5 ms·

> I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment. I don't see warped judgment but it's something

> I'm pretty sure it's better for 100,000 Africans to die than for my sister to die. That's not warped judgment. I don't see warped judgment but it's something we see frequently these days: An attempt to take down liberalism, with its embrace of reason and compassion, by aggressively making illiberal statements - as if to challenge the very ideas. The crazier and more illiberal the better; it almost becomes a contest to see who can say the craziest thing, which also serves as a proof of ideological purity common in such movements. You can see it in the statements of GOP candidates (Trump is on the same continuum they've been on for a long time) and on Fox. The only solution is to letting these hateful ideas dominate our country is to start calling people on it.

meric 11y ago
We're not machines, we're human beings, and it is humanity's nature for a person to love their own parents more than other parents, and for parents to love their children more than other children. What's inhumane is preventing people from doing what comes to them naturally via excessively high taxes, and force people to provide for everyone else who they hardly know[2]. Love is not equal, and that is just a fact. Mohism[1] - where everyone love everyone else equally - is dead. It will die once again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiali... [2] See nursing homes, poor public schools.
- danharaj 11y ago
  This post ignores the massive social movements away from such highly tribalistic human associations. It ignores how technology, state, and economic structures have utterly dictated family structures since the neolithic. It does not actually establish some causal link between 'human nature' and what current familial affiliations people have. It is a statement of 'common sense' dressed up as an unassailable assertion about 'human nature'. How dare anyone question 'human nature'? Furthermore, the idea that any particular inborn kin affinity implies any particular social structure, falls flat on its face on purely logical grounds: If it is human nature to maximize the utility of one's parents and one's children over other relatives and other human beings, it is still possible that the best way to do so is to create a more egalitarian, free associating society based on large scale cooperation between human beings and compassion for non-kinsmen. The assertion relies on unspoken intuitions which are shaped by the institutions and cultural powers that raise us. Convenient for someone trying to justify their world view, pitiable for anyone trying to understand 'human nature'. Furthermore: We are all related and the time horizon of this kin favoring behavior has not been established. It is not clear why it is inborn 'human nature' to care for your immediate relatives and not more distant relatives. It is conveniently left implicit as that which makes most sense for the capitalist nuclear family, and maybe a generation or two down. If you care about your offspring into the indefinite future, and if you care about your relatives going back indefinitely, you care about all human beings. What I truly believe 'human nature' to be, if such a thing could be well defined is our ability to apprehend what lot we have in the common good, what our place in the way of things is. Not just in our communities, but in our species and on our planet. It's certainly not an excuse to grumble about taxes.
  - meric 11y ago
    You are arguing people should be prevented from prioritising their resources to their kin. You are free to think such an action is contrary to your sense of ethics. My opinion is - if a person can't even love their own children, how can they love others'? A long time ago all matter originated from the Big Bang, uniform and same in every way. Does that mean that is where we should aim towards? If you care about 'all', why not throw everyone and everything into another giant Big Bang yet again and be done with it? Because that is exactly what globalisation is doing - extinguishing unique cultures, languages and demolishing identity.
    - danharaj 11y ago
      We don't live in a free society. If we lived in a free society, we would have to, from scratch, determine how best to cooperate. You complained about taxes: Taxes exist for a reason, because they are part of an enormously complex social structure whose main purpose is to support the concept of private property. I am asking you to consider that if you want more freedom to love your kin, then maybe you ought to abolish the system of coercion that props up capitalism. It's not the taxes at fault. The taxes are there because without them, the system destabilizes. History teaches us that much. If you want private property, you're going to have taxes. The best you can hope for is to be the top of a feudal hierarchy where all the taxes feed into your estate. That does not endure, as we are all aware. I don't think caring about everything means you want it to be homogeneous. I also reject globalization at a personal level, because I see it as a horribly violent system of interlocking political, social, and economic forces seeking to assimilate more and more of the world into their hierarchy of exploitation. What I think it means to care about everything, is to not be myopic. It may be your intent to love your children, and even love them more than other children, but it may very well be that the best way to do so is to love all children. Is that unreasonable? It may be that the best way to love your children the most is to care about the entire ecosystem. Is that unreasonable? I think human beings are remarkably good at seeing the connections between things, and even if instinct is what tells us what is important, it is something far more dynamic and intelligent that tells us what is true. If you want to be an individual, I think, personally, that it means you must find a society that supports the kind of individual you want to be. I can't imagine being an individual without other human beings around. Realizing that, I see that my individuality is found in my community; my place in my community is part of my individuality. I can't imagine being an individual without the world I live in. Realizing that, I see that my individuality is also found in my planet; how I treat the Earth is part of how I treat myself. P.S. If we ever get to the point as a species where we can generate a new universe, I think it would be enormously important for every individual to contemplate what that means about what we are.
- hackuser 11y ago
  It's in our nature to live in caves, hunt and gather, die very young, lose most of our children before they turn 5, and murder each other over food and sex. But reason and compassion [1] also is in our nature, and using it we've built great things far beyond those other things. [1] I'm not entirely sure "compassion" encompasses it, but I'll go with it.
rayiner 11y ago
I think it's more an acknowledgment that instinctual forces are more powerful than ideals could ever hope to be. That when push comes to shove, people will violently protect those closest to them and that its fantasy to pretend otherwise.

meric 11y ago

We're not machines, we're human beings, and it is humanity's nature for a person to love their own parents more than other parents, and for parents to love their children more than other children. What's inhumane is preventing people from doing what comes to them naturally via excessively high taxes, and force people to provide for everyone else who they hardly know[2]. Love is not equal, and that is just a fact. Mohism[1] - where everyone love everyone else equally - is dead. It will die once again. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism#Morality_and_impartiali... [2] See nursing homes, poor public schools.

danharaj 11y ago
This post ignores the massive social movements away from such highly tribalistic human associations. It ignores how technology, state, and economic structures have utterly dictated family structures since the neolithic. It does not actually establish some causal link between 'human nature' and what current familial affiliations people have. It is a statement of 'common sense' dressed up as an unassailable assertion about 'human nature'. How dare anyone question 'human nature'? Furthermore, the idea that any particular inborn kin affinity implies any particular social structure, falls flat on its face on purely logical grounds: If it is human nature to maximize the utility of one's parents and one's children over other relatives and other human beings, it is still possible that the best way to do so is to create a more egalitarian, free associating society based on large scale cooperation between human beings and compassion for non-kinsmen. The assertion relies on unspoken intuitions which are shaped by the institutions and cultural powers that raise us. Convenient for someone trying to justify their world view, pitiable for anyone trying to understand 'human nature'. Furthermore: We are all related and the time horizon of this kin favoring behavior has not been established. It is not clear why it is inborn 'human nature' to care for your immediate relatives and not more distant relatives. It is conveniently left implicit as that which makes most sense for the capitalist nuclear family, and maybe a generation or two down. If you care about your offspring into the indefinite future, and if you care about your relatives going back indefinitely, you care about all human beings. What I truly believe 'human nature' to be, if such a thing could be well defined is our ability to apprehend what lot we have in the common good, what our place in the way of things is. Not just in our communities, but in our species and on our planet. It's certainly not an excuse to grumble about taxes.
- meric 11y ago
  You are arguing people should be prevented from prioritising their resources to their kin. You are free to think such an action is contrary to your sense of ethics. My opinion is - if a person can't even love their own children, how can they love others'? A long time ago all matter originated from the Big Bang, uniform and same in every way. Does that mean that is where we should aim towards? If you care about 'all', why not throw everyone and everything into another giant Big Bang yet again and be done with it? Because that is exactly what globalisation is doing - extinguishing unique cultures, languages and demolishing identity.
  - danharaj 11y ago
    We don't live in a free society. If we lived in a free society, we would have to, from scratch, determine how best to cooperate. You complained about taxes: Taxes exist for a reason, because they are part of an enormously complex social structure whose main purpose is to support the concept of private property. I am asking you to consider that if you want more freedom to love your kin, then maybe you ought to abolish the system of coercion that props up capitalism. It's not the taxes at fault. The taxes are there because without them, the system destabilizes. History teaches us that much. If you want private property, you're going to have taxes. The best you can hope for is to be the top of a feudal hierarchy where all the taxes feed into your estate. That does not endure, as we are all aware. I don't think caring about everything means you want it to be homogeneous. I also reject globalization at a personal level, because I see it as a horribly violent system of interlocking political, social, and economic forces seeking to assimilate more and more of the world into their hierarchy of exploitation. What I think it means to care about everything, is to not be myopic. It may be your intent to love your children, and even love them more than other children, but it may very well be that the best way to do so is to love all children. Is that unreasonable? It may be that the best way to love your children the most is to care about the entire ecosystem. Is that unreasonable? I think human beings are remarkably good at seeing the connections between things, and even if instinct is what tells us what is important, it is something far more dynamic and intelligent that tells us what is true. If you want to be an individual, I think, personally, that it means you must find a society that supports the kind of individual you want to be. I can't imagine being an individual without other human beings around. Realizing that, I see that my individuality is found in my community; my place in my community is part of my individuality. I can't imagine being an individual without the world I live in. Realizing that, I see that my individuality is also found in my planet; how I treat the Earth is part of how I treat myself. P.S. If we ever get to the point as a species where we can generate a new universe, I think it would be enormously important for every individual to contemplate what that means about what we are.
hackuser 11y ago
It's in our nature to live in caves, hunt and gather, die very young, lose most of our children before they turn 5, and murder each other over food and sex. But reason and compassion [1] also is in our nature, and using it we've built great things far beyond those other things. [1] I'm not entirely sure "compassion" encompasses it, but I'll go with it.

rayiner 11y ago

I think it's more an acknowledgment that instinctual forces are more powerful than ideals could ever hope to be. That when push comes to shove, people will violently protect those closest to them and that its fantasy to pretend otherwise.