If someone wrote a piece about a charity and this was the response—ill-defined methodological criticisms which aren’t followed up but are then repeatedly referenced, requests for the piece to be presented differently, implications about the author’s intent, multiple disagreeing viewpoints on why the piece is bad, claims that the piece is both wrong and that the central point is anodyne—do you think you’d think that was the fault of the author, or would you think there was something else going on.
First of all, thank you for your thought experiment; I think it’s a good approach.
However, when constructing a thought experiment (or a comparison) intended to highlight a lack of consistency, for it to be relevant, it must have the same mechanics and/or structure as the subject of the discussion, thereby highlighting a difference in treatment (i.e., an inconsistency or a “double standard”).
Why is structure important, in my view? Because otherwise, taking it to the extreme, one could also say, “Someone spoke a sentence last time and you didn’t react the same way, yet in both cases they are sentences.” ; here the comparison is flawed as a way to point out an inconsistency because the relevant level of structure is not “a sentence”; one must move to a richer level of structure to characterize the phenomenon and then point out the supposed inconsistency.
From my perspective, the key structure is as follows:
An internal article within an organization, intended for its members and discussing its management (related to point 4)
An article that highlights significant ethical conduct in a type of action carried out by the organization’s members and/or structures
An article that compares the organization’s operations to those of other organizations.
An article that expresses ambiguity on the subject: “So, ultimately, it’s okay; there’s no reason to say it’s terrible—we’re not doing much worse than others on this issue (point 2)”
We can discuss the structure I’m proposing, but this is currently how I see the relevant structure for comparison.
For example, an important moral issue might be veganism at group meals: I don’t know if I expect it to be well received. (Actually, I know I’m pretty sure it won’t be.) Or racism, or accessibility for people with disabilities, or managing the spread of an epidemic, etc.
I can’t imagine a very warm reception in any of these cases, and in each case the problem seems to me to be structurally the overlap between 2 and 4 (requiring 1 and 3 to function—that’s why they’re there).
Even though, as I said, I find the question interesting, and I believe I have addressed the substance of it in my previous comment. But addressing the substance doesn’t preclude elaborating on the form as well; this is relevant insofar as it concerns something real that will have a significant impact.
First of all, thank you for your thought experiment; I think it’s a good approach.
However, when constructing a thought experiment (or a comparison) intended to highlight a lack of consistency, for it to be relevant, it must have the same mechanics and/or structure as the subject of the discussion, thereby highlighting a difference in treatment (i.e., an inconsistency or a “double standard”).
Why is structure important, in my view?
Because otherwise, taking it to the extreme, one could also say, “Someone spoke a sentence last time and you didn’t react the same way, yet in both cases they are sentences.” ; here the comparison is flawed as a way to point out an inconsistency because the relevant level of structure is not “a sentence”; one must move to a richer level of structure to characterize the phenomenon and then point out the supposed inconsistency.
From my perspective, the key structure is as follows:
An internal article within an organization, intended for its members and discussing its management (related to point 4)
An article that highlights significant ethical conduct in a type of action carried out by the organization’s members and/or structures
An article that compares the organization’s operations to those of other organizations.
An article that expresses ambiguity on the subject: “So, ultimately, it’s okay; there’s no reason to say it’s terrible—we’re not doing much worse than others on this issue (point 2)”
We can discuss the structure I’m proposing, but this is currently how I see the relevant structure for comparison.
For example, an important moral issue might be veganism at group meals: I don’t know if I expect it to be well received. (Actually, I know I’m pretty sure it won’t be.)
Or racism, or accessibility for people with disabilities, or managing the spread of an epidemic, etc.
I can’t imagine a very warm reception in any of these cases, and in each case the problem seems to me to be structurally the overlap between 2 and 4 (requiring 1 and 3 to function—that’s why they’re there).
Even though, as I said, I find the question interesting, and I believe I have addressed the substance of it in my previous comment.
But addressing the substance doesn’t preclude elaborating on the form as well; this is relevant insofar as it concerns something real that will have a significant impact.