We have ethical ways of pursuing our own flourishing while not interfering with others: its called individual rights and the non-intiation of force.
The moral calculations you suggest are abhorrent. You both suggest that humans do not have free will to live their own lives and suggest that they need a paternal government that knows better.
How do they know better? well, because they have data. How did they collect this data? they stripped all human value from data, aggregated it all together to remove all nuance, applied a consequentialist morality to it that is rooted in moral intuitive judgements and said 'walla! The government can now make moral decisions on how you should lead your life. We're from the government, and we're here to help.'
Not that I am for anarchy, but this post lacks any principled outlook on human flourishing frameworks.
We've been experiencing democracy for a while now. We have massive interest group fighting, regulations that halt all progress, a bureaucracy that cripples any progress and increasing costs of government services reaching unsustainable levels... Maybe this consequentialist framework isn't working out as much as you would have hoped.
“We have ethical ways of pursuing our own flourishing while not interfering with others: its called individual rights and the non-intiation of force.”
Individual rights are socially determined, and should be done so through the creation of constitutions. This does not contradict what I said.
“The moral calculations you suggest are abhorrent. You both suggest that humans do not have free will to live their own lives and suggest that they need a paternal government that knows better.”
Ha, that’s certainly a reading of what I said. Humans don’t have much in the way of the orthodox view of “free will.” Nearly every person is a comparabilist or determinist these days, any other position would be frankly insane. I don’t want a paternalistic government, I criticize the government all the time! We can limit it!
“How do they know better? well, because they have data. How did they collect this data? they stripped all human value from data, aggregated it all together to remove all nuance, applied a consequentialist morality to it that is rooted in moral intuitive judgements and said 'walla! The government can now make moral decisions on how you should lead your life. We're from the government, and we're here to help.”
Yeah so this a gross misunderstanding. The social interest is an discernible thing, that was my point. When ever I say something hurts society, I can do so coherently, because moral calculation is not possible. The government generally does not know what’s best for people, and thus should maximize people’s freedom positive or negative, lest they have found a unique instance of pressing concern.
“Not that I am for anarchy, but this post lacks any principled outlook on human flourishing frameworks.”
Human flourishing has measurable components, this was my take which virtually no relevant framework would contradict!
“We've been experiencing democracy for a while now. We have massive interest group fighting, regulations that halt all progress, a bureaucracy that cripples any progress and increasing costs of government services reaching unsustainable levels... Maybe this consequentialist framework isn't working out as much as you would have hoped.”
The juxtaposition of the point I stated and the current system is entirely unfair. We do not, by any stretch have a system that currently aggregated asserted preferences! In fact we have a system that is quite quite quite far from that
"Individual rights are socially determined, and should be done so through the creation of constitutions."
I disagree. The constitution and individual rights derived from it where rationally determined through moral principles. In fact, objective laws are written in a way that is not designed specifically for the benefit of the collective, but for justice. Laws are not consequentialist.
Another example would be consent: that is not consequentialist, but it is in a good portion of laws.
"Nearly every person is a comparabilist or determinist these days, any other position would be frankly insane"
Buddy, you have no clue what you are talking about and saying "frankly insane" is showing just that. Not having free will has immense political implications and so does having it. I was addressing the paternalistic nature of infantilising citizens that we know better because we have some data about happiness and how they should live their lives. If this does not click in your head why this is wrong, then maybe you should revisit your insane comment.
"The government generally does not know what’s best for people, and thus should maximize people’s freedom positive or negative"
I guess this is some progress, but the word "freedom" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you.
The question should be, why are you taking away a group of people's money which objectively reduces their happiness (according to research) and giving it to other people to increase their happiness - while keeping a good portion due to bureaucracy and inefficiency?
You have not provided a moral justification for transferring suffering in society.
"Human flourishing has measurable components, this was my take which virtually no relevant framework would contradict!"
Then your system fails by your own metrics.
"The juxtaposition of the point I stated and the current system is entirely unfair. We do not, by any stretch have a system that currently aggregated asserted preferences! In fact we have a system that is quite quite quite far from that"
How so? Are we not living in a democracy and largely follow consequentialism?
Ofcourse we aren’t living in a system that aggregates genuine preference, who could possibly indicate otherwise? Also who says that the government is operating in pursuit of the interest of the nation, that certainly doesn’t seem true
Again, your criticism about my take on taxation fundamentally does not engage with the premise. Property is a social fiction, it is by no coherent moral system axiomatically foundational. We determine what property is either through norms or laws, and thus it is totally reasonable for us to make those determinations in a way that relates to getting us the things we want (good lives)
Ok, as you have no interest in engaging with any of my points, because you are clearly not interested in philosophy, I will this one time engage with yours before abandoning the thread.
If you say that we have no rights to any property because we are "part of the world" that no one can own the world (paraphrasing). Then what is to stop another country from invading a smaller country and taking its property?
You can't make the claim that that society holds any property rights over the land they are in, because no person has any rights to it either. So a country has no valid property claim over the land it is in and basically, the strongest and largest country can take it. There would be no international law to appeal to as no one has any real property rights.
I find it highly unfortunate you have decided to stake out such a bizarre position on free will. Ofcourse free will doesn’t exist. If I inject you with estrogen your behavior will change massively, despite you not wanting it to. A certain hit to the head can make you a psychopath. Cognitive scientists have been able to predict choices by looking at mental imaging before people even make them. Don’t take the free will absolutist stance, it’s the equivalent of flat eartherism
You didn't ask for my definition of what free will is. We are humans and humans have an identity and a nature. Despite how free I want to be, I will still need food and water as all living organisms need. I am, however, free to think and free to choose to focus my thinking on whatever I want.
"Cognitive scientists have been able to predict choices by looking at mental imaging before people even make them." This has been debunked.
Moral principles are a creation. Social rules are social! When ever you talk about consent, we can make meaningful moral determinations on that basis because both of us find that principle appealing. This falls within the norm categorization I explained thoroughly. Furthermore consent and other principles are indeed valuable because of consequentialist reasons. A society without consent as a concept is surely a worse one to live in!
Political (social) systems are ethical principles applied on a social level. Ethical principles are derived from rational reasoning.
Individual rights for example, apply to everyone, even if the majority do not like it - especially because the majority do not like it. This is not mob rule's decisions for how to run society. These are rational and reasoned moral principles.
The whole anarchism section is wildly misinformed
vc me Micah 🪩#5072
We have ethical ways of pursuing our own flourishing while not interfering with others: its called individual rights and the non-intiation of force.
The moral calculations you suggest are abhorrent. You both suggest that humans do not have free will to live their own lives and suggest that they need a paternal government that knows better.
How do they know better? well, because they have data. How did they collect this data? they stripped all human value from data, aggregated it all together to remove all nuance, applied a consequentialist morality to it that is rooted in moral intuitive judgements and said 'walla! The government can now make moral decisions on how you should lead your life. We're from the government, and we're here to help.'
Not that I am for anarchy, but this post lacks any principled outlook on human flourishing frameworks.
We've been experiencing democracy for a while now. We have massive interest group fighting, regulations that halt all progress, a bureaucracy that cripples any progress and increasing costs of government services reaching unsustainable levels... Maybe this consequentialist framework isn't working out as much as you would have hoped.
“We have ethical ways of pursuing our own flourishing while not interfering with others: its called individual rights and the non-intiation of force.”
Individual rights are socially determined, and should be done so through the creation of constitutions. This does not contradict what I said.
“The moral calculations you suggest are abhorrent. You both suggest that humans do not have free will to live their own lives and suggest that they need a paternal government that knows better.”
Ha, that’s certainly a reading of what I said. Humans don’t have much in the way of the orthodox view of “free will.” Nearly every person is a comparabilist or determinist these days, any other position would be frankly insane. I don’t want a paternalistic government, I criticize the government all the time! We can limit it!
“How do they know better? well, because they have data. How did they collect this data? they stripped all human value from data, aggregated it all together to remove all nuance, applied a consequentialist morality to it that is rooted in moral intuitive judgements and said 'walla! The government can now make moral decisions on how you should lead your life. We're from the government, and we're here to help.”
Yeah so this a gross misunderstanding. The social interest is an discernible thing, that was my point. When ever I say something hurts society, I can do so coherently, because moral calculation is not possible. The government generally does not know what’s best for people, and thus should maximize people’s freedom positive or negative, lest they have found a unique instance of pressing concern.
“Not that I am for anarchy, but this post lacks any principled outlook on human flourishing frameworks.”
Human flourishing has measurable components, this was my take which virtually no relevant framework would contradict!
“We've been experiencing democracy for a while now. We have massive interest group fighting, regulations that halt all progress, a bureaucracy that cripples any progress and increasing costs of government services reaching unsustainable levels... Maybe this consequentialist framework isn't working out as much as you would have hoped.”
The juxtaposition of the point I stated and the current system is entirely unfair. We do not, by any stretch have a system that currently aggregated asserted preferences! In fact we have a system that is quite quite quite far from that
"Individual rights are socially determined, and should be done so through the creation of constitutions."
I disagree. The constitution and individual rights derived from it where rationally determined through moral principles. In fact, objective laws are written in a way that is not designed specifically for the benefit of the collective, but for justice. Laws are not consequentialist.
Another example would be consent: that is not consequentialist, but it is in a good portion of laws.
"Nearly every person is a comparabilist or determinist these days, any other position would be frankly insane"
Buddy, you have no clue what you are talking about and saying "frankly insane" is showing just that. Not having free will has immense political implications and so does having it. I was addressing the paternalistic nature of infantilising citizens that we know better because we have some data about happiness and how they should live their lives. If this does not click in your head why this is wrong, then maybe you should revisit your insane comment.
"The government generally does not know what’s best for people, and thus should maximize people’s freedom positive or negative"
I guess this is some progress, but the word "freedom" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you.
The question should be, why are you taking away a group of people's money which objectively reduces their happiness (according to research) and giving it to other people to increase their happiness - while keeping a good portion due to bureaucracy and inefficiency?
You have not provided a moral justification for transferring suffering in society.
"Human flourishing has measurable components, this was my take which virtually no relevant framework would contradict!"
Then your system fails by your own metrics.
"The juxtaposition of the point I stated and the current system is entirely unfair. We do not, by any stretch have a system that currently aggregated asserted preferences! In fact we have a system that is quite quite quite far from that"
How so? Are we not living in a democracy and largely follow consequentialism?
Ofcourse we aren’t living in a system that aggregates genuine preference, who could possibly indicate otherwise? Also who says that the government is operating in pursuit of the interest of the nation, that certainly doesn’t seem true
Sorry, I need an actual system here, not make-believe.
Again, we have democracy, the rule of law, and consequentialism.. this is your system, so make a case for it.
Again, your criticism about my take on taxation fundamentally does not engage with the premise. Property is a social fiction, it is by no coherent moral system axiomatically foundational. We determine what property is either through norms or laws, and thus it is totally reasonable for us to make those determinations in a way that relates to getting us the things we want (good lives)
Ok, as you have no interest in engaging with any of my points, because you are clearly not interested in philosophy, I will this one time engage with yours before abandoning the thread.
If you say that we have no rights to any property because we are "part of the world" that no one can own the world (paraphrasing). Then what is to stop another country from invading a smaller country and taking its property?
You can't make the claim that that society holds any property rights over the land they are in, because no person has any rights to it either. So a country has no valid property claim over the land it is in and basically, the strongest and largest country can take it. There would be no international law to appeal to as no one has any real property rights.
Oof why don’t we continue this over VC on discord Micah 🪩#5072
I find it highly unfortunate you have decided to stake out such a bizarre position on free will. Ofcourse free will doesn’t exist. If I inject you with estrogen your behavior will change massively, despite you not wanting it to. A certain hit to the head can make you a psychopath. Cognitive scientists have been able to predict choices by looking at mental imaging before people even make them. Don’t take the free will absolutist stance, it’s the equivalent of flat eartherism
You didn't ask for my definition of what free will is. We are humans and humans have an identity and a nature. Despite how free I want to be, I will still need food and water as all living organisms need. I am, however, free to think and free to choose to focus my thinking on whatever I want.
"Cognitive scientists have been able to predict choices by looking at mental imaging before people even make them." This has been debunked.
Moral principles are a creation. Social rules are social! When ever you talk about consent, we can make meaningful moral determinations on that basis because both of us find that principle appealing. This falls within the norm categorization I explained thoroughly. Furthermore consent and other principles are indeed valuable because of consequentialist reasons. A society without consent as a concept is surely a worse one to live in!
Political (social) systems are ethical principles applied on a social level. Ethical principles are derived from rational reasoning.
Individual rights for example, apply to everyone, even if the majority do not like it - especially because the majority do not like it. This is not mob rule's decisions for how to run society. These are rational and reasoned moral principles.