Jump to content

In Defense of Intent


OldGimletEye

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

To cut through a lot of this, isn’t this discussion really someone saying:

1.  I do not intend to do wrong, and I do not want to do wrong.

2.  I want clear rules as to what constitutes “right and wrong” so that I can then act accordingly.

3.  I want the rules to be of general application.

And someone else saying back:

1.  Despite your best intentions you are doing wrong to me, and you should do better.

2.  Your rule making does not take into account my lived experience and so you should talk to me first when making your rules.

3.  We very much agree, but see point 2?

So isn’t the real answer that a dialogue should be occurring between the two someones where maybe the first someone might do a lot of listening, the second someone might do a little listening, and the first someone should apply some empathy and the second someone should, maybe if justified, extend some grace?  I mean, I guess I’m not really seeing the ultimate issue.  If the real discussion is whether forgiveness and grace should be granted, then the answer is yes, in response to gratitude.

Yes, the problem it seems is the perception that you are being harmed by being corrected. If you're ignorant on a subject and a person  educates you they are doing you a favor. You're gaining knowledge and interpersonal skills. 

And loss of reputation would come entirely from how you handle the interaction and who hears it. No one is going to hold it against you if you handle it even a little bit gracefully. And people in the office might even think you handled it particularly well. Making an effort in different ways really matters in long-term office relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

It was diversity training I looked up personally and did. I went out and sought it out. I don't see why that shouldn't be the norm. 

It was on a website, for free. There are a lot of them. 

Oh really, that’s interesting. I have few questions:
1. Do you know about what year survey taking etiquette issues came to the attention of diversity training industry?
2. About what year did you learn not taking a survey could be an issue?
3. Did they conduct research? How so? By focus groups. Did they take a poll? What’s the percentage of people that felt people not wanting to take surveys was comment about their intelligence? What percentage thought the people were just being lazy and didn’t like tedious paperwork? Was there a demographic breakdown?
4. Did they give guidance on refusing to take different surveys. Phone surveys? Surveys administered over the internet. How about a survey offered by the clerk at McDonalds?
5. To the best of your knowledge is a module on survey taking etiquette using including in a diversity course? 
6. Did they offer any insights when its appropriate to try to weasel your way out of taking surveys?
7. Did they specify whether not wanting to take a survey was inherently bad in itself or does it depend on the factual circumstances of a specific case.
8. Should I ask them to take a survey first, so I can determine whether it’s okay for me to weasel out of taking their survey?
9. What happens if I believe the survey questions are particularly invasive into my privacy?
10. Would it be worth my time preparing a disclaimer warning people that I’m extremely lazy and will try to get out of doing as much tedious and monotonous paperwork as possible?

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

I am saying that it does not matter in the least. Whether or not someone intended to cause harm does not matter when you're talking about saying sorry and learning as the guide. Now, if a person keeps doing it, keeps offending another person or group of people, can't learn - THEN you might talk about intent mattering and escalating further, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about having a growth mindset, learning from your mistake, being sincere in your apology and moving on. 

And we're talking about a place where someone can actually say that they were hurt by your actions and it not be a career ending thing for them, which is the norm. 

If I accidentally hit a person with my fist, I say sorry. Even if I didn't mean to. And I try to figure out why it happened and take precautions not to do it again. And if I keep doing it? Yeah, it's probably a problem for me, not them. It's really not that hard.

Okay, perhaps, there is a misunderstanding here. Which maybe partly my fault for using the word “intent”, which might be interpreted as “purposely seeking to do a thing”. Perhaps I should have used a more technical term like scienter to mean a bad state of mind, to include negligent acts. I thought it was clear how I using the word “intent”. I thought it was clear from my first post.

So to repeat, when I’m using “intent” here I mean all culpable states of mind from “purposely seeking to do a thing” to “did not purposely intend to bring about a result, but should have been aware”.

I don’t have a particular problem with somebody learning about an injury they caused, whether they were at fault or not at fault for the injury.
What I’m disputing here is when somebody can be recognized as being at fault and there being a corresponding obligation to issue an apology. The upshot of my argument is that causation alone is not enough to establish fault or an obligation to issue an apology.

Whether you have an obligation to apologize depends on whether you are at fault. Your theory of fault, evidently, is one of pure causation. That theory of fault would lead to results that most people would find to be pure non-sense. It would lead situations where Caffrety and Shor would have to apologize to the people they harmed. Your theory of fault is a bit of a train wreck.

To drive home the point further:

Suppose I’m driving down a street. As I’m travelling down the street, one person shoves another person out in front of my car. I try to swerve to avoid hitting them,  but am unsuccessful. I did “cause” the accident in the sense I was driving at that particular point in time. But, am I morally responsible? Most people would say no and would assign blame to the person who shoved the person. After hitting the person I might very well have a set of responsibilities to them, like checking on them and calling for medical assistance. But, do I have duty to apologize to them for being at fault for causing the accident? Well no.

Or suppose a person is running through a crowd of people and then blind sides Andre The Giant. Because of Andre’s girth the person running bounces off him, falls down, and breaks his wrist. Did Andre “cause” the accident?  Well yes by walking in the crowd that day. Would Andre be considered morally responsible for the accident? Well no. And he would have no obligation to apologize. He may very well have some duty to assist the runner by calling for medical help. But, he shouldn’t be the one responsible for the runner’s medical bills.

I haven’t raised this issue before, but I will do so now. What is the leeway we ought to give the party claiming offense? Suppose somebody is offended by just looking at my face? Should I be required to get plastic surgery? Wear a mask? Cut two holes in a brown paper bag and put it over my head? Pay them money for having to look at my face? Apologize for my face?

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

Scot already covered this. 

I don’t think this means what you think it means.
I think I’ve been quite clear, at least from my opening, that the required mental bad state isn’t one “did with purpose”.
 

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

I'm saying framing it as accused and accuser is bullshit and I reject that framing entirely. The biggest problem here is that you're equating the potential harm caused by the person doing things that suck with the person receiving it. I say fuck that noise, and that it's a lot easier to simply de-escalate earlier, understand that you will make mistakes and it is on you to learn from them, and encourage you to do so - and also own that you caused harm. This is fucking kindergarten level. 

Its not bullshit if somebody risks being fired, reprimanded, censured, or ostracized over the alleged offending conduct. Do you think that “impact only, intentions are irrelevant” is an appropriate standard for cases involving employee discipline or ostracizing somebody for alleged bad conduct?

Furthermore, you actually do endorse the framing. You said so by saying if you hit somebody then you apologize. The actual dispute here isn’t the “framing”. It’s dispute between two competing theories of fault. Your theory of fault, evidently, is causation alone is sufficient to find fault. 
Now if you want to argue that a person that caused harm should listen to the harmed party’s explanation of how they were harmed, so the harming party knows not to repeat the same conduct that led to the harm, then that is fine by me (though I think this subject to some limitations. For instance, I think people should be allowed to tweet political science papers, no matter how many claim offense). 

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

It is a fact that they hit the person with their car in that case. They have a duty as a reasonable human being to ensure that the person is okay and taken care of, because it is the right thing to do. If they do it once? That sucks. If they do it a few times? I think we can label them as a bad driver and probably revoke their license until they learn why they keep hitting pedestrians. 

Given the scenario I gave, who should we look to first to pay for the pedestrians bills? The driver or the pedestrian?

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

I think this is the real problem - that you think that once you are labelled a moral bad actor (whatever the fuck that is) it is something that never, ever goes away and you are cast out into the wilderness to fight dogs for scraps of civilization. That there is some idea that once you make a mistake you are forever tarnished. Don't look at it that way, look at it as a growth opportunity and actually grow from it. Own that you caused harm and that you are sorry, and then try and make it better. If they still are not satisfied, that might be  something else to work on too. 

The question is why should somebody be under and obligation to apologize for something for which they were not at fault for, whatever your theory of fault is. Your theory of fault is mere causation. The one I’m arguing for requires a bit more than mere causation. Under your theory of fault, the mother of the driver is at fault. She gave birth to the driver and is a cause of the accident. Should she have to apologize?

And frankly, your dismissiveness of people getting blamed for harms and then suffering negative results, as a result of being blamed, is ridiculous. There can be serious consequences for people wrongfully blamed, even if they are not tarnished forever.
 

On 2/11/2021 at 12:34 PM, Karlbear said:

 Until you do that, you're basically saying that being harmed is significantly less, well, harmful than being accused of harming someone, and that is flat out bullshit oppressive garbage. 

What's oppressive garbage here is punishing people for conduct they could not have known was bad. People have right to have a general idea what conduct will get them into trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 3:05 PM, larrytheimp said:

I agree that neither of them should have been fired.  

You've managed to find a couple examples of the efforts to combat decades of oppression, discrimination, and racism goin a little too far.  You're going to break a couple eggs to  make a cake.  I'll consider those two examples to be minor casualties of friendly fire in a broader struggle.

re: moral culpability.... who gives a shit?  pretty much anything you do, someone can view as morally wrong or right.  I guess it would suck to be thought to have done something racist if you really hadn't.  But if you know you haven't, what's the problem?  Neither Cafferty nor Schor have been ostracized by their communities.  Schor was quickly hired elsewhere.  Is there anyone out there labelling them racists?

  If anything people have rallied around Cafferty's go fund me, the accuser recanted after hearing the explanations, and SDG&E explained that he was terminated for reasons beyond (though likely unearthed by) the substance of the complaint.  

I just don't understand the framing of the entire argument, I guess.  Even DiAngelo doesn't seem to be arguing that intent never matters, but that in the context of people being inadvertantly harmed, it very truly does not prevent the harm from happening.

If you want to talk hypotheticals Kal's example of accidentally hitting someone is a perfect one.  You hit someone by accident you apologize.  

A couple years ago I left my truck idling at a diesel pump and it popped out of park into reverse, rolled across the street and crashed through the entry way of the local Catholic church.  I didn't mean to do it but I sure as hell paid for it, and I'm certainly not going to argue that the doors didn't actually break and no damage was caused just because I didn't want to break them.

First, I don’t accept the premise of accepting a few “minor casualties” in order to achieve some socially desirable goal. Particularly not when the “minor casualties” are the result of bad reasoning or unfairness in the process of judgement. It’s akin to Bush administration arguing to restrict the procedural protections afforded to alleged terrorist being tried, including withholding the government’s evidence from them so they may prepare a defense. That whole mindset can lead to people being treated unjustly and if bad enough can create cynicism about the goal that is trying to be achieve. Fighting crime doesn’t mean we should allow a bunch of bogus expert testimony into a proceeding. Nor does it imply we should allow vague and poorly specified charges.

I’d say you give a great deal about moral culpability, as most people, I’d imagine do. The fact that you have indicated that Caffrety was treated wrongly, indicates you do. Suppose Cafferty had been found out as a member of a neo-nazi group. I suspect your judgement of the situation would change greatly.

I’ve read her book, and she is not entire clear about how she thinks intent or a bad mental state matters. She is not clear about whether she thinks “only impact matters” should be limited to conversations or whether it should be applied more broadly to matters involving adjudication of guilt and punishment. And frankly, I don’t think many on the left have clear opinion about this either. Many of them, evidently, are completely confused.

With regard to Kal’s hypothetical, depends on whether there is fault. If there is no fault, then there is no obligation to make an apology. Should Cafferty apologize?. I gave the scenario of the pedestrian running into the car or darting out into the street at the last minute (and further suppose the driver wasn’t speeding, wasn’t on cell phone, etc. Basically driving reasonably). Suppose you’re the driver’s employer. Do you reprimand him?

With regard to the truck incident. I think I have gone to lengths that responsibility doesn’t always mean “did with the purpose”( in fact I think it is in my very first post), but can include negligent acts, which are by definition not purposeful, or acts where you should have been aware of certain facts and conditions before acting.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 6:52 PM, DMC said:

Yeah this is what I don't get about the whole thread/OP.  While I haven't read her work extensively, my understanding of the main thrust of her point on these matters is that it is uncomfortable for most white people to confront the effects of implicit racial bias (that's pretty much the subtitle of White Fragility).  Accordingly, they get defensive and rely on the crutch that "they didn't mean it" - which curbs any discussion that lead to progress in understanding and awareness.  Which is the whole problem.

Seems to me this thread's thesis is one big depiction of white fragility's response to White Fragility.  I don't know why we're at once talking about legal ethics, moral philosophy (two things barely anybody here is an authority on), and the case of David Shor.  From my understanding, DiAngelo is not talking about legal ramifications AT ALL, and the moral "culpability" is simply to recognize how implicit bias can materialize and hurt others - in an effort to avoid in the future.  I don't see why anyone has a big problem with that.

As for Shor and Cafferty, yes, what happened to them was wrong.  But David Shor will be just fine - if anything the whole thing helped his career.  And plenty of people on the "left" came to his defense as well.  It's not like he's blackballed or his research is discounted now.  In fact, within the professional community, it's probably the opposite.  As for Cafferty, I don't know much about it, but if what larry said is true, he'll be alright as well. 

This seems a whole lot of outrage on one aspect of DiAngelo's work while ignoring her central thesis about how systemic and institutional racism is perpetuated.  More importantly, it seems a misguided interpretation of her work to conflate her arguments with legal ethics/ramifications instead of doing what her research is all about - discussing and confronting racism.

Well I have read DiAngelo’s book and she doesn’t really make it clear when something is white fragility and when it is not. And until she clarifies matters, I don’t think anyone need to take that particular accusation very seriously. Maybe you can clarify matters, as I don’t DiAngelo will ever bother. Were Schor and Caffrety engaging in white fragility by defending themselves? Shouldn’t they just have learned to “do better” and take it on the chin, rather, than you know, mounting a defense?

DiAngelo at times shows about as much nuance as George W. Bush, and while she may believe that the “impact only” standard is only for “having a conversation”, she doesn’t make it quite clear whether she believes that is an appropriate standard in any kind of disciplinary proceeding, where reprimand, censure, firing or employment termination may occur.

She surely isn’t the only one that promotes the “impact matters, intention is irrelevant” standard. And it isn’t quite clear to me how others who promote that envision how that should play out, as whether it's just about “having a conversation” or whether its meant to be  a tool for adjudication,’ punishment and setting standards of conduct. I suspect some on the left will envision it for precisely as rule judging conduct, finding  guilt or culpability, and administering discipline.

Though, I have quite a few things to say about DiAngelo's work, for purposes of this thread I talked about two examples she gave in her book because it illustrates what I’m getting at. I can understand why DiAngelo and others get frustrated when white people say “I didn’t mean that” when they,  at the time should have known better. I can also understand why she and others have accordingly pushed the “impact only” standard as way to overcome that objection. However, something about that analysis doesn’t sit quite right with me. She seems to believe that in order to get people to see the wrongfulness of their actions she must remove the issue of bad state of mind entirely. But, in doing so, she gets people to admit to wrongdoing, when you know they really shouldn’t have to. One does not have to purposely mean to do a thing to have acted wrongly. A negligent oversight is enough. Pointing out that they should have been aware of a state of circumstances is enough.

In one of the examples she gives, I can see totally why an apology is warranted. If I had made a similar crack about the hair, and the goof was pointed out to me (and I’d like to think I wasn’t so thick to have made the comment in the first place), I’d be embarrassed and would quickly apologize. But, I really can’t see why I need to accept much responsibility over the survey issue, as I don’t think I really need to spend much time justifying my survey taking habits to other people. It is hard for me to see how my attempts to weasel my way out of tedious paperwork would be seen as a commentary on somebody else’s intelligence. I think most people would feel the same way.

The problem with both Shor and Cafferty is if the “impact only” thing is taken as method of finding guilt and then administering punishment, then both are guilty as charged. And it has not been made very clear by DiAngelo and others whether that is an appropriate use of it or whether its only about “having a conservation”.

On 2/11/2021 at 6:52 PM, DMC said:

Seems to me this thread's thesis is one big depiction of white fragility's response to White Fragility.  I don't know why we're at once talking about legal ethics, moral philosophy (two things barely anybody here is an authority on), 

I at least know that legal ethics isn’t germane to the conversation here. Legal ethics deals with situations like mixing client funds, what to do if a client makes a factual misrepresentation to the court, attorney-client privilege, etc. It doesn’t have much relation to theories of moral blame. Theories of criminal and civil liability track more closely to theories of moral blame. Also, I'm just not concerned with just legal proceedings, but more generally with finding people blameworthy for alleged ethical offenses and the consequences that may result from that, like be fired, reprimands, and being demonized.

On 2/11/2021 at 6:52 PM, DMC said:

As for Cafferty, I don't know much about it, but if what larry said is true, he'll be alright as well. 

You have little basis to make this assertion based on Larry's comments. We don't know if he got his old job back or found similar employment. As for his old employer's claims about the reasons for this termination, that sounds about as reliable as Rick Perry saying Cameron Todd Willingham got a fair trial.

On 2/11/2021 at 6:52 PM, DMC said:

it seems a misguided interpretation of her work to conflate her arguments with legal ethics/ramifications instead of doing what her research is all about - discussing and confronting racism.

Misguided perhaps. Let’s find out. Are you of the general opinion that that the “impact only” standard is an appropriate standard for finding fault and administering discipline? Would you use such a standard to judge and punish on of your employees.  If somebody was judged and punished according to the “impact only” standard, your general opinion about that matter would be what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 6:52 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

I dunno who in the left you are hanging with, irl or online, but there is no way anyone I know, left or right, thinks C is in any way morally at fault for the death of D. And I know irl actual white guilt privileged communists, so you know, can't get much more left or woke than that. And A is 100% guilty of attempted murder of B and morally culpable. Though if there is a crime related to the shooting of the bird I'm not sure if A is guilty of that crime unless you have a statute which stipulates the incidental commission of something that is unlawful while in the act of intentionally carrying out a different crime is still a crime subject to the full penalties of that incidental act. Like if you are committing an armed robbery of a bank, and you shoot into the ceiling to get people's attention but in doing so dislodge a heavy light fixture, like a chandelier and it falls one someone and kills them, then you should be convicted of manslaughter as well as armed robbery. 

 

So it seems to me your stipulating to a few things:
1. The “impact only, intent doesn’t matter” isn’t the right standard to evaluate the scenario I presented.
2. When evaluating moral culpability, “impact only” isn’t appropriate.
Would you go far to say, that in any matter concerning punishment, discipline or being ostracized, the “impact only” standard isn’t appropriate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

So it seems to me your stipulating to a few things:
1. The “impact only, intent doesn’t matter” isn’t the right standard to evaluate the scenario I presented.
2. When evaluating moral culpability, “impact only” isn’t appropriate.
Would you go far to say, that in any matter concerning punishment, discipline or being ostracized, the “impact only” standard isn’t appropriate?

Well, first of all, how is the American Left firing people? Do they have some kind of all powerful committee that can order corporations to fire people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

So it seems to me your stipulating to a few things:
1. The “impact only, intent doesn’t matter” isn’t the right standard to evaluate the scenario I presented.
2. When evaluating moral culpability, “impact only” isn’t appropriate.
Would you go far to say, that in any matter concerning punishment, discipline or being ostracized, the “impact only” standard isn’t appropriate?

hmmmm...yeeee? No? Culpability in the case of an accident can be assigned when there was no intent to cause harm in cases of recklessness, negligence or carelessness. You didn't intend harm, but a decision you made, or failed to make, directly contributed to to the harm, therefore you bare some responsibility. One example is being drunk or high and causing unintended harm while in that state. Some people think it's a mitigation against accountability, but I say if you have made a decision to impair your judgement or competency by getting high or drunk then you are accountable for any damage or harm.

It's not quite an impact only culpability, but there is no clear mens rea in many instances, but someone is still at fault. There are accidents where really no one is at fault, but then there are accidents where someone (or someones) is responsible for the harm. But if you are going for a binary intent vs impact only, then this falls into impact only. As for almost everything in life, there isn't a black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impact first? So the three year old toddler who shot his mom with her gun should be tried for what? Manslaughter? Under this "impact first" idea, I guess we can abolish the juvenile sentencing as well, right?

Say an autonomous combine harvester kills a couple sleeping in the corn, you obviously wouldn't try the machine in court. Why? Because the machine does not know intent. You will go after the operator or the technician, maybe they did something wrong, but if not, it's just an unfortunate accident. Or an animal, you go on a hike, a bear kills and eats you, no-one is going to take the bear to court for homicide. Because the impact on you, although pretty severe, doesn't really matter, nor, in fact, does it matter that the bear wanted to kill you. You were the unfortunate victim of an accident, case closed.

So if only humans are able to commit a crime, then what distinguishes a crime from an accident lies at the heart of what distinguishes humans from animals. And not in the impact on the victim. Which is why any half-decent legal system will of course priorise intent above impact.

That's why the toddler shooting his mom is an accident. Whereas the same thing happening to her husband and we would probably be asking wether it was manslaughter or homicide. The crime is always defined by the intent first, then by impact. 

The problem with so-called "microagressions" is that it's really hard to deduct what the intent and the impact is. You are intentionally slighting a person for the colour of their skin and create a toxic work environment, you can probably be sued. But the legal system puts the burden of proof on the persecution and with good reason too, so chances are, your victim will be unable to get justice in the legal system. So they take it to the public court of twitter, where opinions matter more than facts and microagressions are furthering oppressive systems but buying an iPhone does not. And who can blame them? If you have so little power and you live in a society that's still pretty racist then you take what you have. And, sometimes, there's a massive overreaction, and that's individual bad luck, but looking at the bigger picture, it's still better than getting choked by the police. 

It's different IMO, when the priviledged white ivory tower guys are settling their personal scores via public condemnation of perceived microagressions. I find that rather classless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2021 at 5:52 AM, OldGimletEye said:

Imagine person A decides he his going to assassinate person B. Person A points is rifle and aims at person B and then pulls the trigger. The bullet, however, doesn’t reach person B because a bird suddenly swoops in between them and absorbs the bullet. Now imagine Person C is driving his car one night. Person C is driving the speed limit, is driving appropriately for the current conditions, and exercising an amount of reasonable care that would be expected by a normal prudent person. Suddenly, person D drives out in front of person C’s car unexpectedly and person C slams into Person D’s car. Person D dies as a result of the car crash.

Who here is more morally culpable?

Legally, in my country:

- A is guilty of attempted murder.

- C has committed non-culpable homicide (i.e. they walk free). In order to count as manslaughter, one needs to be doing something illegal that causes the death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, we need to stop confusing Law and Ethics. The two are not the same.

With respect to Intentionalism vs Consequentialism in Ethics, neither position is entirely convincing.

If Intent is all that matters, consider the famous example of Kant's Axe Murderer. If an Axe Murderer comes to your door, and asks you where your friend is, is it morally permissible to lie? Kant said No. After all, all you are doing is telling the truth. The actual murder is the fault of the murderer, not you. And worrying about what the murderer might do as a result of your actions is that icky Consequentialism. 

If Consequentialism is all that matters - we can't predict the future with complete accuracy. If I sell someone a beer bottle that is later used to slit someone's throat, am I morally culpable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alarich II said:

Impact first? So the three year old toddler who shot his mom with her gun should be tried for what? Manslaughter? Under this "impact first" idea, I guess we can abolish the juvenile sentencing as well, right?

No, it means that you should first in the above case focus on helping the mom who got shot. And the people who are impacted by her being shot. And then, maybe, you should focus more on how it came about that a 3 year old was able to shoot his mom. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

The Mom could be charged with reckless endangerment? 

Who the fuck cares? The first thing you care about is dealing with the mom being shot!

That's the whole point of this intent vs. impact garbage; it is not about the blame, it is about the harm. Stop focusing on who is guilty and should be punished and focus on instead making it less likely that people are going to be hurt, and fixing it when they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

First off, we need to stop confusing Law and Ethics. The two are not the same.

Erm, no.  What we need to stop is deflecting the conversation concerning racial iniquity to some discursive navel-gazing debate between "maxims" of moral philosophy.  We can wax philosophical and even whip out the proverbial intellectual ruler all we want from Plato's virtue to Anselm's Monologion to Hume's is-ought problem to Kant's categorical imperative to J.S. Mill's enlightened utilitarianism - it's still got little to nothing to do with confronting systemic and institutional racism.

Why?  Well, first of all, Robin DiAngelo is not a moral philosopher, she's a sociologist and - more importantly - an educator.  The latter is where her work is coming from - the need to recognize and confront how we all (particularly white people) participate in perpetuating a racist system.  And then learn from it.  That's all!  The fact this is turned into a debate between the precepts of a bunch of old dead white guys would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.  DiAngelo doesn't give a shit about what these philosophers have to say not only because it's not her discipline, but because they don't have much to say about dealing with racism in the first place.  Hell, many if not most were fucking racist as all get-up if not outright white supremacists.

Moreover, DiAngelo readily admits and even emphasizes we all share implicit bias, including implicit racial bias.  As far as I can tell, she's never suggested her findings should be used as a framework for disciplinary action (let alone legal ramifications), and any "moral culpability" you feel when told your actions led to harm in perpetuating/sustaining racial iniquity should simply mean rectifying future behavior.  But instead let's take one example from her book and circle-jerk about consequentialism v intentionalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot for the life of me understand why we are supposed to have some kind of absolute Rules and Axioms of Intent that transcends law, ethics, and basic interpersonal decency.

It sounds like when libertarians start going on about harm and aggression.

Still waiting to see where anyone has asked for manslaughter, homicide, and accidents to all be the same thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what this thread is missing is that almost always when people say “intent doesn’t matter, only impact does”- they are talking about unconscious racial bias and institutionalized racism. And in those cases, the perpetrators 100% should know better. It’s not any more of a defense than “I didn’t know that was illegal” is because you have every opportunity and responsibility to be aware and act accordingly. I don’t think most cops who shoot BIPOC are wearing Klan hoods on the weekends (not that I don’t think there’s some of that too), they wouldn’t describe themselves as racist. BUT- they are more likely to fear for their lives and use deadly force when the suspect is not white and that IS racist. It’s no defense that you weren’t aware what racism is and how you were serving it. MOST racism is unconscious, and it doesn’t matter at all whether the person is rubbing their hands together using racial slurs or if they’re scared when they see a black person. That’s what people are talking about when they say impact is what matters- they’re not talking about fucking car accidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...