Should socioeconomic class be a protected characteristic?

[MSC]

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?

 

[zapatos]

27 minutes ago, MSC said:

What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me? 

 

As long as you are not discriminating against protected groups, you can hire pretty much anyone you wish.

28 minutes ago, MSC said:

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. 

 

Usually the policies of the college you work for.

29 minutes ago, MSC said:

Should there be some kind of affirmative action for those with a long family history of poverty? 

 

Many companies have such policies although they are not compelled to do so.

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

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?

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Depends on who you ask.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

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. 

This already happens and has for decades. It’s called raising tuition. 

2 hours ago, MSC said:

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?

It depends on the job, and whether lived experience might be relevant to future success. 

[CharonY]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

This already happens and has for decades. It’s called raising tuition. 

 

Also legacy admissions.

[iNow]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Also legacy admissions.

Good point. There’s also often preferential treatment for the children of parents who donate significant funds. 

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

Good point. There’s also often preferential treatment for the children of parents who donate significant funds. 

These are often connected (and is mostly a US thing). From what I have heard the reason for legacy admissions is because some think that it would result in more subsequent donations (kind of a weird alumni allegiance thing). As it happens, this mechanism mostly benefits the wealthy (and predominantly white) folks.

[MSC]

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective. Depends on who you ask.

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 😆 

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

As long as you are not discriminating against protected groups, you can hire pretty much anyone you wish.

The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not socioeconomic groups ought to be protected too. 

17 hours ago, zapatos said:

Many companies have such policies although they are not compelled to do so.

Should they be compelled to do so? 

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, MSC said:

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. 

Well, that makes it easy then. When you ask "Am I wrong to pick the rich one?", simply look at the 'objective measure of right and wrong' and you'll have your answer. 

20 minutes ago, MSC said:

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. 

 

As it stands, we live in a society that behaves as if there is NO objective measure of right and wrong. The evidence for this is the diametrically opposed views on abortion, the death penalty, BLM, Trans rights, war, gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, taking kids from their parents at the border, hunting for sport, fishing for sport, the zoo, veganism, gender affirming care, and a list too long to post here.

31 minutes ago, MSC said:

The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not socioeconomic groups ought to be protected too. 

I thought I gave a direct answer to your direct question. Perhaps you wanted me to answer that 'laws' could stop you?

To answer your question "should socioeconomic class be a protected characteristic?" my answer is:

No - In private enterprise.

Yes - in government hires, along with all other characteristics such as hair color, politics, etc. All decisions on hiring and firing should be based on performance.

[TheVat]

18 hours ago, MSC said:

 

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?

 

Seems to me a central problem here would be defining poverty and its causal powers.  While economic disadvantage can lead to learning disadvantage (home has fewer books and other cultural amenities, parents have less disposable income for music lessons, travel, etc), it is by no means certain.  Mom could be a poet who reads to the kids every night and pushes creative writing and books and so on.  Dad could be a champion of work ethic and showing kids all sorts of skills around the house.   The examples are endless.  And a wealthy family could have a child who is lazy, entitled, and opts to goof off.  

You really need to look at the individual and try to get a sense of how they respond to challenges.  Bias arises from the ignorant application of broad categories to individual human beings.  So it's never justified.

[MSC]

41 minutes ago, zapatos said:

As it stands, we live in a society that behaves as if there is NO objective measure of right and wrong. The evidence for this is the diametrically opposed views on abortion, the death penalty, BLM, Trans rights, war, gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, taking kids from their parents at the border, hunting for sport, fishing for sport, the zoo, veganism, gender affirming care, and a list too long to post here.

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?

54 minutes ago, zapatos said:

simply look at the 'objective measure of right and wrong' and you'll have your answer. 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

To answer your question "should socioeconomic class be a protected characteristic?" my answer is:

No - In private enterprise.

Why not in private enterprise?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Since most sides are still claiming their views to be correct, they are still behaving as if there is an objective measure.

I see your point. Although how can you conclude they are behaving as if there is an objective measure? Why not conclude they are behaving as if they just want their world to function in a way that is preferable to them for whatever personal reasons?

If I have a piece of land that you want to take by eminent domain, we are both taking a stand not based on an objective measure of right and wrong, but on what is in our own best interests.

1 hour ago, MSC said:

So again, why do you believe that morality and ethics are subjective?

Primarily because they are created by man and do not flow from some fundamental property of the universe.

 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Why not in private enterprise?

Because in private enterprise I believe I should have certain rights (within limits) to behave as I wish. To me 'socioeconomic class' does not rise to the level of superseding my rights.

[Peterkin]

21 hours ago, MSC said:

Let's say I'm an employer or a decision maker for college admissions

Those two decisions can't be considered together: your criteria would be different. As an employer, you would want someone who is productive in a particular task, takes  or gives direction effectively (depending on the position) and is well suited to the work environment. In a college, all you need to know is whether a prospective student can pay the fees and won't make disciplinary problems.  If they're specially talented in some competitive endeavor, the fees may not be important. 

21 hours ago, MSC said:

What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me? 

Nothing but plain self-interest. Rich people don't need employment; if they don't like an assignment, they can tell you where to stick your job. As an employer, you're far better off with people who depend on you for their living.   

21 hours ago, MSC said:

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. 

Usually, an admissions board. Usually, the college has a policy regarding how various aspects of an application are rated. By the time it's down to the admissions director, the students under final consideration rarely have only that single point of difference. When they do, the rich one gets the slot - unless there is a quota to fill.

21 hours ago, MSC said:

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? 

Thee wouldn't be any point. If you're hiring for show, the applicant who presents the more appealing front - whether in good looks, couture, manners or charm - is expected to win.  No outside agency can make a valid ruling on whether income was the deciding factor in such a case.

21 hours ago, MSC said:

Should there be some kind of affirmative action for those with a long family history of poverty? 

Yes, but not at the college or employment intake level. Intervention has to be much earlier.

21 hours ago, MSC said:

Does socioeconomic class provide any kind of reliable indicator of competency or work ethic?

No.

21 hours ago, MSC said:

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?

'Wrong' is too subjective; it can be explained, but not justified or compared. If you choose on the basis of prejudice, rather than a test of how well either candidate fits the specific position, you will ultimately penalize yourself.   

Law-making is not based on any 'objective' standard of right and wrong, but on the values of a society as expressed in its constitution and interpreted by its judiciary - with some clumsy and often counterproductive intercession by a legislature. 

[MSC]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I see your point. Although how can you conclude they are behaving as if there is an objective measure?

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. 

21 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because in private enterprise I believe I should have certain rights (within limits) to behave as I wish. To me 'socioeconomic class' does not rise to the level of superseding my rights.

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. 

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Law-making is not based on any 'objective' standard of right and wrong, but on the values of a society as expressed in its constitution and interpreted by its judiciary - with some clumsy and often counterproductive intercession by a legislature. 

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.

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

But right and wrong are values

No, they are not. They are the designations given to what is valued at one end of the good - bad scale, and what is rejected or despised, on the other.

 

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Ultimately there were decisions made about what a societies values were in order to draw up said constitution, for each society/culture.

Decisions were made according to the values, principles, convictions and beliefs of the persons drafting the document  (what they considered to be right and wrong, plus a number of compromises, elisions and pragmatic concessions), then amended by later generations, where the original value system changed over time, (yes, possibly due to new information, or a change in the economic conditions, or a shift in demographics or because the original was couched in language that was clear to those like-minded persons, but became obscure to their heirs who think differently.)

16 minutes ago, MSC said:

Those intercessions could be interpreted as moral disagreements over time with say founders and contemporaries

In some cases, yes. In some cases, there may be motives not remotely connected to a morality.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[swansont]

22 hours ago, MSC said:

What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me? 

How does this come up in the hiring process?

 

[MigL]

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

23 hours ago, MSC said:

What is to stop me from deciding only rich people can work for me? 

How does this come up in the hiring process?

And what makes you think a rich person would want to work for you ?

