|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world.
There’s a reason other people aren’t recommending marooning anti-vaxxers in the Pacific Ocean, and it’s not because they wish they could but are too afraid to suggest it.
|
|
|
On August 28 2021 01:33 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. There’s a reason other people aren’t recommending marooning anti-vaxxers in the Pacific Ocean, and it’s not because they wish they could but are too afraid to suggest it.
I think a lot of it is because people consider themselves observers rather than participants in the world. When you don't feel any guilt from the current deaths, because you pat yourself on the head and say "there's nothing you can do", it is easy to just not give a shit. When you feel a sense of responsibility, it changes your perspective. I feel a sense of responsibility and guilt for the countless lives that have already been lost to covid. Most people don't. I consider them cowards because they reject their place in the world and their ability to make a difference.
Ultimately what I am saying is that we have a moral imperative to address anti-vax for the same reason we have a moral imperative to address drunk driving: they kill people. Pretending there is nothing we can do is wrong and makes the world a worse place.
|
Norway28923 Posts
I do believe there is probably some middle ground between 'pretend there's nothing we can do and do nothing' and 'sending off people on a raft into the pacific ocean'. Although if those are the two specific options you are giving me then I concede that I'd find myself in group 1.
|
On August 28 2021 01:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I do believe there is probably some middle ground between 'pretend there's nothing we can do and do nothing' and 'sending off people on a raft into the pacific ocean'. Although if those are the two specific options you are giving me then I concede that I'd find myself in group 1.
Another one of my points is that we don't have the freedom to just sip our tea and ponder these issues when people are actually dying. People need to change what is currently happening because a ton of people are currently dying. When everyone else shrugs their shoulders and says "Well I don't know!", it doesn't freeze time. Its not like people stop dying until we think of something. One of my larger points here is that the world continues to spin while people try to design some ~~Perfectly Idealist~~ approach to a problem that is *already on fire*. When you take a long time to solve a problem, that is failure. The phrase "perfection is the enemy of excellence" comes to mind here. People who allow themselves to be paralyzed by indecision are failing in their roles.
|
On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world.
If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it):
You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would.
To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy.
Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it.
But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off.
Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought.
|
On August 28 2021 02:12 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it): You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would. To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy. Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it. But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off. Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought.
I think you're largely right except for
“whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;”
I am saying as a matter of technical ethics, I lack the *capability* to influence beyond our leadership and our leadership is entirely focused only on American lives right now. Part of this is spending your time where it is best spent. So within the realm of what someone is morally obligated to do, in an effective sense, I think someone actually strongly morally fails when they let perfection be the enemy of excellence. I think a lot of people end up actually failing in their duties to make the world a better place when they exclusively entertain idealism to the point where nothing ever happens.
I elaborated on this more in the above post.
Fundamentally, there are 2 ways to frame ethical discussions:
1) What should be done immediately
2) What is the ideal case and how would I design the world if I could
Most people let themselves purely exist in (2) and don't actually ever achieve anything other than the mental stimulation of talking to each other. I think people morally fail as individuals as members of a society when they let themselves be paralyzed by these processes.
Simply put, the (2) answers are relatively straight forward and easy. End imperialism, abolish the military, slaughter billionaires, redistribute their wealth, rise against the ruling class, build an equitable world that more closely mirrors indigenous communities (which have higher metrics of happiness across the board when compared to Western/Eastern society). All of this is boring and done. We've already established that. Clearly I don't think a single soldier should shoot a single shot ever. Clearly I know that allowing cultural erasure is not ideal. So then why waste my time playing in the clouds when all of us have already done that thousands of times?
You and I have both posted here for years. We've already learned all this stuff. It is clear what the best case scenario is. What isn't clear is what strategy would maximize the happiness of humanity *starting tomorrow, without any time to delay our decision*. The people who sit in leadership chairs don't get to pause the game. Ethical discussions when you can press pause are easy. I'm reaching for something much more difficult and messy.
|
Norway28923 Posts
It's not like 'send every non-vaxxer off on a raft to the pacific ocean' is something that would be achievable starting tomorrow even if you somehow had the political support for it. I mean I also just thought it was a joke at first but when you're doubling down like this it is just..
There's stuff like 'that's like a hundred million adults in the US' and 'those people are related to people who love them' (if you somehow think that they themselves forfeited the right to live in the US through breaching the social contract') and stuff like 'that actually might start a violent revolt more dangerous than covid' and probably a good other 100 reasons why it's a bad solution to the problem, even entirely ignoring the whole morality of it all.
|
On August 28 2021 02:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It's not like 'send every non-vaxxer off on a raft to the pacific ocean' is something that would be achievable starting tomorrow even if you somehow had the political support for it. I mean I also just thought it was a joke at first but when you're doubling down like this it is just..
There's stuff like 'that's like a hundred million adults in the US' and 'those people are related to people who love them' (if you somehow think that they themselves forfeited the right to live in the US through breaching the social contract') and stuff like 'that actually might start a violent revolt more dangerous than covid' and probably a good other 100 reasons why it's a bad solution to the problem, even entirely ignoring the whole morality of it all.
Boats is just a starting point for discussion. I am saying we should prevent anti-vaxxers from killing people for the same reason we aim to prevent drunk drivers from killing people. If people say it isn't ethical to force them to be vaccinated, I say
"Ok, so we still need to keep them from killing people. So we can't confine them and we can't inoculate them...so you are saying we should actually just not fix the problem?"
Rather than letting our low ambitions get the better of us, I decide to keep the conversation going by saying "Ok, so then we can't deport them to a country, but they aren't willing to be positive members of society, so we give them the capability to leave"
Until someone has another idea as to how to prevent anti-vaxxers from killing people, I see the ball as being in your court. It is your job to come up with a better idea if you think mine sucks. You can't just press pause and wait. You need to come up with a solution that prevents anti-vaxxers from killing people before you can say my idea sucks.
Edit: And just to be abundantly clear: I am saying the minimum requirement for a solution is for anti-vaxxers to not be killing people. Until an idea is able to do that, it isn't sufficient.
|
|
|
Norway28923 Posts
No mohdoo. You're doing the equivalent of 'yeah so climate change is a problem. I propose we kill 7 billion people to solve it' and then going 'my solution solves climate change. if your solution doesn't solve climate change, you can't say that my solution sucks'. (Or if you want it to be more precise, let's just go with 'every person with a carbon footprint higher than what is sustainable if applied to every human on earth' rather than '7 billion').
I mean if you want a better solution than 'send them off on a raft' then 'fine them incremental amounts every month, spend the money on aid to people that are vaccinated but somehow struggle with covid' is the same principle as yours just not madvillainy.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
Mohdoo Island’s where it’s at.
I think I agree with his vague ideas, I’m rather unsure of how his Afghanistan stance fits in, but anyway.
Perhaps I’m reading him wrong, also I would make it more general than a boomer mentality. What’s the old proverb, ‘success has many fathers, failure is an orphan’?
People tend to view what successes they do have as due to their personal qualities, divorced from wider society and the world outside of that. When they are struggling, it’s then society’s job to right that.
That mentality is extremely counter-productive when seeking to address all sorts of pertinent issues. Be it vaccination, be it global wealth inequality, be it wealth inequality within a state, or something like global warming.
People feel they have an inalienable right to hold on to some sort of standard of living, regardless of the conditions under how it was acquired. They alone, not themselves as a cog in wider society earned it, so why should society take anything back?
|
On August 28 2021 02:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:I mean if you want a better solution than 'send them off on a raft' then 'fine them incremental amounts every month, spend the money on aid to people that are vaccinated but somehow struggle with covid' is the same principle as yours just not madvillainy.
See, I think that's a great solution and worth talking about. Your solution basically presupposes:
1) Financial pressure will make people cave (I think this is true)
2) People aren't actually willing to have their lives ruined for anti-vaxx
3) We can save more lives by keeping these people around and letting some people die from anti-vaxxers
In general it seems like people see financial/physical coercion as morally equivalent but I don't think it should be. Taking away someone's livelihood is still way better than imprisonment.
So I will add a little more detail. Let's say we garnish wages in a always-increasing way where it is assumed that eventually people simply don't have any money whatsoever. I'm comfortable with that. Perhaps one stipulation I would add is that people who end up needing to live in public housing should be required to be vaccinated. So your solution ends up reaching the same place as mine, but through financial shake downs rather than boats. So long as the financial pains are rapid and significant, I am on board with fining people. Homeless people are extremely limited spreaders and if they want public housing they get vaxxed. Overall I think this idea is better than the boat idea.
|
On August 28 2021 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it): You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would. To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy. Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it. But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off. Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought. I think you're largely right except for “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” I am saying as a matter of technical ethics, I lack the *capability* to influence beyond our leadership and our leadership is entirely focused only on American lives right now. Part of this is spending your time where it is best spent. So within the realm of what someone is morally obligated to do, in an effective sense, I think someone actually strongly morally fails when they let perfection be the enemy of excellence. I think a lot of people end up actually failing in their duties to make the world a better place when they exclusively entertain idealism to the point where nothing ever happens. I elaborated on this more in the above post. Fundamentally, there are 2 ways to frame ethical discussions: 1) What should be done immediately 2) What is the ideal case and how would I design the world if I could Most people let themselves purely exist in (2) and don't actually ever achieve anything other than the mental stimulation of talking to each other. I think people morally fail as individuals as members of a society when they let themselves be paralyzed by these processes. Simply put, the (2) answers are relatively straight forward and easy. End imperialism, abolish the military, slaughter billionaires, redistribute their wealth, rise against the ruling class, build an equitable world that more closely mirrors indigenous communities (which have higher metrics of happiness across the board when compared to Western/Eastern society). All of this is boring and done. We've already established that. Clearly I don't think a single soldier should shoot a single shot ever. Clearly I know that allowing cultural erasure is not ideal. So then why waste my time playing in the clouds when all of us have already done that thousands of times? You and I have both posted here for years. We've already learned all this stuff. It is clear what the best case scenario is. What isn't clear is what strategy would maximize the happiness of humanity *starting tomorrow, without any time to delay our decision*. The people who sit in leadership chairs don't get to pause the game. Ethical discussions when you can press pause are easy. I'm reaching for something much more difficult and messy.
The practical vs. ideal bifurcation is oversimplified, though. Any policy proposal is making some underlying assumptions about what is mutable and what is immutable; even your “ideal” scenario is assuming, for instance, that billionaires and the military and the ruling class are irredeemably evil, while your “practical” scenario is assuming that we can practically affect changes to US foreign policy, or (at least for the sake of argument) that mass deportation of the unvaccinated is legally, politically, or logistically viable.
That’s fine, you have to start from some set of assumptions. What some of your positions do, though, as most Cult of Action arguments do, is assume that huge, morally atrocious policies are obviously possible, while less morally atrocious solutions are not, and the reason no one else is advocating for the atrocities is because of some misguided moral qualms.
I think those assumptions are wrong. Admittedly, assessing the political viability of a policy is complex, and there are always a lot of people saying a lot of conflicting things about it. GH has been arguing for years, in various forms, that all of us are making too many moral compromises in the name of pragmatism, and I don’t know that he’s wrong. I certainly don’t trust your confidence about the moral necessity of some of these courses of action you’re advocating, or the non-viability of taking a higher moral ground.
|
On August 28 2021 03:11 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2021 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it): You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would. To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy. Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it. But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off. Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought. I think you're largely right except for “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” I am saying as a matter of technical ethics, I lack the *capability* to influence beyond our leadership and our leadership is entirely focused only on American lives right now. Part of this is spending your time where it is best spent. So within the realm of what someone is morally obligated to do, in an effective sense, I think someone actually strongly morally fails when they let perfection be the enemy of excellence. I think a lot of people end up actually failing in their duties to make the world a better place when they exclusively entertain idealism to the point where nothing ever happens. I elaborated on this more in the above post. Fundamentally, there are 2 ways to frame ethical discussions: 1) What should be done immediately 2) What is the ideal case and how would I design the world if I could Most people let themselves purely exist in (2) and don't actually ever achieve anything other than the mental stimulation of talking to each other. I think people morally fail as individuals as members of a society when they let themselves be paralyzed by these processes. Simply put, the (2) answers are relatively straight forward and easy. End imperialism, abolish the military, slaughter billionaires, redistribute their wealth, rise against the ruling class, build an equitable world that more closely mirrors indigenous communities (which have higher metrics of happiness across the board when compared to Western/Eastern society). All of this is boring and done. We've already established that. Clearly I don't think a single soldier should shoot a single shot ever. Clearly I know that allowing cultural erasure is not ideal. So then why waste my time playing in the clouds when all of us have already done that thousands of times? You and I have both posted here for years. We've already learned all this stuff. It is clear what the best case scenario is. What isn't clear is what strategy would maximize the happiness of humanity *starting tomorrow, without any time to delay our decision*. The people who sit in leadership chairs don't get to pause the game. Ethical discussions when you can press pause are easy. I'm reaching for something much more difficult and messy. The practical vs. ideal bifurcation is oversimplified, though. Any policy proposal is making some underlying assumptions about what is mutable and what is immutable; even your “ideal” scenario is assuming, for instance, that billionaires and the military and the ruling class are irredeemably evil, while your “practical” scenario is assuming that we can practically affect changes to US foreign policy, or (at least for the sake of argument) that mass deportation of the unvaccinated is legally, politically, or logistically viable. That’s fine, you have to start from some set of assumptions. What some of your positions do, though, as most Cult of Action arguments do, is assume that huge, morally atrocious policies are obviously possible, while less morally atrocious solutions are not, and the reason no one else is advocating for the atrocities is because of some misguided moral qualms. I think those assumptions are wrong. Admittedly, assessing the political viability of a policy is complex, and there are always a lot of people saying a lot of conflicting things about it. GH has been arguing for years, in various forms, that all of us are making too many moral compromises in the name of pragmatism, and I don’t know that he’s wrong. I certainly don’t trust your confidence about the moral necessity of some of these courses of action you’re advocating, or the non-viability of taking a higher moral ground.
I think these are all valid, true criticisms. The only thing I’ll add is that I am not saying my “solutions” (thought experiments) are easily doable. I am saying they easily accomplish the goal. This is similar to how GH makes arguments about climate change. His basic premise is “bro this falls off a cliff eventually so you don’t really get to choose the action you take. Either you do enough or the planet becomes a disaster. I ain’t the one creating these constraints”.
I am taking a similar approach here. I’m saying if we presuppose a necessary part of the solution to be preventing anti vax from killing people, I guess this is what we need to do? But Drone had a great alternative idea. I’m not saying I’d vote in favor of boats. I’m saying boats was the only idea anyone has that would solve the problem. Drone said we can mostly solve the problem and maximize human life by letting some people be killed by antivaxxers. I think his argument is good and makes sense. Whatever minimizes human suffering is what’s best IMO.
|
@WombaT: I’m not sure you wanna be on Mohdoo Island for much longer, I hear it’s gonna be turned into a penal colony for anti-vaxxers soon.
On August 28 2021 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 03:11 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2021 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 08:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why does it only matter if Americans are dying or not? The world is so connected and global now it is time to stop thinking about what is best for americans today, and start thinking about what is best for people on the go forward. They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it): You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would. To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy. Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it. But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off. Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought. I think you're largely right except for “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” I am saying as a matter of technical ethics, I lack the *capability* to influence beyond our leadership and our leadership is entirely focused only on American lives right now. Part of this is spending your time where it is best spent. So within the realm of what someone is morally obligated to do, in an effective sense, I think someone actually strongly morally fails when they let perfection be the enemy of excellence. I think a lot of people end up actually failing in their duties to make the world a better place when they exclusively entertain idealism to the point where nothing ever happens. I elaborated on this more in the above post. Fundamentally, there are 2 ways to frame ethical discussions: 1) What should be done immediately 2) What is the ideal case and how would I design the world if I could Most people let themselves purely exist in (2) and don't actually ever achieve anything other than the mental stimulation of talking to each other. I think people morally fail as individuals as members of a society when they let themselves be paralyzed by these processes. Simply put, the (2) answers are relatively straight forward and easy. End imperialism, abolish the military, slaughter billionaires, redistribute their wealth, rise against the ruling class, build an equitable world that more closely mirrors indigenous communities (which have higher metrics of happiness across the board when compared to Western/Eastern society). All of this is boring and done. We've already established that. Clearly I don't think a single soldier should shoot a single shot ever. Clearly I know that allowing cultural erasure is not ideal. So then why waste my time playing in the clouds when all of us have already done that thousands of times? You and I have both posted here for years. We've already learned all this stuff. It is clear what the best case scenario is. What isn't clear is what strategy would maximize the happiness of humanity *starting tomorrow, without any time to delay our decision*. The people who sit in leadership chairs don't get to pause the game. Ethical discussions when you can press pause are easy. I'm reaching for something much more difficult and messy. The practical vs. ideal bifurcation is oversimplified, though. Any policy proposal is making some underlying assumptions about what is mutable and what is immutable; even your “ideal” scenario is assuming, for instance, that billionaires and the military and the ruling class are irredeemably evil, while your “practical” scenario is assuming that we can practically affect changes to US foreign policy, or (at least for the sake of argument) that mass deportation of the unvaccinated is legally, politically, or logistically viable. That’s fine, you have to start from some set of assumptions. What some of your positions do, though, as most Cult of Action arguments do, is assume that huge, morally atrocious policies are obviously possible, while less morally atrocious solutions are not, and the reason no one else is advocating for the atrocities is because of some misguided moral qualms. I think those assumptions are wrong. Admittedly, assessing the political viability of a policy is complex, and there are always a lot of people saying a lot of conflicting things about it. GH has been arguing for years, in various forms, that all of us are making too many moral compromises in the name of pragmatism, and I don’t know that he’s wrong. I certainly don’t trust your confidence about the moral necessity of some of these courses of action you’re advocating, or the non-viability of taking a higher moral ground. I think these are all valid, true criticisms. The only thing I’ll add is that I am not saying my “solutions” (thought experiments) are easily doable. I am saying they easily accomplish the goal. This is similar to how GH makes arguments about climate change. His basic premise is “bro this falls off a cliff eventually so you don’t really get to choose the action you take. Either you do enough or the planet becomes a disaster. I ain’t the one creating these constraints”. I am taking a similar approach here. I’m saying if we presuppose a necessary part of the solution to be preventing anti vax from killing people, I guess this is what we need to do? But Drone had a great alternative idea. I’m not saying I’d vote in favor of boats. I’m saying boats was the only idea anyone has that would solve the problem. Drone said we can mostly solve the problem and maximize human life by letting some people be killed by antivaxxers. I think his argument is good and makes sense. Whatever minimizes human suffering is what’s best IMO.
But if we’re starting from implausible thought experiments that aren’t viable anyway, why start from atrocity? I don’t know if there are *any* circumstances I’d actually support rounding up all the undesirables and putting them in camps, but I certainly hope I’d give up my ideals opposing it very dearly. Why not start from just advocating what we think is right, and compromising only where absolutely necessary?
|
|
|
On August 28 2021 03:26 ChristianS wrote:@WombaT: I’m not sure you wanna be on Mohdoo Island for much longer, I hear it’s gonna be turned into a penal colony for anti-vaxxers soon. Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2021 03:11 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2021 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:On August 27 2021 08:50 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
They aren't the only ones who matter. They are the only ones that Biden has a social contract with. I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found. Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked. They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it): You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would. To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy. Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it. But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off. Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought. I think you're largely right except for “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” I am saying as a matter of technical ethics, I lack the *capability* to influence beyond our leadership and our leadership is entirely focused only on American lives right now. Part of this is spending your time where it is best spent. So within the realm of what someone is morally obligated to do, in an effective sense, I think someone actually strongly morally fails when they let perfection be the enemy of excellence. I think a lot of people end up actually failing in their duties to make the world a better place when they exclusively entertain idealism to the point where nothing ever happens. I elaborated on this more in the above post. Fundamentally, there are 2 ways to frame ethical discussions: 1) What should be done immediately 2) What is the ideal case and how would I design the world if I could Most people let themselves purely exist in (2) and don't actually ever achieve anything other than the mental stimulation of talking to each other. I think people morally fail as individuals as members of a society when they let themselves be paralyzed by these processes. Simply put, the (2) answers are relatively straight forward and easy. End imperialism, abolish the military, slaughter billionaires, redistribute their wealth, rise against the ruling class, build an equitable world that more closely mirrors indigenous communities (which have higher metrics of happiness across the board when compared to Western/Eastern society). All of this is boring and done. We've already established that. Clearly I don't think a single soldier should shoot a single shot ever. Clearly I know that allowing cultural erasure is not ideal. So then why waste my time playing in the clouds when all of us have already done that thousands of times? You and I have both posted here for years. We've already learned all this stuff. It is clear what the best case scenario is. What isn't clear is what strategy would maximize the happiness of humanity *starting tomorrow, without any time to delay our decision*. The people who sit in leadership chairs don't get to pause the game. Ethical discussions when you can press pause are easy. I'm reaching for something much more difficult and messy. The practical vs. ideal bifurcation is oversimplified, though. Any policy proposal is making some underlying assumptions about what is mutable and what is immutable; even your “ideal” scenario is assuming, for instance, that billionaires and the military and the ruling class are irredeemably evil, while your “practical” scenario is assuming that we can practically affect changes to US foreign policy, or (at least for the sake of argument) that mass deportation of the unvaccinated is legally, politically, or logistically viable. That’s fine, you have to start from some set of assumptions. What some of your positions do, though, as most Cult of Action arguments do, is assume that huge, morally atrocious policies are obviously possible, while less morally atrocious solutions are not, and the reason no one else is advocating for the atrocities is because of some misguided moral qualms. I think those assumptions are wrong. Admittedly, assessing the political viability of a policy is complex, and there are always a lot of people saying a lot of conflicting things about it. GH has been arguing for years, in various forms, that all of us are making too many moral compromises in the name of pragmatism, and I don’t know that he’s wrong. I certainly don’t trust your confidence about the moral necessity of some of these courses of action you’re advocating, or the non-viability of taking a higher moral ground. I think these are all valid, true criticisms. The only thing I’ll add is that I am not saying my “solutions” (thought experiments) are easily doable. I am saying they easily accomplish the goal. This is similar to how GH makes arguments about climate change. His basic premise is “bro this falls off a cliff eventually so you don’t really get to choose the action you take. Either you do enough or the planet becomes a disaster. I ain’t the one creating these constraints”. I am taking a similar approach here. I’m saying if we presuppose a necessary part of the solution to be preventing anti vax from killing people, I guess this is what we need to do? But Drone had a great alternative idea. I’m not saying I’d vote in favor of boats. I’m saying boats was the only idea anyone has that would solve the problem. Drone said we can mostly solve the problem and maximize human life by letting some people be killed by antivaxxers. I think his argument is good and makes sense. Whatever minimizes human suffering is what’s best IMO. But if we’re starting from implausible thought experiments that aren’t viable anyway, why start from atrocity? I don’t know if there are *any* circumstances I’d actually support rounding up all the undesirables and putting them in camps, but I certainly hope I’d give up my ideals opposing it very dearly. Why not start from just advocating what we think is right, and compromising only where absolutely necessary?
I'd re-frame this a bit. In standard Western dogma, we approach problems as "what can we do, while maximizing freedom?". I am saying we should fundamentally change that approach to be "what can we do, while maximizing human life?"
In no situation did I say anyone goes to a camp or an island. I said when people decide they are unwilling to follow the rules of the land to preserve human life, they are asked to leave. Since it isn't legal to dump them on another country, the only option would be international waters. They get a boat and they figure it out themselves. It becomes irrelevant what happens to them because they've already rejected their place in our society.
But just to be clear, I actually like Drone's idea of garnishing wages more.
Edit: JimmiC did a much better job at conveying my ideas than I did. This may sound cheap, but please just read his description of what I am saying. He is some kinda Mohdoo whisperer. I am generally not good at getting my point across but he understands me for some reason.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On August 28 2021 03:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2021 03:26 ChristianS wrote:@WombaT: I’m not sure you wanna be on Mohdoo Island for much longer, I hear it’s gonna be turned into a penal colony for anti-vaxxers soon. On August 28 2021 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2021 03:11 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 02:22 Mohdoo wrote:On August 28 2021 02:12 ChristianS wrote:On August 28 2021 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 17:03 Acrofales wrote:On August 27 2021 10:50 Mohdoo wrote:On August 27 2021 09:22 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I disagree, all the leaders in the world of a social contract with humanity to do what is best for them. That in turn will end up as the best for Americans. The whole we need others to lose to win is just wrong, there are tons of win wins to be found.
Whether its covid, Global climate change, war/dictatorship, if we don't figure out how to all work together, were all fucked.
They have a moral obligation but not a social contract. I am holding boomers to social contracts rather than moral obligations because they are psychologically incapable of moral obligations. Push a square through a triangle all you want, won't happen. I'm choosing to focus on what I think is possible rather than ethical. Edit: To be clear, asking a boomer to fulfill a moral obligation is like asking a cat to fly. Spend all the time you want, won't happen. They live in a world of entitlement where they are only supposed to do what they agree to do. They are scum. Did you just call everybody over approx. 65 years old morally bankrupt and scum? That's a bold claim! Especially from someone with such ethically dubious ideas as that part of the solution to Covid is to thow anti-vaxxers out in the Pacific Ocean somewhere... Anyway, I'm sure my parents are some of the "good ones". It's just those other boomers that are morally depraved scum! I’m not going to worry about broad stroke declarations when chatting with people on an Internet forum who have talked with me long enough to know what I mean. Of course not every single person in that age group is morally bankrupt. But a lot are. And while my boat solution may feel unethical to some people, I think the approach others are taking is cowardly and significantly less ethical. People fool themselves into thinking they aren’t a part of the situation by not choosing to change anything. People think that they are just casual observers and that they aren’t actually a member of society. I think it’s wrong. So long as people are already dying, choosing not to do anything about that is just being complicit. My approach only sounds wrong because I am willing to say something about it. Everyone who isn’t wanting to change anything is contributing to what is causing the current death role. Inaction is still action in most cases but people are overwhelmed with guilt if they let themselves think that. People are cowards and try to pretend they carry no guilt for the state of the world. If you care at all about my unsolicited opinion (and obviously, you’re free to ignore it): You’ve had a very Greater Good/Cult of Action bent to your opinions and argumentation lately that feels kinda out of nowhere for you. Some of it almost feels a bit like an xDaunt philosophy, although I’m certain he’d come to different conclusions than you would. To be more specific, on Afghanistan your position seems to be “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” on COVID your position seems to be “anti-vaxxers should be treated as the enemy; round them up and imprison them somewhere far away.” Your argumentation is largely end-justifies-the-means type “realism,” i.e. “don’t call me a monster for advocating atrocities, I’m dealing with the problem while you hide your head in the sand,” which is a mode of rhetoric I’ve always found creepy. Admittedly I might be judging harshly just because I disagree on the merits. I don’t think COVID is legitimate grounds for revoking citizenship and deporting the unvaccinated, and I don’t think Afghanistan should be discussed primarily in terms of the costs to US citizens. If someone effectively demonstrated that deporting the unvaccinated would actually save lives overall (and I very much doubt that’s true), I still wouldn’t support it. But I don’t think it’s just that I disagree on the issues. I think it’s a straightforward case of abandoning basically all moral principles because the world is bad and hope seems distant. If I understand it correctly, I think the term “black-pilled” is not far off. Apologies if I’ve misrepresented you somehow. I’d be thrilled if I’ve misunderstood you and your actual beliefs aren’t as cynical and amoral as I thought. I think you're largely right except for “whatever helps Americans the most should happen, ignore any human cost to anyone else;” I am saying as a matter of technical ethics, I lack the *capability* to influence beyond our leadership and our leadership is entirely focused only on American lives right now. Part of this is spending your time where it is best spent. So within the realm of what someone is morally obligated to do, in an effective sense, I think someone actually strongly morally fails when they let perfection be the enemy of excellence. I think a lot of people end up actually failing in their duties to make the world a better place when they exclusively entertain idealism to the point where nothing ever happens. I elaborated on this more in the above post. Fundamentally, there are 2 ways to frame ethical discussions: 1) What should be done immediately 2) What is the ideal case and how would I design the world if I could Most people let themselves purely exist in (2) and don't actually ever achieve anything other than the mental stimulation of talking to each other. I think people morally fail as individuals as members of a society when they let themselves be paralyzed by these processes. Simply put, the (2) answers are relatively straight forward and easy. End imperialism, abolish the military, slaughter billionaires, redistribute their wealth, rise against the ruling class, build an equitable world that more closely mirrors indigenous communities (which have higher metrics of happiness across the board when compared to Western/Eastern society). All of this is boring and done. We've already established that. Clearly I don't think a single soldier should shoot a single shot ever. Clearly I know that allowing cultural erasure is not ideal. So then why waste my time playing in the clouds when all of us have already done that thousands of times? You and I have both posted here for years. We've already learned all this stuff. It is clear what the best case scenario is. What isn't clear is what strategy would maximize the happiness of humanity *starting tomorrow, without any time to delay our decision*. The people who sit in leadership chairs don't get to pause the game. Ethical discussions when you can press pause are easy. I'm reaching for something much more difficult and messy. The practical vs. ideal bifurcation is oversimplified, though. Any policy proposal is making some underlying assumptions about what is mutable and what is immutable; even your “ideal” scenario is assuming, for instance, that billionaires and the military and the ruling class are irredeemably evil, while your “practical” scenario is assuming that we can practically affect changes to US foreign policy, or (at least for the sake of argument) that mass deportation of the unvaccinated is legally, politically, or logistically viable. That’s fine, you have to start from some set of assumptions. What some of your positions do, though, as most Cult of Action arguments do, is assume that huge, morally atrocious policies are obviously possible, while less morally atrocious solutions are not, and the reason no one else is advocating for the atrocities is because of some misguided moral qualms. I think those assumptions are wrong. Admittedly, assessing the political viability of a policy is complex, and there are always a lot of people saying a lot of conflicting things about it. GH has been arguing for years, in various forms, that all of us are making too many moral compromises in the name of pragmatism, and I don’t know that he’s wrong. I certainly don’t trust your confidence about the moral necessity of some of these courses of action you’re advocating, or the non-viability of taking a higher moral ground. I think these are all valid, true criticisms. The only thing I’ll add is that I am not saying my “solutions” (thought experiments) are easily doable. I am saying they easily accomplish the goal. This is similar to how GH makes arguments about climate change. His basic premise is “bro this falls off a cliff eventually so you don’t really get to choose the action you take. Either you do enough or the planet becomes a disaster. I ain’t the one creating these constraints”. I am taking a similar approach here. I’m saying if we presuppose a necessary part of the solution to be preventing anti vax from killing people, I guess this is what we need to do? But Drone had a great alternative idea. I’m not saying I’d vote in favor of boats. I’m saying boats was the only idea anyone has that would solve the problem. Drone said we can mostly solve the problem and maximize human life by letting some people be killed by antivaxxers. I think his argument is good and makes sense. Whatever minimizes human suffering is what’s best IMO. But if we’re starting from implausible thought experiments that aren’t viable anyway, why start from atrocity? I don’t know if there are *any* circumstances I’d actually support rounding up all the undesirables and putting them in camps, but I certainly hope I’d give up my ideals opposing it very dearly. Why not start from just advocating what we think is right, and compromising only where absolutely necessary? I'd re-frame this a bit. In standard Western dogma, we approach problems as "what can we do, while maximizing freedom?". I am saying we should fundamentally change that approach to be "what can we do, while maximizing human life?" In no situation did I say anyone goes to a camp or an island. I said when people decide they are unwilling to follow the rules of the land to preserve human life, they are asked to leave. Since it isn't legal to dump them on another country, the only option would be international waters. They get a boat and they figure it out themselves. It becomes irrelevant what happens to them because they've already rejected their place in our society. But just to be clear, I actually like Drone's idea of garnishing wages more. Edit: JimmiC did a much better job at conveying my ideas than I did. This may sound cheap, but please just read his description of what I am saying. He is some kinda Mohdoo whisperer. I am generally not good at getting my point across but he understands me for some reason.
Nooooo, Mohdoo IslandTM was a much more entertaining position. Garnishing wages is considerably less sexy.
Joking aside, yes. Although I think the problem is less around trying to enable as much freedom as possible as a maxim, but the cult of individualism taking hold whenever a freedom/potential cost to society are in conflict.
If we think people dragging over vaccination is bad, fuck only knows how difficult it will be to put in the requisite measures to merely lessen the impact of climate change. Never mind the necessary measures to freeze it to where it is now projected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
