In reply to wintertree:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> It will win with you.
It will win within a framework of reason.
> Often they don't however win with everyone - those with the hold over the status quo will have a different logic, a different reason, and a strong interest in preserving the status quo.
When it comes to arguments about discrimination, the arguments that justify it are fallacious. They either appeal to god (I'm shitting on you because my god is on my side) or they go for outright fallacy to dehumanise those being discriminated against (black people are intellectually inferior/savage; being gay is a lifestyle choice, etc). You might call these arguments "a different logic", I call them "demonstrably a load of crap". I understand that not everyone sees it that way, but until I see an argument that does not appeal to god or to outright fallacy, I will hold that view.
> People are not programmed by logic, even static some irrefutable logic based in mathematics is no guarantee of acceptance, let alone subjective areas.
I'm not arguing that the world works the way I think it should. All kinds of crap is justified with entirely fallacious arguments, all the bloody time. Yes, that is how people work. And I understand that in areas that truly are subjective, such as how much I like a certain colour, there is no rational debate. But lots of stuff gets passed off as subjective when a good dose of reason could come in handy in finding useful answers about what is the best thing to do next.
> I think one is expecting to much of logic or science to provide these justifications that will work for all, and nature is no guide as most species on the planet practices discrimination, "species-ism", racism, murder and various other unpleasantries.
I think nature is the only guide (even though it has no moral sense). We have evolved the ability to empathise, and the ability to switch that empathy on and off (which leads to inherent contradictions in our moral choices). We have evolved the ability to use reason. Put these two together and you can work through moral questions to reach outcomes that suit your goals.
> I think you are right about the testing of ideas though - at least in parts of the world. I suppose people raised with a generic sense of fairness are able to apply that to specific areas of injustice around them. I would further guess that it is easier to develop a sense of fairness in a land of plenty - with the education and opportunities that follow, than a land of extreme poverty, which would suggest that pushing equality on parts of the world is less likely to succeed than pushing education and sustainability on them.
When we're under pressure, we tend to turn the empathy off, because it acts against our short-term goals. When we have plenty of resources, our empathy comes to the fore. So aiming for prosperity - which will allow for education - is a good way of aiming for equality.