Pulling this from the "
General discussion of moderation procedures" thread, as I think this would make a good "Coffee House" thread.
berberry writes:
I see that many people like the double standards here. That isn't surprising; people seem to absolutely love all the double standards we have in society at large these days. This forum simply reflects that larger reality.
We shouldn't be surprised. Saddened perhaps, especially since we liberals are finding ourselves increasingly marginalized with fewer and fewer places of refuge available to us, but not surprised.
Question:Are double-standards inherently bad? Are they useless in all situations? Certainly all of us can individually find double-standards that we disagree with. Does that mean that they're all bad?
Motivations:As I was just beginning to argue in the "
Atheist Morality" thread, I believe people are not logical. We literally have different systems within us--fast, "zombie" systems (which includes things like your "gut" feeling), and slow, analytical systems. We don't act based on rules, we operate in a conjunction of feelings, thoughts, and beliefs. Double-standards are simply the result of this. Stochastic methods and non-rule based behavior will always lead to some number of double-standards.
But is this bad? I see a lot of utility in it. Berberry dislikes some double-standards found in current society. I'm sure I dislike some of the same ones too. But is it really because they're double-standards? Or is it just that THAT PARTICULAR double-standard has ad-hoc results which I "disagree" with?
Examples:Percy's decision to keep Faith around is an example of a double-standard. It seemed operable. It seemed useful. It was definitely ad-hoc. I think it usefully served it's purpose. I don't see anything bad about it. I don't see how saying "it's bad because it's a double-standard" has any meaning whatsoever.
I live with my girlfriend. Every day I experience double-standards. I get yelled at, but I'm not allowed to yell. I have to make time for her, but if I ask her to make sure to do the same for me, that's "not her personality." Is it a problem? Is it inherently unworkable? Is she "bad" for that?
I would say no. It all depends on the person she's with. If it's somebody who doesn't yell and doesn't mind being yelled at--it's no problem at all (that's not me though!). If it's somebody who is happy to make time, and doesn't need somebody else to do that kind of thinking / planning, then it's no problem (that's me!). So in one case a double-standard causes problems, and in the other it does not.
Conclusion:The world is an ad-hoc place. Humans are ad-hoc animals. We can discuss "ideal" systems for politics, morality, etc. which are universal or rule-based, but they simply don't fit the human condition. They cannot, in principle, be implemented.
Note: admin, maybe this is a duplicate of the current discussion in "atheist morality" ?
™ Version 4.2