deltamental t1_j0it3mr wrote
Reply to comment by freeradicalx in State Orders NYC To Drop Foie Gras Sales Ban, Says Ban Violates NY Agricultural Law by Gato1980
Yeah like, "there are a diverse set of views on child labor". Doesn't mean we shrug our shoulders: there's still an objective right and wrong in this situation because it's an objective fact that individuals are suffering unnecessarily. The avoidable suffering of anyone should be the concern of everyone.
Unfortunately, many people view the purpose of society as just a pragmatic tool to further their own desires. If the government gets in the way of their Nikes or their foie gras because the exploitation involved in those industries, suddenly it's overreach. But that same government putting people in cages on Rikers for over a year without a trial is A-OK because it doesn't affect them.
_Maxolotl t1_j0j86kj wrote
Is there a wide range of views about whether human children and geese are equivalents?
freeradicalx t1_j0jbju4 wrote
Geese not being equivalent to children doesn't mean they don't suffer, and you already know that so you shouldn't be pretending like you don't just to be snappy on the internet.
deltamental t1_j0jrorj wrote
Exactly, I'm trying to point out that reasoning from "people have differing views on this issue" to "we shouldn't try to address this issue" is fallacious.
Generally speaking, the easiest way to demonstrate that a kind of reasoning is flawed is to apply that flawed reasoning to a situation in which where it obviously fails. If you tell me "I can eat any pepper, no matter how spicy", I'm testing that by giving you a Carolina Reaper, not a Jalepeño.
If you tell me, "I don't think the government should be getting involved in moral issues for which there are a diversity of different views about it", I'm going to bring up child labor precisely because it's something the government obviously should do something about, and for which there have historically been differing views on (from parents pulling their kids out of school at age 12 to work the farm, to Hollywood execs arguing child actors should be exempt from the usual rules, etc.).
To make another analogy, if some hippie said "I don't vaccinate my kids because vaccines are made in labs, not by nature", I could respond rhetorically "I don't cook for my kids because metal pans are made in factories, not forests".
If the hippie responds back, "Are you seriously comparing starving your kids with keeping them away from experimental injections?", then clearly they either (1) missed the point of my rhetorical response, or (2) understood it, but just don't want to think about or address the shaky foundation of their stated reasoning. Obviously I'm not trying to tell the hippie that not vaccinating your kids is abuse on the same level as starving them to death, and I can clearly see a distinction. I'm trying to tell them that "natural is better" reasoning is unreliable, so they shouldn't use it to make major health decisions.
In general, people use nice-sounding reasoning like "I don't want to legislate moral issues" or "I prefer natural solutions" to avoid actually addressing the issue at hand. I know they don't apply that kind of reasoning universally, so what's the actual reason they believe what they believe? Like, this isn't an awkward dinner with overly-religious relatives where we have to pretend to pray. This is public policy that has impact, and we're explicitly debating that policy, not trying to be polite and avoid rocking the boat.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments