logicp_writings/crt/Immutable_morality.md

So apparently we are able to rank order humans by the degree to which they oppress one another. To evaluate this rank order, we are simply make a list of identity groups for which a person can be ascribed, based on the following characteristics:

• Skin colour (immutable, mostly)
• Race (immutable)
• Sex (immutable)
• Gender (mutable, but paradox because of arguments supporting the need to bear a gender identity other than that which is analogous to one's sex)
• Religion (mutabl)
• Sexual orientation (mutable, but often argued as immutable)

Skin colour is a strange one, because it's used for quick assertion / determination about a person's race. If we are to infer that there is a specific degree of victim/oppressor status to be inferred by a person's skin colour, which of the following is it most heavily (or entirely) based on:

a) the observer b) the actor

If it is the observer, it is assumed that the observers are bestowing a particular degree of privilege or oppression to a given individual because of the expectations they have, courtesy of their bias which has been calibrated through their having been socialized within a given social sphere aka community.

Why should we be expected to entertain assumptions dictating how we are to allocate morality? Especially when the actions and initiatives which are lead to be these assertions all come in the form of restructuring and reappropriating power to themselves or those whom they claim to approve of. If there is a current or historic issue with power being sought and unfairly used for the structuring of society and allocation of resources, then why would such an issue magically not be applicable to types of actions now? For this issue to not be immediately obvious to whomsoever is suggesting these types of changes, it would mean that this person either:

• Believes that they are morally pure themselves, impervious to cognitive biases and, as a result, are operating at a capacity which is not attainable by other fellow humans (or humans that can be identified by mutable characteristics, or by virtue of having an imperative which does not align with the person in question
• Is aware of the tendency for this issue to manifest, and is doing everything in their power to be the one to take advantage of this first, either because of a lust for power or because of fear (these both may be, under this set of circumstances, the same thing)

What is courage?

Is it courage to profess one's adherence to the popular religion of today, without needing to prove its case? If its case is proven implicitly, and one believes that it is proven implicitly, then any individual championing this religion would, in turn, not be required to make the case for the religion.

Courage is borne out of a deliberate decision to perform an action which maintains movement towards a goal or ideal in the face of danger. The explicit nature of the actions associated with courage almost make it seem unnatural to evaluate courage through the implicit.