It's easy to accuse Coates of dishonesty but actually it really gets to the heart mysterious materialist definition of human worth/dignity. Does anyone know what it's actually based on?
-
Show this thread
-
I mean I guess it's rational to believe - in the framework of our current hierarchy of human worth and value - that you are not fully human based on the results of an IQ test or a medical examination
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
I think there's a distinction between equality and worth. I wouldn't consider my children my equals but they do have the same intrinsic worth as me. A lot of the angst that TBC inspires in AA intellectuals is when they conflate these two things because they rightly see that
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ad_captandum2
widespread acceptance of these ideas would probably result in a return of paternalism of some sort and they willfully conflate that with some sort of genocidal rejection of their humanity
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yep I acknowledge it's more complex than most blank slatist theists acknowledge primarily because there isn't this neat distinction between cognitive ability and virtue
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't think that's relevant. Of course people will value different people in different ways, when I say "worth" I mean specifically the ethical conventions that govern our treatment of individuals as human beings as distinct from animals
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ad_captandum2
I would say that any functional society has to have norms around this and TNC would rightly argue that societies like the antebellum south did have a class of people who weren't considered "fully human"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
His argument is that TBC's ideas are basically equivalent to the dehumanization or (lesser humanization) of entire groups.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.