I said it was conceivable but unlikely. You disagree?
metastable
Karma: 239
If you look at the history of law, philosophical arguments end up influencing legal arguments all the time.
I absolutely agree. It is conceivable that in the future, arguments could change the courts’ regard for this doctrine. But it is unlikely. The law has been in place for fifty years, and the doctrine has seen a ton of challenges in court.
This is a somewhat fundamentalist view of the law, and I am guessing many federal judges at all levels, and regulatory bodies of technical experts, would add something to your definition. I agree with you that the statutory basis for these court rulings is very clear.
But it’s also pretty clear that the doctrine of disparate impact, which is what he asked about, has been clarified and nuanced through litigation of those statutes. My point was that over many decades, the courts have not overturned this doctrine due to any philosophical objections of litigants.
Thanks! Do consequentialist kind of port the first axiom (completeness) from the VN-M utility theorem, changing it from decision theory to meta-ethics?
And for others, to put my original question another way: before we start comparing utilons or utility functions, insofar as consequentialists begin with moral intuitions and reason the existence of utility, is one of their starting intuitions that all moral questions have correct answers? Or am I just making this up? And has anybody written about this?
To put that in one popular context: in the Trolley Switch and Fat Man problem, it seems like most people start with the assumption that there exists a right answer (or preferable, or best, whatever your terminology), and that it could never be the case that an agent will do the wrong/immoral/unethical thing no matter what he or she chooses. Am I right that this assumption exists?
Are you asking rhetorically?
The American legal justification for the disparate impact doctrine, and for declaring race a protected category, is the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the legislative justification for that was a history of massive mistreatment of individuals based on skin color.
I gather from the thrust of arguments in this thread that you may be strongly opposed to government protection of racial minorities in the United States, and that you may not believe that racial bigotry is—or possibly even was—a problem that needed legal redress. It is worthwhile to note that the legal basis for these doctrines is well established and, through the wonders of litigation, much studied and highly nuanced. That does not speak to any philosophical objections you have but, frankly, no philosophical objections you make have any bearing on the legal justification.
Fair enough. For “main debate” please read “pertinent legal question.”
I’m pretty sure the courts have allowed that IQ-like tests are acceptable in many situations for many types of employment. It’s not a hypothetical. I guess I’m saying the question of the “validity of the tests” is a red herring, even if it’s an ideological hot potato. I think the main debate these days is not at all about the validity of the tests, it’s a debate over business necessity versus disparate impact.
Do consequentialists generally hold as axiomatic that there must be a morally preferable choice (or conceivably multiple equally preferable choices) in a given situation? If so, could somebody point me to a deeper discussion of this axiom (it probably has a name, which I don’t know.)
Actually, the legal rationale for restricting the use of such tests in certain kinds of hiring is not that they’re invalid. If you proved to the courts that they were “valid,” meaning an accurate reflection of crystallized intelligence/abstract reasoning/g/whatever, this would not undermine the central legal argument against them, which is that they produce disparate impacts on protected classes.
But Naaman was wroth, and went away...And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?
2 Kings 5: 11-13
What’s the goal of rationalism as a movement?
I’d like to hear more about possibilities in China, if you’ve got more. Everything I’ve read lately suggests that they’ve extensively overbuilt their infrastructure, much of it with bad debt, in the rush to create urban jobs. And it seems like they’re teetering on the edge of a land-development bubble, and that urbanization has already started slowing. But they do get rights-of-way trivially, as you say, and they’re geographically a lot more like the US than Europe.
Most Native American cultures felt awesome about killing enemies in battle.
Weren’t you just saying there’s a lot of mythologizing of the NA past?
Did you know there are specific Navajo rituals designed to cleanse warriors returning from war before they re-enter the community, to prevent their violence from infecting the community? And that these rituals have counterparts in cultures around the world, and are of interest to modern trauma researchers?
It is helpful to separate desirable status as a successful warrior from desire for war. It is very common for very successful warriors to prefer peace, in tribal societies as in modern. That’s not to say young guys don’t want to make their bones and old guys don’t see the need to take care of business: it’s to say that only a totally deranged person kills without any barriers, and very few people are totally deranged.
It’s interesting that you adduce the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in this context. I am very certain that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians are capable of empathy for each other. This doesn’t mean they wouldn’t shell each other or commit atrocities. But you’re arguing a hard line: that tribes attach “zero or negative” utility to each other’s continued existence.
Like I said, I really am sure you can refute these! That is beside the point. I doubt very much you can show that your refutations are what people actually believe about the texts.
I am not arguing the text is true. I am not even arguing that a certain interpretation of the text is correct. I am pointing out that people believe certain interpretations of the text.
This is not like arguing with William Lane Craig about creationism. This is like trying to tell William Lane Craig that nobody believes in creationism.
We may have reached the point of diminishing returns. Arguments are soldiers. Mine need a vacation. Enjoy your day.
Mmmm. Clicked the wrong reply button. Sorry.…
Which means that many doctrinal authorities are capable of making stuff up.
Friend, I’m assuming you believe all/most of religion is made up anyway, right? I mean, you might think some of it was made up sincerely and some was made up cynically. But you know with an extraordinarily high degree of certainty it’s all made up. Right? So who cares who made it up. It’s there. Some people take it seriously.
It doesn’t threaten non-theism at all to concede that religions define their own interpretations and belief systems. This concession is actually the bread and butter of non-theism. Really the only person who gets to contest that is the theist with an alternate interpretation, because he can appeal to a higher authority.
Even though I said I didn’t want to sling scripture, and I really don’t: why don’t you muzzle the ox that treadeth out the grain? Why were the fifth and sixth days of creation declared good? Why was man created on the same day as the beasts of the field? Why was man originally given plants to eat, not flesh? Why was man specifically forbidden to eat “the life” of the animal? Why did you have to rest beasts of burden on the Sabbath? Why couldn’t you disturb mother birds on their eggs? Why did fallen beasts of burden have to be helped up? Why were the animals saved with Noah during the flood? Why doesn’t God forget sparrows? Why does God feed the birds of the air? Why is it that animals only become carnivorous after the exit from Eden? What does it mean that the lion will lie down with the lamb and that a little child shall lead them? Why are humans constantly portrayed as animals in scriptural metaphor?
Now, I totally believe you have answers for all these questions that acknowledge the scriptural references but manage to discredit their supposed connection to any sort of authorial concern for animal welfare or the environment. The problem is, that’s not enough. You have to show that your answers were the one that audiences have understood and adopted over centuries. That will be difficult. It certainly appears that St. Francis and St. Augustine and St. Aquinas and Cardinal Manning and Tolkien and John Paul II disagree with you, and I’m inclined to say that their readings carry more popular weight than yours.
But you’re not following the implications of this.
Oh, no, I get it. Respect for nature != concern for the pain of creatures with nervous systems. Spiritual environmentalism is nothing like utilitarian environmentalism. I just don’t care about that very much. I am much more interested in whether some secular environmentalists will eventually develop secular justifications for assigning “rights” or something very like that to aspects of the environment that lack nervous systems. Probably not worth chasing that rabbit, tho.
No, though I’ve seen small-scale family farms ensure that their stock live pleasantly and are slaughtered humanely, and I myself have tried to make sure food animals I’ve killed died quickly and painlessly.
Mileage will vary. There are a lot of true horror stories about farming and ranching, and they’re not all from industrial feedlots.
A minimal investment of time would convince anybody willing to be convinced that at the very least there are many doctrinal authorities on record in every large strain of western monotheism against cruelty to animals, and that these authorities adduce evidence from ancient holy texts to support their pronouncements. Feel free to disagree with Aquinas, eastern patriarchs, a large body of hadiths, and many rabbinical rulings about the faiths they represent. There is a hermeneutical constellation of belief systems that posits texts speaking for themselves without any interpretation and announces that meanings are clear to the newcomer, or outsider, or even the barely literate, in ways they were never clear to bodies of scholars who gave their lives to the study of the same texts. I’m not sure you want to be in that constellation. That is Constellation Fundamentalism, though to be fair to the actual fundamentalists, they don’t seem to be amenable to animal bloodsports at all.
I grant zero weight to the well-being of clothes, but that doesn’t mean I go around destroying my clothes
Clothes aren’t a threat to ambush you, and aren’t eating tapirs you could eat. I assume you would burn them if you feared ambush or starvation.
doesn’t make something else worse that you do care about (such as risking death to your own tribesmen in war)
Total war doesn’t mean you can’t be tactical in your approach, obviously. Dissembling and biding time are smart.
