Carinthium wrote: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...
C, vain insults don't change the fact that I'm right. I don't know if anarchist morons (because there are smart anarchists, no shit) who "viewed this thread" on your end really even understand the points which are made.
Carinthium wrote: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 can't "justify" the claim that survival of your own species is good (which is nothing but a word we made up for describing things we like, things that are beneficial for us)? Is it that hard? You realize that the destruction of the species equals also your own destruction. A self-destructive impulse of that magnitude is definetely psychotic. Practicality does not say what is good. The example I made, killing other people for food is not good if food's plentiful (and we consider it a crime), but at times of severe hardship we might actually look the other way.
Carinthium wrote: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).
See - this is what I was talking about. Abberations from the norm are destructive to the species. Easter Island was basically such a scenario in miniature. Unless you're perfectly fine with your self-destruction, I see no reason to subscribe to a system of morality like this.
Carinthium wrote: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?
So is there an objective scientific observation that would demonstrate normative behaviour (avoiding suffering) as counterbeneficial to the species or not? I'm a bit dissappointed. All caps are the very definition of lame. And why not care, anyway? The objective observer is still human, is he not? There is a difference, of course, but Einstein and a stupid person would cry in agony all the same if their hand catches fire. Since the reaction is similar, I simply consider this a part of the norm, and I consider equal or very similar reactions to be at work here.
Carinthium wrote: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.
Nationalist != objective observer. The example just does not have any consistency. So who should be convinced of the reasonability of my stance, the objective observer or a nationalist, who's clearly holding a subjective position?
Carinthium wrote: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.
Rape instincts (and many instincts in general) are no longer a part of the norm for quite a while, see "sentience". They are counterbeneficial to the species as it stands now. But of course, it would be rather stupid to argue that rape is evil in a pack of the human ancestor apes, don't you think?
Carinthium wrote:As I said, I am arguing that Moral Individualism and Moral Communalism should be put an equal basis here.
I am not sure I'd want to put a moral system which is not based on anything observable on equal basis with anything. That's a sky pixie system. What if the sky pixie tells us to commit to self-destruction, like Easter Island? C. S. Lewis might have fun for a while, but I don't find that reasonable at all. Materialist viewpoints don't work like this. And materialism is the only sound philosophical current - I guess you'd disagree, but why would it even matter?
Carinthium wrote:I take it you agree with my claim about if brotherhood was enforced, then?
Something like that is enforced in modern societies. Western nations disallow violence to occur (see police), there are whole nation-states institutions for mutual help (formalized even) and people are encouraged to treat each other as fellow citizens. Not as brothers, but certainly as people working together for a mutual goal, colleagues if you wish. Maybe you hate it, but you're not in Somali yet to my knowledge.
Carinthium wrote: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. In addition: 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.
Well, if real anarchy doesn't work the way you like, too bad for you C. I mean, would you also call a gang on your block a "government" if there's no national government anymore? And if so, where does government start? Maybe there's no anarchy at all. A family is often a form of government as well by your standards. And if most people enjoy your 'totalitarianism' and have fun on the internets and relax, sure this makes it good from a practical viewpoint. I'm not sure you can prove the existence of an "objective good", not in a scientific way at least, so why even care?
Carinthium wrote: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?
Yeah, thanks for comparing me to one of the materialist philosophers whose works I enjoy. And of course I can justify that if I'm sticking to my materialism. How can you justify the opposite? By appealing to a sky pixie? Sorry, but while matter and the species are observed, just like their behaviour is, a sky pixie is imaginary and cannot be observed by science. Call me back when God can be observed.
Carinthium wrote: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.
Call me back when God can be observed. Or, you know, investigated using the scientific method and not found being just a fantasy.
Carinthium wrote: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.
Uh... religion? Primitive tribes have very primitive forms of religion. Which are also easily explained. And they are pretty utilitarian when you think about the level of knowledge that they have. I am not sure honour codes and honour killings are non-utilitarian either. In the absence of government and police utilitarian outcomes have to be ensured somehow. Honour code is a primitive form of formalized social rules, and honour killings in the absence of police serve as means of enforcement of the social rules. The rules themselves arise to increase the survival potential of the tribe.
Carinthium wrote: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.
I am not sure I even want to use the terms "good" or "bad". There's nothing that is objectively good or bad. There are, however, objectively beneficial and counterbeneficial things for the survival of the species. Unless you'd want to challenge the survival of species as beneficial by invoking God, there's no real argument against that.
Carinthium wrote: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.
Um... if you want to leave society completely (even one which does not qualify as a government - Somalia's armed gangs hardly qualify as one, I'm sorry) you still have that option. Go to the depth of the Amazon and become a lone hermit, don't interact with any societies, not even ones without government (e.g. tribes). Perfect. This does not occur. I guess people want to live inside a society.
Carinthium wrote: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.
There's no such thing as objective good. If you're too stupid to realize that... But between matter and fantasy I pick matter.
Carinthium wrote:That's what I've been arguing from the start, moron! I was discussing another perspective merely to bring it to people's attention!
Useless waste of my time.
Carinthium wrote:There is probably some reason why it didn't work- if it can be identified, then Unions can be fixed.
I'd say go for it, but you haven't identified that reason.