5 ms·
YES thanks for this! I've seen too many people justify something that could be considered immoral by invoking this "but it satisfies user needs" pseudo-argument
by fx85ms 11y ago
YES thanks for this! I've seen too many people justify something that could be considered immoral by invoking this "but it satisfies user needs" pseudo-argument.
- baddox 11y agoI've seen a heck of a lot more people justify things by claiming to have objective moral knowledge. Throughout history, the most atrocious acts imaginable have been justified this way. I am much less worried about invoking the satisfaction of people's needs.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoYou can't convince people to go kill and die for you by saying they're just satisfying your needs. So you have to invent something people will actually buy, and this tends to be something about morality, religion or politics.
- lostlogin 11y agoThe subtle distinction between "want" and "need" is at the root of this. What the user wants is at odds with what they need.
- ckozlowski 11y agoWho decides what they "need", if not the user in so much as what they "want"? I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them. That's no freedom at all.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoYou can't look at it in a binary way. Of course it's a bad idea to prescribe people their needs. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I am to have for dinner. But there are also needs that are obviously better left unmet. For instance I may feel a need to take possession of your property. It's not a kind of freedom you'd want to grant to me.
- ckozlowski 11y agoI think it is rather binary, but I think your example in this case demonstrates a different principle. Having my "needs" defined separately from my "wants" denies me my freedom. But that's different from you say, deciding to confiscate my things without due process.
- TuringTest 11y ago> I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them. I'm equally terrified of others convincing you that what they have to offer is the best for you, with minor tweaks to "cover your needs"; yet that's the basis of profit-based marketing.
- ckozlowski 11y agoI respect your concern (I'm trying to be non-specific in terms of pronouns here, but it's hard), but that's a fear we have to live with, no? The notion that someone else's argument might be more persuasive than our own, that someone else's message might be accepted instead. Surely, there's something perverse about it, underhanded, or perhaps I'm just not enlightened enough, otherwise I wouldn't accept such a false pretense. Surely, if I'd been shown the light, and not doused in such propaganda, I'd make a better choice! The problem with that of course, is that a lot of people can make that argument. And regardless of who's making the argument, be they weak or strong, they all rely on the premise that the person needs convincing of something, because to imagine that they might come to a conclusion that's not your own /by themselves/ is a terrifying thought. I'm sorry, but I really can't condone the notion that some messages should be feared in that way, and that someone else knows what's best because they presume I do not.
- lovemenot 11y agoSo what? There are so many ways to be wrong, why introduce an entirely different one into this discussion? It's a false dilemma.
- calibraxis 11y agoCapitalist morality merely poses as amoral. The moment you propose a more sensible alternative, you're hit by moral arguments about terrible things happening when you interfere with the invisible hand (of Providence). When we mention "satisfying people's needs", those with more money get more satisfaction. That's how markets work. Like advertisers (corporations paying other corporations to spread propaganda), nation-states (which must control their populaces pretty much by definition), etc.
- spython 11y agoIt is great fun, when any previous authority is replaced by the logic of the market. What thrives, they say, deserves to thrive, what fails, deserves to fail. Their argument is, if people really wanted a better world, they would have it already. Which is of course foolish, the market doesn't care about good or evil.
- mdpopescu 11y ago"The market" is people. You just said that people don't care about good or evil. I submit that this is an exaggeration.
- spython 11y agoThe market is not people, nor was it ever about people. It is about money and capital, and capital is not governed by moral principles.
- eevilspock 11y agoOh the market is about people when it commoditizes them, and that just makes the consequences even less moral.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoA comment phrasing it as "market is people", and then comment about commoditizing... it reminds me of Soylent Green, which also is people. ;).
- shrikant 11y agoIn philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit such properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence