Episodes

[RufusMoses]

Well, this is verging on a philosophical theory discussion, but I think that is simply incorrect relative to the terminology I was trying to introduce.

A meta-ethical issue would be one that has *no* ethical content at all. It has to do with setting up a context for the working out of *all possible* ethical disputes, or the discussion of all possible ethical issues, without regard to any particular issue.

Some might argue to good effect that in fact any meta-ethical proposal is laden with values, and thus is in fact ethically loaded.

But I think it is fairly clear that race relations is a kind of ethical issue not a kind of meta-ethical issue. It has to do with specific values, not processes which provide a context for conflicting values.

Reasonable people can disagree as to which ethical issue, or which set of values, trump others. But that is exactly why it is important for them to enter into a meta-ethical social contract...so they don't tear each other apart working out ethical differences.

Examples (keeping in mind that no example can fully contain a concept or principle):

Republicans vrs Democrats...huge disagreements regarding values and thus ethics...but there is the meta-ethical social contract of democracy which is supposed to stop us from shooting each other. ("Government funding of abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong." vrs "Government is obliged to meet all the medical needs of its poorest people without intruding into their personal lives." All but a few fanatics are willing to decide this via the ballot box).

The US vrs Al-Quida...there are not only huge disagreements as to values and ethics, but the intolerance of Al-Quida is such that no meta-ethical social contract is possible. This dispute, then, is not worked out via discussion, voting, or anything else short of killing each other.

I am suggesting that brothel owners and clients be more like the former and less like the latter in dealing with ethical disputes. i.e. Even though we may have huge differences of opinion regarding values or ethical issues, we agree there are some lines we just won't cross to "win".

 

[nycstripclubs]

Not being formally versed in philosophical theory, you'll have to excuse my not picking up on what you meant.

However, if you’ll agree that someone who’s been turned away at the door, because of his race, has been wronged. And given the establishment is operating outside the confines of the law, and therefore the usual venues for redress don’t exist. How does he obtain redress for that wrong? There aren’t too many options available for someone who refuses to just leave with his tail between his legs.

 

[Intown]

"And given the establishment is operating outside the confines of the law, and therefore the usual venues for redress don’t exist."

That's because there are NO correct venues for redress. You can't get legal redress from a situation that is not legal to begin with, and you shouldn't expect to, especially when any redress that you seek may adversely impact your "partners in crime" or injure other "innocent people who don't necessarily agree with or even know about the supposed illegal policy of the operations owner" in the process.

 

[greekgirlinnj]

I FEEL THE LOVE BOYS

 

[justme]

Meta-ethics*? Sounds like an excuse for holding one principal above another.

We draw our ethical principals from different sources. We have religious ethics, professional ethics, the ethics that we were given as children by our family, and ethics that are related to the various social groups that we belong to. With all these rules and codes swimming about, it is all but guaranteed that there will be conflict (it doesn't take Goedel to tell you an ethical system will likely be inconsistant or incomplete).

It is our continuous judgement, buffered by experience, that allows us to determine which moral code prevails in an event of conflict. It is judgement that tells me it's O.K. to steal a loaf of bread to feed my family. We vote, and don't shoot, because of the moral ethical imperative not to kill (not to mention the legal code designed to punish those who kill), not because some set of meta-ethical guideline.

In a hypothetical situation (you guys remember that we're all speaking hypothetically here, right?) where an individual was discriminated against based on the race he belongs to, it is that individuals judgement that decides whether it is a greater ethical wrong to let a racist deed go unpunished or to break the code of silence of people in the commercial sex community. And of course the merits of that judgement, like any other one, can be criticised and discussed.

Personally, I know that I wouldn't 'drop a dime' in this situation**. However, elevating this decision to anything more than a simple ethical conflict, namely introducing some strange concept of meta-ethics, is intellectually dishonest.


* I think meta ethics, if defined consistantly with other meta disciplines, would be the study of ethics. It would not provide a guidline for actions. Anything providing a guideline for action would fall squarely back into ethics.

** - To me, it seems dangerous to punish someone for a wrong based on something completely different. In other words, if Episodes is racist, they should be punished for being racist. Informing on them would result in them being punished for being a house of prostitution, something that I don't think of as being that bad. As an answer to valjean, I'd say that the most appropriate redress in this situation would be the same redress used by minority groups for decades when there was a lack of legal redress. Namely, I'd encourage boycotts and disparage the institution at every opportunity.

 

[Intown]

"I'd say that the most appropriate redress in this situation would be the same redress used by minority groups for decades when there was a lack of legal redress. Namely, I'd encourage boycotts and disparage the institution at every opportunity."

Perfect solution, or as perfect as it can be in this situation.

 

[RufusMoses]

JM said...

"Meta-ethics*? Sounds like an excuse for holding one principal above another.

..snip...

However, elevating this decision to anything more than a simple ethical conflict, namely introducing some strange concept of meta-ethics, is intellectually dishonest.

..snip...

* I think meta ethics, if defined consistantly with other meta disciplines, would be the study of ethics. It would not provide a guidline for actions. Anything providing a guideline for action would fall squarely back into ethics.

..."

I recognized these problems to some extent in my original post...for example...

"Some might argue to good effect that in fact any meta-ethical proposal is laden with values, and thus is in fact ethically loaded. "

But I don't think meta-ethics would be the study of ethics. Ethics is the study of ethics. Meta-ethics should be the study of the context within which ethics exists or is possible. Or at least I think that could be one legitimate technical definition.

But upon reflection I see my point would have been clearer if I explicitly noted the key notion here is not "meta-ethics" per se but rather the notion of a "meta-ethical social contract". i.e. Social contracts that allow multiple systems of value to co-exist.

As in the example I give...there is, at least to me, a clear and compelling difference between the way differences in value are worked out between Democrats and Republicans as compared with the way they are worked out between the US and Al-Quida. I don't think there is anything intellectually dishonest about pointing that difference out.

And I don't think there is anything intellectually dishonest about generalizing from there. It is worth observing that a meta-ethical social contract allows for the possibility of a rational process mediating conflicting value systems, and that without such a social contract such disputes seem doomed to devolve into irrational conflicts dangerous to both sides.

 

[RufusMoses]

Did some review and it turns out the term metaethics has multiple meanings and is somewhat contested. The use I made here isn't clearly wrong, but it has a skewed emphasis relative to typical use.

Here is an interesting page that lays out some of the complexity...

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm

So if metaethics isn't the right term I am not sure what is. Maybe something more descriptive (and more awkward) like "multi-cultural engineering". Or "applied metaethics".

In any case I hope what I am pointing out here...that the creation of a social contract that can allow differing ethical positions to co-exist is more important than any particular ethical position within it...isn't lost and is seen as important.

 

[redleg609]

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says:

meta-ethics

is the philosophical study of the nature of moral judgement. So, instead of being concerned with questions of what actually is right or wrong (or good or bad), it is concerned with the meaning or significance of calling something right or wrong (or good or bad). Since both of these kinds of inquiry can properly be called ethics, the term meta-ethics may be used more precisely to denote the latter kind. Meta-ethics includes both the meaning of moral terms and also such questions as whether moral judgements are objective or subjective. It also includes others of the problems of moral philosophy

So really, none of the discussion is meta-ethical. It is all about ethics.

So far the key points are:
* Episodes on some [philosphically 'some' means, at least one and as many as all] occassions discriminates based on race.
* Ignoring racism is a bad thing
* Action should be taken to discourage / stop racism.

Parameters:
* At best, the actions taken should avoid harm to innocent bystanders.

Somethings to consider:
* Are clients who know of the practices of an enterprises (legal or not) which discriminates innocent in the sense we mean above?

(Here it is good to remember, in the now-famous words of Rev. Martin Niemoeller,: “First they came for the Gypsies, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Gypsy. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up for me.”
Being blind to reality does not gaurantee innocence.)

Spectrum of responses:
* Early Response - Picket, raise client awareness through other means - e.g. UG forums.
*Further responses must balance potential harm to possible innocents with potential for good in overall reduction of racism.

 

[Harmony Memories]

As I mentioned before, I DID NOT drop a dime on this place, or had any intention on doing so. However, I do not deny getting pleasure out of the humiliation and closing of a place that personally insulted me, and I'm sure others of my race. That is my true, honest emotion, and I'd be a phony if I denied it.
As for that cretin Intown's absurd claim that I wished ill will on some cheap whores of his acqaintence, he reminds me of all those morons a few months back who praised John Gotti , despite his murderous history, because he was nice to them personally. Would you deny any Israeli pleasure if they heard that Yassir Arafat was assisinated ? No, you would try to understand where he's coming from. Intown is obviously a person who completely lacks any empathy or feeling for the hardships of anyone else (unless they're a whore willing to fuck him for $40).
All I did was explain what happened to me when I tried to visit this place. The cunt owner did not say to me "We're not letting you in because we don't know you" or "We think you're a cop", or any other excuse. She said flat out "We don't admit Blacks, so you have to leave". Essentially , in their eyes, I am a lesser human being, and my money is not good enough.
Nothing will stop me from telling the truth , and if people like Intown dont like to hear what I have to say, then they can lick my nut sac . My only goal was to expose this dreadful whorehouse's disgusting policies, and if I upset anyone, well, tough shit. This is reality

 

[justme]

RM - Not to get overly academic...

What I should have written is that meta-ethics is the study of 'Ethics', that is (as redleg posts), philosophical study of the nature of moral judgement. There is no right or wrong in meta ethics, and so it does not prescribe any framework of behavior. It's discourse is simply a descriptive narative on the nature of ethical systems.

So really, none of the discussion is meta-ethical. It is all about ethics.

Which is precisely my point. Moreover, I think that trying to disguise an ethical principal (honor among whorehounds) as something that exists above the other ethical pricipals (such as the imperative to act against racism) of an individual (or society) is intellectually dishonest because ultimately you are trying to 'prove' that a certain judgement call is superior by defining it to be so and without checking whether your definition is well defined.

I think what you allude to in your posts has more to do with social codes, ethical proincipals that have been uniformly adopted by the population (see Social Contract) in order to promote order. Social codes are extremely useful, but they are also extremely dangerous as they tend to promote the dominant ideology and supress alternative ethical frameworks.


(I am so proud of myself for avoiding the word, hegemony, in that post.)

 

[justme]

Oh god, I checked.

(I am so not proud of myself for being the only person ever on UG to use the word, hegemony)

 

[Slinky Bender]

Isn't that what got John Meriwether in trouble ?

 

[pjorourke]

Originally posted by slinkybender
Isn't that what got John Meriwether in trouble ?

I think more acurately it was not paying attention to the fifth standard deviation and beyond. Not hedging per se.

 

[RufusMoses]

A short definition of metaethics, even from the Oxford dictionary of philosophy, will indeed lead both of you in the direction you went. Unfortunately it is more difficult than that. For example, if you go to the above link you will see that metaethics includes, just for starters, metaphysical, psychological, and linguistic issues. Additionally when one starts to consider questions like "what does 'good" mean?" you can easily go off in a theological direction. So such a simple definition understates the complexity of the situation.

The reason I raise the issue of metaethics is that this disagreement isn't about the working out of specific normative judgements from a shared base of ethical axioms. It is about the incommensurability of differing moral paradigms. Put another way, even if we all agree that racism is "bad" we may not be saying the same thing...it may just sound like it on the surface.

So indeed depending on ones entire philosophical view particular issues may or may not be metaethical.

And of course any social contract has ethical content.

(At some point I should also mention that I am not a racist...in fact I'd like to see the notion of race eliminated...it has no particular basis in science and, as far as I am concerned, barely any ontological status at all).

But I think it is clear, if you stop and think about it, that the negation of racism is not a cause that trumps every other possible moral concern. It isn't, for example, illegal to be a racist. To pass such a law would infringe other high values such as the right of free association, and the general principle of keeping your head out of bounds in terms of government intervention. It isn't even illegal to form a racist organization...nor do I think it should be. All manner of stupidity and folly has to remain legal and allowed as a result of the *set* of values we embrace.

And this is exactly the kind of...lets call it hyper-ethical...hyper-ethical social contract I am talking about. We have to find ways for reasonable people with major disagreements to co-exist. There should be lines that are never crossed regardless of individual disagreements.

So when you start allowing individuals, based on their personal ethical code, to act as judge, jury, and executioner regarding specific brothels, you remove the foundation for any stability in the (currently illegal) realm of commercial sex.

It reminds me of Kantian ethics...take a personal decision and then make it a univeral...a rule all men would follow...and then ask whether that leads to a contradiction.

I think in this case it does. An individual person may think they are making the commercial sex realm "better" by dropping the dime on a place when it offends their personal standards. But if everyone did that the commercial sex realm would collapse, which is hardly the intent of making it "better". So you have a Kantian contradiction, and an act that should be avoided because when universalized it leads to the opposite of what was originally hoped for.

 

[justme]

Embracing ethical relativism and categorical imperative in the exact same post is a cool trick.

I fail to see what the brevity of redleg's posted definition has to do with my argument. I read the page you referenced (it is, indeed, good) and one thing was perfectly clear: meta-ethics are descriptive, not prescriptive. You can not argue that a meta-ethical principal demands a certain behavior. The reason why meta-ethics has nothing to do with the prior discussion (it certainly has everything to do with the current discussion ironically, I suppose, initiated by me) is because the prior discussion was focused on what one should or should not do in a given scenario. If you are going to judge the merits of informaing on a racist brothel, you are going to have to do it within the realm of normative ethics.

(And again, I think that's an OK thing to do, I did it myself in my ** note above. My only point is that you can not appeal to meta-ethics in a normative claim. If you do, you're being intellectually dishonest.)

But I think it is clear, if you stop and think about it, that the negation of racism is not a cause that trumps every other possible moral concern.

C'mon, staw man? No one claimed that ending racism was universally the highest ethical principal. Each individual decides where his or her principals are in relation to each other. How can you decide a person's morality for them (soveriegnity over mind and they like)?

As for the rest of your post, I agree with it.


Well except the part about

There should be lines that are never crossed regardless of individual disagreements.

 

[Intown]

JJCOCKSUCKER, we were doing quite well in this thread without any personal attacks until you decided to post again and disparage me. No matter what names you decide to call me in the future, remember that I'll always be one level above you. So why don't you crawl back into your hole and stop insulting yourself.

For the record, what ticked me off bigtime was your celebration of some of my friends getting busted, some or all of whom may not have even known about, agreed with, or partaken in the ALLEGED racial policy of Episodes. But I can see how you wouldn't understand a display of indignation in response to an attack on friends, because your extreme selfishness prevents you from having any.

 

[Harmony Memories]

Intown can still suck my ass

It's quite obvious that the only "friends" you can get are cheap, probably illegal alien whores who you pay to keep you company. Who else would put up with you , unless they could make a profit off of you , you sniveling scum sucking dog ?

(And as for the "pun" on my name, haven't you run that feeble attempt at humor into the ground already? Mindless repetition is not necessarily funny ).

It serves me no purpose any longer to engage you. I don't mind a battle of wits, but I never go up against an unarmed man.

And as I said before,
SEE YOU IN HELL, PAL !!!

 

[nycstripclubs]

Originally posted by Intown

For the record, what ticked me off bigtime was your celebration of some of my friends getting busted, some or all of whom may not have even known about, agreed with, or partaken in the ALLEGED racial policy of Episodes.

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....

"friends" for which you have to pay $40 every 15 mins.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA....

But I can see how you wouldn't understand a display of indignation in response to an attack on friends, because your extreme selfishness prevents you from having any.

Intown, you pathetic loser, do you REALLY think those girls are your friends? Try getting service without that $40 and you'll see what your "friends" are.

*ROTFLMAO*
Valjean

 

[RufusMoses]

JM...you are right...I shouldn't have tried to respond to multiple posts with just one response...it lead to most of the problems you note above...for example the strawman is just a reminder to those that would try to justify nuking Episode simply because racism is bad bad bad that a broader context has to be addressed at least to some extent...there may be good (overall) reasons to allow (without condoning) bad things to happen.

I don't think I am embracing ethical relativism so much as simply noting that in a multi-cultural setting there are going to be incommensurably conflicting moralities in play. Maybe that sounds like an embrace, but it isn't a happy one.

I think it is unfortunately true that as a practical matter the most you can hope for is to find some tiny subset from the universe of held moral axioms that (1) is of course incomplete in the sense that it doesn't determine a sufficient (for life choices) normative system but (2) can be widely agreed to as the context for rational relationships and the prevention of mutual annihilation even while deep disagreements continue.

And I still feel it is a viable question to ask whether specific actions contradict themselves when universalized, and that that way of thinking isn't in any real conflict with the above. To be specific, I think clients outting/nuking providers, and providers outting clients don't pass the test, and the *only* reason people do such things is that they, in fact, think such actions won't spread beyond their own use of them...a type of special pleading that is highly suspect both in terms of ethics and practical results.