|
Huzanko posted:You save whichever life you can save rather than saving zero lives. Okay so objectively you can be held morally accountable for things you did not cause to occur. Someone needs to update the trolley problem.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I am suggesting that a compelling moral vision of how the world should be has been something that leftists have had for hundreds of years and thus far it has not won very many victories against the overwhelmingly popular alternative of "the world is hosed but you might have a microscopic chance of being on top of the shitheap one day and then you'll be able to gently caress everyone else!" The current system has not been in place for "hundreds of years". The "The world is hosed" viewpoint you point to is one that has been with us since, perhaps, the 1980's. Before that I am not going to argue that people thought that they might get a better shot or that the world was poo poo, but at least among working class people in much of the industrialising west there was still a belief in the essential competence and intelligence of the people doing the ruling. Saying that "they know more than you, keep in line" seems like an easier idea to project backwards than "moral arguments make no difference".
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Stringently considered, our only natural birthright is a right to die. All other rights are fabrications or social constructs. Even dying isn't a 'right'. It just is. As for your second point: I don't agree with the idea that we must behave as if morality is objective for society to flourish. I think the humility to admit our rights and morals emerge from a preferred state of being, rather than being derived from some deity or essential nature of the universe, allows great flexibility and room for debate. For example, I don't believe in free will. Under most interpretations of the law, however, it would be cruel to imprison somebody who 'is not responsible' for their actions. Yet I'm betting none of us would prefer to live around a known murderer given the choice. Unbound by any strict, objective interpretation of rights and morality, I can freely say that what is best is some combination of isolating him for the safety of others, while focusing on rehabilitation and reintroduction to society if possible. Rights, ethics, and morality are useful fictions that both exist to serve and are created by us. They are not things belonging to the natural universe that we have discovered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The current system has not been in place for "hundreds of years". The "The world is hosed" viewpoint you point to is one that has been with us since, perhaps, the 1980's. Before that I am not going to argue that people thought that they might get a better shot or that the world was poo poo, but at least among working class people in much of the industrialising west there was still a belief in the essential competence and intelligence of the people doing the ruling. Saying that "they know more than you, keep in line" seems like an easier idea to project backwards than "moral arguments make no difference". I was suggesting that communists have been writing utopian visions of society since their inception, which was a couple hundred years ago or I suppose longer if you take stuff like diggers. Moral arguments can be compelling to some but I find it very difficult to credit the idea that the justice of a cause will give it impetus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't pretend to understand religious experiences having never, as far as I know, had one. But they do appear to be a thing and there's probably people who have done good research into them. So in your point of view it's impossible to say things are objectively bad or good. Got it. I think that's loving idiotic and less than useless, especially when debating the right or talking about their views, but OK. You have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion and just wanted to play semantic games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Yet I'm betting none of us would prefer to live around a known murderer given the choice. I mean, depends how well I know the person. I might agree with them. Huzanko posted:So in your point of view it's impossible to say things are objectively bad or good. Got it. I think that's loving idiotic and less than useless, especially when debating the right or talking about their views, but OK. No, I say things are bad and good quite a lot and as I said I am entirely willing to make other people abide by those ideas too, but it's still only me saying that, it has no magical universal truth on its side. Only as much clubbing power as you put behind it yourself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Would it be OK to say that poverty and lack of healthcare and lack of education are objectively bad for society? They definitely are. If these are objectively bad things then wouldn't it be OK to say they're objectively immoral?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Would it be OK to say that poverty and lack of healthcare and lack of education are objectively bad for society? They definitely are. If these are objectively bad things then wouldn't it be OK to say they're objectively immoral? Depends on your definition of society, if you're a capitalist you probably think it's quite good for society because it's what powers your bit of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean, depends how well I know the person. I might agree with them. I never claimed that it had a magical universal truth. I did claim that it has "Only as much clubbing power as you put behind it yourself" as you put it. Again, you just wanted to play semantic games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So do I, I just explicitly don't draw a line between the two. I think not ever experiencing systemic issues must be part of it. Maybe knowing some actual history, but that itself is vulnerable to selection. Dmitri-9 posted:Okay so objectively you can be held morally accountable for things you did not cause to occur. Someone needs to update the trolley problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Depends on your definition of society, if you're a capitalist you probably think it's quite good for society because it's what powers your bit of it. That capitalist would be wrong since at some point, under such conditions, capitalism will eat itself and destroy the capitalist. Take a look at the world today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:If it's all chiefly environmental and formative factors, which it probably is unless there's neurological weirdness (or djinn) involved, there must be some functional difference between the person who reads Moldbug and thinks "lol, this dumb" and who thinks "woah mind blown I took the red pill" and it's interesting what that could be. Yeah I think environment and ideological exposure influencing your response to that is most of it, but I'd suggest it's probably not super predictable or at least the how to guide isn't written down anywhere at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I was suggesting that communists have been writing utopian visions of society since their inception, which was a couple hundred years ago or I suppose longer if you take stuff like diggers. Their inception was, what 169 years ago if you go from the printing of The Communist Manifesto? That doesn't let you claim hundreds of years. It lets you claim, at best, a century. And before that the arguments were usually based on Christian communitarian beliefs . And perhaps not, but saying "well people have always thought in the way we do now" is silly. I agree that there are a heaping helping of similarities between popular thought back in "ye olde teems" and now, but it isn't the same circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Okay so objectively you can be held morally accountable for things you did not cause to occur. Someone needs to update the trolley problem. If you have medicine that could be used to save a dying person and you don't use it then, yes, you are accountable. Your inaction is just as good as killing the person. Your case was not the trolly problem where killing one man saves many - it was saving one out of two dying people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:That capitalist would be wrong since at some point, under such conditions, capitalism will eat itself and destroy the capitalist. Take a look at the world today. Well no it might, we hope, destroy capitalism but it probably won't destroy any given capitalist at any given time, least that's what history would suggest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Their inception was, what 169 years ago if you go from the printing of The Communist Manifesto? That doesn't let you claim hundreds of years. It lets you claim, at best, a century. And before that the arguments were usually based on Christian communitarian beliefs . You can date it back to Rousseau's Second Discourse in 1755, if we're being super pedantic. Fourier and Saint-Simon's utopian experiments, at the latest. Dmitri-9 posted:Okay so objectively you can be held morally accountable for things you did not cause to occur. Someone needs to update the trolley problem. That's more-or-less been the consequentialist position since the start, so there isn't much updating necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That's more-or-less been the consequentialist position since the start, so there isn't much updating necessary. Yeah or at the least that your intent to cause something is absolutely irrelevant, you get no points for being well meaning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:If you have medicine that could be used to save a dying person and you don't use it then, yes, you are accountable. Your inaction is just as good as killing the person. Your case was not the trolly problem where killing one man saves many - it was saving one out of two dying people. But acting and not acting are different things regardless of whether you flip a switch or dispense medicine. Did you heroically act to save lives or recklessly intervene to kill the other party. Are you morally liable for the death you caused with your action even if you get the greatest amount of good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:But acting and not acting are different things regardless of whether you flip a switch or dispense medicine. Did you heroically act to save lives or recklessly intervene to kill the other party. Are you morally liable for the death you caused with your action even if you get the greatest amount of good? Actually again according to consequentialism they aren't. You are liable for things that happen because of your inaction as well as your action. The trolley problem from a consequentialist perspective leaves you liable for either one five deaths or one death and five lives saved, there is no option that doesn't leave you responsible for a death, or at least a specific death. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:But acting and not acting are different things regardless of whether you flip a switch or dispense medicine. Did you heroically act to save lives or recklessly intervene to kill the other party. Are you morally liable for the death you caused with your action even if you get the greatest amount of good? Flipping a switch is different than dispensing medicine. Do we need a whole new moral calculus to jump from one to the other?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:But acting and not acting are different things regardless of whether you flip a switch or dispense medicine. Did you heroically act to save lives or recklessly intervene to kill the other party. Are you morally liable for the death you caused with your action even if you get the greatest amount of good? Your original question was concerning one dose of medicine and two dying people. Quit moving goal posts. People should save the life they can without unreasonable harm to themselves or others. If someone is going to die and you can stop it without and unreasonable cost to yourself then you are morally obligated to save them. It's morally objectionable that people go without food, healthcare, and education in modern society while billionaires exist. That's what I believe. Beliefs are good even when they're not subject to beep-boop rationality. This is not something I can be talked out of with Philosophy 101. gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:Your original question was concerning one dose of medicine and two dying people. Quit moving goal posts. The example doesn't matter. In a contest of scarce resources how do you decide, according to objective morality, who gets to live and who gets to die?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:You can date it back to Rousseau's Second Discourse in 1755, if we're being super pedantic. Fourier and Saint-Simon's utopian experiments, at the latest. Isn't that more bourgeoisie revolution as opposed to a Socialist one? Or am I being too pedantic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Isn't that more bourgeoisie revolution as opposed to a Socialist one? Or am I being too pedantic? There's no such thing as being too pedantic, friend.  But Rousseau's writing in particular heavily influenced the early socialists, and he was kind of the go-to guy before Marx came around. Comrade J.J. posted:The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Yeah the manifesto codified and formalized a lot of pre existing ideas, communists didn't, as some might believe, spring fully formed from the earth when it went to print and you can't bury additional copies of it like dragon's teeth to grow your own bearded army of revolutionaries. I've tried.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah the manifesto codified and formalized a lot of pre existing ideas, communists didn't, as some might believe, spring fully formed from the earth when it went to print and you can't bury additional copies of it like dragon's teeth to grow your own bearded army of revolutionaries. I've tried. To say that all Utopian visions from the last few centuries feed into Socialism is kind of... bilge if I am honest. A lot of them are useful to it and help to inform it, but I would personally argue that you don't get to claim quote:"I am suggesting that a compelling moral vision of how the world should be has been something that leftists have had for hundreds of years and thus far it has not won very many victories". Because they are often phrased in different language and, in a large number of cases, achieved some measure of societal change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
And I would argue that for all their differences historically and continued differences today between socialists/anarchist/communists/whatever, there are a lot of people throughout history who have espoused beautiful visions of the future and yet we still live in this one. A vision can only take you so far. And alone I don't think it can take you very far at all. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:This is not something I can be talked out of with Philosophy 101. gently caress off. You realize when people dismiss others as spouting ‘philosophy 101’, they’re usually doing it from a position of greater knowledge, not less. Mocking people quoting canned lines from an intro philosophy course doesn’t imply ignorance of philosophy is a virtue. Quite the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:People should save the life they can without unreasonable harm to themselves or others. For the record, I agree with you on this 100%, but to claim that it's the objectively moral position is stupid, because again, there's no such thing as objective morality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
JVNO posted:You realize when people dismiss others as spouting ‘philosophy 101’, they’re usually doing it from a position of greater knowledge, not less. Mocking people quoting canned lines from an intro philosophy course doesn’t imply ignorance of philosophy is a virtue. Quite the opposite. I'll admit to being hugely ignorant of philosophy but I know enough that objectivity has massive philosophical implications.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:For the record, I agree with you on this 100%, but to claim that it's the objectively moral position is stupid, because again, there's no such thing as objective morality. Eh, I don't care, at all. I believe if you'd want the person to save you were you in the dying person's position then the decision to save a person at a not unreasonable cost to yourself is objectively moral. No, objective morality doesn't exist within the context the theoretical context of other possible societies. I am talking about our modern society and not some alien society where bad is good and death is good. If you want to build a society that takes care of the many rather than the few then you need to have some objectively moral foundations. I really don't give a poo poo about the philosophy 101 context of "objectively moral" that you're making assertions about. I understand what you are saying and what the word objective means. I just do not care. My whole point is that if you want to enact positive change then you need to make the claim that certain things are objectively moral in the way that the US constitution - even though it was written by slave owners - claims that humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights. These are claims we can and should make and not play stupid semantic games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
JVNO posted:You realize when people dismiss others as spouting ‘philosophy 101’, they’re usually doing it from a position of greater knowledge, not less. Mocking people quoting canned lines from an intro philosophy course doesn’t imply ignorance of philosophy is a virtue. Quite the opposite. Why not? The fact is that people who are profoundly ignorant of philosophy seem to do an awful lot better materially and mentally than people who do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Unless you're arguing with anyone who has the faintest understanding of what objectivity means in which case you get this argument even if they agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Huzanko, I want to stress again that your reckless disregard for rigour, intellectual honesty, and moral philosophy make you an incredible liability to whatever cause you choose to support. Sargon would dunk on you hard. That's how flimsy your epistemology and reasoning are. Josef bugman posted:Why not? The fact is that people who are profoundly ignorant of philosophy seem to do an awful lot better materially and mentally than people who do. 'Educated people tend to be sadbrains' is not an argument for ignorance unless you've already embraced a hedonistic ethos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And I would argue that for all their differences historically and continued differences today between socialists/anarchist/communists/whatever, there are a lot of people throughout history who have espoused beautiful visions of the future and yet we still live in this one. But they have? As much as this world is poo poo it could be an awful lot worse than it currently is. We at least have to pay lip service to the idea of Human Rights even if we don't really mean it. That change is important because otherwise it is simply the worst sort of bronze age murder-athon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you're arguing with anyone who has the faintest understanding of what objectivity means in which case you get this argument even if they agree with you. I would rather make the claim that certain things are objectively moral based on their utility to society and the individual than go down the rabbit hole of "Well, nothing is objectively moral so it's OK if I hate black people and think the holocaust was pretty good!" Talking about whether there is such a thing as objective ethics is less than useless when dealing with politics and policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:My whole point is that if you want to enact positive change then you need to make the claim that certain things are objectively moral in the way that the US constitution - even though it was written by slave owners - claims that humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights. These are claims we can and should make and not play stupid semantic games. You're the one playing stupid semantic games by saying that we must say that good morals are objective morals, when the word "objective" doesn't loving mean "good" quote:Well, nothing is objectively moral so it's OK if I hate black people and think the holocaust was pretty good! Yes, that's what I'm saying, that's my argument, a Jew claiming the holocaust was pretty good. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Huzanko posted:"Well, nothing is objectively moral so it's OK if I hate black people and think the holocaust was pretty good!" You dishonest tool. That is not at all what's at stake when acknowledging rights and morality are social constructs. gently caress you for conflating a belief in subjectivity with embracing the holocaust. As if I needed further proof your dismissal of 'philosophy 101' comes from a place of ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But they have? As much as this world is poo poo it could be an awful lot worse than it currently is. We at least have to pay lip service to the idea of Human Rights even if we don't really mean it. That change is important because otherwise it is simply the worst sort of bronze age murder-athon. I would suggest that it is the worst sort of bronze age murder-athon whenever it wants to be. We live barely a century from the start of the world wars, and after decades of planning to end human civilization only prevented by the fact that nobody wants to be on the receiving end of it. Huzanko posted:I would rather make the claim that certain things are objectively moral based on their utility to society and the individual than go down the rabbit hole of "Well, nothing is objectively moral so it's OK if I hate black people and think the holocaust was pretty good!" Ah the literal "well without god what stops you murdering and raping everyone" argument. Good vintage, not seen that one for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:18 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:To say that all Utopian visions from the last few centuries feed into Socialism is kind of... bilge if I am honest. A lot of them are useful to it and help to inform it, but I would personally argue that you don't get to claim Diggers and Levellers son
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:50
|
|
