@OpenComputeDesign @light Might theoretically be so, but the term "moral" has been ruined by people selfishly claiming it without any consideration for others.

If you have people that have negative ethics (like i wanna get richer, even if people die for that) telling others what is good, the practical application is clearly harmful.

So, what is the unusual you see in yourself? Not having the aforementioned negative ethics or something else?

@admitsWrongIfProven @light

That's fair. People sure are good at coopting and corrupting words.

In my particular case, my ethical system is very girl-child focused. Every other group of people simply does not matter as much to me.

@OpenComputeDesign @light Special protections would make sense, if the group has special dangers they face, this much checks out.

So far, i can't see anything unusual, lots of people see a need for special protections for female and/or very young people. As long as you don't advertize throwing old men into a meat grinder, you're with the majority of those that actually try to be ethical, i think.

@admitsWrongIfProven @OpenComputeDesign
>As long as you don't advertize throwing old men into a meat grinder
Sadly, many people are in favour of doing that to young men.

@light @admitsWrongIfProven

I suppose this might be where some of my internal conflict comes from.
Growing up hearing that males are dumb, cruel, clumsy, slow, and generally inferior in every way, it hurt me a lot, and I sort of feel like boys are the ones I should be striving to protect.

@light @admitsWrongIfProven

The other part of my conflict comes from the fact that I feel so strongly in my protection of girls, that I want to go back in time and abolish Rome, China, and any other civilization that has habitually thrown baby girls in the trash heap.

@OpenComputeDesign @light I would not be so sure if this is actually bad.

"Caring for xyz more" is different from "Not wanting xyz to have the same rights and chance at happiness".

Are you sure you mean you want less rights/happiness for some? That would really be bad.

Who you care more for, that's not an ethics problem, however. It's simply personal preferences.

@admitsWrongIfProven @light

If I was voting for rights, for example, I'd probably vote pretty equally.

But if, for example, there were two children in mortal danger, a boy and a girl, and I could only save one. Then unless there was an overwhelming reason to save the boy, I'd probably save the girl every time. And that's not very fair

@OpenComputeDesign @light I'd say it's inconsequential. If you were in such a rare situation, the important part would be to do what you can, not what genitals the saved person has. Standing around gawking would be bad.

@admitsWrongIfProven @light

I suppose the most practical real world scenario to demonstrate my bias would be that I really really want to adopt, but only a girl. I'm not interested in adopting a boy.

Of course, it's _still_ moot, because I _absolutely do not think I should be a father_, but...

@light
Re-reading this the next day, it dawns on me how freakishly effective the distraction with fake questions is. It doesn't just get OCD to self-chastise for imagined problems, it also got light to see evil in inconsequential things.

"Noticing distractions from actual problems" seems to be the main skill necessary for improving any societal problem.

@OpenComputeDesign

@OpenComputeDesign @light I feel like trying to make a ladder for this is likely to backfire. Special problems and need for help, yeah. Seeing one as more worthy than another, not compatible with general human dignity.

@admitsWrongIfProven @light That's true. Even as a "tie breaker", it's not necessarily helpful. There's a reason I don't think I should be in charge of anything important

@OpenComputeDesign @light I guess mostly i consider such fake scenarios that need them to be distraction.

You don't need much trolley problems in real life, what you do need is understanding what those are supposed to distract you from.

For example the classical: "Should the self-driving car hit the infant, elderly or the middle aged?"
A total non-question. There's a lot to be done to be safer, and this just distracts from the heavy damage car manufacturers have done by not doing it / lobbying for less security considerations.

@admitsWrongIfProven @light

That's a damn good point

@OpenComputeDesign @light
There can be multiple specially endangered groups at once. You can advocate for special protections / help for one and also acknowledge the other needs something too.
I can clearly see the problem for males - no large group (like >10% of society) gets a good upbringing, the harm done to males is just different than the harm done to females. Leaving one emotionally crippled, pushing towards a very unproductive hostility, those things aren't ok either. What good is it for me when i can assert myself, but the way to do that makes people prepare knives to stick into my back? (exaggerated, hypothetical)

@light @OpenComputeDesign
The openly hostile stuff is what you see easily, i think the "throw humanity into the profit grinder" stuff is more dangerous. They actually bite, not just bark.

@admitsWrongIfProven @OpenComputeDesign I was referring to war

@light @admitsWrongIfProven It is interesting how people can see countries let their women to other countries to seek refuge during war, but ban their men from leaving because they have to stay and fight, and see it not as a gender inequality problem.

Of course, I would have it that no one ever died from war again. But that's somewhat tangential to gendered problems.

@OpenComputeDesign @light Tangential maybe, but important to say, otherwise the meaning would be different.

@admitsWrongIfProven @light

True