> Am I correct, then, in thinking your response to people currently harmed by social structures they have no choice in interacting with is, basically, "I agree that this sucks, but I don't support changing anything to fix it."?
I don’t know about the guy you’re asking but the way I would tackle this question is, first by point out in some cases the “harm” is only perceived.
To give you an example of this, a claim often made is “trans kids are being harmed due to lack of access to hormones/surgery”. I find this revolting. I would consider, for this example at least, the current system is doing good in protecting them, certainly it is not harming them.
For me and many people, changing this would mean creating a social structure that is harmful.
What will happen if the system is now changed to allow children to take hormones but in a few decades this will be broadly considered a harmful social structure?
Another point I would bring up is, there are various ways problems can be addressed. Asking for change begs the question what change precisely? It is very possible agreement on the existence of the problem can be reached while the solution remains contentious.
A more accurate description of reality would be I think “Some problems exist and some problems are nothing more than attempts at getting power, privilege or attention. And while the problems that are generally agreed upon to exist should be fixed, the solution is often unclear and the proposals open up their own set of problems”
> To give you an example of this, a claim often made is “trans kids are being harmed due to lack of access to hormones/surgery”. I find this revolting. I would consider, for this example at least, the current system is doing good in protecting them, certainly it is not harming them.
Then I probably don't care about your opinion on this - we are almost certainly speaking from completely different ontological perspectives.
I asked the person I was replying to, because they seemed to have values at least somewhat compatible with mine, and thus I expect to learn something from them.
Fair enough. But, something has cough my attention.
> we are almost certainly speaking from completely different ontological perspectives
Do you consider me ontologically evil? Am I, as some people on the internet often refer to those with my sense of mortality, “a demon wearing human flash”?
I'm not sure why you would think that, as it's not what I said at all. Rather, I suspect based on this opinion that I disagree with some things you take as axiomatic, and vice versa, and therefore we have little to learn from arguing with each other.
When you said "ontological" I was reminded of a phrase I often encountered in leftist circles, the assertion some people are "ontologically evil". Precisely because they operate from a different set of axioms.
> therefore we have little to learn from arguing with each other
In a way I agree but at the same time I can't help but think exploring the axioms underlying moral foundations is important. Either to come to a shared set as a society or to construct a societal machanism that will allow people with a contradictory sense of morality to co-exist. To be honest, reaching a shared set of moral axioms seems to be a lost cause to me. But, perhaps the co-existance mechanism is still possible.
I don’t know about the guy you’re asking but the way I would tackle this question is, first by point out in some cases the “harm” is only perceived.
To give you an example of this, a claim often made is “trans kids are being harmed due to lack of access to hormones/surgery”. I find this revolting. I would consider, for this example at least, the current system is doing good in protecting them, certainly it is not harming them.
For me and many people, changing this would mean creating a social structure that is harmful.
What will happen if the system is now changed to allow children to take hormones but in a few decades this will be broadly considered a harmful social structure?
Another point I would bring up is, there are various ways problems can be addressed. Asking for change begs the question what change precisely? It is very possible agreement on the existence of the problem can be reached while the solution remains contentious.
A more accurate description of reality would be I think “Some problems exist and some problems are nothing more than attempts at getting power, privilege or attention. And while the problems that are generally agreed upon to exist should be fixed, the solution is often unclear and the proposals open up their own set of problems”