The major problem with this kind of pattern is you’re looking to establish edge-case boundaries, rather than the most broadly applicable standard. The attempt to document and "solve for every case just leads to overly complicated and disingenuous discussions. Our fascination and obsession with “accuracy and precision” as applied to human behavior is one that breaks down very quickly unless you’re attempting to be hyper-rational, at which point, any rules assigned to human behavior break down.
In short, “use your best judgement.”
Note: I think that we have passed the golden moment where “human judgement” had any kind of value. There was a long time where we (all humanity) were stumbling in the dark, and we have now stepped back into that cave. But for a brief, shining moment, the percentage of people who had critical reasoning skills was growing, and it was majestic.
What I’m looking to do is point out that the world isn’t ever black-and-white, that the broadly applicable standards - while I agree that they are in fact broadly applicable - are never universal, and that edge-cases exist everywhere and need to be accounted for or the world is just a worse place for everyone. I’m not saying ‘your solution must handle solve for every case’, I’m saying ‘be aware that your solution needs to be flexible enough to account the fact that the real world is messy and things are never as simple as you’d like to believe.’
I am specifically, as you say, advocating for the use of best judgement over moral absolutes (I have heard it said, in person and online, that anyone who doesn’t put a shopping cart back no matter the reason is a shit human being, f.ex, so there are definitely people out there slinging moral absolutes on the subject of shopping carts.)
I highly doubt you have heard a significant number of people who would genuinely say “disabled people who don’t put their carts back are shit people.”
The number of people who would unironically say that is such a small edge case that it’s not necessary to talk about them when you say things like “everyone knows that disabilities result in different needs and moral responsibilities,” just like it’s not necessary to mention disability when you generalize and say “people who don’t put their carts back are shit people.”
Edge cases don’t have to be accounted for in every conversation, not everything is a court of law.
This isn’t really any more deep than “only a sith deals in absolutes”
Not a significant number, no, but also not zero. No the common refrain is as I said it, with the implication that anyone who doesn’t for any reason is a shit human being, and Iono if you know this, but disabled people are part of ‘anyone’ too. My whole point is that they make blanket statements about a thing that annoys them without realizing that some of those carts are out there for some pretty good reasons actually.
OP didn’t make a blanket statement that “anyone who does X is a piece of shit.”
He said an unwritten rule, like your own statement:
Don’t be stupid
Which is significantly closer to ableism than the shopping carts, with the implication that anyone who is stupid is a piece of shit.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “don’t be stupid,” for the record, but in case you weren’t aware, people with brain damage are included under “anyone.”
You’ve picked a bizarrely specific hill to die on.
The major problem with this kind of pattern is you’re looking to establish edge-case boundaries, rather than the most broadly applicable standard. The attempt to document and "solve for every case just leads to overly complicated and disingenuous discussions. Our fascination and obsession with “accuracy and precision” as applied to human behavior is one that breaks down very quickly unless you’re attempting to be hyper-rational, at which point, any rules assigned to human behavior break down.
In short, “use your best judgement.”
Note: I think that we have passed the golden moment where “human judgement” had any kind of value. There was a long time where we (all humanity) were stumbling in the dark, and we have now stepped back into that cave. But for a brief, shining moment, the percentage of people who had critical reasoning skills was growing, and it was majestic.
What I’m looking to do is point out that the world isn’t ever black-and-white, that the broadly applicable standards - while I agree that they are in fact broadly applicable - are never universal, and that edge-cases exist everywhere and need to be accounted for or the world is just a worse place for everyone. I’m not saying ‘your solution must handle solve for every case’, I’m saying ‘be aware that your solution needs to be flexible enough to account the fact that the real world is messy and things are never as simple as you’d like to believe.’
I am specifically, as you say, advocating for the use of best judgement over moral absolutes (I have heard it said, in person and online, that anyone who doesn’t put a shopping cart back no matter the reason is a shit human being, f.ex, so there are definitely people out there slinging moral absolutes on the subject of shopping carts.)
I highly doubt you have heard a significant number of people who would genuinely say “disabled people who don’t put their carts back are shit people.”
The number of people who would unironically say that is such a small edge case that it’s not necessary to talk about them when you say things like “everyone knows that disabilities result in different needs and moral responsibilities,” just like it’s not necessary to mention disability when you generalize and say “people who don’t put their carts back are shit people.”
Edge cases don’t have to be accounted for in every conversation, not everything is a court of law.
This isn’t really any more deep than “only a sith deals in absolutes”
Not a significant number, no, but also not zero. No the common refrain is as I said it, with the implication that anyone who doesn’t for any reason is a shit human being, and Iono if you know this, but disabled people are part of ‘anyone’ too. My whole point is that they make blanket statements about a thing that annoys them without realizing that some of those carts are out there for some pretty good reasons actually.
OP didn’t make a blanket statement that “anyone who does X is a piece of shit.”
He said an unwritten rule, like your own statement:
Which is significantly closer to ableism than the shopping carts, with the implication that anyone who is stupid is a piece of shit.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying “don’t be stupid,” for the record, but in case you weren’t aware, people with brain damage are included under “anyone.”
You’ve picked a bizarrely specific hill to die on.
Did you manage to overlook this point?