Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5prz7i wrote

Reply to comment by VersaceEauFraiche in On Whether “Personhood” is a Normative or Descriptive Concept by ADefiniteDescription

>Yes, those things would be permissible, and that is okay.

What are you talking about? You're literally condoning racism, sexism, and nationalism?

4

AhmedF t1_j5pso2z wrote

Yeah what a weird "gotcha" which is just mask off.

3

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pt60q wrote

I'm taking you by your own words. You may change your stance at any time!

1

AhmedF t1_j5q1f2x wrote

[I'm agreeing with you - I'm saying OP to you basically thought they GOTCHA! but really it was a mask off moment for themselves]

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5q1s7h wrote

Omgosh, I just realized you're not the other commenter. Your little icons have the same color and I didn't register further than that. Please forgive my snark!

3

AhmedF t1_j5q8c5j wrote

It's all good, I assumed that is what happened (I've made the same mistake, so we're basically doofus-twins).

2

TubularHells t1_j5r2w8h wrote

Racism, sexism, and nationalism are the decadent obsessions of a dying civilization.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5r4wmm wrote

That sounds fancy, but what exactly do you mean?

1

[deleted] t1_j5r9qaw wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5s9127 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

token-black-dude t1_j5qba32 wrote

So is everybody, inherently. Everyone prioritizes the health and well-being of those closest to them over the health and well-being of strangers. People spend thousands of $ on their pets and nickles on relief for developing countries.

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qdtln wrote

Just to be clear: Are you condoning racism? Why or why not?

And do you actually think we should base philosophy and/or laws on what the individual prioritizes in their private life? OR do we recognize that our subjective preferences are not a good basis for general rules without reference to more objective things?

2

token-black-dude t1_j5qf987 wrote

It seems that people perceive their surroundings in concentric circles, family is closest, friends and colleagues close, the "in-group" also quite close and strangers are far away and not considered important. It is not racism to fail to place significant value on the lives of strangers, unless one arbitrarily places value on certain strangers because of the color of their skin. So I don't want to legitimize racism, and racism is probably not relevant to the fact that "distant" strangers are automatically given a lower value than close relatives.

I think it's pointless to make an elaborate philosophical system, if it is likely to be ignored by ordinary people, I think that is the case with deontology and utilitarism, both are really far from the way people make decisions in reality.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qgz8y wrote

"Ordinary people" are quite capable of understanding that racism is bad.

And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles. Even the "ordinary person" would be able to understand that both of these persons are equally deserving of basic human rights and decency.

In fact the "ordinary person" can even understand that their own child and a complete stranger have equal rights.

What you're perhaps more importantly speaking to is personal responsibility: I have a personal responsibility toward my family that I do not have toward a stranger. That has nothing to do with how the law should deal with my family vs. strangers to me however. The law and philosophy need to treat all persons equally. "Ordinary people" do understand that.

1

token-black-dude t1_j5qicmx wrote

>And surely it makes no sense to place more importance on someone who lives 100miles from me rather than 1000miles.

Of course it does. If I am french I have every reason to expect to be able to enjoy the rights of a french person in the french society which provides a reasonably amount of protection from illness and crime and so on. Obviously that is contingent on me also recognizing that every other member of that community enjoys the same rights. We are in a reciprocal relationship, even if we are strangers. That same community does not include people in Australia, I can demand nothing from them and they nothing from me.

0

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qinad wrote

You're missing the point. I hope.

You cannot possibly actually believe an Australian deserves fewer human rights than a French person simply because you happen to be French.

2

token-black-dude t1_j5qjiul wrote

No and that's not what i'm arguing. I'm arguing that there is no practical responsibility for me to ensure, that strangers who I am not in a reciprocal relationship with (even as "fictional" as nationality) have the practical ability to enjoy their rights. And I don't think people are willing to accept that there even is such a theoretical responsibility.

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qk6ki wrote

You're turning into some strange sort of pretzel here.

But let me try to glean the main message here: you DO understand that Australian people have rights that have nothing whatsoever to do with your personal relationship to them.

2

token-black-dude t1_j5qkx5s wrote

Yes, that's between them and their government. They have no right to expect me to take responsibility for their wellbeing, just as I can't expect them to care for mine. We are not in a mutually reciprocal relationship

2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5qldxr wrote

>Yes

Cool. Then you do agree with everything I was saying in the first place. Good talk.

1

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5psp8h wrote

It is difficult to take the moralization of -isms seriously from someone who doesn't place any importance on being human to begin with.

−3

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pt04h wrote

Huh?

Seeking to elevate the status of non-humans means I don't like humans and can't dislike racists?

What the what now?

3

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5pu7kf wrote

You are not elevating the non-human, you are denigrating the Human. Feigning outrage is cliché and banal. You asked a question and I answered. You are upset because I did not answer in the way you liked. Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.

−2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5puk1e wrote

>you are denigrating the Human.

How in the world do you get that from anything I said?

>Accusations of -Ism's (and the assignment of any kind of moral weight to such accusations) is the last refuge for the incompetent.

So now you just don't think racism exists?

2

VersaceEauFraiche t1_j5puy3p wrote

"How in the world do you get that from anything I said?"

I should have simply posted this in response to every single one of your replies to me. You do not ask questions in good faith. Okay, that is fine. You don't have to ask questions in good faith. If this is the case we don't have to speak to each other.

−2

Ill_Department_2055 t1_j5pv5yp wrote

Oh, look at that, you've argued yourself into a corner for all the world to see, but you can't deal, so you accuse me of bad faith.

C'est la vie. Better luck next time!

1