beings (not just Humans) to reject what they see as being innately dissimilar. Differences are a threat to the comfort of the status quo.

You may find real life examples of this everywhere you look. It won't go away by the mere societal pressure that's being applied these days. It might be buried under the surface a bit deeper but it's still there and it will show up here and there at times of opportunistic measure, only it will be a concentrated effort due to its involuntary repression.

So then, having answered your quick question, I'll reiterate my previous questions to you in hopes of forthright answers.

> How do you determine which individuals may not be worthy of such things?
> Are you not simply drawing a subjective line just as everyone else has done, and of which you are challenging and/or pushing to change?
> Isn't this all just a game of subjective line drawing and redrawing based on our individual (or collective) desires and fears?

Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Well, on a more serious scale, we do also kill people for being born the way they are, and most people support it for the same reason we harass yet other people for other reasons still. It's in the nature of all living beings (not just Humans) to reject what they see as being innately dissimilar. Differences are a threat to the comfort of the status quo.

You may find real life examples of this everywhere you look. It won't go away by the mere societal pressure that's being applied these days. It might be buried under the surface a bit deeper but it's still there and it will show up here and there at times of opportunistic measure, only it will be a concentrated effort due to its involuntary repression.

So then, having answered your quick question, I'll reiterate my previous questions to you in hopes of forthright answers.

> How do you determine which individuals may not be worthy of such things?
> Are you not simply drawing a subjective line just as everyone else has done, and of which you are challenging and/or pushing to change?
> Isn't this all just a game of subjective line drawing and redrawing based on our individual (or collective) desires and fears?

It's simply wrong in this culture to discriminate against people for race, gender, sexuality etc. That's how things stand.

Yes, some people hate those groups and want to hurt them. Society is not homogeneous.

All people are worthy of respect for being human beings irregardless of race, gender, sexuality etc and other things they are born with (I also find animals worthy or respect too). If any person causes trouble then there may be consequences but to be judged guilty for an accident of birth is wrong ethically and in practical terms.

Greta wrote:All people are worthy of respect for being human beings irregardless of race, gender, sexuality etc and other things they are born with…

You're missing the point Greta that your vague criteria falls far short of being adequately precise. We may include into your rather large umbrella of inclusion all manner of people that you would in fact not find suitable for the respect you speak of.

You seem to be simply giving lip service to the concept for the sake of appearing to be a good and admirable person. Your criteria needs to be refined a bit. This is the purpose of the questions that I had asked of you, and which you still have yet to answer.

I think if you make an honest attempt to clarify, even if just for yourself, the specific criteria and requirements for who you find deserving of the kind of respect you are speaking of then you'll quickly realize that it's not so simple a task to sort through the myriad characteristics that transgress upon both of the supposed concepts of that which we as Humans at least attempt to define as "Good & Evil".

In short, it's far more complex and complicated than you seem willing to freely admit.

Spiral Out wrote:
So, how would you construct this "law of equality" and who is deserving of its benefits and who is not? Please be specific since there will be many people of certain differences scrutinizing your selective boundaries to find their own equality.
(Nested quote removed.)

I think the "law of equality" is that all humans have a right to their life and pursuit of happiness within the bounds of live and let live.

Ah yes, but to what extent do we have the right to demand that other people work to facilitate our right to pursue the happiness hare?

Sorry. Off topic.

Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


You're missing the point Greta that your vague criteria falls far short of being adequately precise. We may include into your rather large umbrella of inclusion all manner of people that you would in fact not find suitable for the respect you speak of.

You seem to be simply giving lip service to the concept for the sake of appearing to be a good and admirable person. Your criteria needs to be refined a bit. This is the purpose of the questions that I had asked of you, and which you still have yet to answer.

I think if you make an honest attempt to clarify, even if just for yourself, the specific criteria and requirements for who you find deserving of the kind of respect you are speaking of then you'll quickly realize that it's not so simple a task to sort through the myriad characteristics that transgress upon both of the supposed concepts of that which we as Humans at least attempt to define as "Good & Evil".

In short, it's far more complex and complicated than you seem willing to freely admit.

All people are worthy of respect for being human beings irregardless of race, gender, sexuality etc and other things they are born with

The uncomplicated nature of this statement, which you criticize as its weakness, is its strength.

Theopane:

I've noticed that as one of your trademarks here: relatively short waffle-free uncomplicated statements of moral principles. And I think you've done some good ones. Do you think the strength of these kinds of statements is in the fact that they're more likely to resonate with a larger number of people than long complex arguments?

(I must stop here. I'm in danger of starting a long complex argument about the merits of short pithy statements.)

Steve3007 wrote:Theopane:

I've noticed that as one of your trademarks here: relatively short waffle-free uncomplicated statements of moral principles. And I think you've done some good ones. Do you think the strength of these kinds of statements is in the fact that they're more likely to resonate with a larger number of people than long complex arguments?

Yes, I do. I don't know about you, but my eyes glaze over whenever I see a "wall of text" on the screen.

tl;dr is 'net slang for "Too long; didn't read."

Thanks for that net slang. Very handy!

And, yes, my eyes do glaze over at the sight of those walls of text, although I have to confess to having built some pretty substantial edifices in my time too. Whenever I do that, I regret it, but still find it difficult to stop myself from doing it next time. In fact, I can feel it happening as I type and type and type right now.

The trouble is, it's just so darn difficult to say things with real meat and substance but also stay short and catchy. I admire anyone with the skill to do it. On the specific subject of ethics, for example, it's easy to say things like "people need to love each other", but I just can't shake off the feeling that these statements buy themselves a wider audience at the expense of not saying anything.

I guess it's all swings and roundabouts. (That's one of my favourite short sayings.)

Theophane wrote:The uncomplicated nature of this statement, which you criticize as its weakness, is its strength.

Falseness isn't a strength. Simplicity is not the equivalent of truth, especially when considering Human perspectives.

Greta wrote:All people are worthy of respect for being human beings irregardless of race, gender, sexuality etc and other things they are born with…

The above sentiment is perfect for t-shirts and bumper stickers, but is fundamentally inadequate for a philosophy forum.

Misty wrote:I think the "law of equality" is that all humans have a right to their life and pursuit of happiness within the bounds of live and let live.

At least the "I think" qualifier identifies the above sentiment as a subjective opinion, which is all that can be offered in regard to the concept of 'worthiness' and which is why the previous claim by Greta is entirely inadequate.

Mea culpa, Spiral. Yes, the statement was a truism - so obviously an opinion I didn't bother with "I think" qualifications. Your criticisms strike me as a strategic attempt to "win" via comments designed to make me look trivial and obtuse for disagreeing with you , eg. "falseness", "bumper stickers".

Meanwhile your own truisms are consistently unqualified. Who cares? It's obvious that some of your statements are your opinion and not fact. Can we please accept the obvious and move on?

<-- I THINK -->

The topic is clearly not referring to the value of human life per se, so the statement you object to : "all people are worthy of respect etc" clearly stems from cultural prism in which we live. I was not referring to "natural rights", which only appear to exist in our solar system within human society.

So let's check the challenged statement by examining its opposite (sans exaggeration or reductio ad absurdum):

"Some people are unworthy of respect for being human beings due to their race, gender, sexuality etc and other things they are born with". [sic]

We're talking about a level of obviousness that we ideally would have moved on from long ago.

Yes, it's hardly news that some feminist academics mistakenly ignored genetics and took the blank slate approach during the 70s. That error is no worse than the falsehoods proclaimed about women before feminism, eg. the faulty reasoning behind denying women the vote until the 20th century (ironically because many men believed women were incapable of sound reasoning).

I don't understand the "Marxist lie?" accusation either. We live in a globalised world that increasingly demands economic rationalism from all countries, yet some people are still at war with Marxism?? Marxism's withered body was buried decades ago after enjoying its 15 minutes of fame in the meme pool. Times change, it's a new world.

// I THINK

You've cottoned on to him Greta - join the club!

Greta,

I'm not trying to diminish or devalue your position. I don't want to win. I don't want you to think what I think. I simply want you to question what you believe. I question my own beliefs every day.

Equality, whatever that might be, is not what people strive for. They strive for advantage. Fair treatment, whatever that might be, is not what people strive for. They strive for preferential favor.

Call me a cynic, but is it not what the underlying motivation is? Mere survival isn't enough for the Human will. It must gain and thrive.

Spiral Out wrote:Greta,

I'm not trying to diminish or devalue your position. I don't want to win. I don't want you to think what I think. I simply want you to question what you believe. I question my own beliefs every day.

Equality, whatever that might be, is not what people strive for. They strive for advantage. Fair treatment, whatever that might be, is not what people strive for. They strive for preferential favor.

Call me a cynic, but is it not what the underlying motivation is? Mere survival isn't enough for the Human will. It must gain and thrive.

All people and their motives are not the same so lumping everyone together is false treatment of individuals.