As for College/university admission, the only hurdle is tuition; if you can afford that ( and are qualified ) you are in.
Your social status never even comes up, and is not rquired to be disclosed.
( or am I thinking Canada, and not US ? )
Although that hurdle is becoming higher and higher.

And yes, people have received jail time for 'buying' their kids way into prestigious schools.
( Lori Loughlin and her husband )

[CharonY]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

And yes, people have received jail time for 'buying' their kids way into prestigious schools.
( Lori Loughlin and her husband )

Actually buying is legal, but it is just so much more costly to do it properly. Why they went to jail is because instead of official donations they basically bribed their way to fake scores and fabricated athletic profiles. AFAIK Canada does not have a legacy system, but I would not be surprised if the student background plays into admissions. 

[MSC]

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does this come up in the hiring process?

 

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.

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Seems to me a central problem here would be defining poverty and its causal powers.  While economic disadvantage can lead to learning disadvantage (home has fewer books and other cultural amenities, parents have less disposable income for music lessons, travel, etc), it is by no means certain.  Mom could be a poet who reads to the kids every night and pushes creative writing and books and so on.  Dad could be a champion of work ethic and showing kids all sorts of skills around the house.   The examples are endless.  And a wealthy family could have a child who is lazy, entitled, and opts to goof off.  

You really need to look at the individual and try to get a sense of how they respond to challenges.  Bias arises from the ignorant application of broad categories to individual human beings.  So it's never justified.

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?

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

And what makes you think a rich person would want to work for you ?

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. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

No, they are not. They are the designations given to what is valued at one end of the good - bad scale, and what is rejected or despised, on the other.

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?

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Thee wouldn't be any point. If you're hiring for show, the applicant who presents the more appealing front - whether in good looks, couture, manners or charm - is expected to win.  No outside agency can make a valid ruling on whether income was the deciding factor in such a case.

"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. 

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Decisions were made according to the values, principles, convictions and beliefs of the persons drafting the document

And where did those values, principles, convictions and beliefs come from? Of the person's drafting the document I mean.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In some cases, there may be motives not remotely connected to a morality.

Most cases probably. The same could be true of constitution writers too. The struggle is real 😆 ethics vs pure self-interest.

[Peterkin]

39 minutes ago, MSC said:

Is the scale any good though?

On what value-scale? People have them. Individually and collectively, people prize some things, some ideas, some character traits, some goals, some behaviours, and despise, reject or vilify others. Everyone's scale is slightly different, which is why societies have to use some mean or consensus - unless they're dictatorships of some kind, in which case one person's or institution's values are imposed on the whole society.

39 minutes ago, MSC said:

positive and negative values tend to be a fundamental tool within the moral toolkit

Tend to be?? They are the very foundation of any system of morality, and every legal code.

39 minutes ago, MSC said:

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.

They would lose. One office joker's opinion is not a preponderance of evidence. Catty remarks generally do not constitute a legal case. (No, not even if you could get such a rider to some 1200-page omnibus bill with lots of tax exemptions in it past the conservative faction.) They might fare better in a civil suit for income loss and damages, but then, you would have to prove that the plaintiff had better qualifications than the person who was ultimately hired, as well as more expensive clothes (this alone would be difficult to prove retroactively) - and you got an all-poor jury in Walmart wardrobes. Where two applicants are equal in all other respects, no law can stop the employer choosing the person he likes more, even if it's only for their taste in clothes. 

 

39 minutes ago, MSC said:

And where did those values, principles, convictions and beliefs come from? Of the person's drafting the document I mean.

*sigh!* The same places yours and mine and Putin's come from: inclination, nurture, education, religion, culture, historical period, class, personal experience, reading, reflection, discussion. The more background people share, the closer resemblance their belief-systems tend to bear. (In this case, 'tend' is correct, since there are always some deviations from a cultural and temporal norm, even among peers.)   

 

39 minutes ago, MSC said:

The same could be true of constitution writers too.

[as legislators] Only, when people are are in a position to draft a national constitution, they have far less to gain or lose than temporary elected officials; they have the luxury of a longer view.

Edited March 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[MSC]

13 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They are the very foundation of any system of morality, and every legal code.

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 😆 

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They would lose. One office joker's opinion is not a preponderance of evidence. Catty remarks generally do not constitute a legal case. (No, not even if you could get such a rider to some 1200-page omnibus bill with lots of tax exemptions in it past the conservative faction.)

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.

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

No, not even if you could get such a rider to some 1200-page omnibus bill with lots of tax exemptions in it past the conservative faction.

Not really sure what this means to be honest.

24 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

On what value-scale? People have them. Individually and collectively, people prize some things, some ideas, some character traits, some goals, some behaviours, and despise, reject or vilify others. Everyone's scale is slightly different, which is why societies have to use some mean or consensus - unless they're dictatorships of some kind, in which case one person's or institution's values are imposed on the whole society.

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!

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, MSC said:

Well, value theory specifically is the foundation. More so than any named value...

People had values long before they had theories. It's a simple concept: whatever is regarded as contributing to the welfare of the individual or collective slides up toward the good end of the value scale; whatever is perceived as detrimental slides down toward the bad end.

 

33 minutes ago, MSC said:

More so than any named value...

I didn't name any specific things, ideas and traits that people value. It depends on their circumstances. 

 

35 minutes ago, MSC said:

the value of value

is like the colour or colours or the number of numbers metaesthetically and metamathematically respectively

36 minutes ago, MSC said:

Why would socioeconomic group be any different if it was explicitly a protected characteristic?

Because it's a whole lot harder to prove than gender and ethnicity.

 

37 minutes ago, MSC said:

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

No, not even if you could get such a rider to some 1200-page omnibus bill with lots of tax exemptions in it past the conservative faction.

Not really sure what this means to be honest.

Means you could never pass the law, even if you tried to conceal it something that a large faction usually votes for. Just like you can't give a cat pills hidden in tuna or a vegetarian a piece of steak under a pile of spinach: they eat around it.

 

40 minutes ago, MSC said:

Would you consider throwing out the word scale and replacing it with spectrum? 

Not really. Spectrum would introduce another dimension and make it too nebulous.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Means you could never pass the law, even if you tried to conceal it something that a large faction usually votes for. Just like you can't give a cat pills hidden in tuna or a vegetarian a piece of steak under a pile of spinach: they eat around it.

I wonder how many other laws that have passed, have had this said about them.

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

is like the colour or colours or the number of numbers metaesthetically and metamathematically respectively

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Not really. Spectrum would introduce another dimension and make it too nebulous.

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?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

People had values long before they had theories. It's a simple concept: whatever is regarded as contributing to the welfare of the individual or collective slides up toward the good end of the value scale; whatever is perceived as detrimental slides down toward the bad end.

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. 

 

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

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. 

It my be coherent, but it's also a useless, self-pleasuring question. 

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

It certainly would make moral discussion more complex and difficult, but if that is what the subject requires, how can it be avoided?

I disagree that the subject requires that, or any other obfuscation.

10 minutes ago, MSC said:

I like to value the challenge of it.

So? If value doesn't exist or matter.... who cares?

11 minutes ago, MSC said:

. Scales and spectrums can be thought of as tools, how sure are you that scales is the correct one to utilize here?

Sure enough to prefer the former.

12 minutes ago, MSC said:

I never suggested they [people] didn't [have values before they had theories].

Yes, you kind of did.

 

2 hours ago, MSC said:

value theory specifically is the foundation [of morality and legal codes]

In fact, there were a great many moral precepts and laws long before anybody made a theory about them. 

15 minutes ago, MSC said:

What is the good though?

Just is part of being a social species. Part of our operating system.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It my be coherent, but it's also a useless, self-pleasuring question.

No it isn't. 

 

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I disagree that the subject requires that, or any other obfuscation.

Well you've yet to convince me it does not require that.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

So? If value doesn't exist or matter.... who cares?

Not something I believe. Therefore I care. As do a great many others. If you don't, then why are you commenting?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, you kind of did.

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. 😆 

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, MSC said:

If there is something about my answers you don't understand, ask clarifying questions.

I don't think that will be necessary, thank you.