💾 Archived View for zaibatsu.circumlunar.space › ~solderpunk › phlog › discrimination-and-philosophy… captured on 2020-09-24 at 01:48:22.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Discrimination and philosophy of mind ------------------------------------- There was an interesting exchange recently between visiblink and yargo [1,2,3] on the subject of what does or does not make it okay to make fun of someone. I am going to dramatically escelate this discussion well beyond where I imagine either author wanted it taken, because, well, why not? :p Reference was made to the idea, relatively common, I think, that it's okay to criticise people for their beliefs and ideas because those are under the person's direct and conscious control, and thus they are responsible for them, but that it's not okay to criticise somebody for their physical appearance because that's not a matter of choice or something they can change, and is utlimately out of their control. This philosophy is pretty sensible on the face of it and I am not surprised that many people probably thought like this last century. In 2019, if you look closely enough, this argument is actually straining at the seams, and badly. The reason is that in the last decade or two, Western society has embraced materialistic philosophy of mind[4]. Not explicitly, of course. Most people have never heard of the idea, and if you describe it to them I think many people would actually explicitly *reject* it as cold-hearted reductionism. But actions speak louder than words and here are some facts: if you try to publically argue in 2019 that somebody who is seriously and reguarly depressed, or never able to focus their attention on something, or is incredibly anxious about routine interactions, needs to simply grit their teeth and cheer up, or try harder - basically try in any way to change their mental state through the application of force of will or through rational thought - you will be condemned as a dinosaur, and told something like "mental illness is real", and that people can't "just snap out of" depression etc. because these mental states are the consequence of some chemical inbalance in the brain which can only be treated with SSRIs or similar medication. However, if somebody were to claim that they couldn't, through force of will or following a rational line of argument, snap themselves without chemical assistance out of being sexist or racist or homophobic, the very idea would be considered intrinsically offensive, or at least ridiculous, and no public commentator would dare to be seen as giving it even the slightest bit of credence. This is, of course, having your cake and eating it too. If you really believe that nothing happens inside the human skull which violates the natural laws which hold everywhere outside of it - and how can our brain scanning, mental illness diagnosing, drug prescribing society coherently reject this notion? - then the whole idea of people bearing moral responsibility for their beliefs seems no more well-founded than people bearing moral responsibility for their appearance. Where does this leave us on the question of who is fair game for mockery by comedians? Well, what makes you think comedians have conscious control of who they make fun of? :p [1] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~visiblink/phlog/20190117 [2] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~yargo/clog/yr-joking-about-others.txt [3] gopher://zaibatsu.circumlunar.space:70/0/~visiblink/phlog/20190118 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism