Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Egalitarianism vs. Utilitarianism

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Once my youth group was going somewhere (I don't remember that detail). Several adults were assigned as drivers for the teenagers.
They had a rule: men could be the drivers in the cars with boys without another adult present in the vehicle. However, men could could not be the drivers in the car with girls without a female adult present (if I recall correctly).
None of the men who were escorts were known perpetrators of sexual crimes or any other kind of crime (as far as I know).
Meanwhile, a woman driver could carry either boys or girls in her car without any other adult present.

I might not remember it right, but that's what I think I remember happening.
This is a classic case of Egalitarianism vs Utilitarianism. Discuss.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:20:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 4:18:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:


I am incapable of watching the video.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 4:46:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 4:18:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:


Never mind. I inserted the link manually.

This video's content is surprising. I didn't think that it was such a large scale thing. All men are put under suspicion for the actions of a few, and this level of suspicion is not geared towards women. Frankly, the guy on the beach should sue the local police.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 5:12:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 4:46:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/9/2014 4:18:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:


Never mind. I inserted the link manually.

This video's content is surprising. I didn't think that it was such a large scale thing. All men are put under suspicion for the actions of a few, and this level of suspicion is not geared towards women. Frankly, the guy on the beach should sue the local police.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:41:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 11:19:41 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
EndarkenedRationalist : I'm not seeing the utilitarian aspect.

The Fool: Because they think that the gender discrimination in question is for the greater good of society, while the discrimination is at the same time anti-egalitarian .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:15:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/9/2014 4:11:32 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Once my youth group was going somewhere (I don't remember that detail). Several adults were assigned as drivers for the teenagers.
They had a rule: men could be the drivers in the cars with boys without another adult present in the vehicle. However, men could could not be the drivers in the car with girls without a female adult present (if I recall correctly).
None of the men who were escorts were known perpetrators of sexual crimes or any other kind of crime (as far as I know).
Meanwhile, a woman driver could carry either boys or girls in her car without any other adult present.

I might not remember it right, but that's what I think I remember happening.
This is a classic case of Egalitarianism vs Utilitarianism. Discuss.

You first need to say why it's egalitarianism vs utilitarianism even tho it might be plain as day :/.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:29:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:06:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.

Are the men's human rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:36:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:29:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:06:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.

Burzmali : Are the men's human rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

The Fool: First of all, you have to distinguish between legal rights, and rights in general. In this case, the general right to be around children, just like women can, without being viewed as some kind of sexual predator.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:40:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:36:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:29:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:06:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.

Burzmali : Are the men's human rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

The Fool: First of all, you have to distinguish between legal rights, and rights in general. In this case, the general right to be around children, just like women can, without being viewed as some kind of sexual predator.

Is that actually a general right, though? And is that even the right we're actually talking about? From my understanding of the OP's scenario, this was an issue of men being around unrelated female children. To my knowledge, no one has the right to be around children that they are not related to.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:40:11 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:36:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:29:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:06:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.

Burzmali : Are the men's human rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

The Fool: First of all, you have to distinguish between legal rights, and rights in general. In this case, the general right to be around children, just like women can, without being viewed as some kind of sexual predator.

Is that actually a general right, though? And is that even the right we're actually talking about? From my understanding of the OP's scenario, this was an issue of men being around unrelated female children. To my knowledge, no one has the right to be around children that they are not related to.

I think you're intentionally derailing the discussion. Maybe we don't have a legal entitlement to be around children but we do have a right to equality under the law, we can't have laws that target specific people and we can't apply existing laws unfairly. If this isn't a legal issuea right can be legal or moral entitlement so being unfairly excluded from certain activities or aspects of them based on immutable characteristics attached to a statistic is also a violation of rights in the moral sense since we all ought to have an entitlement to be viewed as individuals not denied denied opportunities based on characteristics irrelevant to their performance/abilities. Whether this should be a legal entitlement or just a moral entitlement is a point up for contention but you'd be hard pressed to say otherwise
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 1:51:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.

Burzmali : Are the men's human rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

The Fool: First of all, you have to distinguish between legal rights, and rights in general. In this case, the general right to be around children, just like women can, without being viewed as some kind of sexual predator.

Is that actually a general right, though?

And is that even the right we're actually talking about? From my understanding of the OP's scenario, this was an issue of men being around unrelated female children.

To my knowledge, no one has the right to be around children that they are not related to.

The Fool: Were talking about egalitarianism versus utilitarianism. Discriminating who can be around children simply by gender, is non-egalitarian..

Sexism"or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

P1.They had a rule: "men could not be the drivers in the car with girls without a female adult present ."

P2."None of the men who were escorts were known perpetrators of sexual crimes or any other kind of crime."

P3. "Meanwhile, a woman driver could carry either boys or girls in her car without any other adult present."

C1. Therefore they are being discriminated by their gender, and so it is therefore sexist.

Check out the video.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:01:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 1:49:43 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:40:11 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:36:17 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:29:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/10/2014 1:06:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/10/2014 2:40:03 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Burzmali : Where's the lack of egalitarianism in that scenario?

The Fool: That men because they are men are being deemed less fit and less trustable around children.