What I mean about the tribes being in constant total war is that since, as was pointed out, they are in competition for resources with neighboring tribes, they would kill neighbors whenever they thought they could get away with it if they attached zero utility to these people’s survival. And we see that’s not the case, not at all. Hunter-gatherers trade, they intermarry, they feast together, they form friendships and alliances between tribes, they do a bunch of things that would be socially impossible if there were not any empathy at all. Sometimes they betray and murder. But by no means all the time. Napoleon Chagnon’s accounts of the Yanomamo, where most of this stuff about violent stone-agers comes from recently, are quite clear that elders intervene to stop axe fights some times, and that the Yanomamo are mostly just terrified by the violence around them.
What we know from the psych side is that empathy appears to be basic in humans. Our researchers would have to be pretty consistently wrong about something very large if Stone Age people, just because they were Stone Age, were incapable of empathy with people outside their immediate kin group.
I wonder how many of the cultures who pray to the spirit of the animal also pray to the spirit of the plants, rocks, the sun, or other things that even vegetarians don’t think have any rights.
Yeah, this is pretty interesting to me, too. I suspect, though, that a lot of people into deep ecology and Christian environmentalism and similar forms of environmentalism have...analogous?...attitudes toward the parts of nature that lack nervous systems. Not inside the rationalist/hedonic calculus/Peter Singer/utilitarian communities, probably, because there’s so much emphasis on pleasure and pain there. But it wouldn’t surprise me terribly if the “expanding circle of concern” eventually encompassed or re-encompassed things like trees and rivers.
It’s people who live in cities who join PETA.
The developed world is thoroughly urbanized. Des Moines is as far from animals as Manhattan. I think what you mean is that a certain politique ascendant on both coasts is much more likely to purchase animal rights as an expansion pack. Which is not to pre-judge the add-on, but to say it has very little to do with the size of your skyscrapers.
That said, I’m not disputing at all that modern agribusiness commodifies animals and that many of today’s farmers and ranchers are pretty insulated from the things they eat.
There are many accounts of prayers to animals. One of the best-attested is of the Ainu prayers to the bears they worship (and kill.)
I’m not aware of any Western religion that says cruelty to animals is a sin
Well, that does exclude Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, which famously do have animal ethics. But even if we’re just talking the western religions, then yeah, they do, too.
Without getting into a nasty debate involving proof-texting and what Atheists say the Bible says versus what Theists say the Bible says: if you go ask a few questions in the pertinent parts of Stack Exchange of Muslim, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Orthodox Jewish thinkers, I guarantee they will answer back that wanton cruelty to animals is wrong. And the same would be true if you started reading random imams, theologians, patriarchs, and pastors.
Individual interpretations, maybe
Unfortunately, there is no possible answer to this.
The Anglican Church was fine with bear-baiting. I don’t think the Catholic Church complained about vivisection.
While the first and loudest opposition to cock-fighting and bear-baiting came from Puritans and Methodists, outside the Church of England’s mainstream, these people were indisputably Anglicans at the beginning. And a voice of conscience from the margins of the culture is very common, and usually just means that the center of the culture has been captured by self-interest.
Catholics leaders were present at the beginning of the anti-vivisection movement.
it’s certainly true that tribal cultures gave zero or negative weight to the well-being of competing tribes.
If this were true, tribes would be in constant total war, which is actually a foreign concept to most tribal societies. Read Napoleon Chagnon again. They kill out of self-interest, and out of revenge, but it’s not constant and it’s not something they feel awesome about.
Even if this were true, it would not follow that there is no countervailing incentive to remove barriers to employment for disadvantaged classes of people. Is it not possible that society has an interest in broad employment, especially among people disadvantaged by such tests? Two thoughts:
1) IQ tests have a history of being used deliberately to weed out applicants of certain races. This was not an incidental effect: it was the entire purpose of the test, much like literacy tests for voting. The odds of them being used this way again, were changes made in the law, seem extremely high.
2) It is interesting that LW sees so many rational arguments for policies that would give more resources to whites or Asians, especially white or Asian males with high test scores who may not have gone to college. While these arguments are phrased as both logical and obvious, LW rarely (ever?) entertains the easily constructed, similarly phrased arguments that would push resources away from LW’s typical membership. For example: “It’s been known for generations that physical strength has a positive impact statistically on outcomes in basically every sort of violent encounter, so as a default, in a world where couples and families could be attacked, people should assume a necessity for bigger, more muscular men as romantic partners.” Or how’s this: “It’s been known for generations that religious identification with the in-group eases working relationships and obviates friction over expressions of belief, so employers should as a default prefer employees share their religions.”