Printable View
You're initial post was about Religion. As a known and avowed atheist - you made the discussion primarily about religion. I'm sure it is understandable that the conversation would further revolve around that topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Any conversation about religion with people who actually believe in their own becomes a peeing contest.
I think your post indirectly answers my question.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No, my original post was about legal discrimination of women and the false assumption that Islam was mainly to blame for that. In fact, as I wrote, the report shows that religion as such (any denomination) takes second place after poverty as an obvious determinant.
Maybe the fact that religion is mentioned in a post is enough for some members to assume that it is about religion, even if said post explicitly denies this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
It's the Backroom Certainty Principle. All threads will eventually devolve into religious, firearm...or something else disputes, can't remember.
You're thinking of abortion.
Anyway, I'm personnally fed up with religion being blamed for all the social problems throughout history. Especially given the secular hellhole I live in.
.
You're not alone. :end:
.
Your original contention was that empiricism should allow us to close in on the truth, the truth presumably being that all people should be treated equally. Tuff's response was that the assumption that all people should be treated equally is entirely separate from empiricism, and is a value judgment, whether its origins are in religion or a secular human ethic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Empirically we find innumerable differences between individuals. It is not logical to assume that because people are different, they should be treated the same. If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment. And one which, at least in terms of gender, seems more prevalent in prosperous and developed societies than in more poor and primitive ones (with a possible exception for nonsedentary cultures, as previously referenced).
Ajax
I don't believe in equality because we are the same (we aren't).
I believe in equality for the same actions.
Being paid the same based on the market regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same output.
Having the same justice regardless of ones sex, race or religion for the exact same crime.
Equal rights for equal actions.
It is either based on a superlative or it is a fleeting ideology (secular "ethics"). It clashes with reality and is rarely practiced to boot. No two people do the same job and the market is dictated by too many things to start giving out its own equal wages. Who do you know that is paid at the same rate as their co-workers? I am paid an extra 7k for doing a crappier job where I'm am because I fought for it harder for it in the interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Equality is a religious idea that is incompatible with a secular utilitarian society. I've read books on secular ethics - they add up more poorly than religious arguements to me. But that's just me - a salesman with a bachelors in history.
Would you be comfortable buying something at a store and going up to a counter and then they look at you and go. Well dude, since you are a dude its 20% extra.
I think that we can all agree that ideally people should be treated the same based on their actions. The reality will always be different and randomised. What it should not be is stratified by sex, race or religion.
BTW
Shows that your actions were different and a different outcome occurred.Quote:
I am paid an extra 7k for doing a crappier job where I'm am because I fought for it harder for it in the interview.
Why shouldn't it be stratified by race, sex or religion? Just because it is the flavor of the week (an admittedly long week), the historical rule is otherwise. In fact, many people might not like to be paid the same for the same job. They might get around the equal pay dogma with neat tricks like complimenting the boss, having a penis, reciting the Koran the most professionally, having the lightest skin in the office, etc. Why shouldn't those things get you more money? Details and personality make the difference in pay in the real world, maybe not in the secular egalitarian fantasy world, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
:jawdrop: Tell me that was a joke, Tuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
1/2Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
I just don't see how you (not you, anyone) can legitimately defend egalitarianism from a secular point of view unless you (not you) are lazy or weak - or if you think you are a white knight. I get the theory, but the reality is that some people are better than others and will earn more for the same job.
Religion makes men equal. Without it, men are obviously not equal - unless you are misleading yourself for a greater good (which tends to be derived from religious understandings whether you like it or not).
I believe in secular morality only as the half-life of religious ethics that haven't completely died out yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
I don't see how it could be interpreted that empiricism should lead us to that people are equal, that is certainly not empiricism. In the context I wrote it, it merely suggested that instead of just saying "women do worse as leaders compared to men" and stick to it, one should test the hypothesis and see if it is true. That is empiricism.
But most differences are irrelevant in most contexts. Some people got blue eyes, others brown and some green or grey. It has zero impact on how people should be treated. However, when you are going to find the best person for a job, you do not treat them all equally, you judge them by their qualifications. Here, empiricism enters the stage. One could treat them unequally not only based on their qualifications, but also because of their skin colour, gender et cetera. For 100 years ago, a "coloured" man running as a a president candidate would haven been ridiculed by most. Yet today it is possible; and by what other means than more or less empiric methods has it become so?Quote:
Empirically we find innumerable differences between individuals. It is not logical to assume that because people are different, they should be treated the same. If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment. And one which, at least in terms of gender, seems more prevalent in prosperous and developed societies than in more poor and primitive ones (with a possible exception for nonsedentary cultures, as previously referenced).
Ajax
That doesn't only sound utilitarian, but also authoritarian; and it implies that the best society for everyone is the one where the smartest are in charge, but why would it be so? I don't see how that is empiric, as what one define as the best society is semantics in many ways.Quote:
If your empiricist schema were utilitarian, I imagine the strong people should be given tasks requiring strength, the charismatic should be leaders, the creative artists, and so on. If the schema were more opportunist, the smartest and strongest would simply be in charge and tell others what to do. This is not equal treatment. It is a separate, and ethical, impulse that everyone should receive equal treatment.
That is not at all true. It highly depends on how one interpret the wholy texts. Apparently, the afro-American were not equal to other men until the late 20th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Like I've said before, Tuff, you would benefit from reading some leftie propaganda. You'll find a dozen reasons as to why people are equal and should be treated equally. And none of them bear even a hint of religion...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
And no, I don't mean Leninist madness, try steering towards some contemporary socialist/socioliberal thinkers...
Reward based on merit. You get raised and educated, after wich you succeed or fail depending on your effort and ability, or lack thereof. This is not only the fair way to go, but also the most sensible from an economic perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Like what?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Looking back through your posts in the thread, it is clear that I misinterpreted your meaning. You have my apologies. Let me just say that while empiricism may lead us to treat people differently without necessarily being discriminatory, it does not preclude discrimination. We have in addition to it an ethical framework which tells us everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities in spite of some of the natural ingroup/outgroup lines we face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Ajax
:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaxfetish
I can agree to that to a certain extent.
Well, let's see...Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
First off, how does one determine how people should be treated, who gets the special treatment?
Should you determine it by birth? Inheritance? Merit?
Birth would be the most ridiculous, ie. the caste system. That doesn't even attempt to judge a persons qualifications.
Hereditary privileges makes a bit more sense, but it is essentially the same stuff as the caste system.
So we're left with merit. I guess that was what you were aiming at in the first place, right? A meritocracy is of course a great idea? But while we judge by how much a person has achieved, how can we know how much they will achieve in the future? Two examples...
1. Donald Trump, 1989. A bankrupt loser. If you were to judge him by merit, you'd have him work as the village idiot. 2008, Donald Trump is among the richest people of the world again.
2. A drug-addict. Well, 10 years ago he was an addict. At that time, he was "scum", and in the society you envision, he probably wouldn't even be alive. In this society, however, he fought back his addiction, and now runs his own business, hiring ex-addicts like himself. Last time I heard about his company, he had 15 employees. I'd estimate that he's making somewhere around 100.000 USD a year. But who knew that 10 years ago?
The problem is that these examples are the exception rather than the rule. Even in a system with hereditary power or inheritance, powerful figures can still arise.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I beg to differ. Most of the super-rich guys in this country have next to no education and worker backgrounds. For example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
* Olav Thon - 20 billion in 2007 - a farmers son. Originally supposed to study, but didn't.
* Kjell Inge Røkke - 19.8 billion in 2007 - Uneducated fisherman
* Svein Erik Bakke - deceased, fortune unknown, but he was one of the tops - A former school outcast. Started working at the age of 17.
* John Fredriksen - 55,5 billion - Uneducated with worker background.
* Odd Reitan - 15 billion - worker background, though educated at a trade school
I think there might be a small difference between people who grew up poor and people who squandered their life thsu far by becoming drug addicts...
Take a look at my second example. Or the current president of the united states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
People can change. And we have absolutely no way of knowing who will contribute the most to society in the future. The drug addict may clean up and start a million dollar business, the industrial tycoon may be spend 10 years in the slammer for ruining his company by tax fraud or similar. Thus, it's in our own interest to make sure that everyone has equal opportunities.