Continued from http://www.fimfiction.net/blog/320375/nh-father-arrested-protesting-explicit-school-reading-assignment#comment/2090679

Re: 1. I'm actually also from the UK. I do generally tend to assume US culture on the internet, though - simply because it's a generally prudent assumption to make. However, this particular issue did occur in the US, so I feel somewhat justified in discussing it in that light. Even then, while religious anti-education is uncommon, I think general apathy is still a concern. Somehow I have difficulty imagining the very chavviest of chavs having maximum-information sex-talks with their kids. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. Regardless, I think we can probably agree that having education specialists provide (good) sexual education is important in any country - there aren't any official guidelines for parenting on this kind of thing - Murphy's Law, you know.

Personally I don't think you can attach a higher value to any subject over another, and when you start doing so (i.e. saying that math is more important than home economics), you immediately fall into the trap of being judgemental to the point of fascism.

Slippery slope fallacy, I'm afraid.

Besides, I don't subscribe to absolute political correctness. Doctors and Artists both provide services, but let's not pretend they're equal in value. No matter how much you idolize the arts, when it comes right down to it, would you give up a painting to save your life?

You may place a personal value over one subject you are passionate about

That is what you are doing, but not what I am doing. I am looking at a combination of what the average person feels, and what most benefits society as a whole. Utilitarianism. Everything can be quantified. That which cannot be quantified does not exist in reality. Even judgements such as "Lord of the Flies is better than Twilight" imply a loose quantification of quality, and I'd be interested to see if you'd disagree with my example.

but you can never say (with the implication that this is something everyone should believe and agree with you upon) that one subject is more important than another

But I can. The rice farmer is more important that the man who fishes for octopus. When your primary output is survival, the number of people you can support is a quantifiable value. Similarly, for how many and to what degree are lives improved by doctors versus artists, or literary critics? You cannot give me a reason other that fairness as to why we cannot quantify and judge different categories against each other, and I hope you'd realise that there is no such thing as inherent fairness.

You have subconsciously invented a hierarchy

Subconsciously nothing. You assume that I reject your admonitions.

What is it that makes a subject "important to well-being"? Whose well-being is it "important" to? The sex-education I had in school wasn't important to my well-being; certainly not as much as my literary education was. Who are you to decide what makes a subject "important?" The exact same line of thought is what has historically resulted in discrimination. Someone with a severe learning disability might be "less suited" to a certain job than someone without, but does that make that person "less important" to the world? No, and implying so is discrimination. This is the exact same line of thought you are (probably unknowingly) executing here by implying that sex-ed is more important than literary study, or any other subject for that matter.

Ah, now here we have a political difference. You have internalized the equality and PC regime that the UK has been pushing for some time, while I reject it. For any meaningful description of quality, there are items which rank more highly, and less highly. The worker who produces twelve high quality fluffy hats a day is, if equal in all else, worth more to their employer than a worker who only produces ten. I am careful to use objective language here, please note. Quality by itself is a worthless term. Describe what you mean by quality, however, and it is much harder to argue.

What is it that makes a subject "important to well-being"? Whose well-being is it "important" to?

A subject important to well-being is one that maximizes the satisfaction of people's values, according to the Hedonic Calculus. A doctor that saves a life is more important than a movie critic who rates a movie. Mathematics, fundamental to almost all modern technology, is more important that music, which, while beautiful, cannot claim the same. If you could prove to me that music was essential to normal human cognition, and that a lack caused massive depression or loss of cognitive function, then I would re-evaluate my position.

The sex-education I had in school wasn't important to my well-being; certainly not as much as my literary education was.

Then, even if you are correct, you are likely in the minority. Can you be sure that you didn't learn anything new in Sex-Ed? Nothing at all that may have led you to not getting an STD? If so, your parents probably did a better job than most. You're lucky, but we should think of those less fortunate as well.

Of course, if you are actively involved in English as a career, then you are definitely correct - but even still, since most people aren't, it is of less value to them than to you. You are not just biased, you are arguing from a position of bias - please understand that as a result I am unlikely to accept any of your anecdotes as evidence unless it somehow contains another argument within it.

The exact same line of thought is what has historically resulted in discrimination.

That is true. I do not go so far as to say that people in the arts are worthless - by no means. But, compared to a doctor, an architect, a farmer, an artist is less valuable, not worthless.

I'm sorry that it means that I likely value you less than you'd like. I perfectly do appreciate that the arts are important - most of my favourite people are creatives. I recognize that the value of creativity and imagination, and the products thereof are wonderful, and highly beneficial. However, if I had to choose for society as a whole, I'd pick doctor or scientist every time.

Someone with a severe learning disability might be "less suited" to a certain job than someone without, but does that make that person "less important" to the world?

Well, if you define "less important" by how useful they are, then yes, most likely. I have no problem with exploring my views to their limits, and if I disliked what I found, I'm sure I'd have already changed my mind. As a Utilitarian, I don't even think it's humane for people with severe disabilities to be sapient. To be entirely fair, a fair number of them don't either.

I don't support killing those already sapient, but I don't think a newborn with no limbs, or severe mental disabilities, or severe, crippling mutations of any kind, should be kept alive. Before they are sapient, it is no different that putting down an animal. You may find me cruel or fascistic, but I am merely a Utilitarian. It's no use to bring up Nazis. I was raised Jewish - I am quite careful to continuously check against them and ensure that if I seem similar in some way, that I can justify it to the very ends of my premises. I have yet to have them rocked by another, but I welcome the opportunity if you wish to try.

All subjects (just like people) are important to someone. Everyone is passionate about a different subject, which will be more important to them than other subjects. Just because some are valued more highly by the Western commerce (maths, sciences, business studies) doesn't mean we have to reflect that dogmatic and unfair view in society.

But there are some subjects that are more important to everyone, even if they don't realise it.

Now, you MIGHT argue that math is more important than literary studies because, to quote Charlie Eppes, "we all use math every day". Most people in business use math daily. I have two jobs. One is lecturing, one is bar work. I use math all the time for my bar job, but I can't remember the last time I ever used a literary analysis to help me in any practical way outside of my other job, which is tutoring English

Ah, I'm glad you realised that. I would certainly argue that, and in fact did, before I saw what you had to say on it.

But that view, that math is more important than English, is a dogmatic one that has arisen from the fascist buisiness leaders who are all probably Extroverted Thinkers.

If lots of people hold a view, that does not make it wrong. It doesn't make it right, either, but I think 'dogma' is a little strong. There are valid reasons for that belief. It's like creationists talking about the 'dogma' of science. You can use that word, but it doesn't make the subject 'wrong' intrinsically.

They only perceive math as "more important" because they perceive their own careers as "more important" than others.

No. Not at all. They might, perhaps, but I am not a business leader, nor do I look to them for my rationality. I perceive math as important for the very reasons you outlined above. Have you any reasons why I'm wrong?

Superioriy of any kind is bad.

This is where we disagree. I am an engineer. Superiority is what I strive for. Not over my peers, necessarily. Just abstractly better. Faster, more robust, less expensive. These, you feel, are bad?

I can name parameters for ANY job, item, person, and so on, that you care to name. I can explain, in utterly objective terms, why one is preferable to most people than is the other.

The same people that imply subject superiority of any kind are the same people who historically placed higher value on men over women, whites over blacks and straights over gays, for reasons they perceived as objective - women are weak and fragile, blacks are uneducated, dishonest, workshy freeloaders and gays are sinners who should burn in hell. ideas that seem abhorrent in retrospect, but back then, they were seen as objective.

But I can expose the logical flaws in their arguments. People did then as well. That said, do you believe that two people are always equally useful? If you and I were to both apply for a position teaching English, would you not be a better candidate? A superior candidate? Am I really your equal in that?

maybe so, but does that mean that sex-ed is "more important" than literary studies?

Does it not? What useful definition of 'important' do you use where something that improves life more greatly is less important?

Again, I direct you back to my point about the disabled person. On average, more groundbreaking discoveries have been made by people who do not have serious mental disabilities. Does this make them "more important" than people who do?

Yes, and no. Let us ask again exactly what you mean by 'important'. If it is their contribution to society, then yes, as an average whole, they are more important. If you hold that every human life is equally important, as your premise, then it is obvious. But that, is of course, begging the question. Why do you believe they are equally important? Why do you believe all human life is equal?

You cannot assign values of importance to people, subjects, jobs etc. You know who did? The Nazis.

It's true. I won't deny it. I'm not a Nazi, nor a sympathizer thereof. However, I shall not be dissuaded with such weak logic. The Nazis also ate food, and drove cars. Am I to associate all the Nazis did with the worst sort of evil? And, alternatively, if you notice the obvious flaw in that argument, am I supposed to believe that all they did that we do not is evil? That sounds so very present-centric. Like slavery, racism, or misogyny.

The point I am trying to make is that you cannot say that a single subject or work of art is more important than another, because there is always going to be someone who will disagree.

And until the bible is lost to time, there will likely be Young Earth Creationists. Does their disagreement mean I should disbelieve the Big Bang? Popularity is a heuristic, not an argument.

You seem like someone who is against pushing discriminatory views on others - that much is evident from your posts. This is why I feel that I need to call you out on that comment

I appreciate your intent. If I am being logically inconsistent, I absolutely would like to know, and to fix my behaviour. However, I do not limit myself in such boxes as 'All discrimination is bad'. Is quality control for manufactured goods a bad thing? Can I not choose this brand of food over that one because it contains less fat or is cheaper, or tastes better? Should the person most likely to perform correctly get the job? Why do you have in your mind this box labelled 'Discrimination' which includes only bad things, when there are so many examples of good discrimination?

This conversation is fascinating - I thank you for what has come so far, and hope that there is more to come.

3265710

*looks around*

Um....

Hi.

I guess I'll have to just accept that we are of a difference of opinion. We differ on the subject/object wavelength.

"Good discrimination" is acceptable if you are discriminating against defective products, which you can prove to be defective due to comparing them to a quality control check (i.e. this steak needs to be cooked to 59 degrees to be medium rare but someone has cooked it to 68, hence taking it passed that threshold = it is defective). But we are talking about people - people are not objects. We don't have "defective" people, at least, this is what I believe. To call someone "defective" would imply that there is such a thing as perfection or correctness, when in fact a person's "defects" are just aspects that make up who they are. If we quality controlled people in the same way we do produce, then the world would be made up of white, middle class bankers who all believed in the same things. A world like that would be a very dull and lifeless place.

I don't think I have internalised PCness, and as far as being political goes, I'm the sort of person who votes Labour purely because I believe the alternatives are even worse for the everyman. I'm not a philanthropist, but I was brought up to believe that everyone has something to offer, and that we are all equal in the eyes of God, no matter what our talents are. Even if I don't believe in God, I still have that belief, that all humans are equal and we cannot assign numerical or objective importance to humans based on who they are or even what they do, because we cannot see that person's future.

Let's take your anecdote about the doctor and farmer vs the artist. Of course, the former two provide an objective, measurable, quantifiable service (which seems to be, unless I am mistaken, the deciding factor in your importance hierarchy). Doctor treats X number of patients successfully each year, farmer produces Y ammount of food produce each year, etc. More important, you say, than the artist, who scrapes together a living from selling paintings and supplements himself with a part-time bar job. I guess that you are saying that if a person cannot quantify their importance, then they are not as important as someone who can?

Well, what if the doctor was one day found to be murdering his patients? Harold Shipman style.
What if the farmer was actually a child molester?

Yes, these are huge and unlikely "what ifs" - but unless you know the truth about a person, how can you say who is "more important" than someone else?

My biggest issue with this line of thinking is that it is fascist in nature. Not everything the Nazis did was evil, of course not. But these were the values they exemplified. They probably had good intentions, I'm sure Hitler would agree with you about the child with no limbs - but what if that was YOUR child and someone else wanted to make that decision for you? I very much doubt you would be able to see that objectively, and I would be rather worried if you could.

3265817

Hi there!

Here to join in, or just to watch?

Either's fine - I'm glad to see these sorts of discussions aren't just interesting to those involved.

3266057

I guess I'll have to just accept that we are of a difference of opinion. We differ on the subject/object wavelength.

I'm afraid it is so. You can attempt to convince me of your opinion, if you want - I wouldn't mind the diversion at all - and I promise that I'll at the very least privilege your view equally to my current one if I am unable to refute your logic. But we don't have to - it's up to you.

But we are talking about people - people are not objects.

The first of our philosophical disagreements. In what way are they not objects? What empirical or 'real' quality do they possess that an 'object' does not? Is it merely sapience? Where does the predicate that sapience is 'important' come from?

We don't have "defective" people, at least, this is what I believe.

While I'm sure those with disabilities will go both ways on this, I think that some will in fact agree that they have 'defects'. If a person goes blind, do they view themselves as no worse off than when they could see? Do they feel that blindness is net neutral, or net negative? How is the expected response meaningfully different from a defect?

To call someone "defective" would imply that there is such a thing as perfection or correctness, when in fact a person's "defects" are just aspects that make up who they are.

Not necessarily. It connotes a lack of adherence to the blueprint. You want your steak cooked, not raw. Is there a 'perfect' steak, just because there is an imperfect one? When a person deviates sufficiently from the species' average gene expression, and that deviation negatively affects their performance in life, in whatever metrics you care to name - not just productivity - then I would say that they have a defect.

If we quality controlled people in the same way we do produce, then the world would be made up of white, middle class bankers who all believed in the same things. A world like that would be a very dull and lifeless place.

That is one dystopic projection, sure. However, suggesting that there are genetic defects to be fixed or eliminated does not automatically imply that those on the top are the pinnacle of correctness, nor that we should bother trimming within a certain deviation. We need genetic diversity, and mutations aren't all bad. But most are. Ask a person with Cerebral Palsy if they want to have it. There are defects, no matter how egalitarian you want to be, and the defective can tell you so.

I still have that belief, that all humans are equal and we cannot assign numerical or objective importance to humans based on who they are or even what they do, because we cannot see that person's future.

Can we not predict? If you had the choice to save the life of either a doctor who recently claimed to be on the verge of curing cancer, or a murderer, who would you choose? Would you choose neither, knowing that both are equally valuable? By your logic, we cannot even assign a higher probability to the doctor discovering the cure for cancer than for the murderer to do the same.

Yes, these are huge and unlikely "what ifs" - but unless you know the truth about a person, how can you say who is "more important" than someone else?

But surely the same probability applies to the artist, cancelling the negatives out? All else being equal, those who save lives are more useful than those who do not, right?

what if that was YOUR child and someone else wanted to make that decision for you? I very much doubt you would be able to see that objectively, and I would be rather worried if you could.

You are, of course, correct. It is not something that I would want to do. However, that is more an issue of societal values than an absolute problem for the ages. Abortion is becoming more acceptable. Before that, birth control. Who is modern society to say that we have achieved the pinnacle of moral progress for all time?

I do not expect this to happen. That does not mean I do not think it would not be the right thing to do if it could happen.

And, of course, if it came down to it, and the choice was mine to make (which I doubt it would be), then I would make it just as I have been championing. I would not want a person I care about to suffer, day in, day out, for their entire life. That is a cruel and unusual punishment that I would reserve for murderers and the like. Before they are conscious, they are not a 'person'. They are a potential person. And just like how condoms have their place (you wouldn't want a teenage pregnancy, would you?), euthanasia has it's place as well. If, instead of that person who would suffer, I had another child who was healthy, who could enjoy life more fully in all likelihood? Then those resources used for either child would go to increasing happiness more efficiently. Overall, the people involved are happier.

I doubt you'll like this view, nor would many. But consider: were luck to turn out differently, and the healthy child born first, and the next, were they born, to be disabled, would you lament the life not lived of the second, never-born baby? The potential never actuated? Of course not. What then makes the baby who is not yet sapient so much more potentiate than the one unconceived? Making a baby is really not that hard for most people. The potential difference between the two is minimal.

I know that the fascism issue is a problem. Fascism is a tricky beast, and human nature is such that it is best to stay far away from it, even if it would help in theory. I believe that it is possible to go down the road of discrimination in certain, positive ways without going full-on Nazi, but I will agree that it is hard and dangerous to do so. I am not trying to put this into practice.

Can we not predict? If you had the choice to save the life of either a doctor who recently claimed to be on the verge of curing cancer, or a murderer, who would you choose? Would you choose neither, knowing that both are equally valuable? By your logic, we cannot even assign a higher probability to the doctor discovering the cure for cancer than for the murderer to do the same.

This is exactly the same impossible choice that was explored in The Dark Knight. Save convicted killers or save innocent civillians? It's an impossible choice - both are people. Said murderer might go on to cure cancer, and the doctor might turn out to be a child-killing necrophiliac. You cannot predict the future, no one can. You cannot judge someone based on their past either. Do you also believe that healthcare should be worse in prisons than for the general public?

Regarding "defects", I don't consider anyone who is disabled to be any less of a person or any less important than someone who is not. Though I agree that if you are going to be absolutely pragmatic and empirical about it, then yes - I suppose most sufferers of cerebral palsy would probably rather not have it. But might that in part be due to the stigmatisation that they face due to their condition? If they weren't treated like second class citizens then perhaps they wouldn't so strongly oppose something that, while debilitating, is still a part of them, and is something that makes them unique. Plenty of these people still have something to offer the world, in spite of or even because of their condition.

I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder when I was 17 and I have chosen not to medicate myself for it. I experience extreme highs and lows in my mood that sometimes cause me to do stupid, reckless and irrational things. Some might consider it a defect (it is a "disorder" after all) and to a certain extent, I'd rather not have it. I'd rather be "normal", just as I'd like to have working colour vision. But I don't personally consider it to be something that makes me a defective human being, and I would oppose anyone who said otherwise. Yes, it makes things difficult at times, but it also fuels my creativity. Some of the best creative work I have ever produced has been at the peak of a high or the pit of a low that only someone with bipolar disorder could reach. It is a gift as well as a curse.

I'm not trying to convince you of my point of view, and I doubt I ever would. I don't wish to try and change your opinions as much as explore them, so I won't take this any further by arguing against your views.

Reading your response fills me with contemplation. Clearly we differ at that same core philosophy that divided Plato and Aristotle as well as Freud and Jung - the matter of empiricism that encapsulates subject vs object, idealism vs pragmatism and thinking vs feeling. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I strongly believe in equality and I will never objectify people.