|
Oh dear me posted:Yes it does. Here is just one example of someone equating altruism with being good, for example. I would be reluctant to classify that ream of intellectually vacuous, touchy feely drivel as virtue ethics I suppose. But equally I don't think it is sufficiently coherent to function as a counter to my position.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
A very noisy subset at least, if not large.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:We probably need to define what being hostile even means in this context. Few people would want religion banned even if they might think its rubbish we could do without. Most non religious people don't want religion anywhere near politics but don't mind letting people practice on their own time. Is that hostile? Depends on whether you would view "just keep your beliefs about abortion and homosexuality out of politics" to be hostile when it is applied by people with views you think are poo poo on those subjects. Political representation is an important part of any worldview that makes you give a poo poo about people other than yourself, and being told to keep yours to yourself is pretty hostile whoever does it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:Don't kid yourself, this is hostile as gently caress. It may be justified, but it's hostile. That is also my position, justifiable is not the same as non-hostile and I think it's both weird and also comes across as disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:In that case am I also being hostile against vegetarians when I don't care what you eat as long as you leave me and others to eat meat whenever we want? You are if the vegetarians consider meat eating to be immoral, in the same way that you would probably have a hostile relationship with someone who thinks, for example, that you should be entitled to whatever healthcare you want as long as you don't expect them to fund it with tax money. The state exists to enforce certain behaviors on society, and that enforcement should generally be contingent on support within the populace for those behaviors, founded on the belief that those behaviors are required for society to be just. It doesn't make a lot of sense to suggest that the state essentially going laissez faire on some issues is not a form of hostility when the party you're dealing with believes that those issues carry a moral imperative, otherwise the political right would be equally justified in saying that the state stepping back and letting free market capitalism sort everything out is also justified on the basis that they don't think that's a moral issue. Far more sensible and consistent, I think, to recognize that state refusal to adopt a political stance is hostility towards people who think it should, regardless of the position, and simply accept that you're fighting on equal political footing against your opponent. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's not a very useful definition of hostile to me. It's quite useful in the sense that Marx's characterization of bourg/prole relationships is useful. In that just as nobody in their right mind should buy it when the bourg tells you that they're on your side, nobody who believes in non-secular moral obligations should buy it when people say that actually secular states are on everybody's side.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nobody is every going to support somebody else in absolutely everything all of the time, so by this definition everybody is hostile to everybody else. How is this at all useful? There is a difference between "not supporting" and "will advocate consistently for suppression of your political interests" MaxxBot posted:So do you think that a dominionist angry that the state does not enforce Leviticus 18:22 and execute gays is no different than a secularist who wants the state to take no position and let people believe whatever they want about the issue? Well I think that the former is wrong and the latter is a morally craven fence sitter but I would say they both should understand the inherently conflicting nature of their relationship. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So it's morally craven to not want to force your personal ideology on all of society with the threat of violence? When you say you want the state to step back and let people believe whatever they want, are you suggesting they should be free to act on those beliefs? Because if you are that is morally bankrupt and if you aren't then you aren't asking the state not to interfere. How do you propose to stop people acting on their beliefs without the state stepping in and waving its force-monopolizing willy around? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Patrick Spens posted:It depends. I'm okay with the state allowing conservative Christians to act on their anti-gay beliefs in some ways but not others. It should be legal for them to kick a gay couple out of their church, but not out of their restaurant. How morally bankrupt am I? I think that's a rather nebulous line to draw and I would be unable to construct a justification for drawing it. MaxxBot posted:So you are saying that a positive right to kill people who disagree with your worldview is identical to a negative right to not be killed for having a certain worldview? I have trouble with the concept of positive and negative rights because you can phrase almost everything either as a right to something or a right not to something, so whether or not you phrase it as positive or negative is really a matter of perspective and not a good basis for arguing what rights you should or shouldn't have. Stick to arguing for rights you think are good rather than trying to argue that positive or negative rights as a blanket category are more important. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Human society literally couldn't exist if we viewed positive and negative rights as equal, as no two people have an identical worldview and if any amount of force is justified against wrongthink we could all just murder each other for not being in total agreement, something you seem to be fine with. There has to be some amount of recognition that negative rights must take precedence otherwise coexistence is simply impossible. Maybe there's forms of violence other than totally obliterating people and maybe sometimes it's perfectly ethical to employ them in order to stop people doing worse things? Who What Now posted:Not allowing you to discriminate is not suppressing your political interests unless you have no political interests beyond discriminating people. By that logic passing laws to break up unions is not political suppression as long as you are pro animal rights... Suppressing part of someone's political interests is still suppression.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Refusing a general service for religious reasons vs. refusing something inherently religious for religious reasons? From the position of the end user a general service and a religious service may be of equivalent importance.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And the importance to the end user is the deciding criterion?.. Always? The only one? If the reason you're constructing the law is the welfare of the citizen then what is important to the citizen's wellbeing is kind of the significant factor. MaxxBot posted:You're still not recognizing that there's a fundamental difference between asking the government to enforce positive rights and enforcing a negative right. In the former case it involves direct suppression of people's rights where the latter involves someone being bothered that some other's rights are not bring suppressed by government, huge difference. As I said, the difference between positive and negative rights is entirely a matter of perspective and it makes no sense to say that one class is more important than the other because I could just rephrase a bunch of poo poo to make it a positive or negative right. "I have a right not to die" vs "I have a right to healthcare" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What definition of positive vs. negative are you using? I think Isaiah Berlin would vehemently disagree with you. As I said I really don't understand the distinction. To use your earlier example, "I have a right to pizza" could be rephrased as "I have the right to not be refused pizza because that causes me harm" Cingulate posted:What about laws which aim not to increase welfare, but to protect the rights of citizens, including immaterial rights? MaxxBot posted:So you'd view a government that enacts mass genocide campaign against 100% of its population and one that fails to implement UHC for 100% of its population as identical? That's a pretty bizarre and hosed up worldview that's entirely detached from reality. What are you talking about? I just said that positive/negative rights are a loving stupid way to judge things, laws are good because they increase human welfare. Imperfect implementation of UHC is obviously better than just killing everyone, except from a particularly committed nihilist's perspective. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Is this a question or a claim? Are you telling me you have considered the various reasons people might give for insisting on rights over welfare, and you think they're all bad? Or are you asking me if I had heard of any because you can't think of any sensible ones? I'm suggesting that rights should be derived from increases in human welfare than that adhering to imagined rights for their own sake is silly because you're following rules without bothering to look at whether they're doing any good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Not having the government not actively oppressing groups of people is a huge improvement over having them not do so, I don't see how this is hard to understand. I... agree? I think?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Okay, but can you imagine that some people have different views, many of them for smart, well-fleshed out reasons? E.g., https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ I can imagine that people will start from premises that lead them to that conclusion yes but that doesn't mean I agree with them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:No, of course not, but you can't expect to convince everyone by building on a premise many don't accept. I mean maybe I might argue that the inability to get people to buy into that society would probably cause more damage than the policy would avert and thus wouldn't actually maximize welfare. Being a consequentialist, and that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Turns out you're wrong. (As this is my thought example, I get to decide.) There's no buy-in. To maximize welfare, there is only one society: we're all ruled by Killary Clinton and her army of Lizard Overlords. Globalism 3.0. And Killary did the math and turns out your welfare is indeed being maximized. Well, I mean, if we're going to play that game then I get a magic spell that creates eternal voluntryist communism forever and I cast it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Then I'd probably say it was immoral to do that because you're ignoring people's right to self determination. That doesn't really work when you're trying to appeal to realism. Like you can't have a scenario that realistically leads to a reduction in welfare because of the obvious issues with mandatory organ reassignment and then claim that it actually improves welfare. You're being silly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To be honest, we're one step too far already. I'm appalled the only reason you think the government should not distribute my organs amongst those in need is that you don't actually believe it maximizes the greater good. I think you should, at the very, very least, grant me the right to not be murdered. Why? I think the fact that there's very little reason why murdering you would actually achieve a positive outcome in the world is sufficient? In the event that you were such a malign force in the world that it would help things, why should you have that protection? Essentially why would you extend the right to life to say, hitler, rather than just saying that maybe killing people almost universally makes the world shittier?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Again I have said several times that the concept of virtue is a silly idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
I don't think it's particularly sociopathic to affirm that killing people near universally is a bad idea but there are situations in which it might be better than not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think you are not standing on firm ground when arguing with anybody that their right to life should stand entirely on them not being a malign force - that if it was found that murdering them had net positive consequences, not only would their right to live have been overruled, but that they never had such a right in the first place. That is the problem with people working from different premises and also with things that are not immediately intuitive, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
I'm also not, as it happens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Possibly because as I said at the start i don't think that religion is the opposite of leftism?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Call it solidarity 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
I'm not sure that bravery is characterized by a willingless to crush random things regardless of whether they are an obstacle to you or not, or whether that's more a definition of stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
I have a feeling that Christian Socialists are not the cause of most evil on the earth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Not that free expression of belief shouldn't be trampled on a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well obviously we're talking about belief, not enforcement of beliefs on others. Eeeeeehhhhhh I would suggest that they shouldn't really do either and that the only reason not to club them over the head to stop them doing the former is the efficacy of the approach, or lack thereof.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Coercion is good, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Mm, the problem with religion is not the believing in god part, it's the lovely political part, so it seems weird to conflate the two when they're manifestly capable of being independent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:There are plenty of atheist rightists as well. Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:It is part of it though. When someone holds wrong views about a topic you can generally reason with and educate them into being a better person, but if said views are rooted in an irrational belief you'll just hit a wall going with that approach. "Wrong views rooted in an irrational belief" is not even remotely limited to religion, I'd wager it's probably not even majority represented by religion. I really don't think someone, to use your example, who professes that gay people will turn everyone gay is actually worried about that as much as they just flat instinctively don't like gay people and will come up with post-hoc justifications for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
As would the irrational basis for much good in the world. It's almost like rationality/irrationality is not the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Yea, no argument here, you can definitely be irrational even without religion, but - I think you can't be rational and religious and that's pretty much the crux of my issue with it on the whole. Yes you can? Being religious does not, in my experience, mean you're literally incapable of making any decision without listening to the voice of god in your head. People are perfectly capable of being rational about some things and not rational about others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Love your neighbor indiscriminately because they deserve it regardless of whether you think otherwise" is the proper reading as I understand it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Not all who say to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven. I really cannot understand where you get to faith alone as a vehicle for salvation when that line exists. Yet some people do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Also if you want a monocultural society lol if you think that just giving everyone a bunch of information will create that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
I mean if I was trying to create a unified monocultural society I would probably include a strong spiritualist element to it and definitely wouldn't found it on the idea that everyone should have access to lots of information and trust that they'll all come to the same conclusions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:25
|
|