I support the position that all social roles that are totally uncorrelated with physical facts should be re-examined (and probably eliminated).
This leaves open a line a very traditional line of reasoning that I would have expected you to be hostile to. We can determine a physical fact about a child with high accuracy, and at a glance: whether or not they will have a chance to become pregnant as adults (1). Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for. I assume you don’t accept this kind of argument, but I’d be interested in hearing your “true rejection.”
(1) In case my meaning is not clear, the way I would put it in a less abstract conversation is “girls and not boys can get pregnant.” But in this case I understand there are high stakes attached to the words “girl” and boy.”
Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for.
Those beliefs are not really facts about the baby. Where did the beliefs come from? Isn’t there a counter-factual history where (1) society works, (2) no one has those beliefs?
You should counter that “society works” just assumes the conclusion. I could respond by pointing to societies that actually existed in other places and times. And I’m sure that there are further responses on both sides.
Ultimately, the problem is that our differences in terminal values affect what sorts of things we consider good evidence. Or, if one were a moral realist, this would be evidence that one of us is so defective that they can’t perceive moral truths.
This leaves open a line a very traditional line of reasoning that I would have expected you to be hostile to. We can determine a physical fact about a child with high accuracy, and at a glance: whether or not they will have a chance to become pregnant as adults (1). Many people believe this physical fact should inform the way the kid is raised, including the kind of social roles they are prepared for. I assume you don’t accept this kind of argument, but I’d be interested in hearing your “true rejection.”
(1) In case my meaning is not clear, the way I would put it in a less abstract conversation is “girls and not boys can get pregnant.” But in this case I understand there are high stakes attached to the words “girl” and boy.”
Those beliefs are not really facts about the baby. Where did the beliefs come from? Isn’t there a counter-factual history where (1) society works, (2) no one has those beliefs?
You should counter that “society works” just assumes the conclusion. I could respond by pointing to societies that actually existed in other places and times. And I’m sure that there are further responses on both sides.
Ultimately, the problem is that our differences in terminal values affect what sorts of things we consider good evidence. Or, if one were a moral realist, this would be evidence that one of us is so defective that they can’t perceive moral truths.