u/Responsible-Leg-9072

Products and services like WhatsApp and other SM draw their value from how many user their platform has. Does this not produce problems for the LTV?

A clone of the same product with the same code is worth almost nothing regardless of how much SNLT was used to produce it. And it should still have qualitative use value, should it not? Or is the value in a marxian sense zero and this is just a deviation of price and value? Are services benefiting from network effects just extracting Monopoly Rent?

Within Marx's theory of value, the value of in this case would not be the market price of oil, but the human labour and SNLT that went into the machines that drill, refine and transport the oil.

But what if instead of oil the very same machines drill, refine and transport a substance that is 100% identical to oil except it cannot be burnt(which can only be checked once drilled, refined and transported)? The value from a capitalistic pov would be zero, would it still be the same as burnable oil using marxist thought?

Within standpoint theory would that be seen as something bad or neutral( Advantage seems to have a positive normative connotation) ?

I am currently working through Five Faces of Oppression (1990) and Responsibility for Justice (2011) by I.M.Young.

I notice that her framework of thinking and structural ethics and analysis is echoed a lot even in non-academic circles (i.e on social media). It seems to me it is even seen as a default assumption to agree with her work.

Are there any of you who take a different position to her or subscribe to a different feminist school of thought? If so why?

Edit: I think someone like Nussbaum could fit here, but I have not read them.

Thank you!

i was wondering how contextual ethical systems like Iris Marion Young's system or treshold deontology or Honneth's recognition theory justify being contextual. Does that not entail looking at outcomes in some way even if indirectly?

I think I found that feminism ( especially feminism that puts a focus on structural explanations) explicitely uses both universalist moral theory and non-universalist structural reasoning to defend certain ethical positions. Now this alone should not be a problem as most frameworks are somewhat pluralistic. But I am curious about how one can defend such a framework if it is not internally consistent and does not follow one ethical theory. This seems to slide into ad hoc justification?

So a much asked question here is why it is seemingly allowed for feminist to use stats of male violence to justify certain attitudes and behaviour, while it is generally seen as racist to do so with regards to ethnic groups.

I think the common answer given (for example here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1p7c2ar/comment/nqx2d5s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) already answers this supposed paradox quite well.

If I understand it correctly the argument is, that the situation is not symmetrical as one is aimed at a marginalized group without social power and the other is aimed at the current oppressor group. Prejudice against the oppressor causes less harm both inter-personally and structurally as it does not perpetuates structural harm. Is my understanding correct?

In a similar manner misandry is judged as less harmful than misogyny and thus not worthy of serious social activism

However, I still have a question regarding the meta-ethics of the answer:

This ethical position seems to assume a sort of non-universialist moral focused on a structural, relational perspective and grounded in consequencialism.

What is moral if I understand it correctly depends in this framework on the social and structural context and is focused on preventing harm towards vulnerable groups and is thus not naively equal for all persons. Harm reduction is a quite consequantialist position, which stands in opposition to deontological approaches, which judge actions more universally.

But this reliance on consequentialism as a meta-ethical foundation seems like an underdiscussed aspect of feminism. This strikes me as odd, as consequentialism is not uncontroversial and often produces counterintuitive results.

Most would agree for example, that what happened in the case of the Pelicot rapes is horrendous and appaling. Yet, one could argue following naive comsequentialism, that an unconscious victim hardly suffers any harm and thus defend this evil act as morally permissible. Of course, there are ways to resolve this. But most require widening what is meant by consequence and harm and thus inviting deontology back into the picture. As the evil of rape imo can only be explained in a satisfactory way by invoking its transgression against the right to bodily self-determination and human dignity. As while rape and other misogynistic crimes also harm on a structural level not only on an interpersonal level, the inter personal harm is still substantial. As even in a structurally perfect feminist society with zero structural harm most would agree that rape is still a special evil. (This evil is also seemingly independent of who does it to whom. It is wrong even if a marginalized group does it to an oppressor implying structural ethics does not play such a large role in this case) If you argue rape would not happen in such a society I think you have to admit that the inter-personal level and the structural level are intervowen and cannot be easily seperated like is done when differentiating structural harm vs. interpersonal harm.

The wrongness of rape is most coherently explained by appeal to bodily autonomy and human dignity( the victim's right to determine what happens to their body, independent of whether they are aware of or harmed by the violation) These are Kantian concepts. They apply to persons as such, not to persons-in-structural-context. Once you invoke them, you cannot restrict their application to cases that fit your preferred political conclusions.

This addition of moral universalism however, runs into the issue that human dignity should be universal and thus also apply in the case of misandry. Rejecting misandry as not harmful and thus not morally relevant while invoking the opposite ethical traditions to explain misoginistic crimes seems contradictory. Even if we accept that we can order moral behavior by the amount of structural harm done, less morally bad must still mean we should not do it as otherwise the whole label of morally bad looses its valiue. It additionally seems arbitrary when deontological reasoning is added to save a consequentialist position.

**TLDR**

Premise 1: The framework condemns unconscious rape by appeal to dignity, bodily autonomy, and/or structural domination (not merely experienced harm)

Premise 2: These concepts (dignity, autonomy, structural treatment of persons as objects) are universalist in their logical form. They apply to persons as such. Premise 3: Treating men as a risk-category based on group membership:

Treats individual men as instances of a class rather than as persons Denies them the presumption of individual moral agency Uses an immutable characteristic to generate behavioral inferences about them

Premise 4: By the same dignity/autonomy logic used to condemn unconscious rape, this constitutes a dignity violation regardless of whether the individual man experiences significant harm from it.

Conclusion: The concepts the framework needs to condemn rape, when applied consistently, also condemn the asymmetric treatment of men. The framework cannot use universalist concepts selectively. The standard answer given is still unsatisfactory.

Edit: **TLDRTheTLDR**

A lot of feminism seems to use an ethical framework ultimately grounded in outcome-based ethics to explain why certain behavior is more harmful if directed at marg. groups (where structural sexism is reinforced) compared to cishet white men. However, this is seemingly not done all the time. Most misogynistic behaviour is still seen as morally bad even if there is no victim/harm. To do this one has to use non-naive non-outcome based ethics. How and when is it decided which ethical framework to use. Has this ever been discussed?

Edit: ngl a bit disappointed in the lack of quality answers. Expected more feminist theory and people who have read feminist philosophy in a feminist sub.