Thread by @Gurdur

Steven Pinker (@sapinker) comes out with an essay titled, no less, "The Stupidity of Dignity" (2008). This is how you get Trump elected & re-elected, this is how you get Brexit, this is how you get really bad blowback. Utterly, stupidly, unnecessarily.
newrepublic.com/article/64674/…

Having started off in fine fashion by trolling the opposition *without actually achieving much thru the trolling*, Pinker then gets into what we could call #AcademicStrut, the Declaration Of Ego, dressed up over-intellectually. Let's examine this part:

1/ @sapinker's well-known problems with philosophy show up badly here. For one thing, the crucial point is dignity is an *intersubjective* concept, a social one appealing to conscience & group effort. Not just 'subjective', as Pinker wants to damn it. A complex but vital point.

2/ next problem is Pinker doesn't have a clue re #ethics & their nature of being. Every single goddam ethic can be damned as 'subjective', *including the squishy, subjective notion of "personal autonomy" which Pinker tries to advocate against "dignity"*. Ignorant special pleading

3/ Next problem, back to the #AcademicStrut. I don't give a stuff what Ruth Macklin is fed up with. Nobody in their right minds should give a stuff what Macklin is fed up with. Pinker is attempting argument from (pseudo-)authority here, and worse.

4/ So right from the beginning, Pinker is saying, I HAZ THE HOLY TABLETS OF COMMANDMENTS re your social #ethics, and I AM SO OVER YOUR OBJECTIONS, YOU CONTEMPTIBLE HEATHEN, I HAZ THE WORD FROM GOD, I mean SCIENCE, I mean GOD".
Not going to go well, is it? Not persuasive

Except this isn't true. Fine by me if you want to advocate "personal autonomy", but it's also a squishy concept - e.g. children, the nature of "informed", the comatose and the simply asleep, the rohypnoled, etc. etc. Handwaving away does not persuade.

Now we get onto that tricky #philosophy concept of "Not looking too damn obviously hypocritical". Because Pinker wants to impose his own "radical political agenda [morals]", so do I, so do you, so what? Also, just calling something "religious" is NOT sufficient counter-argument.

D'uh. ALL #ethics, including "personal autonomy", are relative. Pinker is trying very hard to suggest 'objectivity' is on his side, only it isn't. This is not an argument in good faith against those pushing the other view; it's an attempt at cheerleading & browbeating instead.

Except that *every single goddam objection here* ALSO applies to personal autonomy, and to every single other system of social ethics. Really, is it too much to ask for, to suggest @sapinker be a tiny bit more self-reflective?

Two main objections, among others, here. a/ First, Pinker is attempting an argument from fallacy of ambiguity. Yeah, yeah, we all know the concept of human dignity can be abused, twisted, lied about. So? This is NOT a good-faith argument.

b/ "Dignity can be harmful": as a general principle, so too can personal autonomy. "I'm alright, Jack, stuff you". You're starving in the Sudan? Fine by me as long as I 'respect' your personal autonomy. Hard cheese 4 me if you suddenly decide on a forcible redistribution of food

Argument from handwaving. #Gattaca & CRISPR are at the door, & in China, they really don't bother with concepts like dignity OR personal autonomy. But they're into making a profit, & you want your kid to be the absolute BEST, & you have cash. No-brainer what's going to happen

In Germany, "dignity" is a central bedrock principle of the modern German constitution - de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_1… - "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. ...." == Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect that is a duty of all state authority.

This is not a religious argument or stance. It is a broadly secular, liberal one, for very very obvious historical reasons, it's the very first thing to get mentioned in the modern German constitution. Too much to ask to expect @sapinker to deal with it?

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Gurdur view original on Twitter

To sum up: @sapinker's argument here - newrepublic.com/article/64674/… - is New Republic-worthy, & I mean that in a bad way. It's not meant to persuade the opposition, it's meant to annoy them instead, and to be an exercise in cheerleading *for those who already agree with Pinker*.

And I don't know about you, but I get really sick of those who go, "Let's own the cons by really annoying them in a useless way, ha ha ha. God I mean Science I mean God is on our side, Deus vult!, let's OWN the conservatives by helping Trump, Brexit, Viktor Orbán, Putin win!"

Thank-you for so selflessly illustrating #AcademicStrut, from Brexitland, no less. 😀 Not as if Infowars, Hannity, Farage, Gove etc. already make livings claiming over & over again "secular liberals" want to impose control, after all, so we are safe!

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @ProfSteveFuller view original on Twitter

Good constructive contribution from @IrishPhilosophy, @cathyby here: "dignity" also had a big place in the first Irish constitution, see (irishphilosophy.com/2017/12/29/con…)

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @IrishPhilosophy view original on Twitter

I mean, seriously, just grow up. "I [POMPOUSLY] THINK X IS RIGHT, BECAUSE [NO] REASONS [GIVEN], AND YOU ARE HALLUCINATORY", all by itself, is just plain stupid, like, *really* stupid. Any 14-year-old could be more artistic.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Gurdur view original on Twitter

Except, in your rush to groundlessly declare your personal authority and your perception regarding me being hallucinatory, you *competely missed a point really obvious to others*; my point that you and those like you enabled Trump, Brexit, etc.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @ProfSteveFuller view original on Twitter

I mean, SERIOUSLY, folks, is it all too much to demand a professor of sociology to understand some very basic sociology? Really? Like, if you make your whole political platform, "You are dumb, and you should accept my dictates without question", you may well create big problems.

Oh, ffs,. send in a 14-year-old child, so I can at least be flamed more intelligently and artistically.

External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @ProfSteveFuller view original on Twitter

For the really-hard-of-hearing: here is the take-away message. Don't rely on status to make arguments. If your opponents are genuine, treat them & their arguments genuinely. It is useless for you to stroke your ego if you only thereby enable a social change you really don't like.

unroll