Victim vs perpetrator blaming, political correctness, and hypocrisy

[nitrogen]

It is morally correct and I believe in it with all my heart.

How do you determine morally correct vs wrong? If you were born in the woods and raised by a wolf, would you know right vs wrong in human society? Your beliefs in right vs wrong were taught by people you grew up with, by political propaganda, by social & peer pressure, by your personal experience. Your beliefs don't hold absolute truth. There's no point for self-righteousness.

@stonemason Thanks for the angry face, you're so emotionally involved & rattled

There are certain topics where one cannot simply "debate" without leaning towards one or another perspective. This topic is one of them.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[Epsilon0]

I'm emphasizing on LEAVING POSSIBILITIES OPEN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE 100% KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING.

You are right in saying this, and you are also right in pointing out that you did not imply that the entire scientific community agrees with Jensen & Rashton.

My answer were a erronous generalization.

I most definitely do not have absolute knowledge of anything, but my whole life and work is anchored in the belief that democracy is the best form of government humans have come up with so far, so I feel confident in defending it.

There are certain topics where one cannot simply "debate" without leaning towards one or another perspective. This topic is one of them.

How do you determine morally correct vs wrong? If you were born in the woods and raised by a wolf, would you know right vs wrong in human society? Your beliefs in right vs wrong were taught by people you grew up with, by political propaganda, by social & peer pressure, by your personal experience. Your beliefs don't hold absolute truth.

Your posts are full of self-righteousness.

I am completely free to determine what is morally correct for me. Whether influenced by peer pressure, culture or politics, my beliefs are my own and I am entitled to them.

And so are you. And everyone else.

I disengage now because I don't find it meaningful to respond to the your last remark.

Edit:
@nitrogen

I think it's big of you to change the wording of the last sentence. Thanks & good evening/day!

 

[strand]

@nitrogen you're welcome

 

[Jean Améry]

you don't need to feel personally attacked. I called your notion of intrinsic rights useless in a context where others won't assent to them, which should tell you that they are not intrinsic.

I can't speak for Epsilon0 but in this context I would take the term 'intrinsic' to mean in and of itself, without reference to individual or group differences. Perhaps 'universal' would be clearer.

The notion of the intrinsic worth of human-beings and its incorporation into the legal theory of universal human rights (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, the U.S. Constitution, presumably any modern constitution) is not useless at all: it is the difference between slavery and freedom, protection of the right to life and the wilfull destruction or attempted destruction of randomly selected individuals and groups. That is what denial of intrinsic, universal worth of human-beings invariably leads to: if one group deems itself superior to others it will attempt to dominate them or worse. History is clear on this.

It is a normative concept to be sure but it is congruent with reason (on what rational basis could one decide whether one individual is worth less or more than another? especially given the notion of moral luck which states that we can't take credit for 'superior' qualities like high intelligence or superior athletic ability which are largely genetic) and in my opinion a prerequisite of any civilized society. If humanity made any progress during the millenia we lived on planet earth it's the realization that deep down we are not fundamentally different from each-other and violence and cruelty perpetrated on trivial grounds is abhorrent. Took us long enough but aslong as we recognise the worth and dignity of every individual solely because they are human we can prevent the horrors of the past repeating themselves.

Imagine two societies: one in which slavery existed and one in which it was forbidden. Would you want to be a part of a society with slavery as a legal institution if it meant that you could end up in that category?

Why is murder illegal? Because we can prove empirically that it is wrong? No, it is wrong and illegal because it's the ultimate denial of the very humanity of the victim and therefore of humanity as a whole. The high crime of murder is illegal in all societies (that I know of) so that should tell you that certain moral notions do seem to be universal after all. Under the law everyone has a right to life, regardless of their individual qualities or features.

To put it in Kantian terms: murder is wrong because if it were made into a universal maxim (everyone ought to kill everyone) society would simply cease to exist. That presupposes a universal right to life, i.e. the right not to be killed except under very specific circumstances (legal self-defense, war...).

Even if it could be proven that certain etnicities consistently score higher on IQ-tests (provided they are culturally neutral) and it would be the case that IQ-tests are indeed the single best way to measure intelligence it simply does not follow that those etnicities are morally superior and would or should possess more rights and privileges than others.

Athletes of African descent pretty much rule supreme in long distance running. Does that mean Africans are a superior 'race'?

 

[K-O]

Just my personal observations&analysis intended to make people pause and think:

To condemn victim-blaming, one has to first identify who's the victim and who' the perpetrator. Now, are victims and perpetrators always easily identifiable? Some are. For instance, a person who gets punched by a stranger in the street simply because of his skin color is a victim of a hate crime. Some are not. Interactions that start off based on mutual needs usually fit into this category; the victim could just be the one who plays the same game as the perpetrator but gets outmaneuvered and ends up being the loser. All parties involved can be victims, or can all be perpetrators, or some can be both a victim and a perpetrator simultaneously, or a victim can turn into a perpetrator as the situation escalates and vice versa. Btw, masochism is a real thing.

People automatically give more credit to the alleged victims, because they appear to be less threatening and more innocent. People can be gullible, irresponsible, or lack common sense due to factors out of their control, but does that make it politically correct to swap out an adjective of a negative connotation (gullible or irresponsible) with another adjective of a neutral connotation (trusting or vulnerable) used to describe them? A dog barks loud at a leopard when its armed owner is nearby - same with people who express politically correct opinions when they know they're backed by the majority. On online forums, politically correct posts get showered by social brownie points and the posters often write in big fonts and indignant tones; while, politically incorrect posts get battered by angry faces.

People need a target to bear the uneasiness they feel and the potentials in themselves that they'd like to alienate from. The target is like a scapegoat (in the Bible, a scapegoat is released into the wilderness, symbolically taking with it all sins and impurities of the people) that may or may not be 100% guilty. It's tempting to look at things in black and white because it's easy. Whereas in reality, most things are in different shades of grey rather than black and white, and it takes two to tango.

Why not just let the (alleged) victims believe they're totally innocent and take no part in their tragedies? Well, when people believe it's completely somebody else's fault, they don't self-reflect and learn enough to sufficiently prevent ending up in the same hot water again in the future. Btw, all humans are in a Skinner Box [4], having our beliefs and moral values shaped by operant conditioning since birth, burned into our core that they become absolute truth.

Humans as social animals, by working as groups, each individual's fitness and survival chances are maximized. Political corruption and business interactions can be brought to light by examining money transfers between parties summarized by the popular catchphrase "follow the money." Interpersonal interactions can be brought to light and traced down to "follow the self." The so-called virtues such as altruism & compassion, upon close examination, might be just ego defense mechanisms to cover up uncomfortable feelings from the self. Endowing the overused word "love" with supreme overexaggerated power and touting compassion as a cardinal virtue seems to have become an established trend/culture that is bound to benefit many and poison some others.

Political correctness is closely tied to collective hypocrisy. The Nobel Laureate James Watson, THE father of DNA, was stripped of his honorary titles over "reprehensible" comments on the link between race and intelligence. Different cat breeds can have different intelligence levels, but different races of homo sapiens can't and that just sounds wrong, sure. Who discovered the link between asbestos and lung cancer, who developed the first high-powered electron microscope, where did the accurate data on human physiological limitations come from? Shhhh.....don't go there, let's just say EVERYTHING that Nazis did was an atrocity that carried zero benefits to human society and they were inhumane animals. Oh, and the medical terms named after Nazi doctors need to be changed. Btw, why is the word "inhumane" used to describe cruel acts while humans and bonobos are the only species on earth that have been found by far to carry out well-organized campaigns of genocides? How are the so-called humane humans nobler than the "low" animals?

There's a social psychology project called Pushed To The Edge that gives insight into how long it takes (the answer is 72 minutes) to turn a regular person into a murderer [3]. But the study subjects/participants weren't randomly chosen. Instead, the candidates took the Asch-style Conformity Test [2] to identify the biddable ones. Yes, people come on different compliant levels, and I bet adept predators know that, and I bet many members give off their compliant levels through the posts they make.

People accuse psychopaths of being liars and manipulators. The thing is, we humans, and of course including "normies", start to lie at as early as age three [1]. Manipulation is everywhere; it's necessary for any society, even animals to function. In this way, it is neither good or bad, but necessary [5]. Even being nice is a form of subtle manipulation. Conflict resolution and courtship behaviors are all about manipulation. But each individual puts their own slant on it based on their good or bad experiences. Then why do people demonize the traits in others they are also present in themselves? In part, because they aren't as skilled and want to even the playfield. It's like physically unattractive women are more likely to be hardcore feminists, especially the type that depicts men in adversarial positions against women and shame other women for adopting traditional gender roles.

View attachment 35665

Disclaimers:
*I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. Above are just my personal thoughts. PS, people only read what they want to read, and will only believe what they want to believe anyway.
*Please excuse any awkward expressions as English is not my native language.
*I'm only easily bored, not easily offended, so feel free to say whatever you want or give me angry faces as long as it does not violate forum rules. I may or may not respond to avoid leading to fights.
*I'm not calling anybody out.

[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201311/when-does-lying-begin
[2] https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/the-many-varieties-of-conformity/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/13/derren-brown-pushed-to-the-edge-review
[4] https://www.simplypsychology.org/operant-conditioning.html
[5] Quoting an archeologist who probably doesn't want to be mentioned.

Tbh I'm disgusted by PC individuals that slime themselves into situations in order to be popular or safe or invisible or to feel they are in the right and justify ones own ignorance or lazyness or to gain power! (not to mention - if in result i am affected by it)
I'm disgusted by Fascist Racist Individuals for the same reasons..
But above all I'm disgusted by individuals who lack the intelligence and sensitivity in order to comprehend and analyze a situation in depth (sheep)- that means that one should understand the platform a situation takes place in and the obvious notion that one can not know for sure the 'truth' and so has to rethink his approach and instinctive response to a matter.. as in this is- SS (not THE SS!) it is a platform for individuals with a personal connection to mental health and suicide - so you first have to understand (for your oun benefit btw- what does that mean?.. and how do i 'read' this place and its users.. it obviusly can not be read the same way as other platforms.. if one does not change his understanding and logic when one enters different spaces - one is an idiot.
I have never been interested in seeming polite or nice nor do i care about redundant thing like - stating the obvious or quoting others articulated thoughts in order to show muscle, or disclaimers.. and in general I'm bored very easily when i detect that one has no real experience and is talking hypothetical bs just for the wank..
I'm a very strong believer in honesty and cut throat freedom of speech.. also one of the many reasons i have never used social media in my life- only now when i literally hit rock bottom i'm indulging my self in taking part of a virtual communication space.. (its very 'safe' and 'boring'..)
I personally would be happy to smash in any face irl that tries to force me into something i am not 'comfortable' with may it be Nazi scum or Orthodox scum! .. same same.. a Bully is a Bully.. smiley face or grumpy face- same same..

 

[a.n.kirillov]

@Jean Améry

That is what denial of intrinsic, universal worth of human-beings invariably leads to: if one group deems itself superior to others it will attempt to dominate them or worse. History is clear on this.

This is an appeal to consequences.

on what rational basis could one decide whether one individual is worth less or more than another?

Worth to whom? My child could be worth more to me as a perpetuation of my genetic code into the future. If my value system has at its top the reproduction of my genetic material, this is rational.

it's the realization that deep down we are not fundamentally different from each-other

But we are. We were talking about intelligence, and there are very clear (and extreme) differences in intelligence between individuals.

Imagine two societies: one in which slavery existed and one in which it was forbidden. Would you want to be a part of a society with slavery as a legal institution if it meant that you could end up in that category?

Thats also an appeal to consequences. The fact that an illusion has positive consequences doesn't make it true.

Why is murder illegal?

It is illegal (for some) because our societies currently work better that way.

To put it in Kantian terms

In Kantian terms the strong can act very differently from the weak, because they don't have to fear violence from them. If you as the stronger and me as the weaker were stranded on an island, you could make violence permissible, because I could not hurt you. Kant also believed in objective moral values, without having a ground for them.

Even if it could be proven that certain etnicities consistently score higher on IQ-tests (provided they are culturally neutral) and it would be the case that IQ-tests are indeed the single best way to measure intelligence it simply does not follow that those etnicities are morally superior

Sure, I don't believe in objective morality anyway. That would be the naturalistic fallacy – 'the natural state is necessarily good'.

would or should possess more rights and privileges than others.

They would certainly possess privileges; the privilege of academic attainment and intellectual pleasures for example. Whether they should possess anything is a matter of opinion.

Athletes of African descent pretty much rule supreme in long distance running. Does that mean Africans are a superior 'race'?

They are the superior 'race' at distance running.

 

[K-O]

Not quite bulllying, but in the same spirit as the defense:

View attachment 35719

I've engaged with you in the past, and in general I observe, as well as specifically in this thread, that you do not debate but make moves, as in chess, except that only you know the game and make up the rules when you choose. But you're not quite slick enough that you slide uphill.

You refuse to agree, you refuse to agree to disagree, you refuse to disagree, you move things around so that you are in disagreement with the person or with a stance they haven't remotely claimed (strawman), not their actual stance, and attempt to provoke rather than engage and experience an exchange of ideas. You do not act with respect for others, not even as opponents. Clearly you're intelligent, but more in an evil genius kind of way, or more accurately, a troll. And the original post provides support for such expressions of intellect and engagement with others, so you're in a privileged space here.

lol i think that's what i find cute about a.k. rowling though.. hes not a genius ffs he just (like me) doent give a shit when shit dont mean a thing.. but he is obv in a v safe position.. and hes interested passionately but in the opposite things than me.. i am bored and attracted at the same time..
NOTHING MATTRESS- LETS GO TO SLEEP..

 

[a.n.kirillov]

a.k. rowling

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

That is what denial of intrinsic, universal worth of human-beings invariably leads to: if one group deems itself superior to others it will attempt to dominate them or worse. History is clear on this.

This is an appeal to consequences.

Agreed that it is an appeal to consequences, but it is it a fallacy of logic if it is supported by repetitive confirmation? It seems to fit the definition of the fallacy, but it is also a rhetorical tool. If it can be supported by repetition, as @Jean Améry suggests, then it is not fallacious. An analogy:

If hundreds of people have walked into traffic and been hit by cars, and I try to stop you from doing the same because of the historical precedent, are you going to tell me it's just an appeal to consequences and step off the curb onto a motorway at rush hour? What fallacy of logic are you now making in this analogy, and are you not also making the same fallacy by dismissing @Jean Améry's appeal?

it's the realization that deep down we are not fundamentally different from each-other

But we are. We were talking about intelligence, and there are very clear (and extreme) differences in intelligence between individuals.

We are not fundamentally different at the most basic biological levels (from which intelligence also springs), unless one is in some way handicapped. What differs is the individual expression of each thing and where it falls on a spectrum -- intelligence/cognitive processing, muscle tone and length, etc. Then there is the question of whether an environment supports the development of each thing or not, physically, socially, etc. For instance, Beethoven would have never composed a thing without a musical instrument, but the social structures of his immediate environment valued both the skill and the means (instruments) to develop it. While intelligence is always useful, what if one is in an environment in which it is hated? Just because the current zeitgeist is to ostensibly empower individuals through education does not mean that intelligence will always have a higher social value than other attributes. Shit, ask Copernicus and Galileo how intelligence worked out for them, and whether they would have rationally done better to not have opportunities to expand their intellects. So, there is value in your argument, I don't deny that, but I think you're committing a fallacy of rejecting a perspective because it doesn't fit in a narrow construct. As it fits within the constructs that @Epsilon0 and @Jean Améry are using, which is democratic/uses the concept of "universal," that is when everyone is treated is equal, then each can develop their inherent strengths based on wide availability of resources, and everyone has a right to all resources. If one cannot have those resources because their group does not have the most potential for wild success, then, in pre-civil rights America for example, there would be a lot of black Beethovens who never learned piano because the state didn't provide music education as it did for whites -- I'm just making this up, it's an analogy. In order for the best to get the best, the playing field has to be leveled to include all, because the best isn't always in the group that predicts where it will be.


Anyhow, @a.n.kirillov, I don't expect this to make an impact. I'll admit to a fallacy of having loved what @Jean Améry posted, and not liking what you've been posting here. And that's a direct reflection of the original post. So my second point here relates to my fallacy of preference; it's not particularly strong, but I don't think that your argument is particularly strong, either.

Edit: This sub conversation in the thread isn't strong, it just seems to me that you don't want to engage so much as to poke. Recognizing that I think it's best to leave this as my last comment in the sub conversation, weak or not. I enjoy disagreement with a a purpose, a good debate, but it still feels like you have a different purpose(s), an agenda, so I'll leave you to it.

 

[K-O]

this thread is obv a respond to the last sticky thread.. and has gone full blown 'research' bs..
all humans are shits.. morality is subjective.. it is humane to hate murder and be human!
i'll indulge the Biblical story of 'God' handing Moses the ten commandments! cause obv humans didnt know right from wrong and literally had to engrave it in stone! get on board!

 

[a.n.kirillov]

@GoodPersonEffed

An appeal to consequences is trying to prove a claim (that inherent values exist) by the consequences of believing in the claim.
For example, the belief that everyone who ever walked into traffic died may prevent people from getting run over by cars, but that does not show that it is true.

If any particular unequally distributed trait were not selected for, it's distribution would still be unequal; but it would not be beneficial anymore, sure.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

@GoodPersonEffed

An appeal to consequences is trying to prove a claim (that inherent values exist) by the consequences of believing in the claim.
For example, the belief that everyone who ever walked into traffic died may prevent people from getting run over by cars, but that does not show that it is true.

If any particular unequally distributed trait were not selected for, it's distribution would still be unequal; but it would not be beneficial anymore, sure.

Okey dokey.

I added an edit to my last comment. I'm stepping out of this sub conversation. I don't have the energy for it. I can't even track at this point what it's genuinely about, or really focus on your last comment, so I'm just going to honor that I'm tired. What youve just said here could be brilliant, it could be evasion, it could be something I haven't even thought of. I'll leave it to you and others to determine that if so desired. Bye.

 

[Una]

And so it goes … while sitting very still in a room I have named; 'dying room', unsure of how many days has gone by since I last heard my own voice in exchange with another human voice, I am reading a thread where all of my favourite 'SS suspects' converged to debate complex and multilayer topics with all the hallmarks of human behaviour; obstinacy, kindness, wisdom, mirth, controversy, playfulness … and many more I don't have words to name.

In doing all that two things have occurred; 1) we have passed some time, while 2) hearing/engaging with each other (even if only to get annoyed). And that is all that is to it … the whole 'purpose/meaning' of human existence comes to that simple equation – being seen/heard/noted for existing by the other(s) – placing one's own print on the walls of humanity's collective 'cave'… whether by creating endless beauty or endless sufferings … and anything in-between. In their core origins, all human endeavours are rooted in that primal need – to be noted for existing. Numerous believe systems (theories, philosophies, etc.) have and continue to be developed as a way of explanation. Narratives we devise to help us cope.

And then of course while we struggle to cope … lights start to dim and we barely had time to notice it!

Those are just words of course … my today's 'print on the wall'.

Someone may read it, like it, not like it, dismiss it as an utter nonsense … in those moments, however insignificant and fleeting, engaging with something I created (said, wrote, done) and thus confirming (in those moments) my existence.

And now that I have said all this, here is what I would really, really like … and maybe, just maybe, someone of you might like it to – I would like us all to meet in one of those large pubs where, in times gone by, thinking people use to meet to fiercely debate various points of view over a pint or two. Yes, I would like that! I can almost hear some of your voices … I think we might have a good night! I think some of us might enjoy a laugh or two … it might even change the colours of our individual landscapes. The bareness of them.

But alas … that is not possible.

And so it goes … lights are diming and evening is approaching. Winter is coming in these parts.

The last station … it always makes me think of Lav T.

 

[Epsilon0]

They are the superior 'race' at distance running.

No, you cannot draw this conclusion unless you devise an experiment to prove it.

This is how you draw a reliable conclusion about a phenomenon: you have a hypothesis, you devise an experiment and based on your empirical observations you come up with a theory. As long as the results of your experiment can be duplicated by your peers, the theory holds.

This is called the scientific method.

The problem with your conclusion is that you can never devise a realiable experiment to test your theory. Such an experiment would require submitting all races to the exact conditions and environments and observing them. You would have to remove all variables (such as diet, life style, training, acess to means of transportation etc.) in order to prove one race runs faster.

Such an experiment can, of course, not be devised for obvious reasons.

And now that I have said all this, here is what I would really, really like … and maybe, just maybe, someone of you might like it to – I would like us all to meet in one of those large pubs where, in times gone by, thinking people use to meet to fiercely debate various points of view over a pint or two.

I would love that.

@Una

Thank you for kindly stopping by and calling us your favourites. It's really sweet!

 

[a.n.kirillov]

No, you cannot draw this conclusion unless you devise an experiment to prove it.

The experiment has been devised for the last, what – thirty years? The question of why their bodies are so efficient at running was a mystery, until someone came up with the hypothesis of short calf muscles being the reason (better weight distribution) and this hypothesis has been tested and confirmed. Kenyans on average have shorter calf muscles, which gives them a clear advantage. This does not mean if course that there aren't individuals of every race or ethnicity who have short calf muscles, or that short calve muscles are necessary to compete on world class level long distance running – it is but one factor; but Kenyans have dominated the sport ever since they were first introduced to it.

Why Kenyans Make Such Great Runners: A Story of Genes and Cultures

How an ethnic minority that makes up 0.06% of the world's population came to dominate most of its long-distance races.

www.google.com

The problem with your conclusion is that you can never devise a realiable experiment to test your theory. Such an experiment would require submitting all races to the exact conditions and environments and observing them. You would have to remove all variables (such as diet, life style, training, acess to means of transportation etc.) in order to prove one race runs faster.

This is what I would call tactical nihilism or tactical skepticism. As soon as some conclusion does not fit into your worldview, you discredit it by taking the discussion one level of abstraction higher and appeal to the uncertainty of truth in general; which is a possible move in every discussion or debate, but it makes the whole quest for truth meaningless, since real certainty (that would satisfy a radical skeptic) can never be reached.

 

[Pryras]

All the smarties on one thread, I'm reading all of it and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not smart enough for this conversation

It's 5am and I'm on my 3rd bowl of cereal

 

[Jean Améry]

This is an appeal to consequences.

No, it's not.

Like I clearly stated in my previous post it's a normative concept that can't be proven, i.e. doesn't have a truth value (1 or 0, true or untrue).

The logical fallacy of appeal to consequences consists of assuming the truth of a statement depends on whether or not we like the consequences. Since I did not make a claim to empirical truth and I've stated as much in no uncertain terms (you'd think 'it's a normative concept' would be clear enough) it follows that I did not commit the fallacy of appeal to consequences and your assertion is simply wrong.

Wrongly ascribing a fallacy to another is in itself a fallacy: the strawman. It also violates the principle of charity that should guide any rational debate: statements and arguments should be interpreted in the most meaningful and rational way possible. Ad minimum by not disregarding the opposition's own statements.

Instead you assumed your interpretation of my words was correct (inspite of my express statement to the contrary) and you went on the offensive. I would caution against this approach as it'll land you in trouble with people who actually know logic and are experienced in the art of debating.

Consequentialism is a perfectly valid ethical mode of reasoning. Since there is a strong empirical connection between elitist thinking and the morally undesirable acts of violence and oppression (if the nazis did not consider the jews Untermenschen they could not have systematically murdered them, the ancient Greeks and Romans had to assume some people were naturally inferior to them otherwise they could not justify slavery...) it's perfectly reasonable to assume the ethical postulate of the intrinsic worth of every human-being.

Worth to whom? My child could be worth more to me as a perpetuation of my genetic code into the future. If my value system has at its top the reproduction of my genetic material, this is rational.

This is clearly not about personal relationships. My question was clear enough: how is one to decide (in general) whether one individual is worth more than another? The context is clear enough: since you dispute the concept of intrinsic worth of every individual the logical question is how you'd distinguish between worthy and unworthy individuals.

Apparantly you seem to equate higher intelligence with a higher moral worth: I firmly dispute this as intelligence by itself does not say anything about the content of a man's character and his usefulness (or the opposite) to his fellow man. It's also nothing to be proud of as a high IQ is largely the product of chance: nobody would choose to be born a moron if a choice was indeed possible.

magine two societies: one in which slavery existed and one in which it was forbidden. Would you want to be a part of a society with slavery as a legal institution if it meant that you could end up in that category?

Thats also an appeal to consequences. The fact that an illusion has positive consequences doesn't make it true.

See my previous respons. Your second sentence is correct but not relevant since it is not what I said.

To put it in Kantian terms

In Kantian terms the strong can act very differently from the weak, because they don't have to fear violence from them. If you as the stronger and me as the weaker were stranded on an island, you could make violence permissible, because I could not hurt you. Kant also believed in objective moral values, without having a ground for them.

I think you're confusing Kant with Nietzsche. Where does he distinguish between strong and weak? Of course people can act differently and behaviour is constraint by practical elements but that has no bearing on morality as such: that something is possible does not make it morally right except by the crudest 'might makes right' ideology. Hobbes remarked that it's in everyone's interest that there be order (law is morality that is backed up by force) and therefore limitations placed on the behaviour of the 'strongest' since even the strongest could be killed by the weakest or a number of the weak.

In your example I would still be in danger since I'd have to sleep sooner or later (making me vulnerable) or you could simply ambush me. In ancient Rome slaves were the lowest of the low and considered to be the weak yet it happened quite frequently that they rose up and murdered their masters. 'Weak' is a very relative concept.

Kant did consider his moral system to be rational as it is based on the categorical imperative. This does not make it objective (at least I don't think so) but it does provide a framework that is congruent with morality in a secular society. Unless one doesn't care one whit about society he has a point. Those who don't should either go live in a hut in Siberia and fend for themselves or admit they're hypocrites since they very likely benefit from society in some way or another.

it's the realization that deep down we are not fundamentally different from each-other

But we are. We were talking about intelligence, and there are very clear (and extreme) differences in intelligence between individuals.

No, we're not. I'm much smarter than my brother but that doesn't mean we are fundamentally different. If we were fundamentally different as you claim there would be no common ground between us. There is.

One could simply use your own trick against you: what you present as a factual claim is merely your subjective opinion, isn't it? You value intelligence and you think this makes us fundamentally different from each-other but that is merely your personal interpretation.

No-one disputes there are great differences in intelligence between individuals but it does not follow that makes us fundamentally different. Not anymore than the fact that Michael Jordan is much, much better at playing basketbal than me makes him fundamentally different from me. If that were so we would all be fundamentally different from each-other and living in society would be impossible. The very fact that man is a social animal is in itself a negation of your claim: if individual differences would be so profound no real communication would be possible nor cooperation.

Read Schopenhauer: the essence of man is blind, irrational striving, not intelligence which is but a byproduct of evolution. Reason is not at the center of what we are. inspite of millenia worth of philosophers claiming the opposite.

Clearly the genius will differ greatly from the common man but he still shares the same biology, emotions, needs and wants etcetera with them.

Worth to whom? My child could be worth more to me as a perpetuation of my genetic code into the future. If my value system has at its top the reproduction of my genetic material, this is rational.

Reproduction of one's genes and an emotional preference for one's offspring is anything but rational. Read Dawkins' 'The selfish gene'. Procreation is about the single most irrational thing one can do in this world. Assuming life ends with death it's completely irrelevant whether one reproduced or not. Sooner or later your genetic material will dissapear and your bloodline will end. At the latest when humanity itself dies out.

would or should possess more rights and privileges than others.

They would certainly possess privileges; the privilege of academic attainment and intellectual pleasures for example. Whether they should possess anything is a matter of opinion.

You're confusing advantage and privilege: a privilege consist of a right that is bestowed upon an individual or group above and beyond what is enjoyed by others. Academic achievement and intellectual pleasures are not rights bestowed on anyone: they are advantages that originate mainly in the individual herself.

As to whether or not everyone should have the same rights: in this society that is not a matter of mere opinion but of law. Like it or not but if you were to think others have less rights than you and you attempt to violate their rights there will be consequences. You could try to debate the police and the justice system but they will not heed you. Law ultimately rests on intersubjective interpretation of reality and morality but it has very real, objective consequences.

They are the superior 'race' at distance running.

Unless all Africans beat all Europeans or whites in running that is an exaggerated claim. Even if it were true: if that is the only thing they are superior at it's not a sign of general superiority and therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

One could be the greatest genius to have ever lived yet not be able to tie one's shoes properly. Excelling in one area does not not confer general superiority and it can therefore not be the basis of generalizing claims of the kind you made or alternatively be used as an argument against the moral worth of the individual just because they are lacking in some randomly selected quality or capacity.

The mere fact that we were all born into this same miserable hellhole called earth and forced to endure suffering and death should be enough to conclude we're basically all in this together (suffering makes us equal as does our shared mortality) and at the very least give rise to the wish not to compound one-another's misery by foolish notions of superiority.

As Plinius the elder wrote: when you look back on your humble origin as a mere mewling infant it's foolish to entertain any grand notions of pride and sense of superiority. I for one know I'm fairly smart but that did not prevent me from descending into hell so I refuse to feed my own ego by illusory dreams of superiority.

It is notable you did not attempt to refute my remark that intelligence is a gift for which the individual is not responsible: why then should it bear any moral relevance?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Wrongly ascribing a fallacy to another is in itself a fallacy: the strawman. It also violates the principle of charity that should guide any rational debate: statements and arguments should be interpreted in the most meaningful and rational way possible. Ad minimum by not disregarding the opposition's own statements.

Instead you assumed your interpretation of my words was correct (inspite of my express statement to the contrary) and you went on the offensive. I would caution against this approach as it'll land you in trouble with people who actually know logic and are experienced in the art of debating.

This. I sensed such things were going on, and I sensed twisting of logic for an underlying purpose and, in general, "bad form," but I do not have enough knowledge of logic or experience in the art of debating to have been able to accurately call it out.

Sometimes one can interpret a bad smell without being able to identify the exact source of the offending odor. That doesn't mean the sense is off, even if someone else says, "You're not smelling what you think you're smelling," or "You don't know how to use your own sense of smell." I didn't doubt my sense of smell or my ability to interpret that something was off, but I appreciate, @Jean Améry, that you were able to accurately identify what I was smelling, as logic and debate are fields I like to romp in a bit thought I don't know all the boundaries and classifications, and there was definitely something smelly dropped in this particular corner of the fields that I wanted to shake off my shoe. One doesn't have to be a professional athlete to both respect and enjoy the field and the playing on it, and to know when there is foul play even if they've not memorized all the rules.

 

[Jean Améry]

This. I sensed such things were going on, and I sensed twisting of logic for an underlying purpose and, in general, "bad form," but I do not have enough knowledge of logic or experience in the art of debating to have been able to accurately call it out.

I was not suggesting the person I responded to necessarily tried to deceive. If I thought that the proper respons would have been to call BS and simply leave the debate altogether.

This is why I usually elect to stay out of these debates: I abhor negativity and I have no desire left to 'win' in debates thereby gratifying my own precious ego. I don't know why I felt the need to write those messages really. All is vanity, isn't it?

 

[nitrogen]

The Nobel prizes are awarded by committees from two of the most democratic countries in the world: Sweden and Norway. As such, the prizes cannot and should not be awarded to individuals who blatantly disrespect the most basic of all democratic principles, namely that all people have the same intrinsic value.

Let me explain James Watson losing the Nobel Prize a bit more. In our earlier conversation, it seemed to have led to false assumptions and misunderstanding.

The Nobel Committee did not revoke his Nobel Prize. Instead, James Watson voluntarily auctioned off his Nobel medal for $4.1 million in 2014. The honor titles that he had been stripped off are "chancellor emeritus", "honorary trustee", and "Oliver R. Grace professor emeritus" by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory - did not include the Nobel Prize. Btw, he was given the chance to change his comment in order to keep his titles, but he stood it down.

This argument of yours @Epsilon0 is another logical fallacy AND again obviously politically correct:


A verdict on whether there's a genetic link to different race intelligence has NOT been made, and that is a scientific fact. There is NO consensus on this in the scientific community.

Your counterargument is: this type of research is unethical - That's like you say a duck is a goose, and I tell you it's not a goose, then you say animals shouldn't be eaten by humans.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I was not suggesting the person I responded to necessarily tried to deceive. If I thought that the proper respons would have been to call BS and simply leave the debate altogether.

This is why I usually elect to stay out of these debates: I abhor negativity and I have no desire left to 'win' in debates thereby gratifying my own precious ego. I don't know why I felt the need to write those messages really. All is vanity, isn't it?

I'll agree to separate those things out. I sensed and you pointed out the expression of what I call bad form. It is only I who have accused of deceptiveness. And I did indeed disengage from the debate...for a moment.

Perhaps all of the engagement here can indeed be boiled down to individually motivated expressions of vanity. If that is true, how appropriate in the context of playing fields already under consideration for leveling.

I hope you can at least recognize, if not embrace, there was genuine, rational appreciation in my comment, one error aside. That is, I appeal to you to interpret my statements in the most meaningful and rational way possible. There's a pretty decent baby in that bathwater.

 

[a.n.kirillov]

@Jean Améry

The comment format is unsuitable for such lengthy arguments, so I will just say a couple of things.

Apparantly you seem to equate higher intelligence with a higher moral worth

No, this is not what I meant; I don't believe in objective morality at all. The universe is amoral.

I admit, you did say it was normative. But you also said denial of intrinsic, universal worth of human-beings, and all I wanted to show is that, while it may be a useful illusion to believe in, it is still an illusion. And it is not denial, but non-assent to an opinion. Anyway, as long as you don't want to slip in any objective, "intrinsic" value or right, as the posters to whom my original response was addressed tried to do, we really don't have any disagreement.

it's perfectly reasonable to assume the ethical postulate of the intrinsic worth of every human-being.

Sure, as a prescriptive statement. "Human-beings, in my opinion, ought to be treated as if they had intrinsic worth because (otherwise) xyz" is the correct formulation; maybe the masses need a mythology or a religion which commands them to behave decently, I don't know ...

Reason is not at the center of what we are.

Agree ... it is a slave to the belly.

...

What is rational depends on value judgements; and since there are no objective values either, you can simply not proclaim reproduction irrational. If I align my value system with my evolved biological function (which I don't, but I could), then it would be the most rational thing to do. If my highest value was mayhem and destruction, blowing up a nuclear plant would be the rational thing to do, etc ...

You're confusing advantage and privilege

Sure, we can go by your definitions and call it an advantage.

Unless one doesn't care one whit about society he has a point. Those who don't should either go live in a hut in Siberia and fend for themselves or admit they're hypocrites since they very likely benefit from society in some way or another.

One does not have to think in moral terms to enjoy and care about civilization. As you said, breaking the law has serious consequences, and this (deterrence) is the basis for decent behaviour. Rape, in my worldview, is not wrong or evil, it is simply harmful to the functioning of society; and I like society and feeling relatively safe around other people, which is why I am against rape.

general superiority

Which is a contradiction in terms, isn't it? You need some standard to measure performance to declare any one thing superior over another thing. I don't remember the discussion ever being about "general superiority"; but the topic race and IQ often conjures up these ideas – a common straw man.

...

It is notable you did not attempt to refute my remark that intelligence is a gift for which the individual is not responsible: why then should it bear any moral relevance?

I don't know what you mean by 'moral relevance'?

...

Sorry for having been on the offense yesterday.


@GoodPersonEffed maybe you should do less "sensing" and more thinking? No offense of course.

I take back the accusation of the logical fallacy, as it turned out I misread what Jean Amery was actually saying. I interpreted his wording (denial of intrinsic worth) the wrong way. To me, denial implies some real thing X or something one has a claim on, which is then denied – an intrinsic right for example; rights can not be denied, they can only be enforced, agreed upon or granted. Sorry I have a bad brain day today and can not word it any better.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

And so it goes … while sitting very still in a room I have named; 'dying room', unsure of how many days has gone by since I last heard my own voice in exchange with another human voice, I am reading a thread where all of my favourite 'SS suspects' converged to debate complex and multilayer topics with all the hallmarks of human behaviour; obstinacy, kindness, wisdom, mirth, controversy, playfulness … and many more I don't have words to name.

In doing all that two things have occurred; 1) we have passed some time, while 2) hearing/engaging with each other (even if only to get annoyed). And that is all that is to it … the whole 'purpose/meaning' of human existence comes to that simple equation – being seen/heard/noted for existing by the other(s) – placing one's own print on the walls of humanity's collective 'cave'… whether by creating endless beauty or endless sufferings … and anything in-between. In their core origins, all human endeavours are rooted in that primal need – to be noted for existing. Numerous believe systems (theories, philosophies, etc.) have and continue to be developed as a way of explanation. Narratives we devise to help us cope.

And then of course while we struggle to cope … lights start to dim and we barely had time to notice it!

Those are just words of course … my today's 'print on the wall'.

Someone may read it, like it, not like it, dismiss it as an utter nonsense … in those moments, however insignificant and fleeting, engaging with something I created (said, wrote, done) and thus confirming (in those moments) my existence.

And now that I have said all this, here is what I would really, really like … and maybe, just maybe, someone of you might like it to – I would like us all to meet in one of those large pubs where, in times gone by, thinking people use to meet to fiercely debate various points of view over a pint or two. Yes, I would like that! I can almost hear some of your voices … I think we might have a good night! I think some of us might enjoy a laugh or two … it might even change the colours of our individual landscapes. The bareness of them.

But alas … that is not possible.

And so it goes … lights are diming and evening is approaching. Winter is coming in these parts.

The last station … it always makes me think of Lav T.

An evening down the pub with SS! Wow. Who would end up in bed with whom and who would get into a fight? We'd all end up down the local nick with our belts and shoelaces confiscated. "Who are you all again? And just what are you all talking about? And what is this off white crystalline substance you all seem to be carrying? A likely story..."

 

[Yomyom]

I'm reading all of it and I've come to the conclusion that I'm not smart enough for this conversation

Exactly what I thought!
Can someone here can Summarize what the discussion is about, but not in philosophical language?

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Exactly what I thought!
Can someone here can Summarize what the discussion is about, but not in philosophical language?

I just got lost as the topic meandered around the houses, down the lane and back through the woods. Bored yet @nitrogen ?

 

[a.n.kirillov]

As I understood OP, the topic was the psychological or strategic function of moralizing. He expressed his skepticism towards the motivations of people who play the victim card and condemn certain behaviours, which he suggested they might do because it is more advantageous to them at that moment, and not because they truly believe those acts are morally wrong (lying, cheating, stealing, etc).

 

[CyanideSoup]

Uhhh...nope too many big words for me

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Exactly what I thought!
Can someone here can Summarize what the discussion is about, but not in philosophical language?

@nitrogen said some stuff, and cited some stuff others said about the stuff.

Some members talked about the stuff @nitrogen talked about.
Some talked about the sources cited and the stuff they said.
Some talked about their own stuff as it relates to the stuff @nitrogen brought up and/or the sources.
Some talked about how other members talked about stuff, sometimes because of their own stuff.
Some talked about stuff and nobody really knew what the point was, but there was definitely stuff involved.
Some decided they no longer wanted to talk to certain other members about certain stuff, or at all.
One member decided it would be good for us all to hang out at a party together, and some agreed.
Some admitted to confusion about wtf is going on, so one decided to talk about cereal instead, and another asked for clarification.
Some addressed the confusion and the request for clarification.

 

[Epsilon0]

Exactly what I thought!
Can someone here can Summarize what the discussion is about, but not in philosophical language?

Summary:

@GoodPersonEffed & @Jean Améry wiped the floor with everyone.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

It's like having subtitles.