Morals and Ethics

[ParagraphAndAHalf]

Name changed for this and beware its long.

If questioned I am sure most politicians would agree that they try to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So why, when people that call themselves trans are such a tiny minority of the population (no matter how broadly Stonewall try to define trans), are they being prioritised over the larger majority of women and children?

I don’t have the best understanding of ethics, so I’m sure someone could expand on my thoughts more and help me figure this out, but as far as I am aware the main moral/ethical code that most people in the UK used, until recently, was utilitarianism? If you don’t know what utilitarianism is, to sum it up, every choice you make should promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy/Effects-of-utilitarianism-in-other-fields

plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

A way to explore utilitarianism is the trolley problem:

You are standing by a railway track, and a train is coming and there is no way to stop it. There are five people tied to the track and they will be killed by the train. However, you can pull a lever and save five people, by diverting the train to another track. Only this track has just one person tied to it and that one person will be killed by the train. Do you pull the lever?

I have never been a fan of utilitarianism, from what I have seen it creates this anxiety among people to make sure they are part of the majority, because when making decisions about a large group of people using utilitarianism, there is always going to be some people screwed over (usually the non-neurotypicals). Also, I think it’s difficult for people to be objective, they will always favour themselves and the ones they love. If you look back to the trolley problem, you wouldn’t pull the lever if the one person tied to the track was your child and the five were perfect strangers?

Is that the problem, people can’t be objective over this, the feelings of men mean more to them than safety of women and children? Rather than offend someone they would prefer to remove safeguarding and the rights of others, like those of women, children, beliefs and parental responsibility (which should only be removed by court order not some rainbow lanyard wearing luxury belief ableist zealot of a teacher or doctor)? Or do they feel like they have to be part of some different majority that includes trans and excludes women, children and people who understand biology?

And where did the culture of the professional is king come from? Why would a teacher or a doctor (people who have qualifications in teaching and medicine) have superior decision-making rights regarding the welfare of a child over the child’s parent? Even if the parent has a degree themselves, why is it that the moment they no longer are “in uniform” as a professional are their opinions worth nothing. Regardless of what profession, qualifications a parent has, or lack thereof, why are parents being overruled by professionals? Some professionals have been called a troll in court by a judge, why would they have more say than a parent? Do professionals get some super moral understanding when they are working that us mere mortals don’t?

I do think since the introduction of the equality act in 2010 the UK has been operating on some sort of modified mix of utilitarianism and identity politics. To protect minorities and marginalized groups of people from being screwed over (by utilitarianism) they created protected groups, which was in theory a good idea. But in practice I think people were still operating on the subconscious ethical thought process that to be protected they must be part of the “important” group. Expect now instead of the protected group being the largest one, it’s the most oppressed one. So, it became almost a race to identify as the most oppressed within certain categories. Because when you have a gold medal in the oppression Olympics you can operate with total immunity and will always be protected and promoted.

But no matter what way you approach it ethically, how can people justify their enabling of men with a fetish harming women and children? I don’t understand!

You are a lot more knowledgeable than I am.

I guess you are asking for

Lawyer types Sarah Philimore and Joanna Cherry, Cops like Harry Miller, Safe school alliance, Philosophers like Kathleen Stock and Louise Moody, journalists like Sarah Vine, Douglas Murray, James Kirkup, Janice Turner, Susanne More, Julie Bindal etc, people into theology like Caroline Farrow, Kellie-Jay and politicians like Rosie Duffield and Baroness Nichol to work on ideas of their own and those shared here to give the UK and the rest of the world another try at some kind of secular morals and ethics, because the last two attempts did not work.

Maybe someone smarter can answer you.

Personally I use an old universal moral code that has long since been abandoned by many who don't like that and I understand they don't like it as I don't like utilitarianism or my safeguarding, rights or my parental responsibility being removed by some jumped up sacred caste with a medical or PGCEwhatever it is called degree of superior morals and ethics, without a court order.

I think your initial premise is flawed.

“If questioned I am sure most politicians would agree that they try to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.”

I’m not sure most would agree. And even if they did, that’s not a good indicator that they will act accordingly.

It’s a pretty naive premise to think ethics of any complexion holds that much sway in politics. In that sphere it’s usually a tactical weapon at best.

@ParagraphAndAHalf

Name changed for this and beware its long.

If questioned I am sure most politicians would agree that they try to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So why, when people that call themselves trans are such a tiny minority of the population (no matter how broadly Stonewall try to define trans), are they being prioritised over the larger majority of women and children?

I don’t have the best understanding of ethics, so I’m sure someone could expand on my thoughts more and help me figure this out, but as far as I am aware the main moral/ethical code that most people in the UK used, until recently, was utilitarianism? If you don’t know what utilitarianism is, to sum it up, every choice you make should promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

www.britannica.com/topic/utilitarianism-philosophy/Effects-of-utilitarianism-in-other-fields

plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

A way to explore utilitarianism is the trolley problem:

You are standing by a railway track, and a train is coming and there is no way to stop it. There are five people tied to the track and they will be killed by the train. However, you can pull a lever and save five people, by diverting the train to another track. Only this track has just one person tied to it and that one person will be killed by the train. Do you pull the lever?

