You now confront the basic problem of morality
(media.communities.win)
Comments (17)
sorted by:
There are several flaws in the above argument. The most obvious (though perhaps least significant) is that the analogy is inapt. A human being has worth on their own, while an individual human cell (generally) only has worth in aggregate. You can't draw direct parallels between cells in a human body and human beings in a society and expect them to be valid.
The second that stands out to me is that it suggests that punishment should not be relative to the crime, but rather the success of a society. I don't see at all how this follows. At best it's a poorly explained causal chain, and at worst it's just a flatly untrue statement.
What I find to be the most significant flaw, is the following:
This, frankly, I find to be nonsense. It suggests that the needs of the individual are totally supplanted by the needs of the state/society. This is exactly the "morality" practiced by the global elite, where whatever propagates the state is right, and whether that displaces or destroys the citizens (subjects, really), of that state is of no moral concern.
Now, I'm not shitting on you for posting this (though if it gets downvoted and you delete it again, I will definitely shit on you then.) But if you think this is some deep philosophy, and poorly founded moral reasoning wrapped in flowery writing, then I think you might need to find some better sources of philosophy and literature than Destiny lore.
does a human being, devoid of humanity, have worth, or meaning? Similarly, does a Boltzmann brain, conjured from a quantum infinity yet presenting atleast to its own perceptions as totally real have worth, or meaning? I think we’re defined by our connections to other humans. No man is an island.
Should a police officer who abuses his position and the trust put in him by society to break the law be punished more or less harshly than a common citizen? Should the legislator who writes his corruption into his nations laws so that he and his tribe of corruption can gorge themselves be punished more or less harshly than the police officer? I think that’s the point expressed here, not the far less sensible one you propose, though I suppose I see where you’re coming from, I just think you’re being unduly harsh.
“Basic problem of” != be all and end all period end of discussion. Realistically, I struggle to think of an example of a moral dilemma which doesn’t fit into this “basic” shape. Can you think of one? This piece doesn’t really “suggest” what you claim it does, I think it merely points at the topic and asks us to consider it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0PKG5-t3zU
You'd have to define 'humanity' for me to answer that question properly (unless you did define it there, in which case your definition is circular), but I'd suggest that there are times when a human can by their actions negate their inherent worth through harm to another, without losing that worth.
Yes, but that's not what the post states (nor the question it addresses). If they weren't more concerned with using flowery language than being logically and semantically correct, they could have properly stated the entire causal chain, but they skipped a couple steps (most importantly, that the existence of a proscribed punishment will inevitably result in the application of that punishment), and as a result, their conclusion falls apart.
Incentives have nothing to do with morality or ethics, those lie within the realm of economics, civics, or politics. Take the classic example of a moral dilemma: the trolley problem. The question isn't "How do we convince the actor to flip the switch, resulting in the death of one person instead of some greater number of persons?" Rather, it is "Is it moral for an actor to act in a way that would cause the death of one person in order to save the life of a greater number of persons?" This is the basic shape of all moral dilemmas, not anything to do with incentives.
It absolutely does, though whether by intent or incompetence I cannot say definitively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1DcD8e55YY
Humanity as in “every other person in existence”. The meaning should have been obvious as it was used in contrast to the single person and the mention of Boltzmann brains. The question is, does a lone human, floating in the void, devoid of all elements and agents of what might fall under the label “humanity”, have value or worth?
That’s not at all what I’m getting at. Like I said, no man is an island. My point here can probably be summarized as “even Adam, the perfect man, needed Eve”. You want to dismiss this piece because you perceive it as dismissing the value of the individual, I think that’s a misreading.
Quoting here:
The relavent context is literally immediately prior to the sentence you take issue with here…
What conclusion? The one you assert that “the punishment is not proportional to the crime”? Again, this is just you being ungenerous and looking for an “own”. No real “conclusions” are given, beyond a description of the “basic problem of morality”, which I suppose you take issue with in its own right.
You’ve never heard of Game Theory I take it?
Ok let’s. The incentives in most renditions is “people I {like/dislike} will {die/not die}, my decision is based on how I want the world, and humanity, to look going forward.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_8BZVpl2dMc&pp=ygUWa290b3IgeW91IGd1dGxlc3Mgc2ltcA%3D%3D
I'm not sure you understand how 'devoid' is typically used in English. "A devoid of B" implies that "B" is a typical property or content of "A" (and thus that "A" and "B" are different in character) such as "A home devoid of furniture" or "An argument devoid of sense." Your phrasing of the question implied that by "humanity" you meant "the intangible (or perhaps physical, if you're a materialist) qualities that makes one 'human'", not "the human race."
He still had worth prior to the creation of Eve. After all, how could it be "not good" for him to be alone if he had no worth? A human, in the total absence of other humans, or even the total absence of the possibility of other humans. still has worth.
I'm not dismissing it, I think it's midwit philosowank and I'm dissecting it and showing why.
That a "structure must punish cheaters with a violence that grows in proportion to its own success." Not only is the logical chain incomplete, but the conclusion can, on it's own, be shown to be incorrect. As an example: two men with identical backgrounds decide they're going to steal a dollar from 100 people. One does so in an impoverished country where a dollar is the average monthly income of a working individual. The other does so in a country where the average monthly income is ten-thousand dollars. Which should be punished more harshly?
You can quibble with the specifics or adjust the parameters, but ultimately, punishment should be based on the harm caused by (or, if you're not a pure utilitarian, the 'wrongness of') an action, not the success of the 'structure' it occurs within. And don't try to tell me that it's talking about overall punishment and not specific instances. A prosperous structure has far more ability to absorb corruption and remain functional than an impoverished one.
I have. You clearly don't understand what Game Theory is. At a fundamental level, it has nothing to do with determining moral action, merely obtaining the optimal result from a given set of parameters. It's a field of mathematics closely related to sociology and psychology, and has been used to study ethics and the development of social mores, but outside a purely utilitarian system where every action has a knowable, quantifiable moral value, even its use as a tool is limited.
Those are value judgements made by the actor, not incentives given by a 'structure' he is a part of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx6ILRVA_4
See you just can’t help but be a prick. It’s not my fault you have poor reading/context comprehension and a shallow understanding of philosophical concepts like Boltzmann brains and game theory.
Sure, debatably. Does that same human have more or less potential worth when part of a system of other people? It should be obvious that any intrinsic moral value of a person is dwarfed by the moral value they can achieve in a system of other people (moral harm too)
What kind of worth did he have if he was incapable of comprehending that worth without another person present?
Poor example. Let’s look at the child who took from the cookie jar, the thief who stole a loaf of bread, and bill gates seizing control of 50%+ of Americas farmland recently. The child can be talked to or have the jar moved out of reach. The thief can be brought to the stockades and shamed, and gates can have his hands cut off. Can you follow the progression between “success of the system” and “degree of punishment for overstepping the system”?
Lmao
Except for the fact he’s standing at the switch making his decision based on who he wants alive more.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8U18EuNN2D0&pp=ygUfRHVrZSBudWtlbSBibG93IGl0IG91dCB5b3VyIGFzcw%3D%3D
Dude, I'm sorry that your English education has had gaps that lead you to make word choices that fail to properly communicate your ideas, but me pointing that out isn't being a prick. If you want to have a good faith discussion you shouldn't lash out when someone tells you why they misunderstood you.
You're also very clearly attached to the belief that the central statement of the piece is valid, and when presented with examples that challenge it, rather than showing why the example is invalid, you present an improperly constructed counter-example, or you conflate two similar but disparate concepts and act as if this proves your argument.
And stop acting like Utilitarianism is some fundamental philosophical law. I understand the appeal of Utilitarianism (and would consider myself to be a utilitarian, broadly speaking), but it's neither a complete moral system (it requires an underlying framework to assign values to actions), nor was it ever intended to be applied beyond the level of an individual judging his own actions, as when applied at a societal level it can very easily be used to justify heinous evil. Take a step back and look at the questions you're being asked without a utilitarian lens first; you might find they're not the questions you've been answering.
Here you go again - presented with a discussion prompting short text piece, you began with personal attacks and hostility and have continued ever since. Frankly it’s ironic you say:
Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. It’s an interesting piece to get the noggin joggin on such interesting subjects as have so far been merely scratched at here, yet you want to turn it into a personal “own” on a “midwit philosophy”, by….misreading people’s points, not answering their discussion prompting questions in good faith, and fixating on semantics and word choice instead of just accepting the reality that your failure to understand my opening reply is, perhaps fittingly to the conversation, a shared responsibility, and moving on in good faith.
As a sign of my good faith, I’ll explain what I thought was self-evident from all my previous comments, maybe then this can get back on track:
The thief who takes 1 dollar from 100 hungry mouths has captured the system to a far greater degree than the thief who takes 1 dollar from 100 tips left on the table at a fancy restaurant. Following the logic of the piece, this higher degree of capture would necessitate a higher degree of punishment (hence, logically, the prevalence of hand-removal in subsistence cultures for thieves, or the execution of cattle thieves, and the relative disappearance of those punishments as cultures develop/grow). Analogous to the example I laid out as a more clear replacement to your own
Oh no it’s retarded.
Gene essentialism, a la the lamentable Richard Dawkins. We are not are genes, and our genes do not create us. See Denis Noble for a far more rational take on the genome.
What makes you see this as “gene essentialism”? I see it as basically a modern day parable using “technojargon metaphors” instead of animal or agriculture metaphors
Apologies, but my comment includes a bucket of beer. That having been said, I can barely understand the OP. Could you sum it up for me? All I take away is some midwit trying to create some sort of moral theory based on genetic function. A parable? Parables teach simple ideas to simple people.
This is pure "i luv science" shit.
All good, I posted it for discussion
Basically it’s an interpretation of game theory expressed in parable form, I suppose is one way it could be summarized, or perhaps a modern elaboration on the Tragedy of the Commons. It’s also covering a couple ideas, and framing it all as a question.
Individuals in a society are like cells in a body. Temptation to cheat, and the power granted by cheating, grow in proportion to the success of the body and the size of the surpluses it generates. In order to function, violence must be used to punish cheating. This piece suggests that the violence should and must be proportional to the degree of violation, which increases with the degree of corruption, which increases with the success of the system.
It then boils down morality to a basic question of individual incentives and societal/systemic “needs”. This can be debated but I think there’s a solid foundation behind the claim (i.e. Game Theory).
This is all then wrapped in a delicious little theodic quandary: is the agent which punishes the cheaters with violence an agent serving “dark”, or “light”? I think the answer is clearly “light”, but I’ve posted it before and heard everything from good, to evil, to balance, to communism, so idk I think you’re short shrifting it a bit. Maybe you’ll like it more in the morning lol
Thanks, I feel you must have put more effort into explaining OP than the writer who created pic rel. I get the point, but its all bullshit. By which I mean its the worst possible way to approach any sort of moral theory. A genome based allegory with a bit of Nash Equilibrium thrown in?
Really, if you want to get edgy with moral theory, go with old Thomist theorists like Alistair McIntyre who proposed the idea that 'human dignity' was a puzzling and dangerous idea.
More like a cancer-based allegory of societal decay, but, whatever floats your boat. I’m always interested in new ideas.
Heh, idk but Im sure my rambling comment there doesn’t come close to the portion of the narrative budget of a multibillion dollar IP paid for even this small excerpt lol
Genes are the blueprint of all organic life's design. Of course we are our genes at our core.