All the people who have viewed this thread on my end have told me to stop arguing with Stas Bush because he's an idiot. None the less...
They do not ignore practicality, actually, and Edi's claim is quite true. Even though we might find racism or tribalism abhorrent, we rarely consider them to be a unique evil for proto-states and early nations. Practicality means feasibility as well. Saying that people should not injure or kill each other is perfectly valid as a practical demand for a peaceful society. It is a completely impractical demand for, say, a post-catastrophe environment where people have to kill each other to survive. Practicality matters. Morality must not be counterbeneficial to the development and survival of the species at the very least.
I would dispute the claim that everybody finds tribalism abhorent. In a more detailed rebuttal, I will point out that every conception of practicality (and there are different ones in different cultures) has implicit within it philosophical claims of what is morally good.
More importantly, they usually can't justify said claims. For example, in your case that the survival of the species is a good thing.
You might claim that such a principle is so basic no moral system can dispute it. My counter is the classical moral subjectivist argument- plenty of people, such as C.S Lewis, would have considered the extermination of the species justified in the protection of what they see as higher moral goods (C.S Lewis explicitly said this).
The observation that people are sentient is an objective fact. I should have avoided the qualifier "all" though, since some are in a vegetative state, but I guess the observation that normally people are intelligent sentient creatures should suffice. There is no need to justify this 'claim' - this is just an observation. As for evaluation of suffering on an equal basis, I would say that this is the logical consequence of a scientific observation as well, unless you have some scientific observations that show for example Asian people being more immune to suffering or feeling suffering in a different way than say Europeans. I am not sure there are any (outside of racist pseudoscience), but feel free to correct me. I see no reason for an objective observer to give more weight to the suffering of one being with identical sentient capabilities to that of another such being.
The implicit claim is that one follows from the other. Your logic is flawed (as some people can suffer more or less than others), but even if hypothetically it were true, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT ONE SHOULD CARE. In addition, you come across other problems- if you are to treat humans as higher than animals based on their intelligence, then shouldn't more intelligent humans be treated as more important (even if to a very minute degree) than less intelligent humans?
Say you are talking to a nationalist, who says "I care about my own people more than any others" but does not dispute your facts. How can you claim to him that his posistion is in any way inconsistent without appealing to a base principle he can disagree with?
There may be no reason for an objective observer to give more weight to the suffering of one being than another- but there is also no reason for an objective observer to give equal weight. There is no reason for an objective observer to give any weight to any suffering.
Basically, the whole thing comes down to first principles- which is why I maintain as I did from the start that Moral Individualism deserves a fair hearing.
I think I have justified this sufficiently. It is a scientific observation as well - animals with higher nervous activity seek to avoid suffering. It is not "good" par se, but it is (1) coinciding with the normal vector of desires for most members of the species (2) is not actively hindering the development and survival of the species, but actually helping the survival and spread of the species.
No you haven't- why on earth should a type of action being normal and not hindering of the development and survival of the species be a good thing? Rape instincts are natural and don't hinder the development and survival of the species (at least in the case of women who wouldn't have children otherwise), which I suspect is a problem for you.
You have made an assumption that rights exist and humans have these rights and you haven't justified any part of it. Unlike my explanations above, there is no scientific confirmation that rights exist. There is no scientific confirmation that rights are unique and belong to humans, or even to each and every human as an inalienable property of the creature.
As I said, I am arguing that Moral Individualism and Moral Communalism should be put an equal basis here.
I hope you do understand that in this case your definition of totalitarian actually means a good thing. Why? Because people seek to escape non-totalitarian anarchies and enter (after passing hard trials of integration) these unjust tyrannical democracies. Somalis and other people from warzones and permanently lawless territories actively emigrate into totalitarian states. The reverse process is almost nonexistent, although a one-way ticket to Somali is well within the financial capabilities of even the least-paid First World workers. I think even those on social support could gather enough money in time to somehow escape their nation and enter a lawless anarchist territory elsewhere. Not to mention there are also many "internal enclaves" like the Amish, where essentially you escape the society without losing the benefits of national territory defense, and thus shouldn't worry about war. Yet it does not seem that the Amish face an influx of people wanting to escape tyrannical totalitarian democracies.
I take it you agree with my claim about if brotherhood was enforced, then?
Maybe most people see totalitarianism as a good thing, but that does not make it an objective good. Anyway, as I said I was justifying my original use of the word 'totalitarian' by reference to the dictionary.
1- There are de facto governments throughout Somalia, even if not internationally recognised ones.
2- There are de facto laws (and I think de jure laws as well) enforced on the Amish. I am given to understand they are actually harsher than the rest of the U.S.
This is not a philosophical assumption, but rather a practical scientific observation as well. Worsening people's well-being is counterbeneficial to the survival and spread of the species. At some point it might lead to an extinction of an ethnicity or even an entire species. The assumption is that systems which actively hinder the survival and improvement of your own species are harmful for the species; that is also a logical conclusion, not an ad-hoc invention.
You're being about as scientific as Karl Marx- how can you justify the claim that the survival and spread of the species is an objective good?
I am not sure that some people would agree that any rights exist at all. I mean, you assume that rights exist. For example, just now you assumed that a "right" to self-defence exists for a member of homo sapiens which is being attacked or tortured (perhaps even without injuring the body in the process - see clean torture). Why? I mean really... why?
Slipped into the wrong grammar here, as I was trying to speak for a Moral Individualist posistion I do not in fact hold. Moral Individualists would probably argue that human behaviour implicitly acts to defend said rights, or (as in a case I learned of recently) that said rights are granted by God.
That's pretty stupid - primitive tribes still follow core utilitarian principles. They seek survival, not their own destruction. They seek to minimize their suffering, not maximize it to the point where they are threatened with extinction. Humans are animals. As for "emotional objections", I'm not sure I'm going to give that any weight compared to the well-established scientific observation on the behaviour of species. People are not obliged to follow utilitarian principles, of course (psychos do not have any obligations either) - but I guess they shouldn't complain if they try to do things that seem to increase suffering of other members of the species and then get offed or locked away in a prison or asylum.
Primitive tribes do not in fact follow utiltarian principles on many matters. Examples include religion in general, honour codes (honour-killings being a prime example), and others. Plenty of idealists throughout history have also done things which do not make sense from a utilitarian perspective- I don't think I need to provide examples.
Your language is that of moral superiority- something you haven't justified. Finally, you keep ASSUMING that just because science observes humans behaving in a certain way that it is a morally good thing somehow to behave that way. You have not justified this moral claim.
Considering that the species has survived by staying close to the norm in mass behaviour (and on the other hand parts of the species have de-facto driven themselves to extinction by not following said norm, e.g. Easter Island), it follows that normality is beneficial and practical for survival of the species. Anormal actions lead to death of individual and might lead to death of the species. So even norm par se has clear beneficial effects, which are also derived from scientific observation.
Already addressed this.
I already said above that there always is another option de-facto in the world we have now. Especially for First Worlders. People can leave for an anarchy easily or leave society for a self-governed enclave (see Amish) if they wish to retain First World security (that's a bit cheating, but let's give the people a chance to opt out this way as well). Fact is, almost none do.
The Amish ARE A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS. If you murder somebody on Amish ground, the government will punish you. If you commit fraud on Amish ground on a large enough scale, you will be punished.
In addition, Somalia has de facto governments in place.
I would say that the current Constitutions are sub-optimal, they should be formed more like a contract indeed if one wishes to follow that theory. However, I see no need to explain this in great detail since the choices to opt out are obvious.
I only learned of the idea when it was first pointed out to me- it's clearly not that obvious.
Uh.... Is there any scientific observation that people actually want some abstract "human rights" as opposed to a real and observable reduction of suffering which a certain right brings them? I mean... really? Observability and testability matters as well. I can test my theory with observation. What about your imaginary "individualist"?
The argument that because people want something it is good has been seen as a fallacy since Ancient Greece (ergo you are stupid for believing it, or your education has been lacking). I do not think the hypothetical individualist would be able to justify his positions, but really you can't either.
This is NOT a factual debate about what people really want, but a MORAL debate about what is OBJECTIVELY right.
So you agree that human rights don't really exist, cannot be observed, and in fact it is not even clear that humans desire them (as opposed to clear observations that humans don't want to suffer physiologically?)... I'm sorry C, but it seems you've just lost the entire argument.
That's what I've been arguing from the start, moron! I was discussing another perspective merely to bring it to people's attention!
Neither do I, but like I said, this has not happened before and I choose to rely on observation and evidence to make predictions, as opposed to just saying "It will work somehow".
There is probably some reason why it didn't work- if it can be identified, then Unions can be fixed.