Give an example of how this thinking is ruining the good work and dialogue.

1

I’m a sociology major and this is backed up by sociology

2

Then maybe you should wipe your ass

2

Enjoy crying about people thinking differently than you and not being able to accurately convey a thought

4

You seem more outraged than shocked

2

Didn’t say anything about it being new to you but keep yapping if you want

3

Like a little bitch

1

I’m sure you got some bite in you

1

But if you identify more with the Shizu then I support it

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Black and white is a moral discussion. You’re either right or wrong good or evil this or that. I’m saying you can be part of the problem whether you’re good or bad and you can be part of the solution whether you’re good or bad. But just because you’re not a bad person or you exist in a moral gray don’t mean you’re not contributing to the problem

1

Anonymous #3 10w

So yea i thought the post put you just didn’t ask for deeper details

1

Anonymous #4 10w

No some solutions create more problems than they fix and sometimes bad people do good things there are good people who are part of the problem bad people part of the solution and there are morally gray people all over. We exist in moral complexity’s and because of that we shouldn’t apply moral binary to problems or solutions. A drug addict is part of the problem while also being a victim. The solution is part of the problem too.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

When i say something that means there is no moral binary then that means the next thing i say is not going to follow a moral binary.

1

Anonymous OP 10w

I don’t understand how this is different. pros vs cons, problems vs solutions, good vs bad, right vs wrong, whatever. they’re all binaries, even if a mix of both applies to every situation

1

Anonymous #4 10w

When you exist in a binary you either exist as 1 or 0 I’m saying morally life isn’t as simple as 1 and 0 but when it comes to problems you’re either part of the problem or against the problem. You are either anti racist or you are racist you are either anti sexist or you are sexist. Now you might be a sexist person but that doesn’t mean you are a bad person. It means you’re sexist and if it bothers you to be labeled and seen as sexist then the next step is being anti sexist

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Read how to be an anti racist by Ibram X. Kendi or something if you’re still not understanding

1

Anonymous OP 10w

I don’t understand what your point is here you just listed two other binary options instead of just saying “there are a variety of different ways and reasons people could be racist that take different methods to combat”

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Because the point isn’t there’s more than one way to skin a cat the point is that regardless of how you do it you’re skinning a cat

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Like Ik you don’t understand you’ve made that clear hence I recommend reading material

1

Anonymous OP 10w

…isn’t that still binary though? skinning a cat or not skinning a cat. Why say that morality isn’t binary if all your examples are ways that it is? I understand your points, but I don’t see how you think they are against black and white morals

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Let me repeat this one more time morality is not binary. It is complex. I am not saying skinning the cat is good or bad. Good or bad is a moral judgment. I’m not applying a moral binary to anything. We exist in moral complexity. But even when we exist in a moral complexity that doesn’t mean you’re not still skinning the cat. Let’s say morality is apples. And the problem is a microwave oven. You can put an apple in a microwave oven or you can not put an apple in a microwave oven.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Regardless of what you do, though there’s a microwave oven. I never once said apply morality to problems. I’ve said many times we exist in moral complexity.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

You can be anti racist but still be a terrible person. You can be a racist and be a good person. But when you are racist people will see you as a racist and if that upsets you then maybe you should consider not being racist.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

My stance is morality is complex and not binary but that doesn’t mean binaries outside morality don’t exist. Like do or don’t that’s a binary there’s nothing that exists outside of do or don’t. This is called Ontological binary like on or off or dead or alive. This comes into play with action logic and decision making.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

You can either go to the store or not go to the store. Now you might say well what it you go to the bank that’s a 3rd option and therefore it’s not a binary. That’s where you are wrong by choosing to go to the bank you are choosing not to go to store. If you go to the bank and go to the store then you decided to go to the store. At the end of the day you still either went to the store or did not go to the store.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

So you can be part of the problem (does not affect you morally) or you can be anti problem/part of the solution (does not affect you morally) no matter how you role the dice or skin the cat or slice the pie you will always exist in that binary or part of the problem or anti problem/part of solution.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

So the point of my post is not to advocate to be either side or try to say this is good side this is bad side. My purpose for this post is to say who do you want to be. I personally try to be part of the solution the first step to being part of the solution is recognizing the problem and knowing how you might be contributing to the problem. That means being willing to be told you are problematic and being open to criticism. Listening to others without feeling personally attacked.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

So in the context of racism that means being ok with being told you did something racist without trying to justify your actions or proving your morals because I’m not trying to figure out if I’m a good person or not I’m trying to figure out if I’ve unknowingly contributed to racist systems and racist environments. It doesn’t matter if you did something for a good reason or not in this context (moral judgement) it matters if you did something racist or not (observational)

1

Anonymous #4 10w

So once again if you are having trouble digesting this thought process I would really recommend reading how to be an anti-racist by Ibram X. Kendi it’s truly an amazing book

1

Anonymous OP 10w

I don’t understand what you’re saying the point of a moral system is without good and bad. why are you saying to remove that specific binary while preserving all of these other examples? What reason is there to fix a problem if you’re saying that being part of the problem isn’t bad. Again, I understand what you’re saying *besides* how any of it relates to removing that specific pair from your moral system

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Because I believe in progress and social stratification. I believe inequalities exist that’s an observational fact not a moral judgement. I believe our actions can cause harm to others. And I want to limit the amount of harm I do. Not because I’m a good person but because I don’t like harming others. It doesn’t serve me. Neither does saying all people who don’t agree with me are wrong and morally inferior. I believe in progress and collaboration. I believe we live in a society and a community

1

Anonymous #4 10w

and what good is a community that is collapsing in on itself and cannibalizing itself. I’m saying remove the moral binary because A-it doesn’t actually exist and isn’t an accurate representation of morals and B-it only further divides and harms the community as it’s saying me v you. When we apply a moral binary it creates an environment that limits how we interact with each other and makes up fear those who disagree with us

1

Anonymous #4 10w

I’m not saying a moral system without good and bad. The extent I’m speaking of morals does not go past that a moral binary doesn’t exist. You are very hung up on the morals. That’s the issue we think to much about morals. What good is being morally right when someone is saying you’re hurting them? I’d rather not worry if I’m being morally good or bad and just focus on am i harming someone and if I mean to harm them.

1

Anonymous OP 10w

It’s sounding to me like you’re arguing for progress instead of fighting between sides? But the definition of “harm” is a moral negative, so your wording doesn’t make sense to me. You’re saying “we need to stop harm, not call things bad”, and I don’t understand where the not calling things bad part is derived from here. Would I be correct to frame it as the idea that people aren’t good or harmful, but individual actions are? That’s pretty standard in systems of morality that are well defined.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

Let’s say i stepped on your foot did i harm you?

1

Anonymous OP 10w

If yes does that make me a bad person?

1

Anonymous OP 10w

What if i didn’t intentionally mean to step on your foot? It still harmed you but i didn’t intentionally mean to harm you so does that make me a good person? How about i purposely stepped on your foot I intended to do you harm does that make me a good person?

1

Anonymous OP 10w

But you don’t know my intentions all you know is I hurt you. And now you decide how you’re going to respond will you cuss me out? Will you try to fight me? Will you ask for an apology? Will you just tell me I need to watch where I’m going?

1

Anonymous OP 10w

yes, no, no, no, no , no, no, no. Actions can exist that are amoral, and harm can occur without something morally wrong happening. Your going to the store example isn’t a good or bad action either. I’m just confused what your overall thesis is here, I’m asking you to reiterate it. I understand your evidence/points

1

Anonymous #4 10w

So I hurt you. That’s the binary that’s the problem or anti problem/solution except this time it was offered to you in the hurt or not hurt binary. Now I can think I’m a good person but I can admit that I hurt you because I didn’t intend to hurt you. I as a good person would not intentionally hurt someone. But since I didn’t intentionally hurt you I feel very little shame admitting I hurt you.

1

Anonymous #4 10w

But if you start saying I bet you did that on purpose and you assume I purposely hurt you that clashes with my moral view of myself. I am a good person so i would not intentionally hurt you you are saying I did therefore i didn’t even hurt you because I am a good person. I get defensive so i reject responsibility for any harm i caused I am now contributing to the problem

1

Anonymous #4 10w

But at the same time I could also be like you know what. I didn’t intentionally hurt them but I did still hurt them. I need to take responsibility for my part in this situation “hey I’m really sorry i didn’t see you there it was a complete accident are you ok?” Now I am making the choice to be part of the solution I am thinking critically about how i might have been in the wrong I am not getting defensive and I’m not letting my morals affect my judgement

1

Anonymous OP 10w

Because it doesn’t matter if you think I’m bad or if I think I’m good the fact is I hurt you and I didn’t want to hurt you. Since I didn’t mean to hurt you I am going to try to be better and pay more attention to where I step so I don’t do it again

1

Anonymous #4 10w

When you assume a moral binary it limits how you can respond and often creates more friction. So let’s not do a moral binary let’s do a simple observation and try to not let morals get in the way did we harm someone (identity the problem)? Did we mean to harm them (am I actively contributing to the problem)? Am I ok with causing harm (Do I let the problem persist)?

1

Anonymous OP 10w

To be part of the solution in any problem you just have to decide you don’t want to continue to harm and actively commit to not harming people. If you don’t want to be racist then active commit to not being racist if you don’t want to be sexist then actively commit to being not sexist. But if you’re not actively against the problem aka part of solution then you are part of the solution

1

Anonymous OP 10w

And that’s an objective observation not a moral judgement.

1