tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6109705591885962176..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: "Trumpian" Ethics - BigotryAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-9155938180198847942016-08-26T15:42:16.114-06:002016-08-26T15:42:16.114-06:00At the start, I am accepting your assumption on fa...At the start, I am accepting your assumption on face value that 87% of green shirt wearers are murderers as opposed to, say, 0.0087% (or 87 murderers per 1 million population). We would not want to begin with a prejudicial assumption that green shirt wearers are more violent than they are in fact - exaggerating the threat.<br /><br />Of course, if 87% of green shirt wearers are murderers and you see someone in a green shirt then you can have 87% confidence that this person is a murderer.<br /><br />What does this imply?<br /><br />Does it imply that 100% of green shirt wearers shall be treated as if guilty of murder?<br /><br />Does it imply that it is just to limit the employment and other liberties of innocent green-shirt wearers, intentionally reducing the quality of their lives - asserting that (all) green shirt wearers deserve this treatment in virtue of the fact that they wear green shirts?<br /><br />Should we target green shirt wearers rather then murderers (which has the additional effect of letting off the hook murderers who are not green shirt wearers)?<br /><br />And how would these implications be effected if the number was, in fact, closer to 0.0087%<br />Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65218378166891368202016-08-25T22:58:27.453-06:002016-08-25T22:58:27.453-06:00Another point to consider:if 87% of green shirt we...Another point to consider:if 87% of green shirt wearers are murderers and you see someone in a green shirt then you can have 87% confidence that this person is a murderer. Is this correct or am I missing something here?Shaunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09466738560345213952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71987781844880835212016-07-29T15:45:10.757-06:002016-07-29T15:45:10.757-06:00That still doesn't quite answer the question o...<br />That still doesn't quite answer the question or accurately identify the bigot's concerns, though. Of course you are correct that we can condemn the actions or beliefs of the majority of green shirt wearers (or muslims in Afghanistan) without condemning the broader group. And of course a failure to condemn green shirts or muslims generally isn't equivalent to a failure to condemn reckless driving, honor killings, pedophilia, etc. But ideological opposition and practical physical prevention are two very different things. (Remember that Trump's stated immigration policy is a temporary ban on muslim immigration from countries with largely radicalized views -- temporary until there is a reliable vetting system in place for individuals.) <br /><br />The argument is not that you are failing to ideologically condemn the bad things. Rather, the argument is that you may practically erode the integrity of a system by dogged ideological adherence to individualism even without the vetting institutions to make individualism work. If you want to treat people as individuals, that's great. I like that. But we have to have the means to do so. If we don't, and if making a judgement about someone is consequentially important and pressing, then we have to go with the next best thing, even if that is using an imperfect but still potentially useful heuristic (like one's religion or geographic location.)<br /><br />If, hypothetically, you didn't have a good vetting system in place for granting driver's licenses to green shirts -- in other words, you didn't have a good system for ensuring those from the 87% stayed off the roads and those in the 13% were allowed -- would you then indiscriminately allow the green shirts on the road? What if green shirts were 76% (or 99%) pedophiles, and you didn't have a reliable method of determining which greens are good and which greens are bad -- would you indiscriminately allow green shirts to your daughter's birthday party?<br /><br />Here is a fun hypothetical to consider: What if you were commander of The Enterprise in Star Trek, and you received an incoming transmission from an alien vessel. They are stranded and running out of supplies. They request you lower your shields so they can come stock up, and trade with you. But suppose also that this vessel is from a region we will call Region X, and suppose that literally 99.999999% of cases where Region X vessels are asking for help, they are actually preparing an attack. And Region X vessels are particularly powerful in some circumstances -- they cannot penetrate shields, but if they can fight you without shields, they would win every time. Also suppose you currently have no way of knowing whether they will attack or not until you lower your shields. Wouldn't keeping your shields up be the prudent thing to do? Or should you lower the shields? (Note: this isn't quite analogous to the muslim immigration case because the percentages and potential consequences are different, but similar "bigoted" actions are taking place in that you are making non-individualistic judgements based on a regional-origins heuristic. I'm curious whether you think playing the bigot in this scenario is morally permissible or not, and why.)<br /><br />Whether indiscriminately allowing muslim immigration from Afghanistan (where 99% support Sharia law and 76% think honor killings against women are permissible) is a bad thing or not might be debatable. But taking the pro-temporary-ban side in this case isn't obviously completely unreasonable, nor does it seem to be worthy of the level of moral condemnation and outrage I am seeing from the Left.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-26479930425386580292016-07-29T07:46:36.055-06:002016-07-29T07:46:36.055-06:00Upon further thought . . .
One of the most commo...Upon further thought . . . <br /><br />One of the most common arguments I have encountered in defense of bigotry comes from those who assert something like, "If you don't condemn people in green shirts, then you are condoning reckless driving."<br /><br />Of course that's utter nonsense. It is so absurd that about the only motivation I can think of to embrace this "reasoning" comes from a hatred of green-shirt people and a need to feel that one's bigotry against them is somehow justified.<br /><br />For my part, I have no trouble at all defending freedom of speech and the rights of homosexuals and women without condemning "Muslim shirt people." In doing so, if 95% of Muslims hold views conflicting with these values then, by extension, I will be condemning 95% of all Muslims.<br /><br />However - I do not because they are Muslims. I condemn them because they violate the principles of freedom of speech and the rights of homosexuals. And I do so without my condemnation spilling over onto the hypothetical 5% who are innocent - who embrace freedom of speech and the rights of individuals to live their peaceful lives as they see fit.<br /><br />One of the hopeful effects of this is that it will grow the 5% who share these values, support them, and turn them into allies instead of enemies - and shrink the 95% who are worthy of condemnation.<br />Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19220610790624300882016-07-29T07:06:38.102-06:002016-07-29T07:06:38.102-06:00In the same way that I can condemn reckless drivin...In the same way that I can condemn reckless driving without condemning people in green shirts, and condemn the assassination of people in blue shirts without condemning people in black shirts, I have no problem condemning honor killing and condemn that which us bad in Sharia law without condemning people in Muslim shirts.<br /><br />I do this by condemning specifically and by name that which deserves condemnation, not by condemning an overly broad category that includes many who are innocent of the charge. It's extremely easy to do.<br /><br />So, even if it turns out that 87% of green-shirt people happen to be reckless drivers, and 87% of reckless drivers happen to wear green shirts, when I condemn reckless drivers rather than green-shirt people, I condemn only the 87% who are guilty and not the 13% who are innocent.<br /><br />Furthermore, I am not letting the 13% who do not wear green shirts off the hook - the way that people who confuse "wearing a green shirt" and "reckless driving" are prone to do.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-28011335111104413322016-07-28T09:33:01.233-06:002016-07-28T09:33:01.233-06:00I think this misrepresents the bigots. In your ana...I think this misrepresents the bigots. In your analogy, shirt color does not carry any information about the person wearing it, and so it is unjust to assault people due to what is an arbitrary reason. Imagine a world where only murderers wear green shirts. In such a world, seeing someone in a green shirt conveys the information "This person has murdered someone", and it wouldn't be unreasonable to base actions on that information (crossing the street, not hiring them, etc. Perhaps some people would feel justified assaulting them).<br /><br />Bigots believe that wearing the "Muslim" shirt (for example) conveys relevant information about the wearer, and that this information includes things like "Supports an ideology that is actively working to destroy my civilization, and endanger me and my loved ones." These people may feel that assaulting someone wearing the Muslim shirt is a good act, as it may deter others from wearing that shirt (or at least from doing so openly), thus making society a little bit safer.<br /><br />The goal in this case isn't to demonstrate how unjust it is to attack people for things that carry no information (like shirt color). They already agree with us on that, and pretending that they don't just makes us look like idiots. The goal is to demonstrate that wearing a "Muslim" shirt doesn't convey the information that the bigot thinks it does. This will be a much harder goal.Eneaszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14500232958398471146noreply@blogger.com