MSC

A rock, does not value anything. It is not alive. The organisms that live on the rock, will engage in behaviors that suggest on some level that they value something. Food/energy, dark or light, heat etc. As far as we can tell, our valuing behaviors are the only ones that delve more into the abstract, away from the physical ones like basic biological needs, family or social group, procreation. Some may argue that all of our abstract values are utilities for the sake of attaining those physical resources. I'm not really going to take a side on that debate in this comment. Just lay out the different views. For life; the only universal (imo) is that life values its own existence. The shrimp values itself more than it values the squid. In some sense, you could argue that this means value is everywhere, you can try to quantify it, but you'll only be marginally accurate from the perspective of your existence as a human. Which some other human will eventually disagree with. Hence the marginal accuracy. If you want to go more meta and reflect on if there is any value to life's valuing behaviors, knock yourself out. That's a weird rabbit hole to go down though, take it from me. Now when I say life values it's existence or engages in valuing behaviors, I mean that in a very neutral sense. Valuing behaviors cover positive and negative value estimations. It values along a spectrum of different good and bad meta-ethical schools of thought. If you think life is terrible or is great, either way you're still engaging in valuing behaviors. Valuing behaviors only means the act of giving a value to something, positive or negative.

I'll concede that I misspoke before. This discussion is mainly around the question: Should socioeconomic class be a protected characteristic? You've made no comment on that claim, and are focusing one one thing I said, around all of the other things that I and others have said. I would like to hear your opinion on the central question. However, if you decide to answer that question in the negative, based on one mistake in my argument for it, you would be assuming that the whole cannot be correct because of the fault of one part. If is false of the part, then the central claim "Socioeconomic class ought to be a protected characteristic." Must also be incorrect. I still have little doubt, based on what I have read, that class discrimination is still a big enough problem in employment and education to warrant more protections for those who need it most. If I thought nobody was allowed to disagree with me or question me, I wouldn't post here at all. There is something to be said for how you disagree with me, and how you convincing you are at arguing for an alternative perspective. It's not my job to help you reach the threshold of convincing me I am wrong (of which there is an achievable threshold, just ask my wife 😂). In my personal opinion; it's very hard to play devils advocate without implying or inferring a claim. Without knowing your opinions, judgements and conclusions on the matter, then I don't really know what it is I'm arguing against or where you are coming from. That is key detail for me. I don't know, to me it feels intellectually dishonest. You obviously have an opinion on the matter, knowing what it is explicitly gives our dialogue a better chance of ultimately being fruitful for both of us, whomever is in the right or wrong. A person does not need to be asked for assumptions to be made. Some people are also proud of a working class background, the very notion that I'd need to hide it and not talk about challenges overcome from that background, just goes to show there us a prominent fear of us having it held against us, without consequence because our interviewer happened to go to Eaton and grew up with their parents calling lower classes scum or the great unwashed and little to no legal protections in place to restrict or restrain them from doing so. Just keep this in mind, while you are by no means obligated to agree with me, I am similarly not obligated to agree with you. We can also agree to disagree and leave it at that. Just want to explicitly state; thank you for telling me to step away. I needed that. Secondly, those questions are motivated by methodology as opposed to paranoia. Although admittedly by anger at the time too. To me, they are questions motivated by inquiries into the phenomenology of belief. Mapping out where beliefs come from, requires a certain amount of dialogical psychoanalysis to determine cognitive behaviors.

Or you could tell swansont to obey the rules of the forum and argue in good faith for once? Those were fair questions to ask. Nothing to do with paranoia. I've laid out where my biases stem from on this subject so why shouldn't I ask others about there's? Or is it offensive to call someone fallible now? If mods are allowed to break the rules here, then this place isn't worth a damn. I am sick of putting in a lot of time and effort into writing here, only to have the majority of it ignored. You guys forgot to add a rule: Never report a mod or we will gaslight you and call you paranoid whenever you accurately call out their antagonistic behavior and lack of forum etiquette. How can you expect users to want to express themselves or share information in good faith when the mods can't even do the same? Why is it that I am expected to answer any question swansont asks me but he doesn't have to answer anything I ask him? Where is the fairness there? Are you really incapable of seeing this from my point of view? Did you learn nothing the last time this happened and you banned me for a year for demanding an apology for him calling me a liar? My mind hasn't changed on that, I was still in the right then and I am now. You know what, just perma ban me this time. I don't care anymore. I've given every opportunity to Swansont to try to have a respectful dialogue with me and he spits it in my face every time. So Ban me permanently please, even though I've not broken a single rule in this thread. Just read the damn links. I'm not answering anymore of your questions until you have answered mine.

Class is implied by use off the word rich. I shouldn't have to explain that. To me it just seems like you're making an argument about semantics here. If the word choice bothers you that much, then assume I meant middle to upper class. Who do you know that can afford to go to private schools that is not middle/upper class? Assuming it's a school not run by a religious organization. As far as I'm aware, nobody in my area growing up got into a private school unless it was a school specifically for disabled children. My high-school was supposed to get a new building (because the current one is literally sinking into a brae) over a decade ago. The land developers sat on that land for 6 years until they were no-longer contractually obligated to build it and they gentrified the area instead and forced a lot of good working class people out. Not particularly relevant to this discussion I guess but maybe telling you it will help you understand why I believe I am just trying to speak what seems to be the truth to me, in good faith. You really need to read both of the links I sent you, thoroughly. You asked for them, so you need to at least respect them enough to reflect on them and read them carefully. I didn't write them, so if you want to counter the claims made in them, you'll need to find evidence in support of whatever your counter claims are. This is a two way street. You are not my peer, my boss, my professor or my parent. You're a fallible human being capable of being rude and callous, as am I. All I know of you, is how you behave toward me. I'm a fuckin open book. I don't know what any of your intentions are, but have you considered that how you are choosing to communicate with me is to blame for these misunderstandings wherein you keep making me feel like you just don't like me and are mostly antagonistic toward me? I get it, you're one of those people who believe brutal honesty is the best policy, but you also strike me as the type that focuses more on the brutality than the honesty. Compassionate honesty, now that is the diplomatic way to do it. I'm trying to work on that myself. I'm genuinely trying to be kinder and work on my temper. I really do want to understand you better, because I don't want nor like being upset with you. Am I just not getting your style of communication? What's going on? Well it's not outside the realm of mine. Maybe you have anosmia? Are you actually going to read the study? Or just the parts you think will prove me wrong? (when they don't) What is it that motivates you to debate this with me by the way? What do you want from this dialogue? What is your stake in this discussion? Do you stand to gain from a fairer and more equitable world or would it mean you have to share more?

Is sarcasm called for? I'm not doing anything wrong by wanting to open a discussion and expect the truth to speak for itself.

Wow... out of all of the arguments I've ever heard against free-will, this is the only one that has gotten me close to questioning my beliefs 😆 my cat overlord will be pleased.

https://www.beapplied.com/post/social-class-discrimination-and-fairness-in-recruitment https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416653602 - from the second link above. @swansont Knock yourself out. Just to be clear though: When I read a claim made by someone on here, unless I'm already familiar with the contemporary literature, I do the person making the claim the courtesy of researching it myself. Sure I don't have to do that, burden of proof is usually on the person making the claim, but it does save everyone time and makes you much less likely to appear obtuse and pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. Yes this is a science forum, but this is the philosophy section. Which means we also utilize deductive methods of arriving at conclusions, as well as inductive methods. We also practice the principle of charity, wherein we put our dialogical counterparts claims into their strongest format before we refer to them. That is just how this is done in an academic setting. I don't like all of the methods either, but I do them, because they do help and they do increase your ability to retain a higher level of objectivity than you would if you did not use them. Do you want more evidence? I'm happy to find more over the course of the week. Keep in mind however, that since it is not currently illegal to discriminate on this basis, you won't find any case law on it. It's ironic to me, that the most scientific way of getting more data on this, would be to actually make it a protected characteristic for a few years and see what happens in the court system as a result. If the law was in place, and 1000 cases fail, I'll concede that it doesn't happen. As it stands, there is more evidence that it does happen than there is that says it doesn't. I've looked, but I've found zero studies claiming class discrimination in employment does not happen, in both rejections and wage disparities. Can you find any? @MigLI'm so mad at you right now! You aren't making fun of us all and lightening the mood enough! Do better brother, do better. Your humour is sorely needed! Roast me dammit!

So to be clear: you're asking me to prove to you, that classism and judgemental people exist? Are you saying you don't believe either exist? So the first question is actually a good example of class discrimination. What if someone answers "No, I can't rent good clothing and nobody will lend me clothes for my job interview tomorrow."? What then? For that matter, what to you are good clothes? Designer stuff or just functional attire? What if a group of ten interviewers all have different ideas on what is and isn't good clothing? As for the second question, I at no point stated that your accent makes you rich or poor. What I meant, is that accent, dialect, word choice and colloquialisms can and are used by some to determine class. This isn't news to linguists or psychologists. Also, when I say discrimination I mean both direct and indirect, as per the legal definitions. Which covers discrimination of malicious, ignorant and callous intent. That includes: individual attitudes and behaviors; systems of policies and practices that are set up to benefit the upper classes at the expense of the lower classes, resulting in drastic income and wealth inequality; the rationale that supports these systems and this unequal valuing; and the culture that perpetuates them Classism is held in place by a system of beliefs and cultural attitudes that ranks people according to economic status, family lineage, job status, level of education, and other divisions. Middle-class and owning- or ruling-class people (dominant group members) are seen as smarter and more articulate than working-class and poor people (subordinated groups). In this way, dominant group members (middle-class and wealthy people) define for everyone else what is “normal” or “acceptable” in the class hierarchy. People who are poor/working class sometimes internalize the dominant society’s beliefs and attitudes toward them, and play them out against themselves and others of their class. Internalized classism is the acceptance and justification of classism by working class and poor people. Examples include: feelings of inferiority to higher-class people; disdain or shame about traditional patterns of class in one’s family and a denial of heritage; feelings of superiority to people lower on the class spectrum than oneself; hostility and blame towards other working-class or poor people; and beliefs that classist institutions are fair. People who are middle-class and wealthy sometimes internalize the dominant society’s beliefs and attitudes toward them, and play them out against others. Internalized superiority is the acceptance and justification of class privilege by middle-class and wealthy people. Class privilege include the many tangible or intangible unearned advantages of “higher” class status, such as personal contacts with employers, “legacy admissions” to higher education, inherited money, good childhood health care, quality education, speaking with the same dialect and accent as people with institutional power, and having knowledge of how the systems of power operate. A person from the more privileged classes can be a class ally—a person whose attitudes and behaviors are anti-classist, who is committed to increasing his or her own understanding of the issues related to classism, and is actively working towards eliminating classism on many levels. - https://classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism/ So right away, in the very first paragraph it states clearly that classism is differential treatment based on social class or perceived social class. I think it's great that you feel you would not engage in this, but you cannot speak for everyone else. Debates on class are some of the oldest debates we have, and you're asking me to prove to you that it exists? The evidence all points towards it existing. Why don't you prove it doesn't exist? Since that claim would put you in the minority and is not the consensus of the majority on this subject whatsoever. Important question for you: How probable do you think it is, that class discrimination happens on a regular basis? What would a basic probability calculation say I wonder? If a company wants to hurt itself by only hiring rich people, a claim I don't agree with by the way, that is one thing. If it does this by rejecting, discriminating, wasting the time of and hurting suitable applicants perceived to be lower class, that is another. The thing is, I'm entirely confident that there is enough evidence out there that proves me correct. I am not confident you will take it seriously if it comes from me. Based on your animosity towards pretty much anything I say and disdain for any attempt to be diplomatic with you I make.

Isn't it also true that the many worlds interpretation of QM cannot be verified by inductive methods and is therefore extremely unscientific? That's what I've heard, but you'd probably know for sure.

Way to steer into the intellectual rigidity I guess..

No it isn't. Well you've yet to convince me it does not require that. Not something I believe. Therefore I care. As do a great many others. If you don't, then why are you commenting? Where? I'm sorry you've misunderstood, but I never claimed that. Moral philosophers observed that these are the foundations. Which you're now contradicting yourself on. You yourself said they were the foundations; now you're pointlessly bickering about whether or not the chicken or the egg came first. Or should we disqualify Einsteins theory of relativity because it came so late into human history too? If you want; you can try to maintain I meant something I never said, all because you misunderstood something somewhere, but I probably won't respond to that anymore because I'm not so weak minded that I'm not aware of exactly what I meant, and I picked my words carefully. If there is something about my answers you don't understand, ask clarifying questions. I won't mind. You can reject my words off hand and continue your knee jerk, but it says more about your intellectual rigidity than it does about anything I've said. Prove me wrong and maybe take a little bit more time reflecting on what I've said so far, before you respond next. Count to ten if it helps. 😆

I wonder how many other laws that have passed, have had this said about them. Not sure I agree. Moral anti-realists would say moral values don't exist and could ask us why we try to value anything at all. Why care about anything? What exactly is the value of value? It's a coherent question to me at least. Side bar: these keep copying and pasting in the wrong places for some reason. This was the point I addressed last. Another dimension would be too nebulous you say. It certainly would make moral discussion more complex and difficult, but if that is what the subject requires, how can it be avoided? Nothing is ever simple, as much as we would all like it to be. Personally, I like to value the challenge of it. If nothing else. Scales and spectrums can be thought of as tools, how sure are you that scales is the correct one to utilize here? I never suggested they didn't. What is the good though? I like how you phrased this by the way. One of the earliest markers of a moral compass that forms, according to developmental psychologists, is being able to differentiate between helping and hindering. So the way you phrased that was great because it acknowledges what our first moral instincts and sentiments form around.

Well, value theory specifically is the foundation. More so than any named value... that said, the value of value is a metaethical discussion for another time 😆 Well yeah if that was the only piece of evidence. Although if it was the correspondence of the interviewer and them that said it, that's a little different. Let's assume though that if class was a protected characteristic, there are lawyers out there capable of proving it to a court and that it is indeed provable. Especially in this age of information. Personally, if I was an employee at a place that turned someone away for reasons like this; I would not commit perjury to protect an employer if it was a protected characteristic and the person filed a lawsuit. I doubt I'm alone in that regard. Successful suits have been brought forward and won in regards to most protected characteristics. Why would socioeconomic group be any different if it was explicitly a protected characteristic? Of course there will be a minimum threshold for convincing evidence; but I highly doubt it would ever be an impossible to achieve threshold. Not really sure what this means to be honest. Would you consider throwing out the word scale and replacing it with spectrum? Time for a shit joke! What did the deontologist say to the utilitarian? Your guess is as good as mine!

Fair question: Quality of attire, dialect/accent, self disclosure based on specific interview questions eg: "Can you tell me of a time you overcome adversity or achieved something difficult?" or simply having a personal connection with the interviewer wherein they have knowledge of your circumstances from before you even applied. Admittedly it's not going to come up in the hiring process all the time. The point is it can and has before came up. The discussion revolves around determining what ought to happen when it does come up. The ignorant application was a good way to put it. What about pragmatic application within individual holistic review? You've hit the nail on the head with the central problem around defining poverty. At the moment I'm going with income and cost of living statistics relative to country and or region. As determined by research in socio-economics. In order to arrive at a definition of poverty. Access to resources and opportunity also comes into it. Do you think it also makes sense to discuss the causal powers of increased opportunity on poverty itself? What makes them think I'd want them in the first place? 🤣 would it be wrong of me to not hire them on principle? As for social status coming up in an interview situation; see my response to swansont. Good to talk to you again btw. thanks for joining in the discussion. Is the scale any good though? 😆 that may come off a tad reductio ad absurdem but a named value, can still have a value placed on it. We are all valuing agents and positive and negative values tend to be a fundamental tool within the moral toolkit. Agree to disagree? "Omg Andy! Did you see what that last person was wearing for their interview? So trashy. Bet they got it from Wal-Mart. It's a no from me!" - hypothetical office email as exhibit A of evidence in a hypothetical lawsuit claiming breach of a hypothetical law making it illegal to discriminate based on socioeconomic circumstances. Gained easily by an outside agency with a subpoena. And where did those values, principles, convictions and beliefs come from? Of the person's drafting the document I mean. Most cases probably. The same could be true of constitution writers too. The struggle is real 😆 ethics vs pure self-interest.

A good question! Which I hope I can give a satisfying answer to. I can conclude this by assuming that the moral claims being made are being made in good faith. If I trust that both sides are being sincere in their belief that what they are claiming is a moral fact (whether or not I'd dispute it as a fact or not) I can conclude they are behaving as if they are moral objectivists. By taking them at their word, that they believe as such. This is where the idea of a personal fact comes in. Person X believes Y because they say they do. Whether or not Y is a fact, does not erase that person X believes Y, as a fact about person X. So when you tell me that you believe right and wrong are subjective values, I believe that you do believe that. You are the authority on you. There is probably a logical and physical explanation as to why this is your belief. What's the phrase in psychology? "Everything psychological is biological." In the same way there is a physical and logical explanation as to why I believe what I believe. I can't speak for your subconscious. So far you've given no indication that you are lying to me or yourself about your beliefs. So I think it is safe for me to assume for now that you are arguing in good faith. Why would race, gender, age, disability or sexuality rise to the level of superseding your rights, when socioeconomic class does not? Being born Into a certain socioeconomic class is as much out of my control as what skin colour I'll have. So what is the difference? My biases in this topic stem from being born into poverty myself; that is born into a family below the poverty line, as it is defined in my home country by my own government. How relevant would you say your socioeconomic class is to your point of view? Serious question, in no way meant to be insulting. But right and wrong are values. Ultimately there were decisions made about what a societies values were in order to draw up said constitution, for each society/culture. Those intercessions could be interpreted as moral disagreements over time with say founders and contemporaries, as new information comes to light... clumsily 😆 can't agree with you more on that note! Will respond more later; RL just got urgent.

True facts, incorrect conclusion. Since most sides are still claiming their views to be correct, they are still behaving as if there is an objective measure. The diametrically opposed sides are still claiming one is right and the other is wrong. Still seems like objectivism behaviors to me. To reiterate; a small group of people claiming the earth is flat, wouldn't be evidence of physical subjectivism. Debate and disagreement in no way suggest that everything is subjective. Subjectivism is a really dangerous ideology in my honest opinion. Here's an example of why: Nazi: I ought to be allowed to put Jewish people into concentration camps. Who are you to tell me I am wrong if right and wrong are subjective? This is why I reject subjectivism. Can literally be used to justify anything. It's also impossible to make the claim that right and wrong are subjective, without that claim being made objectively. If right and wrong are subjective? Isn't that claim also subjective even though it's essentially being claimed to being the only objective claim we can make about values like right and wrong? I am. Your view is essential to the measure though. That's what context relativism is all about. It's an admission; I don't know everything, I can't know everything, a group of people can know more than one person can. We are all part of the human context, moral philosophy is also a part of this context. Some comparative psychologists may even go a step further and claim is part of the context of life in general. I believe there is a wisdom or lesson to be learned from every person. So again, why do you believe that morality and ethics are subjective? Do you truly believe that or is it a cop out to avoid directly saying anyone is right or wrong? Now, I'm not suggesting that everything is black and white. But it sure as shit ain't all grey either. There are enough moral views that if each one were a colour, we could paint a massive rainbow with them. Why not in private enterprise?

I agree that answers may vary depending on who you ask. However, answers may vary for many questions depending on who you ask across all academic and scientific fields of inquiry. Yet we would not assume the laws of physics are subjective, just because some people believe the earth to be flat. They are just incorrect. For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming there is an objective measure of right and wrong. If you were to start a discussion thread on why you believe right and wrong are purely subjective; I'd be happy to discuss this with you more there. As it stands; we live in a society that behaves as if there is an objective measure of right and wrong. The evidence for this, is the fact that we attempt to write laws and policies governing peoples behavior towards each other. One of the reasons I take issue with how most people use the term subjective, in regards to ethics; is that most people misunderstand what moral relativism is. To be clear, relativism is not subjectivism. Some forms of relativism are. What determines whether or not it is objectivism or subjectivism, is what a particular form of relativism is saying right and wrong are relative to. For the purposes of this discussion we will be utilizing Context relativism. Context in this sense; means the factual situation at hand based on the verifiable aspects of all parties view points and experiences. So we look at the physical facts and the personal facts. Physical fact example: Being denied a job or place in a school, due to poverty, makes it harder for the person denied to escape poverty. Personal fact example: Zapatos believes/feels right and wrong are subjective. (My usual question now when people make that claim, is to ask them, why they believe that? Up to you whether or not you'd like to answer that to us here or just yourself.) Admittedly, my views on this can be a little hard to follow if you're not as well read in moral philosophy or epistemology. However I can assure you that I'm open to be asked to clarify anything that doesn't seem to make sense. I can't say for sure whether any of my views on this are correct, but when fully laid out they are at least coherent and pragmatic... or so I'm told 😆 The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not socioeconomic groups ought to be protected too. Should they be compelled to do so?

Why or why not? Let's say I'm an employer or a decision maker for college admissions; I am legally bound to not discriminate based on race, religion, nationality, gender, disability, age, sexuality, parental status and in some places, pregnancy. What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me? What is to stop me from rejecting the college application of a poor person, based on prejudices I may have against the poor in general. Ought I to be penalized if I ultimately make a decision on who gets a job; on who was able to afford an expensive suit for an interview and looked more 'elite' than somebody that can only afford an ill fitting piece from a thrift store? Should there be some kind of affirmative action for those with a long family history of poverty? Does socioeconomic class provide any kind of reliable indicator of competency or work ethic? Assuming two candidates are the same in most other regards, race, gender, qualifications etc, and the only difference is one of them comes from wealth and the other is from a working class family, am I wrong to pick the rich one? Am I wrong to pick the poor one? Is some of the bias against one group, more justified than bias against the other?

Well, when yer da sells Avon... 😆

If nothing is alive, there are no tangible benefits or anything left to perceive anything as good or bad. As for your claim that value is non-existent, this is moral anti-realism. By this stance, even antinatalist values are non-existent. If we follow your logic to the letter, then we need to ask why we would care either way if life exists or not. For something to be absent value, it cannot be good or bad. Either would be a value. I've done a lot of research into antinatalism over the years and been in countless debates about it. Probably some of the most heated I've ever had to be honest. So I have quite a number of questions to throw at you. Firstly: is it possible to end all life everywhere and thereby elimate all negative and positive happenings a life form can experience? If you think yes, then how do you do so without becoming a Dr Who villain? Do you have a reality bomb handy there Davros? And can you guarantee that life won't start again after you and everything else are gone? Why would life have to justify it's existence to anyone or anything, when it does in fact already exist? Life just is. There is little to no choice in the matter. Speaking of choice, I'll tackle deontological and utilitarian versions of antinatalism here: To the deontological consent argument, yes I did not consent to be alive, but I also do not consent to being dead. While I have no choice in the former, I can take my life at anytime I please. Thereby consenting to latter and giving myself choice over the former. If you ask an animal if it wants to be alive, you'll get no answer you are able to make sense of. For the utilitarian argument against suffering; if I offered to rig a button attached to a device in your brain that could put you in a state of euphoria whenever you want, would you take it? If yes, why not advocate for that instead of taking on the herculean task of convincing all life everywhere, not to procreate? Or taking antinatalism to the extreme, the killing of all life everywhere? Since antinatalism tends to be a slippery slope that can quickly devolve into justification for murder, based on a value system held by a minority of people who may or may not lack objectivity based on the suffering of their own lives, we need to be really careful in assuming it's justification is self evident. It's not self evident. Neither is atheism. I'm agnostic because I prefer not to appeal to ignorance in favour of there being a God or not. I have a tangible deity. Meaning, I have something which I worship and live for. There is nothing supernatural about it. Just life. Particularly unborn life. My kids and descendants will judge me, so I live for them. In conclusion, it seems to me that your argument for antinatalism revolves around arguing against value theory, which antinatalism has to assume in order to justify itself in the first place. So it's a bit of a contradiction. "By my value system, values don't exist." At least, that is how it reads to me. If I'm wrong, feel free to clarify your position.

Contextualists miss nothing. Onus is on you to be clearer in your communication. I've asked you to clarify multiple times. Can you link me to the literature that is currently inspiring you. I want to understand, however if you will do me the courtesy of reading back some of your own writing from a different perspective, you will find that you have contradicted yourself a few times and that there are a few terms you use that need to be better defined. I agree with the sentiment of this, however there is a diversity of modal qualities to every value expressed and clear conflicts of prioritization between values. Security/Freedom is one such conflict. There is also a diversity of thought in meta-ethical dialogical positions and reducing them to something simpler than that, eliminates the subtle but profound impacts of the differences in nuance has on the modal quality of values. That's the problem we have been addressing. Your reductionism isn't helping. If we cannot discuss diversity and how it relates to equality and equity, then we cannot have the discussion at all. This is about barriers to education. Now, you can express your view, but if you cannot recognize the influence concepts or social constructs and how others view and use them, have on the barriers to equal opportunity in education, then you are ignoring the majority of the problem. A few facts to keep this all on track. F1. Not everyone shares your view on how things are, or how they ought to be. F2. Bigots exist. F3. Bad faith decisions made by biased individuals on who does or does not get into a certain school, happen. F4. There are a few different degrees and types of discrimination, direct and indirect, conscious and subconsciously. F5. Some people believe diversity exists and has value in a number of different areas. F6. Public discourse does not take these concepts lightly. Conclusion: It is not pragmatic to take the fringe belief that diversity is the antithesis of equality and claims like that require proof. Especially since the concepts 'Equality and 'Diversity have uses in a multitude of different situations. Here, we are discussing equality of opportunity. Believing in the values of equality and diversity are not mutually exclusive. There is even a way to be pro-life and pro-choice based on pragmatic modalities of the underlying values involved.

I see what you mean now. Maybe if you were more concise and not so intentionally ambiguous, there would be less shite in your word salads. Are you perchance a ghost? Because almost all of what you were saying, sounded like woo. It didn't really make much sense and was kind of hard to read because it sounds like you're trying to cultivate mystique and making fallacious appeals to science in an attempt to strengthen whatever it is you're trying to claim. Then there is this; Neurological, Genetic, Cultural and biological diversity are in no ways "subjective". It sounds to me like you're trying to abstract away from simply saying "I don't see colour or differences in peoples." Which I think is just you lying to yourself about having subconscious biases, because admitting you have them, would make you seem, in your eye's at least, less good or intelligent. You misunderstood completely when I said; Assume everything or assume nothing on a case by case basis. Meaning, upon examination of the objective context, which includes the individuals involved subjective beliefs, as it will factor into what is happening, in a given situation deduce whether or not discrimination is going on, and the type and degree of it. It's simpler but probably more appropriate meaning; consider all sides, empathise with and understand how and why different people may view the same situation differently. Give yourself the fullest view of a situation as you can, research it, double/triple check, be rigorous and accept that you fallible humanity will never lead you to a perfect answer. Just a best guess. (Unless it's the hard sciences of course. 9 is the perfect answer to what is the square root of 81.)

So I saw a few comments I wanted to address; @dimreepr regarding the "benevolent" dictator, is there a specific historical example that you can think of that was definitely benevolent when they became dictator, and stayed that way? Conflicts between rights, like the right to good health and the right to freedom of movement have often been settled by the fact that all of our claims to rights, rely on the right to life and good health. There are moral grounds for medical professionals to subject people to medical treatments against their will. Conservatorship and stewarding for the mentally ill. I imagine there are probably many refusing vaccines who could be suffering from an environmentally caused form of panic disorder. If you are unconscious with a life threatening injury and next of kin cannot be found, chances are they will treat you up to and including life saving surgery. Without asking your permission, but assuming it. Only reason they would not, is if you had an official DNR order. I'm a little surprised the precedent for human rights in a pandemic has not been brought up. During the Spanish flu (H1N1 type a) of 1918, refusing to wear a mask in public, straight up got you arrested, in the USA at least. Can you imagine what they would have done with people refusing a vaccine for that, if they had one at the time? As it stands, 50,000,000+ worldwide died during the Spanish Flu. 5,000,000+ have currently died of covid, vs 50,000,000 whom have contracted it. The death toll of the Spanish flu in the USA, is around 200k lower than the current covid death toll. Now, the population of the USA has grown around 3 times as much, so by rate, the spanish flu killed a higher percentage of the population, yet the population at the time also lacked the potential to reach the sort of numbers we could see soon with the right mutations of the coronavirus with a far higher population. For me, it ultimately comes down to this, I can self isolate, get a vaccine, wear a mask, and can temporarily give up my freedom for the common good of all, a number of times in my life, but I can only die once. With death, the only thing I have close to rights then, is last rites. It's the end of freedom, health, marriage, owning a business and watching my daughter grow up. So people nutting up, vaxxing up and shutting up would be great. Or maybe we can just declare all the antivaxers mentally ill and just give them the vaccine whether they want it or not. Hey, it amounts to self harm if we just let them go out and get covid, plus biological assault of others. I think in some places, even pre-pandemic, you could get charged with assault for sneezing on someone. Especially if it is maliciously done, like spitting on someone. It's weird, even though nobody is eating each other, this stuff feels like a zombie apocalypse, the antivax crowd are pretty brainless.

Firstly, by 'good' I mean conducts itself ethically. There are a few aspects to address with this question. Answers ought to take into account; 1. How this platform monetises and to what extent it does so? Does it just cover it's operating costs and staff man hours or does it make a profit? To extend this question, what does it do with this profit? 2. What does it do with users data? Does it have ads driven by the selling off of marketing data? Another question buried there, is who owns data pertaining to an internet user? The user or the data gatherer? 3. How does it manage moderation and censorship? Bare minimum adherence to the law or sets of guiding principles the users themselves have a hand in making? Those are just the two options based on opposite ends of a spectrum, I am not positing that as a binary choice. A programmer friend and I were discussing this at length the other day, neither of us believe any of the current platforms do enough to be ethical. Currently, I am grounding my perspective of the good, as that which is a net positive for life, biologically/psychologically. Feel free to critique that though. I get that rational meaning through conveyance, is a difficulty that most take for granted, so if I've not made sense at any point feel free to say. Happy to try to elaborate more when I see where people are at with this. I feel that if I don't address those 3 aspects of this question, then I won't be able to be certain of an answer to the main question. Thanks in advance, for any thoughts you contribute towards this discussion. The concerns which led me to this question, stem from the harmful consequences wrought by platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter etc. From screen addiction, to the spreading of misinformation and either a lack of justifiable censorship or over-censorship. I personally feel, that going forward, the discussion around this question is only going to get more prominent and that it is one we should all be asking ourselves and each other as much as we can. Optional homework: If you would prefer not to comment, I request that you have this discussion with at least two people you are comfortable with, then ask them to do the same. For those of you who would like to know moore about the original version and inspiration of this question... You just got a hint. If the hint was missed, The Heavy have a song titled after the question. Peace.

I have to disagree with this claim. Not that this definition isn't the non-standard one, you're correct there. However, standard definition does not necessarily mean the correct definition, nor does it mean the only standard. Strict singular definitionalism is rejected not only by philosophers, but by the people that write the laypersons dictionary. Like most issues in ethics, it is rarely so cut and dry. I find that more often than not, whether or not any action is justified depends greatly on the context the action is happening in. Even when it comes to protected characteristics (which tend to vary based on local and national laws and policy) there are a number of contexts where most legal experts and ethicists will agree that discrimination based on even a protected characteristic, is in fact justified. Whether it's not letting any blind person, except for Mr LaForge, fly a commercial airliner.. Or any plane for that matter, telling a trans woman she cannot be your surrogate because she hasn't got a womb (differentiating between gender and biological sex + yes, Monty Python is awesome) a person with Parkinsons can't be a surgeon and a 5 year old cannot run for Congress. Those are a few examples off the top of my head but there are lots more I could use. The word 'Discrimination' does, can and ought to mean unjustified discrimination, except in the contexts where it does not. There is no other word for me to really use when I mean unjustified discrimination (bigotry doesn't tick all the boxes for me), yet at the same time, no other word for me to use when I mean justified discrimination, that make them both clearly distinct from the other. I often like to say, assume everything or assume nothing. Case by case basis. Being blind to unjustified discrimination as a reality that happens, amounts to missing it when it does, just as being blind to justified discrimination as a reality amounts to missing it when it also happens. Your last line seems strange and I wonder if you can be convinced to shed more light on what you mean by it? Are you saying the inverse, absolute conformity is the epitome of equality? A virtue theorist could argue that if diversity is a collective virtue, it is the golden mean between absolute conformity and pure individuality. For the individual, this means individualisation for the purpose of bringing a broad range of skills, aptitudes and value to the collective. For the collective, this means conforming to a shared value of diversity, for the sake of our survival.