1. Why on earth are artificial moralities not arbitrary? They usually are very specific and bounded.
2. It's not codes and philosophies require the destruction of alternative lines of thought, it's existence, death, etc, and the inevitably that tolerating all means giving free reign to those that destroy the other ones.
3. I assume Mr. because Dean is a male name.
4. Also it's not irrelevant to whether it's boring or not.
Ex X values Intelligence, Y values greater intelligence.
Y > X, no need for X as a model, X is redundant in Y's moral scheme. It's not hostile to it either. X can't put in Y's position, because X < Y and is therefore triggered by greater power, thus can't evaluate objectively.
1. That is the exact opposite of what I said- that artificial moralities are arbitrary. You are now arguing with your own point that I was disputing- as you had claimed the artificial was in contrast to the arbitrary.
Do kindly not change my argument into your own just so that you can disagree.
/
2. Now you are changing the goal posts, and the parameters of what your previous objections have been. You have simultaneously condemned making moral judgements of others and made moral judgements yourself. You have criticized enforcing moral norms, and are now criticizing a lack of enforcing moral norms.
/
3. 'Dean' is only masculine if it's a first name. It can also be a family name, the head of a college faculty department, or the head of the chapter of a cathedral or church.
Why do you assume that Dean is my first name? Wouldn't this be an example of an unfouded presumption?
/
4. Boredom is irrelevant to morality.
/
5. Incorrect- because objectivity doesn't derive from persons X and Y being equal in experience and perspective. The closer two people are in experience =/= the more objective the evaluation, as closeness brings with it personal emotional biases (self-identification with one party or the other) and the limitations to perspective (losing sight of a forest for the trees).
Relative power imbalance does not preclude a loss of objectivity. In some cases, only a relative power imbalance can allow objectivity, as otherwise a person is too invested in a particularly group or outcome to be impartial. Any representative of a beuracracy is very unlikely to advocate diminished resources for his agency- any proponent of an ideology is unlikely to admit or even acknowledge the shortcomings of their proposals. Similarly this comes from scenarios of mutual dependence or influence as well- a politician who knows he needs to raise taxes, but also knows he would lose office if he does, is similarly biased the closer he is held to the people's experiences.
Hence the frequent need for outside arbitrators who the considered have minimal influence over, but who are also not beholden to an outcome and so can be objective. This inherently requires a power difference- the arbitrator can affect the judged far more than the judged can affect the arbitrator.
Your appeals to 'triggering' are so ill-defined and nebulous that they're hard to evaluate. In your favor I will assume you are not referring to the modern college trend which conflates intellectual discomfort with trauma and encourages people to claim the later than overcome the former. That definition, which is the dominant usage of it in the modern society, brings with it a lot of ethical backage you haven't even come close to unpacking, such as how 'triggering' is called to condemn the person providing the trigger and to avoid the experience, rather than provide psychological therapy to the triggered so that they build mental and emotional endurance. It's a concept that validates continued harm and trauma, rather than heals it- little different than saying 'that person has a broken leg- he can't run,' but then avoiding actually applying a cast or healing.
Since I will assume that is not your intended use, I recommend you better define it.
Retour en haut