I have never been a fan of utilitarianism, from what I have seen it creates this anxiety among people to make sure they are part of the majority, because when making decisions about a large group of people using utilitarianism, there is always going to be some people screwed over (usually the non-neurotypicals). Also, I think it’s difficult for people to be objective, they will always favour themselves and the ones they love. If you look back to the trolley problem, you wouldn’t pull the lever if the one person tied to the track was your child and the five were perfect strangers?

Is that the problem, people can’t be objective over this, the feelings of men mean more to them than safety of women and children? Rather than offend someone they would prefer to remove safeguarding and the rights of others, like those of women, children, beliefs and parental responsibility (which should only be removed by court order not some rainbow lanyard wearing luxury belief ableist zealot of a teacher or doctor)? Or do they feel like they have to be part of some different majority that includes trans and excludes women, children and people who understand biology?

And where did the culture of the professional is king come from? Why would a teacher or a doctor (people who have qualifications in teaching and medicine) have superior decision-making rights regarding the welfare of a child over the child’s parent? Even if the parent has a degree themselves, why is it that the moment they no longer are “in uniform” as a professional are their opinions worth nothing. Regardless of what profession, qualifications a parent has, or lack thereof, why are parents being overruled by professionals? Some professionals have been called a troll in court by a judge, why would they have more say than a parent? Do professionals get some super moral understanding when they are working that us mere mortals don’t?

I do think since the introduction of the equality act in 2010 the UK has been operating on some sort of modified mix of utilitarianism and identity politics. To protect minorities and marginalized groups of people from being screwed over (by utilitarianism) they created protected groups, which was in theory a good idea. But in practice I think people were still operating on the subconscious ethical thought process that to be protected they must be part of the “important” group. Expect now instead of the protected group being the largest one, it’s the most oppressed one. So, it became almost a race to identify as the most oppressed within certain categories. Because when you have a gold medal in the oppression Olympics you can operate with total immunity and will always be protected and promoted.

But no matter what way you approach it ethically, how can people justify their enabling of men with a fetish harming women and children? I don’t understand!

One of the recognised fundamental flaws in any consequentialist system of ethics is the potential for ‘tyranny of the majority’.

In simple terms, this involves a marginalised minority - immigrants, gay people, trans people etc. Being chucked under the bus for the ‘greater good’. Even if doing so leads to greater net utility, most people consider it the ‘wrong’ outcome. It arguably follows that a straightforward utilitarianism can’t be a complete system of ethics.

Your post is in large part an exposition of this problem.

The thing is that it would not be difficult at all to make this work for everyone involved, and there don't have to be winners and losers.

Take for example the Brighton Rape Crisis situation.

3 accessible options of support for TW: male only, LGBT+ only and womens mixed sex.

1 option only available for females: the mixed sex women's group.

To set up a female only group as well would harm none of the inclusion or provision of TW within this women's service. It does not exist because TQ+ politics refuse to tolerate it existing.

There is no need for this. What is needed is backbone and a firm line that women's services are going to be inclusive of and accessible to all female people too and that mutual tolerance is not optional. It is not female people insisting that this is zero sum game.

I don’t have anything very profound or detailed to say, although I have studied philosophy and ethics, and from that, I seem to recall that we don’t in fact base our laws (just) on Utilitarianism. Mainly for the reasons you mention.

I’m not sure if the following goes any way to answering your question, but it’s often wheeled out when others have asked similar

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists

I would hate to live in Canada or Ireland. Meghan Murphy not even entertaining a US red state and going straight to Mexico says it all.

In between laughing at Max from Talk radio, I want to cry for what had been done.

And where did the culture of the professional is king come from? Why would a teacher or a doctor (people who have qualifications in teaching and medicine) have superior decision-making rights regarding the welfare of a child over the child’s parent?

There obviously are SOME circumstances where a teacher or doctor or social services professional do need to step in.
Some parents are deranged, abusive maniacs.

Obviously most parents are lovely, but we do need a safety net available for children who would otherwise be subject to suffering. Of course we need to listen to professionals, but when a "professional" starts talking batshittery there needs to be a back up or second opinion available for all.

But no matter what way you approach it ethically, how can people justify their enabling of men with a fetish harming women and children? I don’t understand!

The TRA agenda has gaslit everyone. It claims to be fighting for a moral or ethical cause, to help the poor disadvantaged, vulnerable, terribly oppressed minority that is trans people.

What everyone fails to realise is that we live in patriarchy, we always have and we always will. The few gains women made in the last 100 years were always basically "on loan". Set up to be torn down by the first convincing argument to come along.

Trans activists are patriarchy on steroids. Any morals or ethics fly out of the window. It's about power for people with a penis at all costs.

Linguini

How much did it take by how many, to get the Troll Dr reprimanded?

Humans can be deranged, abusive maniacs, with a medical PHD or not, yet here we are with many state officials doing as they please.

I have to say I don't agree with them giving out DNRs to old people and disabled children during the pandemic and voting for assisted suicide and Alfie Evans type cases either, I know I am unpopular for my views I think
NHS medical ethics are bankrupt, along with aborting the disabled, genetic engineering IVF and trans, it all looks like deranged abusive maniacs Eugenics to me.