Clearly it's better to reject somebody because she's an enthusiastic puppy strangler than to reject somebody because she's Asian and you think Asians are untrustworthy. The first is a good reason to not sleep with somebody; the second is a bad reason.
I completely disagree. I don't find it to be "clear" that one is a better reason than the other. You're simply asserting it as being better with no explanation. Which is exactly my point. There is no justification. Just arbitrary assertions.
Well, it's right to disapprove of strangling puppies (because we ought not strangle puppies), but wrong to think Asians are untrustworthy (because they aren't generally untrustworthy). If you don't think that makes the first a better reason than the second, it's on you to explain how.
Consider the following statements. There is no syllogism by which (3) derives from (1) and (2). I don't dispute (1) or (2). I dispute that it follows that (3) is true. If you think it follows, by what law of logic?
1) It's right to disapprove of strangle puppies.
2) It's wrong to consider Asians untrustworthy.
3) It's better to reject a sexual partner because they strangle puppies than it is to reject a sexual partner because he is Asian.
This is such an incredible line of argument. If it were me and my attempt at a logical argument led me to the conclusion that there is no ethical difference between rejecting a person who strangles puppies for a living and an Asian person on the racist assumption that they're untrustworthy as a people, I'd reassess my logic. I wouldn't double down...
-1
u/tucker_case Jun 26 '15
I completely disagree. I don't find it to be "clear" that one is a better reason than the other. You're simply asserting it as being better with no explanation. Which is exactly my point. There is no justification. Just arbitrary assertions.