That’s beside the point though. I wasn’t making the argument that some people choose to trade off between different values in different ways. I was making the argument that, even if you hold those values constant, you will never achieve any of them perfectly.

To put it in concrete terms: every possible human society has some inequalities based on birthright. Or, as I stated it, perfect justice is impossible.

It’s not a question of prioritizing certain values over others, although those questions can and do arise. It’s a question of achieving any one of those values in the real world.

Sure, but given that it may not be possible to achieve perfect equality, I'm not sure how it follows that we are at a global (or even local) maximum of equality, which seems to be what you shorthand "okay" to mean.

And I think that it's pretty obvious that we aren't at such a maximum.

Like, holding values constant, "make marijuana legal" would reduce inequality. It might have some second order effects that are problematic in general, but it would reduce policing inequality. I don't see a counterargument to that.

> Sure, but given that it may not be possible to achieve perfect equality, I'm not sure how it follows that we are at a global (or even local) maximum of equality, which seems to be what you shorthand "okay" to mean.

The only way to prove that we aren't at a global or local maximum is to make the case for some specific set of changes. If this isn't the best of all possible worlds, show me a possible world that's better. Even if we agree about the values, we can still disagree about factual and counterfactual questions enough that maybe I won't believe your better world is possible, or that your possible world is better.

> Like, holding values constant, "make marijuana legal" would reduce inequality. It might have some second order effects that are problematic in general, but it would reduce policing inequality. I don't see a counterargument to that.

The original value we were trying to maximize was the value of black lives, because your claim is that nobody can possibly support the status quo while believing that black lives as as valuable as white lives. So let's try and stay consistent here--you're the one shifting values on me all of a sudden! :)

I happen to agree with you about cannabis, but as I said before, that's the same as saying that cannabis should be legal irrespective of racial equality. And that's because we agree that cannabis usage is less of a threat to black lives than the enforcement of cannabis prohibition. I think the number of black people killed in police encounters due solely to the prohibition of cannabis is probably very marginal. I might be wrong, but again that's not a values difference.

> The original value we were trying to maximize was the value of black lives

Wait now hold on! I'm not trying to maximize the value of black lives. My claim is that black lives are currently given less value than white (or broadly, other) lives. The goal isn't to maximize the value of black lives, but to bring parity to white lives. Maximizing the value of black lives is a very different position.

Or in other words, Black Lives Matter is about maximizing equality. I claim that Marijuana legalization is one such change that will reduce inequality, and will have few enough side effects that they don't make it unacceptable to implement.

tl;dr: We were looking to increase the societal value of black lives, but that is done within the lens of achieving equality.

> I think the number of black people killed in police encounters due solely to the prohibition of cannabis is probably very marginal. I might be wrong, but again that's not a values difference.

I would agree, but (at least if you take the systemic view of racial injustice that I do) the long term impacts of things like incarceration due to the inconsistent enforcement of petty drug charges do have far reaching consequences that make other kinds of change difficult to consider/analyze.

> The goal isn't to maximize the value of black lives, but to bring parity to white lives. Maximizing the value of black lives is a very different position.

Fair. Though they are effectively the same until parity is reached.

> I would agree, but (at least if you take the systemic view of racial injustice that I do) the long term impacts of things like incarceration due to the inconsistent enforcement of petty drug charges do have far reaching consequences that make other kinds of change difficult to consider/analyze.

And here we are back at (hypothetical) differences over our respective understanding of the situation, particularly in comparing the social impacts of drug use and incarceration. I still don’t think any difference in values is necessarily implied.

Being utilitarian is a moral position just like your position and a utilitarian would be justified on rejecting your position on moral grounds as well.

Two people have have a moral position and disagree because they are fundamentally working from different axioms.