"utilitarianism isn't fair" and other myths

[Formless]

Because I've seen certain criticisms of utilitarian morality come up so often I decided to make a rant about it.

Take this gem for example:

It doesn't take account of the 'fairness' of the result

We cannot predict every outcome of an event. Simple forms of consequentialism say that the best action is the one that produces the largest total of happiness.

This ignores the way in which that happiness is shared out and so would seem to approve of acts that make most people happy, and a few people very unhappy, or that make a few people ecstatically happy and leave the majority at best neutral.

I'm not calling out the BBC here: I actually came across a link to this article in a blog post where someone was trying to claim that professional ethics are and should be deontological in nature. By their own say-so, of course. But lets think about this for a second. What does utilitarianism actually say?

Everyone ideally is entitled to "happiness" or "avoidance of suffering". That's to put it in its most general terms (note that the BBC oversimplified it in said article). Notice the word EVERYONE. That is the ideal: we are all human, we are all equal. That's the assumption at work. Why then do "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"?

Its because the world isn't ideal. It isn't perfect. It isn't fair. If it were, we wouldn't need ethics or morality in the first place!

To put it another way. You can make all of the people happy some of the time, and some of the people happy all of the time, but you cannot make all of the people happy all of the time. We may try, but no one has yet managed.

Accepting this fact does not make us utilitarians any less fair either in our ideals or in practice. Is =! ought.

Another one I have come to loath is the idea that somehow "subjectivity" is a problem. The BBC article has a couple of variations on it. Hate to break it to people, but to an alien observer studying humans our similarities outweigh our differences. We may have slightly different cultures and we may govern ourselves differently through time and space, but in the end we all have the same basic needs.

For that matter, what the hell is "subjectivity" anyway? If we mean that different people have different opinions and priorities (as we usually do when talking about it) then we do not have to accept a black and white world view here. Our opinions differ by degrees; we can thus place society's values and priorities based on the averages. The similarities outweigh the differences.

Another one: that utilitarianism is "impractical." Compared to remembering and juggling dozens of different laws and rules that apply to some situations and not others? Give me a break! A utilitarian has a few, very simple goals to keep in mind and the logic flows from that. Its no different than the logic we use to evaluate how we want to go about getting certain things from the store, say, or deciding that a specific career would suit you best. Its just goal based logic applied to human interactions; there is nothing difficult about it.

A subset of the above: that somehow its hard and/or unprofitable to predict the consequences of our actions. Uh, yeah, what happened to the sciences? We make true predictions all the time. We do research that doesn't on first glance look profitable all the time. We don't have to research every little situation that comes our way because we already have experience and research to draw upon in similar situations.

Some of those criticisms can get especially egregious, to the point where the critic almost seems to think that Utilitarians all suffer from anterograde amnesia. Furthermore, people don't need to be moral Renaissance Men. Some people can be the experts in a certain field and the moral considerations related to it, others can do other things with their life. Society often works like that, and it works quite well.


What are your guys' least favorite attacks on utilitarianism?

[Bottlestein]

The bullshit "Kill one guy to save everyone else on the bus" hypothetical.
Because, you know, that's a realistic scenario and all other moral codes we have all handle made-up scenarios perfectly. And, the people who object based on that scenario totally do not think we should have police or military...

I mean, if they just made claims that they did not believe to sound self-righteous, what kind of person would they be ??

[Aranfan]

Utilitarianism is bad not because it isn't fair, but because it is too fair. It is "dehumanizing" I think the term is. It treats all humans as functionally interchangeable and identical happiness/unhappiness meters. Yet Formless isn't the same as, say, Jack Chick. What makes Jack Chick happy, won't necessarily make Formless Happy. Likewise, Formless would likely consider reading Dawkins not suffering, but Jack Chick would say he suffered just from Dawkins being in the world.

[Formless]

Utilitarianism is bad not because it isn't fair, but because it is too fair. It is "dehumanizing" I think the term is. It treats all humans as functionally interchangeable and identical happiness/unhappiness meters. Yet Formless isn't the same as, say, Jack Chick. What makes Jack Chick happy, won't necessarily make Formless Happy. Likewise, Formless would likely consider reading Dawkins not suffering, but Jack Chick would say he suffered just from Dawkins being in the world.

Jack Chick I'm sure would deny that Richard Dawkins is deserving of anything-- scratch that, he almost certainly believes Dawkins is going to Hell. Why should I set my moral standards by what Jack Chick believes? "Dehumanizing" someone is precisely what Utilitarianism doesn't do. Its dehumanizing to say that someone deserves to be treated differently than everyone else based on what they cannot control. It is NOT dehumanizing to say everyone has a similar capacity for pain-- its the polar opposite in fact. I don't know what you think it means to be human, and frankly I'm in no hurry to find out.

[Aranfan]

Utilitarianism is bad not because it isn't fair, but because it is too fair. It is "dehumanizing" I think the term is. It treats all humans as functionally interchangeable and identical happiness/unhappiness meters. Yet Formless isn't the same as, say, Jack Chick. What makes Jack Chick happy, won't necessarily make Formless Happy. Likewise, Formless would likely consider reading Dawkins not suffering, but Jack Chick would say he suffered just from Dawkins being in the world.

Jack Chick I'm sure would deny that Richard Dawkins is deserving of anything-- scratch that, he almost certainly believes Dawkins is going to Hell. Why should I set my moral standards by what Jack Chick believes? "Dehumanizing" someone is precisely what Utilitarianism doesn't do. Its dehumanizing to say that someone deserves to be treated differently than everyone else based on what they cannot control. It is NOT dehumanizing to say everyone has a similar capacity for pain-- its the polar opposite in fact. I don't know what you think it means to be human, and frankly I'm in no hurry to find out.

Yet, so long as Jack Chick is alive, his perspective is part of that averaging you mentioned. Therefor, you must include Jack Chick's standards as a viable and valid view in your utilitarian calculation.

Edit: So it is humanizing to say every should be treated exactly the same as everybody else?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yet, so long as Jack Chick is alive, his perspective is part of that averaging you mentioned. Therefor, you must include Jack Chick's standards as a viable and valid view in your utilitarian calculation.

Edit: So it is humanizing to say every should be treated exactly the same as everybody else?

That is why you use an average. To smooth over that individual variation in perspective. The vast majority of people would not find torture to be a pleasant experience. A small percentage might like it, but as a rule, torture is bad. Is it dehumanizing to people who like being tortured that we make torturing someone against their will a crime? No.

[Formless]

Yet, so long as Jack Chick is alive, his perspective is part of that averaging you mentioned. Therefor, you must include Jack Chick's standards as a viable and valid view in your utilitarian calculation.

Not really. For starters, if someone is a sadist they don't get averaged because they are not representative of a sane mind. They are outliers, in statistics speak. There are other such states of being that can similarly be disregarded. In Jack Chick's case, though he may not be a sadist, his beliefs are based in an epistemologically unsound proposition. Lets say that I promise someone a reward of large cash value if they do a certain thing. The promise is a lie: I do not have that money. However, the person does not know this. So they act thinking that that reward is theirs. The consequences of following my request is that they chase after a lie, wasting time and effort. Furthermore, if what I ask of them requires them to hurt others (say If you are being hired to assassinate someone) the utility is not only zero, its negative. This is roughly what Jack "hate everyone but God" Chick is like.

It is also possible for someone to be wrong about their own preferences, or to mis-evaluate what will make them happy. Buyers remorse and shortsightedness are both valid possibilities. I'm sure that were Jack Chick to find out for sure that there is no god and no heaven he'll regret wasting his life. (or more likely he'll deny whats in front of his face: this is Jack Chick we're talking about)

So I ask you: what makes Jack Chick's opinion special? He is so far from the average that its going to distort the average to even include him in the analysis. He only gets one vote, if we are to use an analogy with democracy, not ten just because he happens to be that much more loud. And his beliefs are out of touch with reality, including what will most likely make him happy as well. He's wasting his own breath, and a waste of ours to even talk about him.

dit: So it is humanizing to say every should be treated exactly the same as everybody else?

Exactly the same? No. Treat them according to their merits. What, do we all have to be unique little snowflakes in order to be human? Clearly, no, in fact we wouldn't be human at all at that point.

[Aranfan]

. Its dehumanizing to say that someone deserves to be treated differently than everyone else based on what they cannot control.

A person born a cripple cannot control their cripplehood, are you here saying that they should be given the same responsibilities and saddled with the same expectations as if they were hale and healthy?

[Formless]

. Its dehumanizing to say that someone deserves to be treated differently than everyone else based on what they cannot control.

A person born a cripple cannot control their cripplehood, are you here saying that they should be given the same responsibilities and saddled with the same expectations as if they were hale and healthy?

Okay, let me clarify for the pedantic among us. Its dehumanizing to treat people differently for trivial shit like the color of their skin or the nation of their birth that they cannot control. We treat cripples differently only to compensate them for it. In fact, if you've ever met a cripple you would know they want responsibility just as much as anyone else.

[Aranfan]

. Its dehumanizing to say that someone deserves to be treated differently than everyone else based on what they cannot control.

A person born a cripple cannot control their cripplehood, are you here saying that they should be given the same responsibilities and saddled with the same expectations as if they were hale and healthy?

Okay, let me clarify for the pedantic. Its dehumanizing to treat people differently for trivial shit like the color of their skin or the nation of their birth that they cannot control. We treat cripples differently only to compensate them for it. In fact, if you've ever met a cripple you would know they want responsibility just as much as anyone else.

Okay, so our simple "treat everybody the same" rule has an exception. Excellent, now we are getting somewhere.


You say that humans are all alike, is that not similar to "all negros are alike" just on a larger scale?

[Formless]

No, you straw salesman. I said our similarities outweigh our differences, and that the things we can control are things over which which we legitimately treat others differently for. A criminal does not get the same treatment as other people out of necessity. However, remembering that this is not a black and white world, we still have an ethical obligation not to be cruel to them or arbitrarily torture them. You were complaining about how utilitarianism accepts that everyone has the same capacity for pain and pleasure (more or less). That does not equate to treating them the same. That means we give them the same consideration in calculating utility, nothing more and nothing less.

[Aranfan]

No, you straw salesman. I said our similarities outweigh our differences, and that the things we can control are things over which which we legitimately treat others differently for. A criminal does not get the same treatment as other people out of necessity. However, remembering that this is not a black and white world, we still have an ethical obligation not to be cruel to them or arbitrarily torture them. You were complaining about how utilitarianism accepts that everyone has the same capacity for pain and pleasure (more or less). That does not equate to treating them the same. That means we give them the same consideration in calculating utility, nothing more and nothing less.

Except for Jack Chick. Him we ignore cause he's a loony.


I didn't say we had different capacities for pain and pleasure, I said that what sets the happiness/unhappiness dial to a given level differs for each individual. Additionally, you can be having great fun even while being in pain, even without being a masochist. And pleasure can be boring as hell.

I, for one, refused to treat my cab driver today as a human. Instead I treated him as Mr. Iqbal. Just as I don't treat you as a human, but rather as You.

[Bakustra]

No, you straw salesman. I said our similarities outweigh our differences, and that the things we can control are things over which which we legitimately treat others differently for. A criminal does not get the same treatment as other people out of necessity. However, remembering that this is not a black and white world, we still have an ethical obligation not to be cruel to them or arbitrarily torture them. You were complaining about how utilitarianism accepts that everyone has the same capacity for pain and pleasure (more or less). That does not equate to treating them the same. That means we give them the same consideration in calculating utility, nothing more and nothing less.

Except for Jack Chick. Him we ignore cause he's a loony.


I didn't say we had different capacities for pain and pleasure, I said that what sets the happiness/unhappiness dial to a given level differs for each individual. Additionally, you can be having great fun even while being in pain, even without being a masochist. And pleasure can be boring as hell.

I, for one, refused to treat my cab driver today as a human. Instead I treated him as Mr. Iqbal. Just as I don't treat you as a human, but rather as You.

Empty, smug platitudes are not a convincing argument. If you are simply shit-stirring, your method is faulty. If you are being sincere... your method is also faulty.

[Aranfan]

Empty, smug platitudes are not a convincing argument. If you are simply shit-stirring, your method is faulty. If you are being sincere... your method is also faulty.

How are they empty? And, since I am sincere here, how is the method faulty?

[Bakustra]

Empty, smug platitudes are not a convincing argument. If you are simply shit-stirring, your method is faulty. If you are being sincere... your method is also faulty.

How are they empty? And, since I am sincere here, how is the method faulty?

They're empty because there's no real substance to them. It's just "Oh, I treat everybody as unique and special! ". This may be a good self-esteem building technique, but it offers little convincing substance. How does this affect your interactions with people? How do you treat people you don't know the names of? What differs this from utilitarianism? Why do you believe there is no commonality between humans, or, for non-humanistic utilitarianisms, sapients? These are all questions that the platitude cannot answer, and it is hollow because it falls apart under such stress.

The method is faulty for the same reason in both cases. Both trolling/shit-stirring and sincere argument can be used to provoke people into questioning their beliefs. Your method of doing so is to compare them with racists. No matter how sincere, this only provokes distaste for you and your arguments.

[Formless]

Except for Jack Chick. Him we ignore cause he's a loony.

Exactly. Glad we can come to an agreement on something.

I didn't say we had different capacities for pain and pleasure, I said that what sets the happiness/unhappiness dial to a given level differs for each individual.

Not as greatly as you would expect. Most people rate shit like starvation pretty fucking bad, even if they prefer different foods.

Additionally, you can be having great fun even while being in pain, even without being a masochist. And pleasure can be boring as hell.

Really. No. Boredom is stressful. The idea that you can get bored with pleasure is wrong by definition. You can get bored with pleasant stimuli, but not with pleasure.

I, for one, refused to treat my cab driver today as a human. Instead I treated him as Mr. Iqbal. Just as I don't treat you as a human, but rather as Formless.

I, for one, do not want to meet you in real life unless there are no sharp objects around you can hurt me with; I cannot rely on your understanding of me to tell you that I don't like being cut.

[Aranfan]

Empty, smug platitudes are not a convincing argument. If you are simply shit-stirring, your method is faulty. If you are being sincere... your method is also faulty.

How are they empty? And, since I am sincere here, how is the method faulty?

They're empty because there's no real substance to them. It's just "Oh, I treat everybody as unique and special! ". This may be a good self-esteem building technique, but it offers little convincing substance. How does this affect your interactions with people? How do you treat people you don't know the names of? What differs this from utilitarianism? Why do you believe there is no commonality between humans, or, for non-humanistic utilitarianisms, sapients? These are all questions that the platitude cannot answer, and it is hollow because it falls apart under such stress.

The method is faulty for the same reason in both cases. Both trolling/shit-stirring and sincere argument can be used to provoke people into questioning their beliefs. Your method of doing so is to compare them with racists. No matter how sincere, this only provokes distaste for you and your arguments.

I ask them their interests. It doesn't treat them like numbers. I don't say they have nothing in common, I say those commonalities are less important than those differences.

I call them racists because they stereotype people, and then make judgments based on that stereotype. Black Supremacists are every bit as racist as White Supremacists. More than a hundred years ago your people were slaves in the South? Less than that long ago my people were getting shoved into ovens in Dachau. Yet you weren't no slave, and I didn't get shoved into any oven.


Edit: Formless, where did I evidence any indication that I would find it pleasing to cut you?

[Formless]

Edit: Formless, where did I evidence any indication that I would find it pleasing to cut you?

Your own stated method of figuring out our preferences is to figure us out on an individual level. That only works when the person is someone you know very well, but it cannot work with strangers because you have not spent enough time with them to get to know them like that. I am a stranger...

See, the reason you know that I don't like being cut is because every other human being you have yet met had that preference. I was being humorous as a method of argumentation.

[Aranfan]

Edit: Formless, where did I evidence any indication that I would find it pleasing to cut you?

Your own stated method of figuring out our preferences is to figure us out on an individual level. That only works when the person is someone you know very well, but it cannot work with strangers because you have not spent enough time with them to get to know them like that. I am a stranger...

See, the reason you know that I don't like being cut is because every other human being you have yet met had that preference. I was being humorous as a method of argumentation.

Or, I could ask. You know, communication? As well, I will not stab you, not because you don't like to get stabbed, but because I don't like stabbing people.


Re: Pleasure/Boredom, no Formless. You don't get to redefine terms. Pleasure is commonly identified with pleasurable stimuli, I shall call it such.

[Formless]

Or, I could ask. You know, communication?

Laborious. If you have to ask everyone individually what they like and don't like, because you refuse to see the common patterns between humans, you cannot form a meaningful ethics system due to lack of information.

As well, I will not stab you, not because you don't like to get stabbed, but because I don't like stabbing people.

If this is the only thing keeping you from stabbing people you are very scary person indeed.

Re: Pleasure/Boredom, no Formless. You don't get to redefine terms. Pleasure is commonly identified with pleasurable stimuli, I shall call it such.

Only to people who are utterly dishonest anti-intellectual fucktards. You don't get to redefine gravity either just because you happen to disagree with modern physics. Professional definitions of scientific terms like "boredom" exist, deal with it or get out of this thread.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Except for Jack Chick. Him we ignore cause he's a loony.

We ignore his policy opinions because he is a loony who's opinions if implemented will cause a great deal of suffering. We are still obligated not to torture him.

I didn't say we had different capacities for pain and pleasure, I said that what sets the happiness/unhappiness dial to a given level differs for each individual.

Irrelevant. Those for most of the population can be averaged. Where there are significant differences, we can allow people to make their own choices. For example: One can imagine that people with cancer generally suffer a great deal. They experience pain, indignity, and existential angst pondering their own demise. We can then also imagine that lab rats, while they suffer, do not suffer as much. They do not have a concept of dignity, and are not smart enough to feel existential angst. As a result, it is acceptable to create Oncomice in the hopes of understanding the mechanism by which cancers function and thus find better ways to treat it and thus alleviate the suffering of cancer patients. particularly because we will painlessly euthanize the mice before the cancer progresses enough to cause them extreme discomfort.

Might someone like having cancer? I suppose, but do I really need to go around asking every cancer patient whether or not they enjoy it, or ask them to rate their suffering on a scale of 1-10? No. Might some people find the thought that they are going to die soon a sufficient reason to live life to the fullest and experience some of their lifelong dreams before they die? Sure. Should we not do cancer research? No. Because on its own, the cancerous condition is one that causes suffering, even if some people deal with it better than others.



Additionally, you can be having great fun even while being in pain, even without being a masochist. And pleasure can be boring as hell.

I, for one, refused to treat my cab driver today as a human. Instead I treated him as Mr. Iqbal. Just as I don't treat you as a human, but rather as You.

[Aranfan]

Or, I could ask. You know, communication?

Laborious. If you have to ask everyone individually what they like and don't like, because you refuse to see the common patterns between humans, you cannot form a meaningful ethics system due to lack of information.

I fail to see the problem with this. I interact with people I meet according to who they are, and don't interact with people I don't meet. I don't need a blueprint with how to deal with those people, because I don't deal with those people.

As well, I will not stab you, not because you don't like to get stabbed, but because I don't like stabbing people.

If this is the only thing keeping you from stabbing people you are very scary person indeed.

I have plenty of empathy and would very much dislike seeing small animals in pain. And I'm more likely to not stab others than people who don't do it because God or a Species Being told them not to.

Re: Pleasure/Boredom, no Formless. You don't get to redefine terms. Pleasure is commonly identified with pleasurable stimuli, I shall call it such.

Only to people who are utterly dishonest anti-intellectual fucktards. You don't get to redefine gravity either just because you happen to disagree with modern physics. Professional definitions of scientific terms like "boredom" exist, deal with it or get out of this thread.

If the Scientific definition of gravity doesn't include: stuff falls down, then it fails. What the masses say must be considered, if only for there to be meaningful communication between those who want to be scientists and current scientists.

[Formless]

I fail to see the problem with this. I interact with people I meet according to who they are, and don't interact with people I don't meet. I don't need a blueprint with how to deal with those people, because I don't deal with those people.

Lie. You deal with strangers all the time; store clerks, students, me. And yes, you and I are effectively strangers. We have never met in person. Yet you know I do not like being stabbed, without ever having had to ask me. Because I am a human, and whether you recognize it or not you know that other human beings do not like being stabbed as a general rule. You would be paralyzed to act without this skill, because it takes so damn long to establish someone's likes and dislikes through communication-- and that's assuming they even know themselves!

I have plenty of empathy and would very much dislike seeing small animals in pain. And I'm more likely to not stab others than people who don't do it because God or a Species Being told them not to.

Ah, backpedaling: the poor man's concession.

If the Scientific definition of gravity doesn't include: stuff falls down, then it fails. What the masses say must be considered, if only for there to be meaningful communication between those who want to be scientists and current scientists.

The masses also have a concept of time that was proven false by Einstein. If you want to have a discussion about relativity you must use the proper terminology. When you are talking about utilitarian ethics you must deal with human psychology, and thus must use proper terminology. You are barking up the wrong tree, troll.

[Bakustra]

They're empty because there's no real substance to them. It's just "Oh, I treat everybody as unique and special! ". This may be a good self-esteem building technique, but it offers little convincing substance. How does this affect your interactions with people? How do you treat people you don't know the names of? What differs this from utilitarianism? Why do you believe there is no commonality between humans, or, for non-humanistic utilitarianisms, sapients? These are all questions that the platitude cannot answer, and it is hollow because it falls apart under such stress.

The method is faulty for the same reason in both cases. Both trolling/shit-stirring and sincere argument can be used to provoke people into questioning their beliefs. Your method of doing so is to compare them with racists. No matter how sincere, this only provokes distaste for you and your arguments.

I ask them their interests. It doesn't treat them like numbers. I don't say they have nothing in common, I say those commonalities are less important than those differences.

I call them racists because they stereotype people, and then make judgments based on that stereotype. Black Supremacists are every bit as racist as White Supremacists. More than a hundred years ago your people were slaves in the South? Less than that long ago my people were getting shoved into ovens in Dachau. Yet you weren't no slave, and I didn't get shoved into any oven.


Edit: Formless, where did I evidence any indication that I would find it pleasing to cut you?

Why? Why are commonalities less important than differences? You love implying that anybody with a system of ethics is wrong, wrong, wrong with snide remarks, so I'll get down to your level and say that this is the Bart Simpson approach: "I do what I feel like." It also is just as racism-enabling as utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, as it relies on differentiating people and obsessing over those differences. "OMG this person has dark skin and is female I cannot relate to them", to mime your cute, adorable little comments.

Then you decide to rant about how we are all Black Supremacists or whatever, descending into some bizarre rant about something. Something stupid, I have no doubt, but I would love to discuss it... in another thread, please.

[Aranfan]

I fail to see the problem with this. I interact with people I meet according to who they are, and don't interact with people I don't meet. I don't need a blueprint with how to deal with those people, because I don't deal with those people.

Lie. You deal with strangers all the time; store clerks, students, me. And yes, you and I are effectively strangers. We have never met in person. Yet you know I do not like being stabbed, without ever having had to ask me. Because I am a human, and whether you recognize it or not you know that other human beings do not like being stabbed as a general rule. You would be paralyzed to act without this skill, because it takes so damn long to establish someone's likes and dislikes through communication-- and that's assuming they even know themselves!

We appear to be using different definitions of "meet". Because I have met you, if only over the internet. And the only reason I know you don't like being stabbed, is because you said you didn't. And I do ask after the names and interests of the store clerks I interact with, the students I interact with, and you.

I have plenty of empathy and would very much dislike seeing small animals in pain. And I'm more likely to not stab others than people who don't do it because God or a Species Being told them not to.

Ah, backpedaling: the poor man's concession.

I don't stab people, only because I don't like stabbing people. Because I have empathy. And it says right in the link that numerous psychologists think the current book definition doesn't concentrate enough on such factors as lack of empathy.

If the Scientific definition of gravity doesn't include: stuff falls down, then it fails. What the masses say must be considered, if only for there to be meaningful communication between those who want to be scientists and current scientists.

The masses also have a concept of time that was proven false by Einstein. If you want to have a discussion about relativity you must use the proper terminology. When you are talking about utilitarian ethics you must deal with human psychology, and thus must use proper terminology. You are barking up the wrong tree, troll.

The mass concept of time is "what change happens in". As well, utilitarian ethics predates psychology, so I can speak on it using folk psychology just like Bentham and Mill did.

They're empty because there's no real substance to them. It's just "Oh, I treat everybody as unique and special! ". This may be a good self-esteem building technique, but it offers little convincing substance. How does this affect your interactions with people? How do you treat people you don't know the names of? What differs this from utilitarianism? Why do you believe there is no commonality between humans, or, for non-humanistic utilitarianisms, sapients? These are all questions that the platitude cannot answer, and it is hollow because it falls apart under such stress.

The method is faulty for the same reason in both cases. Both trolling/shit-stirring and sincere argument can be used to provoke people into questioning their beliefs. Your method of doing so is to compare them with racists. No matter how sincere, this only provokes distaste for you and your arguments.

I ask them their interests. It doesn't treat them like numbers. I don't say they have nothing in common, I say those commonalities are less important than those differences.

I call them racists because they stereotype people, and then make judgments based on that stereotype. Black Supremacists are every bit as racist as White Supremacists. More than a hundred years ago your people were slaves in the South? Less than that long ago my people were getting shoved into ovens in Dachau. Yet you weren't no slave, and I didn't get shoved into any oven.


Edit: Formless, where did I evidence any indication that I would find it pleasing to cut you?

Why? Why are commonalities less important than differences? You love implying that anybody with a system of ethics is wrong, wrong, wrong with snide remarks, so I'll get down to your level and say that this is the Bart Simpson approach: "I do what I feel like." It also is just as racism-enabling as utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, as it relies on differentiating people and obsessing over those differences. "OMG this person has dark skin and is female I cannot relate to them", to mime your cute, adorable little comments.

Then you decide to rant about how we are all Black Supremacists or whatever, descending into some bizarre rant about something. Something stupid, I have no doubt, but I would love to discuss it... in another thread, please.

Differences are more important because I don't care much about the commonalities. I already know, intimately, what it is like to be human, and to say they are human tells me nothing about them as them, instead of them as me. I don't care about the human, or that they are human. I have a mom and a sister, so I don't care if someone is female, I know about "the female", I'm interested in, say, their taste in music. I have met black people, and interacting with other blacks as a black and a white has no more interest to me. The unique combination of qualities which make an individual, individual are interesting. What commonalities we have, I care only in as much as they facilitate communication.

Edit: My philosophy can't be hijacked to justify racism, to me, and I'm fine with that.

I did not rant about how You are a black supremacist, merely clarifying my position with regards to the lumping together of people by commonalities.