homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women] (Page 40)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  ...  51  52  53 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... There will always be a great many people who, for want a better term, just aren't very smart. ...

So? So fucking what? Why does it necessarily follow that it is acceptable -- nay, apparently even desirable for some -- for the not-very-smart to have a poorer quality of life than the think-they're-so-fucking-smart people? Who decided that if you're "less smart" you should have less, period?
That was exactly the point I was making. Why should people be treated with disrespect just because they are not very smart.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which is far better than people sitting on their thumbs and telling others to not get angry because life isn't fair. At least they are trying to change things for the better.

quote:
I understand that this difference is justified by ideas of meritocracy but I have given reasons in my last reply as to why I disagree with this as an ideal.
That response isn't even coherent. It bases itself on the idea that you can have a significant gap between rich and poor and equality of opportunity at the same time. This is, of course, impossible. Kids who are worried about filling their bellies or shelter do not have equality of opportunity with those who can focus on other things. Kids who can't trust authority (the main predictor of failing the marshmallow test - which is itself a huge predictor) don't have equality of opportunity with those who can trust the authorities around them.

Your entire objection is, therefore, utterly meaningless. While some are in poverty and others gorge there can be no equality of opportunity.

Well is it the better? That's the whole question being discussed.

quote:
That response isn't even coherent. It bases itself on the idea that you can have a significant gap between rich and poor and equality of opportunity at the same time. This is, of course, impossible. Kids who are worried about filling their bellies or shelter do not have equality of opportunity with those who can focus on other things. Kids who can't trust authority (the main predictor of failing the marshmallow test - which is itself a huge predictor) don't have equality of opportunity with those who can trust the authorities around them.

Your entire objection is, therefore, utterly meaningless. While some are in poverty and others gorge there can be no equality of opportunity.

Well if you are pointing out that equality of opportunity cannot exist without equality of outcome I would agree. It just goes to show what the flaws are in the very idea of equality of opportunity. My objection to the idea goes further than that though. Virtues, in particular a willingness to engage in hard work, play a part in improving an individuals economic outcome. Most of what determines it are other things, natural talent, personal circumstances (as you have just pointed out) and the vice of ambition. This is especially true for the top positions.

Equality of opportunity can only exist if equality of outcome exists but equality of outcome negates the whole point of opportunity

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I don't think its good at all to say laypersons are of lesser value than bishops.
Then what are they? Separate but equal? They demonstrably have less power, authority, and respect within the Church of England
Less power and authority certainly. Less respect often (although frankly not always as you just demonstrated with your remark about Welby). But to say that that equates to less value as human beings is, I think, to take a pretty elevated view of social hierarchy.
In short in some arbtrary and abstract way you claim to value them just as much. On the other side you won't allow them respect, influence, or power. You just claim the value is the same despite it not matching the real world treatment. I reiterate my claim that you see women as "separate but equal".
Who is allowing women 'positions or respect, power and influence'? Most women and men can never occupy those positions. Only two groups cam,those who actually occupy those positions now and those who could in future. Most men and women can never fall into the latter category because of their level of natural talent or because of their lack of ambition or because of their personal circumstances.

There can only be equality of opportunity if there is equality of outcome i.e. if people start out with an equal share of power and influence and keep it, in which case the point of 'opportunity' is moot.

Valuing human beings is certainly not based on any notion of meritocracy.

[ 20. December 2013, 18:33: Message edited by: Tommy1 ]

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... Well if you are pointing out that equality of opportunity cannot exist without equality of outcome I would agree. It just goes to show what the flaws are in the very idea of equality of opportunity. ... Equality of opportunity can only exist if equality of outcome exists but equality of outcome negates the whole point of opportunity... There can only be equality of opportunity if there is equality of outcome i.e. if people start out with an equal share of power and influence and keep it, in which case the point of 'opportunity' is moot. ...

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

What everyone else means by equal opportunity is that all public schools have the same funding per pupil, for example, or that homeowners in any neighbourhood of a city can get a mortgage. Equality of opportunity means the outcome is determined by the individual, not pre-determined by the position they started in.

Most young people today believe that their standard of living will be lower than their parents', that they will work harder and longer for less money, and that they may never own their own home, and the facts on the ground support their belief. I don't think they will buy the argument that they really had the same opportunities as their parents, but failed to make the most of them.

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... Well if you are pointing out that equality of opportunity cannot exist without equality of outcome I would agree. It just goes to show what the flaws are in the very idea of equality of opportunity. ... Equality of opportunity can only exist if equality of outcome exists but equality of outcome negates the whole point of opportunity... There can only be equality of opportunity if there is equality of outcome i.e. if people start out with an equal share of power and influence and keep it, in which case the point of 'opportunity' is moot. ...

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

What everyone else means by equal opportunity is that all public schools have the same funding per pupil, for example, or that homeowners in any neighbourhood of a city can get a mortgage. Equality of opportunity means the outcome is determined by the individual

I know what it means, do you? Outcome determined by the individual. How exactly?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I can ask a question to those here more familiar with priestly politics than I am? Do people think that conservative evangelical priests respect their wives less than they respect their bishops? I don't think it would be a good thing if they did but I would be interested if anyone could shed light on the answer.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Most young people today believe that their standard of living will be lower than their parents', that they will work harder and longer for less money, and that they may never own their own home, and the facts on the ground support their belief. I don't think they will buy the argument that they really had the same opportunities as their parents, but failed to make the most of them.

My point exactly. The whole notion of equality of opportunity is deeply flawed. It cannot exist and to pretend that it does is a way of blaming the poor for their poverty.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] [QUOTE]Secondly, ambition. I'm not sure ambition is as such a sin. It depends on why you're ambitious. Wanting to do a job that you would be good at in order to make a difference in the world isn't sinful.

I wouldn't say that was quite the same thing as ambition. Someone can want a job in order to make a difference in the world and be content with that being quite humble. When someone has a desire for a position that commands higher authority and respect that is ambition and it is driven by ego.
Can we be clear what you're arguing here.
Are you saying nobody should be a priest or bishop? Is it impossible to want to be a priest or bishop for any reason other than desire for authority and respect? That's one argument.

If you're saying that it's possible to want to be a priest or bishop for reasons other than desire for authority and respect, then this whole argument against equality of opportunity is irrelevant. (Just because someone wants a position that happens to command authority doesn't mean that the person wants that position because it commands authority.)

quote:
quote:
Thirdly, equality of opportunity can be as a stick to beat the poor. This is indeed the case while there ought to be equality of opportunity and there isn't. But saying that there is not now equality of opportunity is not at all the same as saying that we oughtn't to try to bring about more equality of opportunity than there in fact is.
But the difficulty is that if if one could envisage real equality of opportunity, and I think this will always be a myth, it would still be a stick be beat the poor. There will always be a great many people who, for want a better term, just aren't very smart. Crucially also holding up equality of opportunity as an ideal helps to glorify ambition, which I think is wrong for the reasons I gave.
I do not see that it necessarily glorifies the kind of ambition you're talking about. If one values equality of opportunity to use one's talents and to follow one's vocation one is not therefore valuing inequality of respect. It's not as if the contrary attitude is free of the risk of sin either.
If you think equality of opportunity is a flawed ideal, what do you think is a better alternative? Inequality of opportunity?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which is far better than people sitting on their thumbs and telling others to not get angry because life isn't fair. At least they are trying to change things for the better.

quote:
I understand that this difference is justified by ideas of meritocracy but I have given reasons in my last reply as to why I disagree with this as an ideal.
That response isn't even coherent. It bases itself on the idea that you can have a significant gap between rich and poor and equality of opportunity at the same time. This is, of course, impossible. Kids who are worried about filling their bellies or shelter do not have equality of opportunity with those who can focus on other things. Kids who can't trust authority (the main predictor of failing the marshmallow test - which is itself a huge predictor) don't have equality of opportunity with those who can trust the authorities around them.

Your entire objection is, therefore, utterly meaningless. While some are in poverty and others gorge there can be no equality of opportunity.

Well is it the better? That's the whole question being discussed.
Come back with those goalposts. Your previous claim was that "But the difficulty is that if if one could envisage real equality of opportunity, and I think this will always be a myth, it would still be a stick be beat the poor." I just demonstrated that that claim was complete rubbish because if you have equality of opportunity there are no absolutely poor people. You are now saying that the question is "Is it better?" Not "Are your comments meaningful to the discussion?"

quote:
quote:
That response isn't even coherent. It bases itself on the idea that you can have a significant gap between rich and poor and equality of opportunity at the same time. This is, of course, impossible. Kids who are worried about filling their bellies or shelter do not have equality of opportunity with those who can focus on other things. Kids who can't trust authority (the main predictor of failing the marshmallow test - which is itself a huge predictor) don't have equality of opportunity with those who can trust the authorities around them.

Your entire objection is, therefore, utterly meaningless. While some are in poverty and others gorge there can be no equality of opportunity.

Well if you are pointing out that equality of opportunity cannot exist without equality of outcome I would agree.
This is false as well. You can not have equality of opportunity with massive differences in the outcomes. You can not have equality of opportunity while there is a ridiculous disparity in outcomes - but that doesn't mean you need identical outcomes. Income varying by a factor of 2 still works. It does not breach the issues I've raised. What you can not have is massive wealth or personal poverty.

Which, of course, utterly crushes your other argument against equality of opportunity. Ambition. If you want to encourage and nurture ambition, increase the disparity in outcomes and make them matter more in the long run. If you want to minimise ambition, make it not make the difference between being unable to put food on the table and owning everything you survey.

quote:
It just goes to show what the flaws are in the very idea of equality of opportunity.
That it's effectively a frictionless environment - things get better the closer you reach to it, but if you ever actually get there things go extremely weird? That you don't want a genuinely frictionless environment doesn't prevent engineers from lubricating things to minimise friction.

quote:
Who is allowing women 'positions or respect, power and influence'? Most women and men can never occupy those positions. Only two groups cam,those who actually occupy those positions now and those who could in future. Most men and women can never fall into the latter category because of their level of natural talent or because of their lack of ambition or because of their personal circumstances.
... is this seriously an argument?

quote:
Valuing human beings is certainly not based on any notion of meritocracy.
No. But eliminating many of their potential contributions because of what's between their legs is manifestly devaluing them.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I just demonstrated that that claim was complete rubbish because if you have equality of opportunity there are no absolutely poor people.

What you demonstrated is that the greater the disparities in wealth the more personal circumstance matters to outcome. Where disparities of wealth are smaller then ambition and natural talent play a proportionately larger role.

quote:
You can not have equality of opportunity while there is a ridiculous disparity in outcomes - but that doesn't mean you need identical outcomes. Income varying by a factor of 2 still works. It does not breach the issues I've raised. What you can not have is massive wealth or personal poverty.
No it doesn't 'still work'. Where you have great poverty differences in intelligence and character are much more determined by circumstances. As you describe poverty damages children ability to develop their minds, learn to delay gratification etc. If you eliminate this kind of poverty then differences in intelligence and character are much more determined by genetic differences between individuals. I don't see how that can be said to equate to true equality of opportunity. That can only happen when you have equality of outcome.

quote:
Which, of course, utterly crushes your other argument against equality of opportunity. Ambition. If you want to encourage and nurture ambition, increase the disparity in outcomes and make them matter more in the long run. If you want to minimise ambition, make it not make the difference between being unable to put food on the table and owning everything you survey.
I'm not in favour of huge disparities of wealth and poverty, I'm not sure why you think I am.
quote:
quote:
Who is allowing women 'positions or respect, power and influence'? Most women and men can never occupy those positions. Only two groups cam,those who actually occupy those positions now and those who could in future. Most men and women can never fall into the latter category because of their level of natural talent or because of their lack of ambition or because of their personal circumstances.
... is this seriously an argument?
Yes. Why shouldn't it be?
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't work out what on earth you have all been talking about for the last page or two. Or what relevance it has to the topic. Which, last time I looked, was about God calling women to ministet in the churches. Not rehashed sixth-form debating-society arguments about the welfare state from about 1973.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't work out what on earth you have all been talking about for the last page or two. Or what relevance it has to the topic. Which, last time I looked, was about God calling women to ministet in the churches. Not rehashed sixth-form debating-society arguments about the welfare state from about 1973.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Can we be clear what you're arguing here.
Are you saying nobody should be a priest or bishop? Is it impossible to want to be a priest or bishop for any reason other than desire for authority and respect? That's one argument.

Yes I'm afraid I didn't express myself very clearly there. Ambition is wanting a position because of its power and influence or for other egotistical reasons.

quote:
If you're saying that it's possible to want to be a priest or bishop for reasons other than desire for authority and respect, then this whole argument against equality of opportunity is irrelevant. (Just because someone wants a position that happens to command authority doesn't mean that the person wants that position because it commands authority.)
But then if someone desires a position for purely selfless reasons then no injury is done to them if they are unable to fill that position for whatever reason.

quote:
I do not see that it necessarily glorifies the kind of ambition you're talking about. If one values equality of opportunity to use one's talents and to follow one's vocation one is not therefore valuing inequality of respect. It's not as if the contrary attitude is free of the risk of sin either.
I see what you're saying. I suppose theoretically one could have an ideal of equality of opportunity without glorifying that kind of ambition. In practise though human nature prevents this.
quote:
If you think equality of opportunity is a flawed ideal, what do you think is a better alternative? Inequality of opportunity?
A better alternative I suppose is accepting that equality of opportunity is an illusion.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I can't work out what on earth you have all been talking about for the last page or two. Or what relevance it has to the topic. Which, last time I looked, was about God calling women to minister in the churches. Not rehashed sixth-form debating-society arguments about the welfare state from about 1973.

The relevance is that a great many of the people who are unhappy with women being excluded from the episcopacy are unhappy not for theological reasons but because it is seen as an offence against 'equality of opportunity'. So an examination of the morality of what is called 'equality of opportunity' is relevant.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The relevance is that a great many of the people who are unhappy with women being excluded from the episcopacy are unhappy not for theological reasons but because it is seen as an offence against 'equality of opportunity'. So an examination of the morality of what is called 'equality of opportunity' is relevant.

I've always distrusted assumptions that "a great many people" hold a motivation when the one making the accusation can't be bothered to name any of them. Who are these people who object to "an offence against 'equality of opportunity'" and yet also believe that God is a sexist?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
But then if someone desires a position for purely selfless reasons then no injury is done to them if they are unable to fill that position for whatever reason.

That's a beautiful Catch-22. If someone objects to being denied the opportunity to become a bishop for any reason, however arbitrary, that proves that they aren't fit to be a bishop.

Every other 'argument' you've come up with in the last couple of pages has been monumentally stupid, but that one is truly inspired.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The relevance is that a great many of the people who are unhappy with women being excluded from the episcopacy are unhappy not for theological reasons but because it is seen as an offence against 'equality of opportunity'. So an examination of the morality of what is called 'equality of opportunity' is relevant.

I've always distrusted assumptions that "a great many people" hold a motivation when the one making the accusation can't be bothered to name any of them. Who are these people who object to "an offence against 'equality of opportunity'"
Well there's WATCH for a start. The Church Of England's 2004 Women Bishops in the Church of England report stated "many in the Church now use the word ‘justice’ as shorthand for equality of opportunity for women in the Church."
quote:
and yet also believe that God is a sexist?
Perhaps I should have expressed that clearer. I'm referring to people who were angry with last years vote for 'equality of opportunity' reasons instead of theological reasons not despite theological reasons. I take your point though that there are people who see the originally secular notion of 'equality of opportunity' as a theological imperative itself, in which case it is even more important to examine the morality of the concept.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
But then if someone desires a position for purely selfless reasons then no injury is done to them if they are unable to fill that position for whatever reason.

That's a beautiful Catch-22. If someone objects to being denied the opportunity to become a bishop for any reason, however arbitrary, that proves that they aren't fit to be a bishop.
That's not quite what I said. If someone objects to rules about who becomes bishops because they think it would be better for the church to change the rules then it does not represent a personal injury to them if the rules are not changed. If someone objects to rules because he or she personally would like the chance to occupy such a position then that is ambition which is a sin.

Of course that in itself does not disqualify someone from being a bishop but it is a negative characteristic. That is for example who when a Pope or Archbishop is chosen it is seen as a bad thing for someone to say they want the job. It is why so often when someone gets the top job they never say 'oh yes this is exactly what I wanted'. Very frequently of course such people are highly ambitious but they recognise that this is a sin and therefore not something to boast about and attempt to justify.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eliab

I'll give an example. Eastern Orthodox churches do not allow married priests to be made bishops. Supposing it was decided by one on these churches to retain this rule and someone was unhappy with this decision not for any theological reasons but because it prevented him personally from becoming a bishop. That would be ambition.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Can we be clear what you're arguing here.
Are you saying nobody should be a priest or bishop? Is it impossible to want to be a priest or bishop for any reason other than desire for authority and respect? That's one argument.

Yes I'm afraid I didn't express myself very clearly there. Ambition is wanting a position because of its power and influence or for other egotistical reasons.
Yes you didn't express yourself clearly?
Or yes you think there are no non-sinful reasons for wanting to be a priest?

quote:
quote:
If you're saying that it's possible to want to be a priest or bishop for reasons other than desire for authority and respect, then this whole argument against equality of opportunity is irrelevant. (Just because someone wants a position that happens to command authority doesn't mean that the person wants that position because it commands authority.)
But then if someone desires a position for purely selfless reasons then no injury is done to them if they are unable to fill that position for whatever reason.
Firstly, it is not true that all reasons are either egotistical or purely selfless.
An interracial couple desire to get married. That is certainly not egotistical. Yet they are certainly injured if that's not allowed. If I want the opportunity to use my talents that is not egotistical. Yet I am harmed if I am denied that chance.
Even if the desire is purely selfless, I may be injured or insulted if I'm not allowed to act on it. Suppose I offer my time to do the accounts for the charity shop, and I'm told they don't want my help, even though I'm better qualified and would do a better job than any other applicant. If the reason I'm rejected concerns me as a person then that is an insult to me.

quote:
quote:
I do not see that it necessarily glorifies the kind of ambition you're talking about. If one values equality of opportunity to use one's talents and to follow one's vocation one is not therefore valuing inequality of respect. It's not as if the contrary attitude is free of the risk of sin either.
I see what you're saying. I suppose theoretically one could have an ideal of equality of opportunity without glorifying that kind of ambition. In practise though human nature prevents this.
Human nature may not be purely good. But it is not purely evil either. Jobs that need to be done still need to be done even if people do them from mixed motives.

quote:
quote:
If you think equality of opportunity is a flawed ideal, what do you think is a better alternative? Inequality of opportunity?
A better alternative I suppose is accepting that equality of opportunity is an illusion.
Full equality of opportunity maybe. It's certainly possible to have less or greater inequality of opportunity.

Suppose we agree that equality of opportunity is an illusion and we forget about it entirely, what do you think we should have instead?

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
But then if someone desires a position for purely selfless reasons then no injury is done to them if they are unable to fill that position for whatever reason.

That's a beautiful Catch-22. If someone objects to being denied the opportunity to become a bishop for any reason, however arbitrary, that proves that they aren't fit to be a bishop.

Every other 'argument' you've come up with in the last couple of pages has been monumentally stupid, but that one is truly inspired.

I'm not sure if I'd agree. There was a strong tradition in the post-apostolic church of people trying hard to escape from being made bishop, to the point of self-exile. In this line of thinking, anyone who does anything but grab at a reason to escape a mitre is perhaps unfit for the job. The argument against ambitious clerics is perhaps quite out of whack with our era, but falls within an ancient tradition.

Looking at many who get chosen bishop, particularly in those jurisdictions with elections, I begin to wonder if they were wrong.

Where I would agree sort-of with Eliab is that it be wrong to impose an unecessary restriction on candidates for the purple- such as once applied to those of illegitimate birth. Some restriction might be necessary, as the ban on slaves becoming clergy (as they had no independence of judgement in law), and some theologically arguable, such as the consecration of divorced and remarried priests (although I find that opinion on this has changed dramatically, to the point that most people are now not aware that it was ever so). Whether or women should not be ordained is a question where there are different schools of thought-- if one says not, then restrictions follow; if one is for, then restrictions are inconsistent and incoherent.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The relevance is that a great many of the people who are unhappy with women being excluded from the episcopacy are unhappy not for theological reasons but because it is seen as an offence against 'equality of opportunity'.

I've always distrusted assumptions that "a great many people" hold a motivation when the one making the accusation can't be bothered to name any of them. Who are these people who object to "an offence against 'equality of opportunity'"
Well there's WATCH for a start.
Is there? From WATCH's self description:

quote:
WATCH (Women and the Church) is campaigning to see women take their place alongside men as bishops and at every level in the Church of England. This requires the removal of current legal obstacles to the consecration of women as bishops. WATCH believes that the full equality of women and men is part of God’s will for the Church and for the world, and reflects the inclusive heart of the Christian scripture and tradition.
That seems like a theological position to me. I suppose you could argue that they're lying about what they really believe, but I'd like to see some evidence of that beyond your say-so.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
The Church Of England's 2004 Women Bishops in the Church of England report stated "many in the Church now use the word ‘justice’ as shorthand for equality of opportunity for women in the Church."

Which completely evades the question of who these "many" are. If there are so many, it should be easy to name names of people who believe women should be allowed to be bishops and yet also believe God forbids the practice.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Perhaps I should have expressed that clearer.

You keep saying that. Perhaps the problem isn't that you're not expressing yourself clearly, it's that your stated position is self-contradictory muddle?

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I take your point though that there are people who see the originally secular notion of 'equality of opportunity' as a theological imperative itself, in which case it is even more important to examine the morality of the concept.

It seems a double standard to insist on a careful examination of the theological and moral implications of "equality of opportunity" and yet to implicitly assume the moral validity of "inequality of opportunity" as you seem to do. Why isn't it important to examine the morality of the latter?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If there are so many, it should be easy to name names of people who believe women should be allowed to be bishops and yet also believe God forbids the practice.

Someone who belivies that women should be ordained for secular reasons and not for theological reasons is hardly going to be someone who thinks God forbids the practice. Rather they will be someone who think God allows the practise. For it to be theological reasons someone would have to think that God actually commands the practise of ordination of women.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Perhaps I should have expressed that clearer.

You keep saying that. Perhaps the problem isn't that you're not expressing yourself clearly, it's that your stated position is self-contradictory muddle?

I suppose what I have not really appreciated is that some people actually believe not just that the ordination of women and 'equality of opportunity' are allowed by God but that they are actually commanded by God. These notions are so recent and so obviously secular in origin that I have always been sceptical of claims by people to believe that these things were theological imperatives.

This scepticism has been reinforced by things like the fact that so many of the advocates for women's ordination are theological liberals in other areas.

Such an impression is also reinforced by comments from various pro ordinations of women commentors within the Church that failure to make women bishops is wrong because, amongst other reasons it leads the non Christian public to think that the Church is immoral, thereby showing that they think that the moral opinions of the non-Christian public have some kind of value or carry some kind of weight. This makes me think that such commentors are being led by secular no theological convictions. I appreciate however that that is probably ungenerous thinking on my part and that many people do actually think this.

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
But then if someone desires a position for purely selfless reasons then no injury is done to them if they are unable to fill that position for whatever reason.

That's a beautiful Catch-22. If someone objects to being denied the opportunity to become a bishop for any reason, however arbitrary, that proves that they aren't fit to be a bishop.

Every other 'argument' you've come up with in the last couple of pages has been monumentally stupid, but that one is truly inspired.

I'm not sure if I'd agree. There was a strong tradition in the post-apostolic church of people trying hard to escape from being made bishop, to the point of self-exile. In this line of thinking, anyone who does anything but grab at a reason to escape a mitre is perhaps unfit for the job. The argument against ambitious clerics is perhaps quite out of whack with our era, but falls within an ancient tradition.
You see elements of this even today. During the run up to the election of a Pope it is seen as quite unacceptable for anyone to say they actually want the job.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems a double standard to insist on a careful examination of the theological and moral implications of "equality of opportunity" and yet to implicitly assume the moral validity of "inequality of opportunity" as you seem to do. Why isn't it important to examine the morality of the latter?

If equality of opportunity is a delusion then it is sensible to question the morality of chasing (or even idolising)that delusion. Inequality of opportunity on the other hand is simply a fact.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Yes you didn't express yourself clearly?
Or yes you think there are no non-sinful reasons for wanting to be a priest?

Yes I didn't express myself clearly.

quote:
If you're saying that it's possible to want to be a priest or bishop for reasons other than desire for authority and respect, then this whole argument against equality of opportunity is irrelevant. (Just because someone wants a position that happens to command authority doesn't mean that the person wants that position because it commands authority.)
This argument is an argument against 'equality of opportunity being a moral imperative. It does not mean by itself that there are not other reasons for women's ordination


quote:
An interracial couple desire to get married. That is certainly not egotistical. Yet they are certainly injured if that's not allowed. If I want the opportunity to use my talents that is not egotistical. Yet I am harmed if I am denied that chance.
I'm not sure that a relevant example for this discussion. I don't think many people contract interracial marriages for reasons of ambition.
quote:
Even if the desire is purely selfless, I may be injured or insulted if I'm not allowed to act on it. Suppose I offer my time to do the accounts for the charity shop, and I'm told they don't want my help, even though I'm better qualified and would do a better job than any other applicant. If the reason I'm rejected concerns me as a person then that is an insult to me.
If its not your shop then you have no right to demand to work there. If you are insulted then perhaps that is ego.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Human nature may not be purely good. But it is not purely evil either. Jobs that need to be done still need to be done even if people do them from mixed motives.

I can't agree with what you are saying here. I would rather have to agree with the 9th and 10th of the 39 Articles

quote:
IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

X. Of Free-Will.
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Suppose we agree that equality of opportunity is an illusion and we forget about it entirely, what do you think we should have instead?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The alternative to holding onto or making an imperative of an illusion is not holding on to it.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Someone who belivies that women should be ordained for secular reasons and not for theological reasons is hardly going to be someone who thinks God forbids the practice. Rather they will be someone who think God allows the practise. For it to be theological reasons someone would have to think that God actually commands the practise of ordination of women.

Not at all.

God forbids . . .
God permits . . .
God requires . . .

These are all assertions about God and, therefore, theological positions.

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity on the other hand is simply a fact.

Not always. It's frequently a product of human artifice. Take, for example, the related thread on the now-rescinded bar on anyone of African descent holding a Mormon priesthood. Even the Mormon church has now admitted that the supposed inferiority of African-descended Mormons is not a "fact", as you put it, but an invention. Your argument seems to be that if discrimination exists, it is, by reason of its existence, just and moral.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I trust that this article is apposite.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Someone who belivies that women should be ordained for secular reasons and not for theological reasons is hardly going to be someone who thinks God forbids the practice. Rather they will be someone who think God allows the practise. For it to be theological reasons someone would have to think that God actually commands the practise of ordination of women.

Not at all.

God forbids . . .
God permits . . .
God requires . . .

These are all assertions about God and, therefore, theological positions.

Thinking that God permits but does not require something is not by itself reason enough to do something. An additional reason would be needed

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity on the other hand is simply a fact.

Not always. It's frequently a product of human artifice. Take, for example, the related thread on the now-rescinded bar on anyone of African descent holding a Mormon priesthood. Even the Mormon church has now admitted that the supposed inferiority of African-descended Mormons is not a "fact", as you put it, but an invention. Your argument seems to be that if discrimination exists, it is, by reason of its existence, just and moral.
Since equality of opportunity does not and cannot exist it follows that it has never existed at any time in Mormonism either before or after they changed their rules.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE][qb] If you're saying that it's possible to want to be a priest or bishop for reasons other than desire for authority and respect, then this whole argument against equality of opportunity is irrelevant. (Just because someone wants a position that happens to command authority doesn't mean that the person wants that position because it commands authority.)

This argument is an argument against 'equality of opportunity being a moral imperative. It does not mean by itself that there are not other reasons for women's ordination
Someone might want to be a priest or a bishop for reasons having nothing to do with personal ambition. They should have as much equality of opportunity as feasible. Saying that equality of opportunity doesn't apply because ambition is wrong is irrelevant, because they don't want to be a priest for personal ambition.

quote:
quote:
An interracial couple desire to get married. That is certainly not egotistical. Yet they are certainly injured if that's not allowed. If I want the opportunity to use my talents that is not egotistical. Yet I am harmed if I am denied that chance.
I'm not sure that a relevant example for this discussion. I don't think many people contract interracial marriages for reasons of ambition.
So? Are you saying every man who wants to be a priest wants to be a priest for reasons of ambition? If yes, then say so. If no, then do you think every woman who wants to be a priest wants to be a priest for reasons of amibtion? If yes, then justify that. If no, then yes, interracial marriage is relevant.

quote:
quote:
Even if the desire is purely selfless, I may be injured or insulted if I'm not allowed to act on it. Suppose I offer my time to do the accounts for the charity shop, and I'm told they don't want my help, even though I'm better qualified and would do a better job than any other applicant. If the reason I'm rejected concerns me as a person then that is an insult to me.
If its not your shop then you have no right to demand to work there. If you are insulted then perhaps that is ego.
We're not talking about legalistic rights here. Imagine somebody asks for help to carry tables. You offer. They say, I don't want your help. Is it really only ego if you feel insulted.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Human nature may not be purely good. But it is not purely evil either. Jobs that need to be done still need to be done even if people do them from mixed motives.
I can't agree with what you are saying here. I would rather have to agree with the 9th and 10th of the 39 Articles
The Christian doctrine of original sin, as expressed in the 39 Articles, is not that human beings absent particular grace are entirely without natural good, but that all natural good we have is infected. The natural good is still there; not indeed sufficient to earn salvation, but not entirely abolished. In any case, when talking about people seeking the priesthood the issue is somewhat in abeyance.

quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The alternative to holding onto or making an imperative of an illusion is not holding on to it.
The alternative to holding onto an illusion is seeing what is really there. What do you think is really there? Do you think there is a secular injustice done to somebody who is denied a job on grounds of race, sex, or other irrelevant grounds? If so, on what grounds if not equality of opportunity?

quote:
I suppose what I have not really appreciated is that some people actually believe not just that the ordination of women and 'equality of opportunity' are allowed by God but that they are actually commanded by God. These notions are so recent and so obviously secular in origin that I have always been sceptical of claims by people to believe that these things were theological imperatives.
We are commanded by God to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. If we have secular reasons to believe something is unjust or unmerciful then we have a theological reason not to do it.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Thinking that God permits but does not require something is not by itself reason enough to do something. An additional reason would be needed

Since equality of opportunity does not and cannot exist it follows that it has never existed at any time in Mormonism either before or after they changed their rules.

I think the key factor missing in this discussion is that of calling. The additional reason to think that women should be ordained is the fact that some women believe that they have been called to be ordain. If we are to take seriously, as I presume most of us do, the idea that God can and does call individuals to ministries in general and to the ordained priesthood in particular then we must take seriously those calls whether they are heard by women or by men. The equality of opportunity is not to be ordained, then, as clearly not everyone has that calling. The equality of opportunity is in how that call is treated by the church. If the church genuinely assessed the call of women on the same basis as it does men and came up with no prospective female ordinands then that would be an excellent sign that God does not intend women to be priests.

What we find, in fact, is that the process seems to result in a great many women coming forward who are called to the priesthood.

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Someone might want to be a priest or a bishop for reasons having nothing to do with personal ambition. They should have as much equality of opportunity as feasible. Saying that equality of opportunity doesn't apply because ambition is wrong is irrelevant, because they don't want to be a priest for personal ambition.

If someone feels called to ordained ministry and then pursues that because he feels its an obligation to follow that calling then that's not the same thing as wanting to be a priest. Of course as you say a person's motives can be mixed but I think ideally it should not be equated with wanting to be a priest. I also think Augustine the Aleut is right and that ought to be even more true of Bishops. Ideally a bishop should be someone who does not want to be a bishop.

If you think of another area of life where people get called this illustrates the point. When people turn up to be witnesses in court because they have been called that is not the same thing as wanting to be a witness.
quote:
We're not talking about legalistic rights here. Imagine somebody asks for help to carry tables. You offer. They say, I don't want your help. Is it really only ego if you feel insulted.
I think it is.

quote:
]The Christian doctrine of original sin, as expressed in the 39 Articles, is not that human beings absent particular grace are entirely without natural good, but that all natural good we have is infected. The natural good is still there; not indeed sufficient to earn salvation, but not entirely abolished.
I see your point. Perhaps it would be better to say human nature is evil rather than saying 'purely evil'.

quote:
Do you think there is a secular injustice done to somebody who is denied a job on grounds of race, sex, or other irrelevant grounds?
No. I think it would be sensible for a secular employer to pick the best candidate for the job regardless or irrelevant factors like race or sex and if I were an emplyer I wouldn't want to discriminate on those grounds for exactly that reason. However I think that private employers should be able to hire whoever they want for their own business on whatever grounds they want.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not "on whatever grounds", because that opens up a whole range of abusive possibilities - which the laws are set up to control.

Yes, there are plenty of choices one can make - someone who can't swim should not be accepted for a lifeguard position, for instance - but to say "I don't like the colour of your eyes" would imply an unhealthy attitude to one's employees, while "Is your penis at least 7 inches long?" would be a serious invasion of privacy (let alone an extremely silly requirement - unless one is hiring for a porn film, of course!)

I suppose, in one sense, that almost all the silly/nasty hiring requirements actually make the potential employer look like a nut, which it would be better to know before accepting an offer. But these sorts of requirements were practised in other times, especially in the one-employer towns, and many people suffered greatly because of that. Examples on request.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... However I think that private employers should be able to hire whoever they want for their own business on whatever grounds they want.

No Irish Need Apply.

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
However I think that private employers should be able to hire whoever they want for their own business on whatever grounds they want.

I think it's pretty clear that we're not going to agree then.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Since equality of opportunity does not and cannot exist

Hang on, are you saying as we are not clones is a completely egalitarian society, there is no point trying? Might as well just give up and let the gap between the have and have not become greater?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity on the other hand is simply a fact.

Not always. It's frequently a product of human artifice. Take, for example, the related thread on the now-rescinded bar on anyone of African descent holding a Mormon priesthood. Even the Mormon church has now admitted that the supposed inferiority of African-descended Mormons is not a "fact", as you put it, but an invention. Your argument seems to be that if discrimination exists, it is, by reason of its existence, just and moral.
Since equality of opportunity does not and cannot exist it follows that it has never existed at any time in Mormonism either before or after they changed their rules.
. . . and is therefore just and moral in both cases? That's a pretty ringing endorsement of the status quo. Any status quo in fact, since you seem to take the existence of anything as proof of its moral justification.

Which suggests the solution to the ordination of women is pretty straightforward. Just allow it, and it therefore becomes a "fact", which means it's morally justified. Hurrah!

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity on the other hand is simply a fact.

Not always. It's frequently a product of human artifice. Take, for example, the related thread on the now-rescinded bar on anyone of African descent holding a Mormon priesthood. Even the Mormon church has now admitted that the supposed inferiority of African-descended Mormons is not a "fact", as you put it, but an invention. Your argument seems to be that if discrimination exists, it is, by reason of its existence, just and moral.
Since equality of opportunity does not and cannot exist it follows that it has never existed at any time in Mormonism either before or after they changed their rules.
. . . and is therefore just and moral in both cases?
Not necessarily in either case.
quote:
That's a pretty ringing endorsement of the status quo. Any status quo in fact, since you seem to take the existence of anything as proof of its moral justification.
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that conclusion. A status quo could very well be immoral or unjust for other reasons than its alleged level of 'equality of opportunity'.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Not "on whatever grounds", because that opens up a whole range of abusive possibilities - which the laws are set up to control.

Yes, there are plenty of choices one can make - someone who can't swim should not be accepted for a lifeguard position, for instance - but to say "I don't like the colour of your eyes" would imply an unhealthy attitude to one's employees,

If an individual employer wants to hire people based on their eye colour then (whilst it would be very silly for an employer to use such a criteria) that should be up to him.
quote:
while "Is your penis at least 7 inches long?" would be a serious invasion of privacy
Indeed. Such a line of questioning should be condemned not because of absence of 'equality of opportunity' but because of the sexual immorality of such questioning.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that conclusion. A status quo could very well be immoral or unjust for other reasons than its alleged level of 'equality of opportunity'.

I didn't "jump[] to that conclusion" it was the justification you gave as to why we never need to examine any form of discrimination to determine if it is unjust. You asserted that if something is a "fact", its morality need never be examined.

[ 23. December 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
I'm not sure how you've jumped to that conclusion. A status quo could very well be immoral or unjust for other reasons than its alleged level of 'equality of opportunity'.

I didn't "jump[] to that conclusion" it was the justification you gave as to why we never need to examine any form of discrimination to determine if it is unjust. You asserted that if something is a "fact", its morality need never be examined.
'Equality of opportunity' does not and cannot exist. A status quo can be immoral if it is the result of immoral actions. Inequality of opportunity is not the result of any action, it is simply a fact. Changes in rules like the Mormon's change in rules can simply change the form of inequality of opportunity.
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To put it another way a status quo may be considered unjust if it could be ended by just actions. 'Equality of opportunity' cannot be brought about by any actions, just or otherwise
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity is not the result of any action, it is simply a fact.

I have to disagree with you there. You're pretending like racial discrimination or other forms of bigotry are some kind of natural forces, like earthquakes or hurricanes, completely beyond human control, rather than the product of human action.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity is not the result of any action, it is simply a fact.

I have to disagree with you there. You're pretending like racial discrimination or other forms of bigotry are some kind of natural forces, like earthquakes or hurricanes, completely beyond human control, rather than the product of human action.
No that not what I said at all. What I said was

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Isn't the very idea of equality of opportunity problematic? A person's advancement in life can depend in great part not only on 'prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people' but also a couple of other things, firstly natural talents, some people are simply naturally smarter etc than others and this is no more a matter of choice than being born male or female. Secondly on personal ambition which is, of course, a sin and not a sign of good character.

I also said
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Most of what determines it[economic outcome] are other things, natural talent, personal circumstances (as you have just pointed out) and the vice of ambition. This is especially true for the top positions.


Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity is not the result of any action, it is simply a fact.

I have to disagree with you there. You're pretending like racial discrimination or other forms of bigotry are some kind of natural forces, like earthquakes or hurricanes, completely beyond human control, rather than the product of human action.
No that not what I said at all. What I said was

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Isn't the very idea of equality of opportunity problematic? A person's advancement in life can depend in great part not only on 'prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people' but also a couple of other things, firstly natural talents, some people are simply naturally smarter etc than others and this is no more a matter of choice than being born male or female. Secondly on personal ambition which is, of course, a sin and not a sign of good character.

I also said
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Most of what determines it [economic outcome] are other things, natural talent, personal circumstances (as you have just pointed out) and the vice of ambition. This is especially true for the top positions.


And which of those factors you listed do you regard as a legitimate justification for racial discrimination? Is skin color a good proxy for natural talent? You keep ducking around the question of deliberately and arbitrarily inequitable systems. Actually you keep insisting that such systems aren't problems, just "facts" about which we can do nothing.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Inequality of opportunity is not the result of any action, it is simply a fact.

I have to disagree with you there. You're pretending like racial discrimination or other forms of bigotry are some kind of natural forces, like earthquakes or hurricanes, completely beyond human control, rather than the product of human action.
No that not what I said at all. What I said was

quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Isn't the very idea of equality of opportunity problematic? A person's advancement in life can depend in great part not only on 'prayer, hard work, pastoral skills, and care for other people' but also a couple of other things, firstly natural talents, some people are simply naturally smarter etc than others and this is no more a matter of choice than being born male or female. Secondly on personal ambition which is, of course, a sin and not a sign of good character.

I also said
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
Most of what determines it [economic outcome] are other things, natural talent, personal circumstances (as you have just pointed out) and the vice of ambition. This is especially true for the top positions.


And which of those factors you listed do you regard as a legitimate justification for racial discrimination? Is skin color a good proxy for natural talent? You keep ducking around the question of deliberately and arbitrarily inequitable systems. Actually you keep insisting that such systems aren't problems, just "facts" about which we can do nothing.
Not at all. Its perfectly feasable to switch from a system that has no 'equality of opportunity' to another system that also has no 'equality of opportunity'. What is not possible is to have a system that has any 'equality of opportunity'.

What I am saying is there might be any number of reasons for condemning a particular system it is not possible to condemn any system for its lack of 'equality of opportunity' since the level of 'equality of opportunity' is the same in all systems (zero).

Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy1:
... If an individual employer wants to hire people based on their eye colour then (whilst it would be very silly for an employer to use such a criteria) that should be up to him. ... Such a line of questioning should be condemned not because of absence of 'equality of opportunity' but because of the sexual immorality of such questioning.

So you believe that it is alright for an employer to hire employees based on race, but it is immoral to ask a question about their qualifications for the job. I just have to ask: are you Rand Paul?
[Paranoid]

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
it is immoral to ask a question about their qualifications for the job

I take it that's a reference to Horseman Bree saying
quote:
while "Is your penis at least 7 inches long?" would be a serious invasion of privacy (let alone an extremely silly requirement - unless one is hiring for a porn film, of course!)
Obviously there is no morally acceptable way of "hiring for a porn film".
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So you believe that it is alright for an employer to hire employees based on race, but it is immoral to ask a question about their qualifications for the job.

It goes a bit beyond just employment. T1's position that there's nothing immoral or unjust about racial discrimination (or any other form of discrimination for that matter) would seem to be equally applicable to government policy, like Apartheid or Jim Crow.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy1
Shipmate
# 17916

 - Posted      Profile for Tommy1     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So you believe that it is alright for an employer to hire employees based on race, but it is immoral to ask a question about their qualifications for the job.

It goes a bit beyond just employment. T1's position that there's nothing immoral or unjust about racial discrimination (or any other form of discrimination for that matter) would seem to be equally applicable to government policy, like Apartheid or Jim Crow.
The policies of Jim Crow and Apartheid oppressed citizens and denied them basic civil liberties and that's something I am entirely against. I'm also against such oppressive policies when they are carried out in the name of equality, as in Communist countries (although oppression in the name of equality is never equal of course).
Posts: 256 | Registered: Dec 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  ...  51  52  53 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools