Science Ethics and Racism in Drug Enforcement Thread

I'll get to nobody's perfect in a few. I'm still trying to decipher the thought process that leads from "my child has autism" to "I'll squirt bleach up his ass. Can't hurt."

Iannis_sl said:

I'll get to nobody's perfect in a few. I'm still trying to decipher the thought process that leads from "my child has autism" to "I'll squirt bleach up his ass. Can't hurt."

Click to expand...

It was late a "few" ago mate! Am focken' pisst agin.

I think "thought process" is giving too much credit wherenoneis due. In fact, a punishment rather than credit is due here. ...Therearewarning signs on bleach bottles in the USA, right?

The argument -- that really doesn't need spelling out on this forum -- goes something like this: your child had no choice on whether he was born or not. You did. They are, due to inescapable factors, entirely dependant on you for survival and proper development. Since they cannot provide for themselves, and no-one else but you had the choice to have sex (yes, this means rape and deceit are special cases) and thus create this human being who has the same intrinsic worth* that every other human being has...

From Locke: your exercise of your liberty has caused this person with unalienable rights to exist. If you shirk your responsibilities as a parent, either your child's life, health, and liberty are less than they, as a human being, have a moral right to. Either the society as a whole or you as an individual ought to see to the needs of this child. Since you had immediate control over their existing, you have a moral obligation to provide for the child (so that their development follows the path of optimal development).

From Kant: providing as best you can for your child can, and indeed ought to be the universal maxim. Providing less than is optimal can obviously not be the rule everybody ought to follow. Thus it is every parent's obligation to provide optimally for their children.

From utilitarianism: human beings need good care to develop in good health. Unless letting children develop all kinds of malfunctions and suffer for them returns a greater utility than obligating parents with the care of their progeny, all parents have a responsibility to care for their children.

From Rawls: who, not knowing whether they were a child or a parent, would agree to the a member of a society where parents had no obligation to provide for their children as best they can?

As we can see, utilitarianism is the only one of these where we can make the conscious choice to sacrifice the well-being of children -- but this is contingent on showing greater utility from that choice. This situation of one theory of ethics allowing for different choices than others gives rise to ethical pluralism: the acknowledgement that what is ethically acceptable depends on which theory, which principles, we adopt. Now, the important thing to notice is that this has nothing to do with ethical relativism: relativism claims that ethics is just a matter of opinion, while pluralism means the acceptance that sometimes, following different principles means different concrete actions are the recommended choice.

Seeing that different, and widely recognised as hard to discredit**, ethical theories seem to point towards parents having a special obligation to see that their children are provided for and develop well, it follows that not taking the time to find out whether there is evidence that squirting a substance that has a warning sign on the bottle up their ass is helpful or harmful is neglecting a moral obligation, and thus not only not useful but alsowrong.(and ought to be punishable, if you ask me, but then, I'm very much pro children.)

DRUNKEDITED *I don't think you can argue plausibly that human beings *DO NOT HAVE* intrinsic worth - and now we run into a metaethical problem, what does it mean to have worth? It is something metaphysical or is it just shorthand for humans in general finding something to have worth? This isn't the forum or stat for that discussion. Because then I will reply that I don't see you as having any worth, and therefore, I should have the right to kill you if I can. Which is ridiculous. (Or, rather, depriving you of human value should be my right, if the circumstances make me have any power over you)

** we don't give these ethical theories special regard because they are famous: they are famous because we've had a devil of a time trying to discredit them!

And with that, I'm gonna get proper drunk and hope to God I'll not drunk post this time

More drunkposting!

Sorry, I impulse bought Riven and started installing it. Those nostalgia purchases.

But yeah, we do have a habit of talking past each other around here.

nobody's prefect_sl said:

*I don't think you can argue plausibly that human beings have intrinsic worth. Because then I will reply that I don't see you as having any worth, and therefore, I should have the right to kill you if I can. Which is ridiculous. (Or, rather, depriving you of human value should be my right, if the circumstances make me have any power over you)

Click to expand...

This makes zero sense to me.

Saying someone has intrinsic worth, doesn't seem to imply at all that if someone has power over a person, they should be able to take away that worth.

He missed a couple of steps on that one, I think. It seems a little like a mix of natural law and something else and kinda convoluted. And it's mixing the ideas of worth and right, which I think is where the missing steps are -- but some would argue is entirely (and uniquely) practical, with right being the quantification of worth.

It sounds sorta like something Bacon probably wrote while he was making a case for his reforms. Because it is obviously against conscience, but not necessarily against formal reason. I dunno. It's been 15 years since I read Bacon and most of it was over my head back then. But it sounds bacony.

khalid_sl said:

This makes zero sense to me.

Saying someone has intrinsic worth, doesn't seem to imply at all that if someone has power over a person, they should be able to take away that worth.

Click to expand...

It would be worrying itf it made sense to you. I had already started my Valborgh velebtrations and missed a do not have. Noithing major, just like writing G == gamma times Mass1 times Mass2 times Distance and not Mass1 Mass2 over distance suqared.

tldr: what's the functional difference between saying "X is unethical" and "I don't like X"?

I'm genuinely really confused at people's positions in this thread. When people state: X is unethical... what exactly do you mean? Do you think it ought to apply to other people, and that if they disagree with you then they're wrong? I just don't really see any way past this impasse:

Person A thinks [act] is ethical. Person B thinks [act] is unethical.

Isn't it just a matter of opinion? Any type of argumentation from B saying "Well, that causes X and Y; and X and Y are not good..." presupposes that Person A shares the same values and goals as B. Are you people that are phrasing things as X saying that othersought toshare your own values and goals (and therefor, follow your ethical reasoning)?

hodj_sl said:

Whites and blacks both engage equally in street level dealing when it comes to crack, yet blacks are arrested more often, and sentenced to harsher punishments.

Drug users self report that their main source is of the same racial/ethnic background as well.

Reality is that which doesn't disappear just because you don't want to believe in it anymore.

Click to expand...

Key word "user". Dealer doesn't equal user. Plenty of crack selling gang bangers don't use.

Everyone likes getting fucked up, whether they know it or not. Poor communities have more drugs because their life sucks worse than others and they can buy happiness for as little as $5.

To say skin color makes one more susceptible to doing x than y, is bullshit and i don't need citations for that.

sorry

Let me throw this out there, do you think its possible that:

Since blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent / other major crimes that

1. Police presence in those areas tends to be higher

2. Police stop blacks more often since they tend to commit more crime overall and their stops are successful scoring warrants and other major shit much more often

3. Cultural factors which keep many ghetto blacks ghetto also lend to getting caught, getting extra charges and a variety of other issues that whites tend to not have to deal with.


As such, blacks tend to get pinched more for smaller stuff. Perhaps unfairly as per their representative portion of that particular crime (say drugs) but not so much when you consider the other factors like area, other more serious crimes, way of life (homies hanging out on the corner selling) etc.. Fact is, you can't commit so much crime and then cherry pick a stat like drug arrests and wonder why you're getting pinched for drugs more when your other crime stats are so fucking out of whack they easily justify the extra attention the ghetto trash draws.

Hey, racism exists. I know. Its wrong. You shouldn't judge someone based on the color of their skin and only that. That isn't what is going on here though. There are deeply ingrained issues in the black community that people seem to like to point to "RACISM" and gloss over the rest. I think most of that is complete bull shit and it happens because the truth is rather inconvenient. There are racists cops, there are racist people but racism isn't what is holding blacks in the ghetto and shitting up their own lives.