-1

Thread in question Are Laws crafted around personal/individual beliefs ethical?

I had made edits prior to the On-Hold notice broadening the range of the question on ethics form being about a single purpose to a general idea and asking how different fields/viewpoints more would categorize this ethically.

I do not see how this is off-topic.

Also the description in the on-hold is patently false. No where in the question do I denote a personal philosophy nor am I expecting a certain answer. The only personnal philosophy is the answerer who did not answer the question instead goes on about Gender-Roles in a manner that I disagreed with and completely misrepresents kirkegaards viewpoints on ethics as a cliffnote at that.

I do not see how a question about the ethics of a general principle is off topic or unanswerable. Also addendum question, As noted in the conversation in the referenced answer am I not supposed to tell an answerer I disagree with them and refute any counter point that I also disagree with?. This is a genuine question I do not know if there are any guidelines on the length or irreconcilable differences.

Again despite the answer the question is not about the role of gender roles in society

  • 2
    The formulation used in the question is not really from a neutral point-of-view -- keep in mind StackExchange has a common ethos with Wikipedia, so it's really important to source claims, and in general to move more subjective/opinionated content into answers rather than questions (which should be narrow, related explicitly to your study of philosophy, not leading or pushing an opinion, etc.) – Joseph Weissman Jul 1 '17 at 12:54
  • In other words a lot of the material in the question might be more appropriate for an answer -- consider revising down the question to a direct statement of the single specific problem you're encountering in your study of philosophy. Indicating exactly what you're looking for an in an answer can help (i.e., describe what exactly it is that you would like someone here to -- briefly -- explain to you) – Joseph Weissman Jul 1 '17 at 12:56
  • @JosephWeissman I genuinely do not see how asking if taking something from a societal level and placing it at an individual level is not a neutral point of view. I am asking from an ethical perspective because I genuinely do not know different systems would address this. I never enflamed or supported either viewpoints but pointed to the current social anxiety or actions it caused due to the bill being about discrimination and showcasing that it has caused the impacts proposed in the question as a side effect. – SCFi Jul 1 '17 at 14:23
  • @JosephWeissman There is only one problem in the question and that is regarding the ethical nature of society to individual as the dictate of law. That is if it is ethical or not. I also proposed being either Kierkegaard (though thinking about it he's a religous man so that's striaghtforward) or Niet which I don't know but I would also be fine with other fields viewpoints as well. In short what I am trying to say is that I do not see how this ethical question about systems viewpoint is any more opinionated than any other question about ethics? – SCFi Jul 1 '17 at 14:26
  • @JosephWeissman Also I would be very curious as the description said to not push your opinion, what exactly you think my opinion is? – SCFi Jul 1 '17 at 14:48
  • "The question being are these laws ethical that subvert the will of the majority to please the individual thus mandating kindness in exchange for values and beliefs?" This is the sentence that most jumped out to me to be what Joseph was referring to (of course I am not him and he may have a different opinion than this). The statement "subverting the majority to please the individual" seems like it is your opinion on what those laws are doing, or at least it seems very pointed towards one side of the debate in a declarative way. Even if it is right (I don't think it is), it isn't neutral. – Not_Here Jul 2 '17 at 8:29
  • It's also, I would think, opinionated to assert that laws that recognize nonbinary gender's/anything related to the topic force people to replace their values and beliefs with kindness. This is the point that Joseph was trying to make (I believe), whether or not what you're saying is true, its at the very least opinionated and not neutral. It would serve well as part of an answer, but it is framing the question in an opinionated and personally biased way. But lastly, that is the point I'm trying to make. I'm not here to argue about those laws, what they say or what they do. – Not_Here Jul 2 '17 at 8:32
3

First of all (and this should be the lesson to be learned), you should respect/acknowledge the fact that two people obviously were inclined to think that you are just pushing a personal philosophy. And that not a single person disagreed enough to vote for reopening yet.

The main problem I see with the question as it (still) stands are two things tied together by you:

If Gender Roles are defined by the collective thought of the society then what right does an individual have to force a person to bend to their notion of gender? The question being are these laws ethical that subvert the will of the majority to please the individual thus mandating kindness in exchange for values and beliefs?

This ties together the acceptance of different ideas of gender roles and "subverting the majority by law". And it adds in an aspect that - and this is shown by the votes - is perceived to be a subjective input coming from you and asking for approval.

This is controversial to say the least. You may have a different social context on the level of community, but in modern democracy, basically nothing is happening in matters so openly discussed without a broad majority. Because bad publicity and loss of votes. To be more to the point: Gender diversity is obviously more broadly supported in the countries having this legislation than you think.

You can relativise the matter as just an example as much as you want, it is a problem.

Another problem I do have with this question in this context, is answering what I think to be the core of the philosophical question behind all that, with corresponding authors. Using arguments e.g. by Machiavelli and Rousseau, this would basically imply that the majority was just to dumb to get what's right in a context where it is more a problem of religious and political elites clinging to conservative world views, not the majority that needs to be patronised.

Long answer short: The question contains controversial claims and because of that invites for discussions, making it hard to objectively answer in a positive way.

  • 1
    Thank you for the thorough feedback, but when people answer an opinion with an idea you do not understand or disagree with should you not try to discover it? As to the quoted portion that was in reference to Gender-Roles by definition being Societal level and Gender Identity by definition being individual level. I just want to iterate that I mean no offense to anyone or their beliefs. – SCFi Jul 2 '17 at 14:54
  • 2
    Frankly, this is the first time I get your point. After having read the linked question in politics.SE and - more importantly - the discussions in the comments to the answer. You could probably try to elaborate this point in clarifying how you take this discussion to be a problem if individuals can impose their potentially arbitrary, individual understanding of concepts onto their peers. This could invite for elaborations on autonomy and respect (e.g. Kant), tolerance (e.g. Popper), law and judicature (e.g. Schmitt), etc. But still very broad, and hard to answer in existential philosophy imho. – Philip Klöcking Jul 2 '17 at 15:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .