Josh, please stick with abortion, man! There's souch to discuss!!! Lol. I was wondering when you were going to release your writing on abortion in tough cases to save mom. Like using methotrexate and so on...
While most of our writing at this point is focused on abortion, we are certainly not guaranteeing that we will never try to help pro-life advocates think clearly about other issues. Moral relativism is an issue that comes up ALL THE TIME in dialogues about abortion, particularly with young people. Let me pull the curtain back a little, so you understand why we haven't published the piece you're wanting yet. We haven't blogged very much lately because we had to focus virtually all of our energy on shooting our online course last week. (We filmed 31 videos in three days, and pulling that off took an insane amount of prep and coordination.) Now that that's done, we have a few back-to-back seminars to finish preparing for, and then we'll get back to regular blog posts. Even when we do, I can't guarantee when we'll do the life of the mother piece. That article will be far more complicated than this piece, mainly due to the messy debate on Methotrexate vs. Salpingectomy, which gets into double effect reasoning and killing vs. letting die arguments. We're still discussing these deeper philosophical issues as a staff, and we probably won't publish on this issue until we feel like we've resolved it in our own minds. Said another way, we want to know compelling ways to respond to the smartest people on the side opposite of the side we end up on. Thus, I think it'll be a great piece, but the time investment is just different than this one, where I saw the video, transcribed the relevant sections, added commentary and screenshots, and published.
Completely understand, Josh. Glad you're a busy guy and I appreciate all your posts. "We're still discussing these deeper philosophical issues as a staff, and "we probably won't publish on this issue until we feel like we've resolved it in our own minds. Said another way, we want to know compelling ways to respond to the smartest people on the side opposite of the side we end up on." I can get that. However, I think conversations where someone admits to being uncertain about something and asking for feedback can be the most productive. For example you can post a really short, tough question that we pro lifers can discuss on here. Like: If we all agree to an exception for the life of the mother, when does a" health" risk becomes a "life risk"? And then someone could reply " when the Dr. Says so" and then more replies can come after that.
Okay Mr. Smith, what would be one example of a circumstance where it would be morally justified to feel that your race is superior to another race? Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems to me that, given the level of knowledge/technology/development, etc., (including things like the scientific method) that the Europeans had when they arrived, they were morally justified to think that they were superior to the people found in the Americas. Is that what you meant, or am I missing something? Edit: Or possibly you could engage in a thought experiment, where it is shown, through a valid study, that Race X is superior (with regard to a certain kind of intellect, say, or pick some other way, say "B")) to Race Y. (Think "The Bell Curve.") You'd then be morally justified to think that Race X is superior to Race Y with regard to "B."
It's my understanding that it's not racism to believe that one race can be better at something than another race. If that were the case then it would be racist to state medical truths about race. Some races are better at fighting off certain diseases, for instance. What "superior" means for racists is to be morally superior. That's a categorical, innate superiority. The colonists were not morally justified in that view.
What "superior" means for racists is to be morally superior. That's a categorical, innate superiority. The colonists were not morally justified in that view. It seems to me that the Spanish could (rightfully) think they were morally superior to the Incas, because the Incas practiced child sacrifice.
That's not what it means to be categorically superior. No, they weren't justified in thinking they were categorically superior. They were justified in thinking that the incan culture was doing very evil things. Likewise, we're not categorically superior than the germans because they were nazis at one point. No human race or nationality or whatever is categorically superior to another. The only categorically superior being is God if he exists. And my view he doesn't. But if he did he would be the only categorically superior being.
What "superior" means for racists is to be morally superior. That's a categorical, innate superiority. The colonists were not morally justified in that view. I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you mean that a racist thinks his race is more moral than another race? I'd say a racist thinks his race is "superior," and would say that based on several things, like "level of knowledge/technology/development, etc., (including things like the scientific method) and other advances made by people of "his" race. The other race is "backward," or "inferior," or possibly "morally deficient." Also, I'm not sure I understand what "categorically superior" means. What does it mean, specifically? And are you saying the only way to be racist is to believe that your race (or a race) is "categorically superior" to another race? In this regard, I'm not sure how the word "categorical" applies here.
Similar to how we understand squirrels to be in a different moral category to human beings. Racists think other races are categorically inferior like how squirrels are understood as categorically, morally inferior to human beings. It's not about being "more moral" or superior in technological or intellectual ways (although a racist would believe that too).
This is from http://reference.com:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. The superior or inferior there is a categorical claim. It's placing one race into another moral category. A white supremacist would put a black person somewhere between white people and squirrels on the moral worth scale. It might be that the white supremacist thinks that the white race is categorically superior to the black race is because he or she believes that the white race is inherently more superior in areas that are morally relevant like rationality, compassion, etc. But that only explains why they think that the white race categorically superior to the black race. It doesn't necessarily follow that if one race is objectively inferior relative to some area like technology or rationality that they are therefore morally, categorically inferior. Let's say that the racist is right about one thing. Let's imagine they are correct and that white people are more compassionate and caring and rational than the black race. Let's say that's true. Does it follow that the white race is morally superior, categorically so, to the black race? No. Of course not. Thus, what's essential to racist belief is the view that one race is superior to another. That superior is meant as a categorical kind. It's putting one race below another on the moral worth scale.
In going back over this, it seems like there are some interesting ideas here. Let's say Bob is a 60 year old white man. He thinks black people are (generally speaking) more lazy and more stupid than white people. However, he also thinks black people are fully human, and shouldn't be treated as any less than a white person under the law. What are the relevant considerations? Is he a racist?
You didn't provide enough information to be certain. He might think black people are lazy and stupid is a cultural problem and not the product of innate biological differences.
So, Bob would actually NOT be a racist (if i'm understanding you), if he thinks black people are (generally speaking) more lazy and more stupid than white people, so long as Bob believed those characteristics are due to their "culture," and not due to innate biological differences?
That seems to me to be true. Bob could also be entirely correct that generally speaking a certain group of people with a common culture are lazy or ignorant. And that would be a statistical claim and not a biological one. For if Bob were racist for thinking that and that's what it meant to be racist, then it would mean that all cultural generalizations are therefore racist and "racism" would be meaningless.
I think the right way to understand "racism" is not in such a way that would logically entail all cultural generalizations are racist. That would mean people who make those sorts of claims, like cultural anthropologists, are racists and their field is inherently racist. I read that paper and the author seems to agree with me.
Josh/univolved-- It seems possible to me (under my current understanding of what uninvolved means) that he has defined "racism" using careful distinctions that no one uses, and results in (essentially) no one being racist. That doesn't seem right to me. (Having said that, people are free to use whatever definitions of words they like.)
Reminds me of the little boy protagonist in the movie The Good Son where the little boy expresses concerns about his not-so-good cousin to a therapist. On hearing the word "evil" the therapist replied, "I don't believe in evil." The boy said something very profound in response: "You should."
Thanks. Just yesterday I was trying to remember how you had replied to one relativist, and http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/effectively-responding-to-moral-relativism/ I finally found it: Justin: But there is no truth! Josh: See that?! You just made a truth statement, that there is no truth! I don’t even have to refute that. Your argument is refuting itself! It committed suicide. It was Dead On Arrival. But entering relativism in your search engine had not found that nor found much of anything. Someone should check that out. After being asked a very astute question by the interviewer with THR, Smith is forced to either clarify his view or bite the bullet and state that racism could be the right thing in a certain circumstance. This, especially "bite the bullet," strongly implies that Smith had been arguing relativism all along. But you have only quoted him as saying ‘truth doesn’t have a side.’ . . . That, you know, ‘whose side are you on, Republican or Democrat?’ ‘I’m trying to tell the truth.’ The truth doesn’t have a side, right? It seems to me that the interviewer misunderstood Smith and used "side" in a different sense; and that Ruffalo understood Smith correctly: "It doesn’t take a political side, necessarily." You also said later, "He thinks some things are objectively true, like the scientific statement about what is likely to happen after getting your head banged 70,000 times. No, Smith is skeptical specifically of truth claims about morality." Prior to his being asked the racism question, the topic of morality hadn't come up, had it? I would be inclined to paraphrase Smith, prior to the question, as "Everyone should adhere to the truth about concussions, regardless of their political loyalties." When the racism question was asked, morality was introduced for the first time, and Smith expressed a different attitude toward moral truth than the attitude he seems to have been expressing about scientific truth. None of this would undermine your main point, but I'm just asking to see if I misunderstood something. Are you still planning to do a blog post on the question, "Is there any way to prove or disprove the correctness of any moral principle?" I'll look forward to that. Getting back to Justin, now that I think of it, what if he had said, "But there may not be any truth!" -- ?
Good questions. Thanks for letting me know about the search engine problem. I'll look into that. The post you're referencing is here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/effectively-responding-to-moral-relativism/ If the interviewer hadn't pushed back, I wouldn't have had enough information to make a claim about whether or not Smith is a moral relativist because the initial statement itself is sort of vague. It certainly sounded like relativism when I first heard it, but there are other possible explanations. It was when the interviewer pushed Smith to go deeper that Smith, pretty clearly, expressed skepticism about moral truth, but not scientific claims. (By the way, this is the most common type of moral relativism. Few people are skeptical of ALL truth claims.) If Justin had responded to me by saying "there may be no truth," I would have pushed back, fairly hard, about the most obvious truths I can think of, like the wrongness of rape and sex slavery. I don't think a good, virtuous person can say that the claim that it's wrong to rape 9-year-olds is not objectively true.
"when the interviewer pushed Smith . . . Smith, pretty clearly, expressed skepticism about moral truth" I certainly agree with that. I had said, "When the racism question was asked, morality was introduced for the first time, and Smith expressed a different attitude toward moral truth than the attitude he seems to have been expressing about scientific truth." By "different attitude" I meant the same as "skepticism about moral truth."
I was wondering when you were going to release your writing on abortion in tough cases to save mom. Like using methotrexate and so on...
Let me pull the curtain back a little, so you understand why we haven't published the piece you're wanting yet. We haven't blogged very much lately because we had to focus virtually all of our energy on shooting our online course last week. (We filmed 31 videos in three days, and pulling that off took an insane amount of prep and coordination.) Now that that's done, we have a few back-to-back seminars to finish preparing for, and then we'll get back to regular blog posts.
Even when we do, I can't guarantee when we'll do the life of the mother piece. That article will be far more complicated than this piece, mainly due to the messy debate on Methotrexate vs. Salpingectomy, which gets into double effect reasoning and killing vs. letting die arguments. We're still discussing these deeper philosophical issues as a staff, and we probably won't publish on this issue until we feel like we've resolved it in our own minds. Said another way, we want to know compelling ways to respond to the smartest people on the side opposite of the side we end up on.
Thus, I think it'll be a great piece, but the time investment is just different than this one, where I saw the video, transcribed the relevant sections, added commentary and screenshots, and published.
"We're still discussing these deeper philosophical issues as a staff, and "we probably won't publish on this issue until we feel like we've resolved it in our own minds. Said another way, we want to know compelling ways to respond to the smartest people on the side opposite of the side we end up on."
I can get that. However, I think conversations where someone admits to being uncertain about something and asking for feedback can be the most productive. For example you can post a really short, tough question that we pro lifers can discuss on here. Like:
If we all agree to an exception for the life of the mother, when does a" health" risk becomes a "life risk"?
And then someone could reply " when the Dr. Says so" and then more replies can come after that.
Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems to me that, given the level of knowledge/technology/development, etc., (including things like the scientific method) that the Europeans had when they arrived, they were morally justified to think that they were superior to the people found in the Americas.
Is that what you meant, or am I missing something?
Edit: Or possibly you could engage in a thought experiment, where it is shown, through a valid study, that Race X is superior (with regard to a certain kind of intellect, say, or pick some other way, say "B")) to Race Y. (Think "The Bell Curve.") You'd then be morally justified to think that Race X is superior to Race Y with regard to "B."
What "superior" means for racists is to be morally superior. That's a categorical, innate superiority. The colonists were not morally justified in that view.
It seems to me that the Spanish could (rightfully) think they were morally superior to the Incas, because the Incas practiced child sacrifice.
Likewise, we're not categorically superior than the germans because they were nazis at one point.
No human race or nationality or whatever is categorically superior to another. The only categorically superior being is God if he exists. And my view he doesn't. But if he did he would be the only categorically superior being.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Do you mean that a racist thinks his race is more moral than another race?
I'd say a racist thinks his race is "superior," and would say that based on several things, like "level of knowledge/technology/development, etc., (including things like the scientific method) and other advances made by people of "his" race. The other race is "backward," or "inferior," or possibly "morally deficient."
Also, I'm not sure I understand what "categorically superior" means. What does it mean, specifically?
And are you saying the only way to be racist is to believe that your race (or a race) is "categorically superior" to another race? In this regard, I'm not sure how the word "categorical" applies here.
The superior or inferior there is a categorical claim. It's placing one race into another moral category. A white supremacist would put a black person somewhere between white people and squirrels on the moral worth scale. It might be that the white supremacist thinks that the white race is categorically superior to the black race is because he or she believes that the white race is inherently more superior in areas that are morally relevant like rationality, compassion, etc. But that only explains why they think that the white race categorically superior to the black race. It doesn't necessarily follow that if one race is objectively inferior relative to some area like technology or rationality that they are therefore morally, categorically inferior.
Let's say that the racist is right about one thing. Let's imagine they are correct and that white people are more compassionate and caring and rational than the black race. Let's say that's true. Does it follow that the white race is morally superior, categorically so, to the black race? No. Of course not.
Thus, what's essential to racist belief is the view that one race is superior to another. That superior is meant as a categorical kind. It's putting one race below another on the moral worth scale.
Let's say Bob is a 60 year old white man. He thinks black people are (generally speaking) more lazy and more stupid than white people. However, he also thinks black people are fully human, and shouldn't be treated as any less than a white person under the law. What are the relevant considerations? Is he a racist?
For if Bob were racist for thinking that and that's what it meant to be racist, then it would mean that all cultural generalizations are therefore racist and "racism" would be meaningless.
I found this interesting (I'm sure there's a ton of other stuff out there, too):
https://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf
I read that paper and the author seems to agree with me.
It seems possible to me (under my current understanding of what uninvolved means) that he has defined "racism" using careful distinctions that no one uses, and results in (essentially) no one being racist. That doesn't seem right to me.
(Having said that, people are free to use whatever definitions of words they like.)
Justin: But there is no truth!
Josh: See that?! You just made a truth statement, that there is no truth! I don’t even have to refute that. Your argument is refuting itself! It committed suicide. It was Dead On Arrival.
But entering relativism in your search engine had not found that nor found much of anything. Someone should check that out.
After being asked a very astute question by the interviewer with THR, Smith is forced to either clarify his view or bite the bullet and state that racism could be the right thing in a certain circumstance.
This, especially "bite the bullet," strongly implies that Smith had been arguing relativism all along. But you have only quoted him as saying ‘truth doesn’t have a side.’ . . . That, you know, ‘whose side are you on, Republican or Democrat?’ ‘I’m trying to tell the truth.’ The truth doesn’t have a side, right?
It seems to me that the interviewer misunderstood Smith and used "side" in a different sense; and that Ruffalo understood Smith correctly: "It doesn’t take a political side, necessarily."
You also said later, "He thinks some things are objectively true, like the scientific statement about what is likely to happen after getting your head banged 70,000 times. No, Smith is skeptical specifically of truth claims about morality." Prior to his being asked the racism question, the topic of morality hadn't come up, had it?
I would be inclined to paraphrase Smith, prior to the question, as "Everyone should adhere to the truth about concussions, regardless of their political loyalties." When the racism question was asked, morality was introduced for the first time, and Smith expressed a different attitude toward moral truth than the attitude he seems to have been expressing about scientific truth.
None of this would undermine your main point, but I'm just asking to see if I misunderstood something.
Are you still planning to do a blog post on the question, "Is there any way to prove or disprove the correctness of any moral principle?" I'll look forward to that.
Getting back to Justin, now that I think of it, what if he had said, "But there may not be any truth!" -- ?
Thanks for letting me know about the search engine problem. I'll look into that. The post you're referencing is here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/effectively-responding-to-moral-relativism/
If the interviewer hadn't pushed back, I wouldn't have had enough information to make a claim about whether or not Smith is a moral relativist because the initial statement itself is sort of vague. It certainly sounded like relativism when I first heard it, but there are other possible explanations. It was when the interviewer pushed Smith to go deeper that Smith, pretty clearly, expressed skepticism about moral truth, but not scientific claims. (By the way, this is the most common type of moral relativism. Few people are skeptical of ALL truth claims.)
If Justin had responded to me by saying "there may be no truth," I would have pushed back, fairly hard, about the most obvious truths I can think of, like the wrongness of rape and sex slavery. I don't think a good, virtuous person can say that the claim that it's wrong to rape 9-year-olds is not objectively true.
I certainly agree with that. I had said,
"When the racism question was asked, morality was introduced for the first time, and Smith expressed a different attitude toward moral truth than the attitude he seems to have been expressing about scientific truth."
By "different attitude" I meant the same as "skepticism about moral truth."