Burzmali : Are the men's human rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

The Fool: First of all, you have to distinguish between legal rights, and rights in general. In this case, the general right to be around children, just like women can, without being viewed as some kind of sexual predator.

Is that actually a general right, though? And is that even the right we're actually talking about? From my understanding of the OP's scenario, this was an issue of men being around unrelated female children. To my knowledge, no one has the right to be around children that they are not related to.

I think you're intentionally derailing the discussion. Maybe we don't have a legal entitlement to be around children but we do have a right to equality under the law, we can't have laws that target specific people and we can't apply existing laws unfairly. If this isn't a legal issuea right can be legal or moral entitlement so being unfairly excluded from certain activities or aspects of them based on immutable characteristics attached to a statistic is also a violation of rights in the moral sense since we all ought to have an entitlement to be viewed as individuals not denied denied opportunities based on characteristics irrelevant to their performance/abilities. Whether this should be a legal entitlement or just a moral entitlement is a point up for contention but you'd be hard pressed to say otherwise

My further understanding of the OP is that the adults and children don't necessarily all know each other, either. So this appears to be an issue of unknown men being treated slightly differently than unknown women. I would classify that as an indication of female privilege, but not any kind of rights violation.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Burzmali: My further understanding of the OP is that the adults and children don't necessarily all know each other, either.

The Fool: The writer of the OP agrees with my interpretation of the OP. Ergo.

Vox_Veritas: "This video's content is surprising. I didn't think that it was such a large scale thing. All men are put under suspicion for the actions of a few, and this level of suspicion is not geared towards women. Frankly, the guy on the beach should sue the local police."

Vox_Veritas: So this appears to be an issue of unknown men being treated slightly differently than unknown women.

The Fool: Just take a few minutes and look at the video.

Burzmali:I would classify that as an indication of female privilege, but not any kind of rights violation.

But the social construction of privilege based off a race, and or gender alone is a sexist and racist notion. Why?

Recall: Sexism"or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org......

Because such advantages are not equally distributed amongst all members of a particular class. Sometimes very distinction itself. What if your half white and half black, or transgender??

Perhaps Obama was more likely to be voted in as president because he was half-white.. Do we really know for sure? Not really. Perhaps he had another characteristic which was in a way, a disadvantage. The feminist construct of privilege is very problematic.

On Utilitarian Principles
Now maybe somebody wants to argue that men generally are less in control of their sexual appetite, and this is due to their genetic or biological makeup, and so it is to the interest of society at large that we make rules which discriminate men on this basis.(utilitarianism)

Okay sure, but if you allow for that, justice demands that you must now allow for the same type of discrimination against women based off biological differences, on the very same utilitarian principles..

And we do actually do this. We send men to war to die, and to be sacrificed for the protection of society based off biological differences which is a utilitarian approach. But it is morally wrong to simply switch principles to whichever way is advantageous for women, or disadvantageous for men.

Making such decisions is an extremely controversial issue. It's not something which one group(Feminist alone) can monopolize and be allowed to dictate on its own, as any one group becomes blind to their own biases. And so such differences depends upon, competing ideas, criticisms, and challenges by different groups.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Burzmali: My further understanding of the OP is that the adults and children don't necessarily all know each other, either.

The Fool: The writer of the OP agrees with my interpretation of the OP. Ergo.

Vox_Veritas: "This video's content is surprising. I didn't think that it was such a large scale thing. All men are put under suspicion for the actions of a few, and this level of suspicion is not geared towards women. Frankly, the guy on the beach should sue the local police."

Vox_Veritas: So this appears to be an issue of unknown men being treated slightly differently than unknown women.

The Fool: Just take a few minutes and look at the video.

Burzmali:I would classify that as an indication of female privilege, but not any kind of rights violation.

But the social construction of privilege based off a race, and or gender alone is a sexist and racist notion. Why?

Recall: Sexism"or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org......

Because such advantages are not equally distributed amongst all members of a particular class. Sometimes very distinction itself. What if your half white and half black, or transgender??

Perhaps Obama was more likely to be voted in as president because he was half-white.. Do we really know for sure? Not really. Perhaps he had another characteristic which was in a way, a disadvantage. The feminist construct of privilege is very problematic.

On Utilitarian Principles
Now maybe somebody wants to argue that men generally are less in control of their sexual appetite, and this is due to their genetic or biological makeup, and so it is to the interest of society at large that we make rules which discriminate men on this basis.(utilitarianism)

Okay sure, but if you allow for that, justice demands that you must now allow for the same type of discrimination against women based off biological differences, on the very same utilitarian principles..

And we do actually do this. We send men to war to die, and to be sacrificed for the protection of society based off biological differences which is a utilitarian approach. But it is morally wrong to simply switch principles to whichever way is advantageous for women, or disadvantageous for men.

Making such decisions is an extremely controversial issue. It's not something which one group(Feminist alone) can monopolize and be allowed to dictate on its own, as any one group becomes blind to their own biases. And so such differences depends upon, competing ideas, criticisms, and challenges by different groups.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 2:28:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool: Oops, pay no attention to the redundant repost. I don't know how the hell that happened.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL