Ethical: Valuism?

[DougShrapnel]

I find racism a pretty dry subject to discuss. I know it can get heated at times but when I try to break it down. I find that it is a rather simple survival mechinism. To help promote the survial of genes similiar to your own. Of course I find all the my race is the best race rather biased, and hateful. This post isn't about racism but about valuism, which I define as a survial mechinism to help promote genes and ideas that you value. I'm curious if valuism is ethical, if racism isn't? If people don't hold the same values as me, is it ok to discrimate against that person? I am thinking as valuism as a slightly more evolved racism. And I'm not sure that I can be OK with one and not the other. If I value intelligence, I would give people I consider intelligent special treatment. If i value human life, I would give people that also value human life special treatment. When I value people who think for themselves, I'd be more willing to help out a person that thinks for themself. I may in fact belittle, think less of, feel sorry for someone that doesn't think for themself. I am a valuist? Do you feel that being a valuist is a positive trait or a negative trait?

[Ben K]

I don't think you can make the same judgements about values that you can make about race.

This is because it's easy to catagorise race and then get evidence to make a good/bad judgement - ending with there's no difference between us that justifies the racism.

However, with values there is no real way to catagorise them and making good/bad judgements is even harder. You are a valuist (by your own definition) but everyone else is too so that's cool.

I think it's a positive trait. It certainly stops me ending up in bed with mingers.

[DougShrapnel]

I think it's a positve trait as well. But I'm curious to see where the line should be drawn, and what right I have to tell other where they must draw there own line. I have a negative value for suffering, those who cause suffering I descrimant against. But should I be able to discriminate against someone that perfers diet pepsi over coke zero? What about someone that descrimants agaisnt persons with genes further away from there own, versus someone with genes closer to there own. How can one justify what values are capable of being worthy of using to make these decisions.

[guesswest]

First of all an aside - I'm pretty sure as far as reproduction goes we'd be looking for genetic diversity right? So I'm not sure your initial assertion that racism is rooted in valuism is correct.

But as far as your main question goes, you answer it by determining the basis for ethics. If you view ethics as social contract, such that our ethical structures arise to the mutual benefit of all - then the kind of valuism you're talking about is necessarily a good thing, as it bolsters that which is beneficial for all. Even if you don't view ethics as arising thru social contract, valuism is at best neutral, it can never logically be bad where it's correctly applied.

The problem is that we get things wrong and we misjudge situations. So where a rejection of stern judgement is a sign of humility it can be a good thing. If I KNEW the right thing to do I'd always think it right to impose it on others, it's the correct action by definition. But we make mistakes, so there's probably more ethical equity in keeping dialogue open in hopes or rectifying those mistakes where they arise vs shutting down conversation (which is what value based dictates tend to do), in contentious and grey ethical areas at least.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

First of all an aside - I'm pretty sure as far as reproduction goes we'd be looking for genetic diversity right?

[/ QUOTE ] As far as I am concerned, yes. I would go so far as to say I'm looking for 7 billion "species" of one. But why must that be right?

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not sure your initial assertion that racism is rooted in valuism is correct.

[/ QUOTE ] I am hoping it isn't. But I'm not sure if I'm able to make that call. I do however think that racsim is rooted in the desire to increase the success rate of genes closer to your own. So yes, In my opinion it's rooted in valuism, but I hope there is a miscalculation somewhere along the line, that although it's rooted in valuism, it's not an important value to hold.

[ QUOTE ]

But as far as your main question goes, you answer it by determining the basis for ethics. If you view ethics as social contract, such that our ethical structures arise to the mutual benefit of all - then the kind of valuism you're talking about is necessarily a good thing, as it bolsters that which is beneficial for all. Even if you don't view ethics as arising thru social contract, valuism is at best neutral, it can never logically be bad where it's correctly applied.

[/ QUOTE ] I view ethics as the basis for survival. When I use the term survial I mean two general ideas rolled into one. Living and Quality of survival. All the terms that we use today(for instance Happiness) do not work correctly to replace Quality of survival. That is what is good for you survial is the correct action, what is good for your happiness(hate using that word) is the correct action. So if the kind of valuism I'm speaking of is a good thing, who I am to say what some one else must value?

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that we get things wrong and we misjudge situations. So where a rejection of stern judgement is a sign of humility it can be a good thing. If I KNEW the right thing to do I'd always think it right to impose it on others, it's the correct action by definition.

[/ QUOTE ] See I would disagree, If I knew the right thing to do, I would never impose it on others. If it's something I wanted them to do, I would try to convince them. If I really didn't care about them or what they do, I'd leave them alone. But I'd never impose.

[ QUOTE ]
so there's probably more ethical equity in keeping dialogue open in hopes or rectifying those mistakes where they arise vs shutting down conversation (which is what value based dictates tend to do), in contentious and grey ethical areas at least.

[/ QUOTE ] Could you expand on this a little more? How do value based dicates tend to shut down the conversation. If you mean dicates tend to shut down coversation, I would agree with you, but why value based?