The huge Woke problem comes clearly after specifying the 3 parts:
"norm violations, negative affect, and dyadic harm."
The Woke fascists first change the norms and then claim the violation of that changed norm causes harm. And thus is immoral - violating the new (Woke) sacred principle against harm (to the preferred folks who are not to be harmed; not including white male hetero Christians).
Their paper has a fine fuzzy picture of an
intentional Agent causing Damage to a vulnerable Patient (or victim).
But it's a long paper (didn't finish it).
It seems their conclusion is that (deliberate) Harm is Immoral.
Not sure if it covers promiscuity, and the higher risk of unwanted pregnancy, and the often result of an less wanted child being raised by a young, single mother -- which is better for the child than killing it an abortion before it's born, but sub-optimal as compared to being raised by two, married parents.
Most religions are attempting to create social optimums thru norms of behavior - which are seldom optimal in every respect for each individual. These norms become the religiously believed morals - and become part of the "sacred" beliefs of that religion.
And in skipping the the conclusions, it seems there's no consideration of probability. Most drunk drivers most of the time drive without harming anybody. But it's the increase in the probability of harm which makes drunk driving "probabilistically harmful", in the same way that promiscuity that results "probabilistically unwanted pregnancy", which seems harmful to the innocent child.
The huge Woke problem comes clearly after specifying the 3 parts:
"norm violations, negative affect, and dyadic harm."
The Woke fascists first change the norms and then claim the violation of that changed norm causes harm. And thus is immoral - violating the new (Woke) sacred principle against harm (to the preferred folks who are not to be harmed; not including white male hetero Christians).
Their paper has a fine fuzzy picture of an
intentional Agent causing Damage to a vulnerable Patient (or victim).
But it's a long paper (didn't finish it).
It seems their conclusion is that (deliberate) Harm is Immoral.
Not sure if it covers promiscuity, and the higher risk of unwanted pregnancy, and the often result of an less wanted child being raised by a young, single mother -- which is better for the child than killing it an abortion before it's born, but sub-optimal as compared to being raised by two, married parents.
Most religions are attempting to create social optimums thru norms of behavior - which are seldom optimal in every respect for each individual. These norms become the religiously believed morals - and become part of the "sacred" beliefs of that religion.
And in skipping the the conclusions, it seems there's no consideration of probability. Most drunk drivers most of the time drive without harming anybody. But it's the increase in the probability of harm which makes drunk driving "probabilistically harmful", in the same way that promiscuity that results "probabilistically unwanted pregnancy", which seems harmful to the innocent child.