Philosophical Vegan Forum

UV loves to say she's not interested in justice, because (I'm paraphrasing), justice is not definable or achievable.

I fail to see how consequentialism and justice are at odds. Certainly, consequentialism is at odds with certain (weak) definitions of justice - which seems to be what UV is getting at - but why not just stick with a consequentialist definition of justice? JS Mill argued that justice IS whatever has the best consequences. That's definition is good enough for me (she stated in her most recent video that a consequentialist definition of justice is a "distortion" of justice).

Social justice is very important to me. Because if consequences matter, then you should care about social inequality, since it produces horrible consequences! (does anyone remember the French Revolution?).

What I think people are really upset with is the "I don't care about justice" claim UV constantly reasserts. Personally, I think she does care about justice, just not the straw man version of it that she seems to want to attack in order to provoke the pro-intersectional vegans.

And for what? From a consequentialist perspective, I suppose provoking reactions may have some positives, but in this case, I think it has a lot more negatives.

Side note: I've been getting a lot of questions from people asking me to make a video on intersectional veganism, and I'm not sure if I'll even bother. To me, intersectionality is a critical tool with a fancy name. In her defence, for everyone up in arms about UV saying she's not an intersectional vegan, they seem to be forgetting you can't really be a white intersectional vegan in the first place! I honestly think Kimberle Crenshaw - the originator of the "intersectional" label - would have a field day with all the white "intersectional" vegans running around. I'm sure they mean well, and I don't see much value in pointing that out, but it is interesting to me.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:56 am UV loves to say she's not interested in justice, because (I'm paraphrasing), justice is not definable or achievable.

I fail to see how consequentialism and justice are at odds. Certainly, consequentialism is at odds with certain (weak) definitions of justice - which seems to be what UV is getting at - but why not just stick with a consequentialist definition of justice? JS Mill argued that justice IS whatever has the best consequences. That's definition is good enough for me (she stated in her most recent video that a consequentialist definition of justice is a "distortion" of justice).

I agree that justice can be defined in consequentialist terms without changing the topic, but the common understanding of justice is a type of egalitarian fairness which is indeed in some marginal cases not necessarily compatible with consequentialism.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:56 amSocial justice is very important to me. Because if consequences matter, then you should care about social inequality, since it produces horrible consequences! (does anyone remember the French Revolution?).

But see, instead of just equating justice with good consequences here, you say justice is important because inequality leads to bad consequences. So I think you're basically equating justice with equality, as is the popular notion. Unless i'm misunderstanding.

We can agree that social inequality produces horrible consequences 99% of the time and that it should be addressed from the consequentialist point of view too. But, at its core, radical egalitarianism may not be the best possible promoter of overall wellbeing in every single case.
I've just expanded on this in the other thread:

The consequentialist's goal is to increase society's overall wellbeing, while also increasing the wellbeing of the worst-off as much as possible (especially if we take into account diminishing returns). The intuitive thought is simple enough: If nothing is gained from an unequal distribution, things should be equally distributed; if an unequal distribution would make things better for the worst-off individuals, then the best distribution is just that.

Even Rawls would recognize the sociological observations of classical economists and game theorists that genuine equality under real life conditions could probably only be achieved by reducing the status of all to some common denominator. A fair determination that any consequentialist would accept is to allow any inequalities that produce better lives for those who are worst off - because wellbeing is a multi-dimensional concept in which egalitarian justice is only one axis.

This is not to say that the current state of affairs is not exceedingly unfair and therefore not conducive to the maximization of wellbeing. Both the social justice movement and the consequentialists strive to massively reduce inequality. It's just that, once this is hypothetically achieved, consequentialism proceeds to be critical of the legitimacy of radical egalitarianism as well and looks further towards even better systems, rather than making equality an end in itself.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:56 amSide note: I've been getting a lot of questions from people asking me to make a video on intersectional veganism, and I'm not sure if I'll even bother. To me, intersectionality is a critical tool with a fancy name. In her defence, for everyone up in arms about UV saying she's not an intersectional vegan, they seem to be forgetting you can't really be a white intersectional vegan in the first place! I honestly think Kimberle Crenshaw - the originator of the "intersectional" label - would have a field day with all the white "intersectional" vegans running around. I'm sure they mean well, and I don't see much value in pointing that out, but it is interesting to me.

That's an interesting point that I think hasn't been made before in the discussion around UV's videos. So you'd definitely have something new to add to the conversation.

inator wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:34 pm the common understanding of justice is a type of egalitarian fairness which is indeed in some marginal cases not necessarily compatible with consequentialism.

Like you say, I'm sure we can agree that just because a definition is popular, doesn't make it correct

inator wrote: But see, instead of just equating justice with good consequences here, you say justice is important because inequality leads to bad consequences. So I think you're basically equating justice with equality, as is the popular notion. Unless i'm misunderstanding.

I can see how this might have been confusing. To put it more clearly, producing "good consequences" (i.e., justice) through social policies is very important to me. The consequences of social policy matter, because policies that promote inequality result in lousy stuff, like the French Revolution.

inator wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:34 pmBut, at its core, radical egalitarianism may not be the best possible promoter of overall wellbeing in every single case.

No disagreement here.

inator wrote:This is not to say that the current state of affairs is not exceedingly unfair and therefore not conducive to the maximization of wellbeing. Both the social justice movement and the consequentialists strive to massively reduce inequality. It's just that, once this is hypothetically achieved, consequentialism proceeds to be critical of the legitimacy of radical egalitarianism as well and looks further towards even better systems, rather than making equality an end in itself.

I don't think this is necessarily fair to the concept of social justice. Social Justice is primarily about a beneficial relationship between society and individuals. To say the social justice movement sees equality as an end in itself is a bit unfair, because radical equality doesn't necessarily equal a beneficial relationship. While it's true that pretty much every left wing cause likes to use social justice as a rallying cry (for example, the anti-globalization cadre), just because they claim it doesn't make it true.

inator wrote: That's an interesting point that I think hasn't been made before in the discussion around UV's videos. So you'd definitely have something new to add to the conversation.

Well, maybe I'll make a video, even though it will probably just make everyone hate me

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 pmLike you say, I'm sure we can agree that just because a definition is popular, doesn't make it correct

I agree to some extent, but common usage is often more powerful than prescriptive definitions. There's little point to using the word in a specific way if most people will understand something different.
In this particular case, though, I agree with you that it may be more effective to try focus on redefining justice in consequentialist terms than to discard the concept as incompatible with consequentialism.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 pmI can see how this might have been confusing. To put it more clearly, producing "good consequences" (i.e., justice) through social policies is very important to me. The consequences of social policy matter, because policies that promote inequality result in lousy stuff, like the French Revolution.

Got it now.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 pmI don't think this is necessarily fair to the concept of social justice. Social Justice is primarily about a beneficial relationship between society and individuals. To say the social justice movement sees equality as an end in itself is a bit unfair, because radical equality doesn't necessarily equal a beneficial relationship. While it's true that pretty much every left wing cause likes to use social justice as a rallying cry (for example, the anti-globalization cadre), just because they claim it doesn't make it true.

Sure. I only brought up the mistake of turning equality into an end in itself as an argument against the "social justice as equality" concept.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 pmWell, maybe I'll make a video, even though it will probably just make everyone hate me

Looking forward to it! The video, not the hate part

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 pmTo me, intersectionality is a critical tool with a fancy name.

I agree that intersectionality is just a critical tool, and the interaction effects between different variables (whether in the social sciences or the hard sciences) have been taken into consideration long before intersectionality became a thing.
The main concern is about how it tends to be used in activism. A parallel: The interaction effect between smoking and drinking alcohol results in a much a higher risk factor than the expected cumulative effect, which may be important to consider in anti-smoking or anti-alcohol campaigns and policies. But I don't think anyone would argue that, because of this intersection, we should create programs that strive to solve both issues with one all-encompassing strategy.

inator wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:08 pm I agree to some extent, but common usage is often more powerful than prescriptive definitions. There's little point to using the word in a specific way if most people will understand something different.

Right.

inator wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:08 pm In this particular case, though, I agree with you that it may be more effective to try focus on redefining justice in consequentialist terms than to discard the concept as incompatible with consequentialism.

Where do we stop, though? Should we redefine what "God" means to something that doesn't resemble what most people understand when they hear it?

I don't think it's that hard to convince people that justice, as they understand it, for its own sake isn't always right. We have to look at the consequences, and that justice is just an instrumental good most of the time.
I think an honest approach to what people feel about justice already, and putting it in its context and limits, helps inform the discussion better than stretching the definition to its breaking point to fit it in a consequentialist mold.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:51 pmThe consequences of social policy matter, because policies that promote inequality result in lousy stuff, like the French Revolution.

Historically, sometimes in extreme cases. The same can not necessarily be said for modest cases. There is a point at which people will basically shrug off and ignore small things instead of starting and violent revolution. Nobody's going to have their heads chopped off in the streets over manspreading.

We have to put things in context.

Also, when these riots or violent revolutions are started, we have to ask what is really responsible: the injustice (often invisible even to those who suffer from it), or the rabble-rousers who are broadcasting it and getting people upset about it?

It's particularly damning for the latter's case when we look into the claims and find them greatly exaggerated, and sometimes outright false.
Uncritically siding with the social justice crowd under the assumption that minor injustices will always result in this outcome is bound to cause more harm. Sometimes the little things are best left swept under the rug and ignored until we have the surplus of resources to address them at a reasonable utility return on investment.

I argued the same here on all of the distress over NSA spying:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=702

The thing that's upsetting people is being told and provoked about it, more than it actually happening (which people have already assumed for a long time). It's people stirring them up about it that's causing the distress and social unrest.

When there's no actual evidence of harm, or the harm is very small, sometimes it's best just not to poke the hornet's nest and get people upset over something very small on a social scale.

inator wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:08 pm I agree that intersectionality is just a critical tool, and the interaction effects between different variables (whether in the social sciences or the hard sciences) have been taken into consideration long before intersectionality became a thing.
The main concern is about how it tends to be used in activism.

I think it's more difficult to separate the descriptive tool and prescriptive activism when they share the same name.
Since some of these methods existed before the modern activism movement, maybe we should move away from this politicized term.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:35 pmWhere do we stop, though? Should we redefine what "God" means to something that doesn't resemble what most people understand when they hear it?

I suppose this needs to be judged on a case by case basis. The concept of God gets redefined all the time in various cultures and by anyone who believes in something different. As long as it still has some defining power left (as opposed to it just meaning "the universe" or "nature"), it can take on multiple meanings depending on who's using it.

When we reject the concept of God, we reject all versions of it. If, however, we believed in Zeus and not the Christian God, we wouldn't be trying to reject the term just because the majority of people around us accepted another version. We'd just be rooting for our version.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:35 pmI don't think it's that hard to convince people that justice, as they understand it, for its own sake isn't always right. We have to look at the consequences, and that justice is just an instrumental good most of the time.
I think an honest approach to what people feel about justice already, and putting it in its context and limits, helps inform the discussion better than stretching the definition to its breaking point to fit it in a consequentialist mold.

Justice is so ingrained in people's minds as it simply being what is "right", that I don't think you can do away with it so easily. And different people have different concepts of justice. It's just that lately the social justice movement has hijacked the term and redefined it according to its own egalitarian goals.

But the word has always had different meanings depending on the proponent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

The concept of justice differs in every culture. An early theory of justice was set out by the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his work The Republic. Advocates of divine command theory argue that justice issues from God. In the 17th century, theorists like John Locke argued for the theory of natural law. Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned. In the 19th century, utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill argued that justice is what has the best consequences. Theories of distributive justice concern what is distributed, between whom they are to be distributed, and what is the proper distribution. Egalitarians argued that justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality.[...]

I think it may be more pragmatic to just argue against egalitarian justice and for our version of consequentialist justice instead. It may put fewer people off and make them more receptive to the core message.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:35 pmI think it's more difficult to separate the descriptive tool and prescriptive activism when they share the same name.
Since some of these methods existed before the modern activism movement, maybe we should move away from this politicized term.

For sure, doing away with intersectionality wouldn't be any significant loss to the analytical capacity of sociology.
For example, the way it's currently applied in public health practice and research - by looking at the social determinants of health and their interaction - is nothing more than an old-school multidimensional analysis of a single issue.

But the way social justice activists are largely using it is probably very detrimental to the effectiveness of single issue causes.

inator wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:22 am As long as it still has some defining power left (as opposed to it just meaning "the universe" or "nature"), it can take on multiple meanings depending on who's using it.

I feel like that's what happening to "justice" here, though.

inator wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:22 am Justice is so ingrained in people's minds as it simply being what is "right", that I don't think you can do away with it so easily.

Yes, but it also has instrumental use. The concept itself, losing its normal meaning, doesn't seem very helpful to this end.
And I think it's very likely we'd get called out on that kind of monkey business of redefining words to suit our agendas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Thinkers in the social contract tradition argued that justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned.

I think this is what holds the most practical use in terms of providing a meaningful concept that promotes discussion.
Even this doesn't always have a good outcome, though.

inator wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:22 am I think it may be more pragmatic to just argue against egalitarian justice and for our version of consequentialist justice instead. It may put fewer people off and make them more receptive to the core message.

But it also sounds intellectually dishonest, and like we're choosing to define words in ways that suit us.
There is a cost to that too.

brimstoneSalad wrote: But it also sounds intellectually dishonest, and like we're choosing to define words in ways that suit us.
There is a cost to that too.

Perhaps. I've always taken justice to mean some type of fair reciprocity, or "an eye for an eye" type of thing in its negative sense. Some justice systems work according to this principle (fair punishment), others work according to more consequentialist principles (deterrence).
I guess it just depends on whether justice is defined as closer to "fair" or to "good". It has been philosophically and legally reconceptualized all the time.

I just think that saying: 'This is what morality really is' (our consequentialist version) or 'This is what justice really is' would both be perceived pretty similarly.
And both would sound just as counterintuitive and alien to people who are used to one concept and who may be put off by some of the implications of consequentialism.

This is probably a better parallel than the God one. And in pragmatic terms, I think that arguing for another version of justice would be less alienating than "I don't care about justice." But of course we can't have an empirical answer to this.

inator wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:55 am Perhaps. I've always taken justice to mean some type of fair reciprocity, or "an eye for an eye" type of thing in its negative sense.

Both of those are fine, but fair has some pretty clear meanings too.
We can talk about equality or equity, but when we start to violate those for good consequential outcomes, that's no longer fair in the common understanding.

inator wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:55 am Some justice systems work according to this principle (fair punishment), others work according to more consequentialist principles (deterrence).
I guess it just depends on whether justice is defined as closer to "fair" or to "good". It has been philosophically and legally reconceptualized all the time.

It's important to note that the legal justice system isn't necessarily the same thing as what people think of as justice, or what is philosophically regarded as justice. There's a lot of pragmatism in law.

I don't think the attempts at philosophically reconceptualizing justice look very honest.
It's like a deontologist trying to redefine "harm" as a violation of somebody's deontological rights (whether it actually harms that person or not).
We would probably frown on that, and with redefinitions right and left, it probably makes any kind of discourse impossible.

inator wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:55 am I just think that saying: 'This is what morality really is' (our consequentialist version) or 'This is what justice really is' would both be perceived pretty similarly.

There's a strong and relatively involved rational explanation to the former, demonstrating contradictions and inconsistencies in other formulations.
The concept of justice as something like fairness, equality, equity, etc. is relatively consistent, and has a pretty straight forward link to the common perception; there's some disagreement, but it's mostly in that range.
I don't think there's any strong argument against that definition other than "it doesn't serve our purpose", and that is going to come off as very dishonest. This is likely something that would come back to bite us later.

This may have short term utility, but I think somebody intelligent would get his or her hands on this and tear it apart, undermining the entire argument.

It might be a good idea to avoid using the word justice at all, and speak directly to radical equality and equity. But I think redefining it is a bad move, given how that will look.

inator wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:55 am And in pragmatic terms, I think that arguing for another version of justice would be less alienating than "I don't care about justice."

Maybe initially, and with some people. But I think it creates a vulnerability, looks dishonest (and probably is) and would come back to bite us later.
Better to just avoid it entirely and speak directly to equality/equity.

inator wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:55 am But of course we can't have an empirical answer to this.

I suppose we could do a survey, but I like to play it very safe with anything relating to intellectual honesty. I side with being honest, because I think deception has serious long term costs that aren't worth it.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:08 pm I side with being honest, because I think deception has serious long term costs that aren't worth it.

Of course, but my point is that I don't think it's dishonest. I only mentioned the pragmatic issue of "how it would look" because you brought it up.
I'm not so sure a just outcome needs to mean an equitable one. For example, take the story of King Solomon's "splitting the baby" as a traditional caution against fairness in doing justice.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:08 pm Better to just avoid it entirely and speak directly to equality/equity.

I can agree with that, it's probably safer.