9 ms·

> This goes for select subsets of both ends of the political spectrum, and select subgroups on both sides of any hot-button issue. This is fucking garbage. It'

> This goes for select subsets of both ends of the political spectrum, and select subgroups on both sides of any hot-button issue. This is fucking garbage. It's garbage because the status quo isn't neutral, the status quo isn't necessarily just, and actually, the status quo is upheld with lots and lots of violence that isn't considered controversial. For example, France is clamping down really hard on civil liberties and the UK just authorized bombing Syria because it thinks its righteous violence will cleanse the Earth of Daesh and the status quo moral framework of the West exculpates them of every civilian murder they commit. The moral framework of the West allows the most powerful nations on Earth to escalate to untold levels of violence over sporadic attacks that quite unfortunately kill dozens of people; then they retaliate destabilizing entire countries, uprooting the lives of millions, and causing thousands and thousands of direct casualties from their ordnance. The point is that it's a massive, massive joke for anyone to distinguish themself from this group of people who engage in 'intellectually malformed pseudo-activism' because there are no apolitical stances and being complicit members of societies that shape the world through incredible violence is no different a hypocritical perversion of morality as anyone who rustles your jimmies on the fucking Internet.

dmfdmf 11y ago
The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  So, do you have an objective source of morality for us to refer to?
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    Most human beings and human societies agree on the same general points of morality. - Killing -- Try really, really hard not to do this! - Lying -- Please try really, really hard not to do this! Or there's George Carlin's formulation: "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" I think everyone has a pretty good idea of what this means, and most people agree on the broad outlines. The devil is in the details, of course. Then there's "Love thy neighbor as thyself." A pretty good general principle that most would agree on in the broad outlines. Again: Devil is in the details. But the points I am making in these comments aren't really about details. In the broad outlines of morality, when someone starts proclaiming loudly that they are justified in being a jerk -- it's time to start getting very skeptical! This applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups. And by all means, please take some time to be a bit skeptical about yourself! Again, this applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups.
    - vlehto 11y ago
      I'd go bit further. Let's assume everybody agreed with the "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" and everybody would have 100% similar general picture of what is moral. Two people still interpret a situation from two points of view. Both making the judgement that the other guy is out of bounds. Which justifies some apprehension. But they both experience wrongful apprehension, which justifies pretty big apprehension. Which could result in full riot. My point is that you cannot talk about ethics from individual point of view and expect to solve problems. You have to take into account societies as whole. Then consider with how it's done in practice. Ethical society cannot exist without good laws and good guardians for those laws. (And with 99% of population behaving good 99% of the time.) Skeptical is not enough. Society has to be a instant jerk towards individuals who try to jerk around. Clear cut boundaries are needed, so you know to stay inside them. I'd say there is no place for moral relativism inside a country. But between countries it's even necessary.
      - cousin_it 11y ago
        My favorite example: 1) Randomly divide people into two groups. 2) Ask everyone in the first group this question: "If someone sues you and loses, is it fair that they should pay your legal costs?" Most people will say yes. 3) Ask everyone in the second group this question: "If you sue someone and lose, is it fair that you should pay their legal costs?" Most people will say no. Even though it's the same fucking question. That's why we need shared enforced norms :-)
        stillsut 11y ago
        I like this example and might steal it. But I'd offer you a [bayesian] counter-argument: Say an HIV test is 99% accurate and responds positive on a randomly selected person. What's the chance they actually have HIV? About 5%! [0]. However, if you have prior reasons to believe you may have HIV, the chances are a lot higher than 5% given a positive test. To tie that back to lawsuits, your participants in the study have their priors set so that they don't expect to engage in frivolous lawsuits towards anyone. However they will likely recognize that they could fall victim to a frivolous lawsuit, and if they're normal, then the only type of lawsuits they could imagine being forced on them is a frivolous suit. Another way to say that is: probably 90% of the ridiculous lawsuits originate from 1% of the population. Then 99% of your participants will mentally model themselves as a sincere plaintiff (thus they shouldn't have to pay even if they lose), while a 1% frivolous rate is certainly high enough to make plausible the threat of being the defendant, and thus worthy of protection through legal fee reimbursement. [0]: http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html
  - drdeca 11y ago
    By source do you mean way to know what is moral, or reason that there is a fact of the matter as to whether something is moral? I don't think one necessarily must claim to know /why/ there is a fact of the matter as to what things are moral, in order to be justified in one's claim that there /is/ a fact of the matter? Moral nihilism can fall down a well. (Note: I mean moral nihilism, not moral nihilists. Rhetoric. I don't have much against nihilists, except that I believe they are incorrect, and it is sometimes kind of scary to need to trust them?)
  - imron 11y ago
    'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', does a pretty good job of covering things.
- danharaj 11y ago
  The principle of relativity arises from observer dependence in measured quantities. Human experience is observer dependent. Morality is a logical system based on human observations. Therefore morality has a logic of relativity. Relativity comes up in mathematics all the time. Relativity isn't the idea that there is no one truth, it is the idea that there is one truth but it cannot be described from a single point of view. The points of view are relative, but they are all views into the same truth. Morality can be the same way. You can be a moral realist and still acknowledge that apprehension of morality is observer dependent. Then the game becomes figuring out the rules of relativity for morality. That is, figuring out how to communicate moral perceptions and judgments between people.
  - Joeri 11y ago
    Morality is not purely a matter of opinion, not more so than say the theory of evolution. You can say that evolution is just an opinion of how things work, but you have to be willing to take very unreasonable or illogical assumptions for your reasoning. It is the same with morality. To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions, like saying that minimizing harm is sometimes harmful. Let's say that morality aims to minimize harm, well, we can make some definitive conclusions from that, like saying that killing people is bad unless it is to prevent further harm they or others would do. That throws a completely different light on the death penalty, where it is hard to argue that it is morally justified, unless you again force your way through contrived reasoning. I think the biggest cause of immorality is that we assume morality cannot be treated logically and scientifically, and instead call it the province of faith. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions Moral relativism is invoked almost exclusively by people trying to justify their own actions, after they find that many object to their actions. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it. Any evidence-based system would be better than any system that ignores evidence. We have scientific evidence that the psychology of hate is tangible and specific in how it manifests. We have literally thousands of years of observations and ruminations on this topic, including the teachings of the major world religions. Culture and society can be surprisingly good at dealing with largely invisible and quite subtle psychology. (Example: love/lust/dating -- Average people are actually quite sophisticated in how they perceive and deal with this.) But societies and cultures are constructed in such a way as to make group psychology around group membership invisible. Group psychology is part of what societies are made out of so the products of group psychology are promulgated as truth. It's no accident that two different activist movements that are praised for their moral understanding -- those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. -- were effectively structured around the prevention of pathological group-think and othering. I think a subtle societal understanding of such group-think is the last great barrier to humanity's "Waking up from History."
stcredzero 11y ago
The point is that it's a massive, massive joke for anyone to distinguish themself from this group of people who engage in 'intellectually malformed pseudo-activism' because there are no apolitical stances and being complicit members of societies that shape the world through incredible violence is no different a hypocritical perversion of morality as anyone who rustles your jimmies on the fucking Internet. So, if I understand your point correctly, it's that the world is so mired in the use of violence, that logical discourse, a respect for facts, and the avoidance of mental patterns of hate is pointless hypocrisy because everyone is essentially either already guilty of being part of the violence or on the receiving end of it. Therefore, there are no moral limits on the behavior or speech of the victims and those who claim to be siding with them. Strangely enough, such an ideology could just as well justify the actions of groups like ISIS as much as your "rustling of jimmies" on the Internet. And by this, I am not merely tarring your idea by association. The logical structure of it is essentially identical to the ideology of groups who adopt tactics commonly called "terrorism." The magnitude of the evil of one party doesn't give free reign to the victims. That can only lead to an eye for an eye. Outrage is a powerful force. It can be harnessed for good as well as evil. So whether outrage is being harnessed for good, or whether it has become the "tail wagging the dog" using the cover of a pseudo-activism like a parasitic host to create more outrage is an important distinction. I would posit that a clear sign of this is a concern for morality in the conduct of activism, a concern for morality and fairness in its communications, and a clarity of moral understanding in its teachings. What's more, the immorality of "the oppressors" cannot modify the moral requirements of the activism in a way that renders the activism indistinguishable from the oppressors. Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve. EDIT: It further occurs to me -- Activism must inherently contain some measure of extra-legality. Often it contains some small element of violence. Even holding hands to block stock brokers from entering a building for an extra 3 seconds is technically an act of violence. However, these actions are carefully considered in an overall moral framework. The care with which actions are considered and taken must be much like the care taken by surgeons. While it can well be energized by outrage, it is the very last sort of thing which should be ruled and guided by outrage.
- danharaj 11y ago
  > Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve. Let's establish one thing first, and it's that I'm not a teenager and therefore my command of language is such that I have some degree of control over the tone I convey in writing. It does not take a struck nerve to litter someone's writing with fucks and write pointedly. Your writing style is as artificial as mine and I find its dryness uncomfortable to the eyes. > So, if I understand your point correctly, it's that the world is so mired in the use of violence, that logical discourse, a respect for facts, and the avoidance of mental patterns of hate is pointless hypocrisy because everyone is essentially either already guilty of being part of the violence or on the receiving end of it. Therefore, there are no moral limits on the behavior or speech of the victims and those who claim to be siding with them. You have a moral framework. It emphasizes rationality and strongly penalizes emotion. I could write endlessly- but I won't, about how naive frameworks like this can be. I won't say yours is because we're speaking in ridiculous abstractions and I don't have a concrete example. You haven't even named a single instance of outrage on the Internet to demonstrate the validity of your sentiments. So really there's a lot of vague language that clearly resonates with many people but clearly doesn't resonate with me; it's possible a more concrete example would sit better or it might be that I could vehemently disagree with any particular moral judgment you'd like to offer up. Moral frameworks exist strictly in the mind. This is not to say that morality isn't real. I personally am a moral realist but I acknowledge the epistemological problems inherent in applying a mental framework to the world. When you talk about "logical discourse" you are merely saying that if you disagree with someone, they are being illogical. When you talk about "a respect for facts" you are merely saying that if you disagree with someone, they are being disingenuous about their observations. When you talk about "mental patterns of hate", which is a real mouthful for "hateful behavior", what you are saying is that if someone claims grievance or conflict that you disagree with, they are being hateful. I am emphatically not saying that there are no moral limits. That's fucking asinine. The issue is, everyone is justified in their own moral framework. Everyone sees themself as logical. Everyone sees the facts as they see them. Everyone thinks their anger is righteous. You have named your values "logical discourse" and a "respect for facts" but that does not say what your values are. It does not say what logical reasoning you use to come to your conclusions. It does not say what your observational context is that determines how you interpret your experiences into facts. Your moral indignation is as petty and boring as everyone else's. You are not taking a high road. That's the point. No one has the right moral framework. The reality of morality is not making judgments according to the right principles because human principles can be internally consistent in one's mind or in a group's discourse without being reified into action consistently. So when the West bombs Syria to stop Daesh, it is righteous according to their moral framework, but when they ravage the levant, install dictators, deny people their autonomy, reduce their cities to rubble and plunder them of their resources, their morality is deafeningly silent. Your moral framework is just as pernicious and flawed: It cannot police itself from being inconsistent. It cannot verify itself. It cannot claim possession of the truth. People who engage in 'pseudo-activism', whatever the FUCK that is because it is your description is sorely lacking in specifics and feels like a philosophical boogeyman, they, too believe that they are being logical, and have a respect for the facts, and are fighting hate. It so happens that we were all inculcated in Enlightenment (capital L) values since the day we were born. I believe the difference between you and me is actually quite minuscule, because I wring my fingers over the failure of those values as they are reproduced materially. I know this is, like, the most offensive word on Hacker News, but it pays to become acquainted with postmodernism. A little, tiny bit of critical theory goes a long way in ripping away the veil of false consciousness every moral framework and ideology creates. There is always a gap between mental conception and material implementation. It is that gap where good and evil fight. Anyway: People get outraged because they think things are worth getting outraged about. You're not more correct because you aren't outraged. Your values are different. Your experiences are different. A human being is a vast, overwhelming compilation of lived experience. It is a cognitive bias that must be consciously suppressed that we can know other peoples' lives better than they can with a relative paucity of observations. You're not outraged because your values aren't being violated. They are outraged because they are. This is tautological. Judging people is cheap. Finding out how they think, why they think it, what they see, how they see it, and what they value is difficult. A skillful apprehension of morality is one which enables understanding and communication. Blaming others for their failure to measure up to one's own morality is dry pablum for people who want to be reassured that the world is mad and they are not. It is moral elitism. Also, those Internet activists aren't killing people. Seriously. There are far greater violations of morality in the world and they are in service of a status quo you take no outrage in. Because outrage is bad or something. Whatever. People like you have existed since time immemorial. Pick any fight that moved the moral barometer in society towards a more harmonious status quo: There were people like you complaining about fake activists doing everything wrong and being just as bad as their oppressors because you don't like their behavior. You're not as knowledgeable of their motivations as you think you are and the world wouldn't magically solve all its problems if everyone just listened to you. I really hope your biggest complaint with the world isn't that people on the Internet have a greater stake in changing the status quo than you do.
Juliate 11y ago
1. Parent post was not talking about statu quo. 2. Statu quo is not what you try to make out of your examples (there is no such thing as an unanimous moral framework in the West, and what you describe is not even building a statu quo, but more chaos).
- danharaj 11y ago
  But he did mention the ends of the political spectrum. The absence of the middle, the status quo makes an implicit statement. The middle is just as culpable. People who are comfortable with things as they are are not neutral. They ought to be put on the same footing as people who are not comfortable with things as they are. There is a de facto unanimous moral framework in the West. It is the moral framework of the states and supranational institutions like the UN, the IMF, etc. Authoritarian ideologies always try to make themselves invisible, neutral, but they are not.

dmfdmf 11y ago

The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.

CamperBob2 11y ago
So, do you have an objective source of morality for us to refer to?
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Most human beings and human societies agree on the same general points of morality. - Killing -- Try really, really hard not to do this! - Lying -- Please try really, really hard not to do this! Or there's George Carlin's formulation: "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" I think everyone has a pretty good idea of what this means, and most people agree on the broad outlines. The devil is in the details, of course. Then there's "Love thy neighbor as thyself." A pretty good general principle that most would agree on in the broad outlines. Again: Devil is in the details. But the points I am making in these comments aren't really about details. In the broad outlines of morality, when someone starts proclaiming loudly that they are justified in being a jerk -- it's time to start getting very skeptical! This applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups. And by all means, please take some time to be a bit skeptical about yourself! Again, this applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    I'd go bit further. Let's assume everybody agreed with the "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" and everybody would have 100% similar general picture of what is moral. Two people still interpret a situation from two points of view. Both making the judgement that the other guy is out of bounds. Which justifies some apprehension. But they both experience wrongful apprehension, which justifies pretty big apprehension. Which could result in full riot. My point is that you cannot talk about ethics from individual point of view and expect to solve problems. You have to take into account societies as whole. Then consider with how it's done in practice. Ethical society cannot exist without good laws and good guardians for those laws. (And with 99% of population behaving good 99% of the time.) Skeptical is not enough. Society has to be a instant jerk towards individuals who try to jerk around. Clear cut boundaries are needed, so you know to stay inside them. I'd say there is no place for moral relativism inside a country. But between countries it's even necessary.
    - cousin_it 11y ago
      My favorite example: 1) Randomly divide people into two groups. 2) Ask everyone in the first group this question: "If someone sues you and loses, is it fair that they should pay your legal costs?" Most people will say yes. 3) Ask everyone in the second group this question: "If you sue someone and lose, is it fair that you should pay their legal costs?" Most people will say no. Even though it's the same fucking question. That's why we need shared enforced norms :-)
      - stillsut 11y ago
        I like this example and might steal it. But I'd offer you a [bayesian] counter-argument: Say an HIV test is 99% accurate and responds positive on a randomly selected person. What's the chance they actually have HIV? About 5%! [0]. However, if you have prior reasons to believe you may have HIV, the chances are a lot higher than 5% given a positive test. To tie that back to lawsuits, your participants in the study have their priors set so that they don't expect to engage in frivolous lawsuits towards anyone. However they will likely recognize that they could fall victim to a frivolous lawsuit, and if they're normal, then the only type of lawsuits they could imagine being forced on them is a frivolous suit. Another way to say that is: probably 90% of the ridiculous lawsuits originate from 1% of the population. Then 99% of your participants will mentally model themselves as a sincere plaintiff (thus they shouldn't have to pay even if they lose), while a 1% frivolous rate is certainly high enough to make plausible the threat of being the defendant, and thus worthy of protection through legal fee reimbursement. [0]: http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html
- drdeca 11y ago
  By source do you mean way to know what is moral, or reason that there is a fact of the matter as to whether something is moral? I don't think one necessarily must claim to know /why/ there is a fact of the matter as to what things are moral, in order to be justified in one's claim that there /is/ a fact of the matter? Moral nihilism can fall down a well. (Note: I mean moral nihilism, not moral nihilists. Rhetoric. I don't have much against nihilists, except that I believe they are incorrect, and it is sometimes kind of scary to need to trust them?)
- imron 11y ago
  'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', does a pretty good job of covering things.
danharaj 11y ago
The principle of relativity arises from observer dependence in measured quantities. Human experience is observer dependent. Morality is a logical system based on human observations. Therefore morality has a logic of relativity. Relativity comes up in mathematics all the time. Relativity isn't the idea that there is no one truth, it is the idea that there is one truth but it cannot be described from a single point of view. The points of view are relative, but they are all views into the same truth. Morality can be the same way. You can be a moral realist and still acknowledge that apprehension of morality is observer dependent. Then the game becomes figuring out the rules of relativity for morality. That is, figuring out how to communicate moral perceptions and judgments between people.
- Joeri 11y ago
  Morality is not purely a matter of opinion, not more so than say the theory of evolution. You can say that evolution is just an opinion of how things work, but you have to be willing to take very unreasonable or illogical assumptions for your reasoning. It is the same with morality. To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions, like saying that minimizing harm is sometimes harmful. Let's say that morality aims to minimize harm, well, we can make some definitive conclusions from that, like saying that killing people is bad unless it is to prevent further harm they or others would do. That throws a completely different light on the death penalty, where it is hard to argue that it is morally justified, unless you again force your way through contrived reasoning. I think the biggest cause of immorality is that we assume morality cannot be treated logically and scientifically, and instead call it the province of faith. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions Moral relativism is invoked almost exclusively by people trying to justify their own actions, after they find that many object to their actions. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it. Any evidence-based system would be better than any system that ignores evidence. We have scientific evidence that the psychology of hate is tangible and specific in how it manifests. We have literally thousands of years of observations and ruminations on this topic, including the teachings of the major world religions. Culture and society can be surprisingly good at dealing with largely invisible and quite subtle psychology. (Example: love/lust/dating -- Average people are actually quite sophisticated in how they perceive and deal with this.) But societies and cultures are constructed in such a way as to make group psychology around group membership invisible. Group psychology is part of what societies are made out of so the products of group psychology are promulgated as truth. It's no accident that two different activist movements that are praised for their moral understanding -- those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. -- were effectively structured around the prevention of pathological group-think and othering. I think a subtle societal understanding of such group-think is the last great barrier to humanity's "Waking up from History."

stcredzero 11y ago

The point is that it's a massive, massive joke for anyone to distinguish themself from this group of people who engage in 'intellectually malformed pseudo-activism' because there are no apolitical stances and being complicit members of societies that shape the world through incredible violence is no different a hypocritical perversion of morality as anyone who rustles your jimmies on the fucking Internet. So, if I understand your point correctly, it's that the world is so mired in the use of violence, that logical discourse, a respect for facts, and the avoidance of mental patterns of hate is pointless hypocrisy because everyone is essentially either already guilty of being part of the violence or on the receiving end of it. Therefore, there are no moral limits on the behavior or speech of the victims and those who claim to be siding with them. Strangely enough, such an ideology could just as well justify the actions of groups like ISIS as much as your "rustling of jimmies" on the Internet. And by this, I am not merely tarring your idea by association. The logical structure of it is essentially identical to the ideology of groups who adopt tactics commonly called "terrorism." The magnitude of the evil of one party doesn't give free reign to the victims. That can only lead to an eye for an eye. Outrage is a powerful force. It can be harnessed for good as well as evil. So whether outrage is being harnessed for good, or whether it has become the "tail wagging the dog" using the cover of a pseudo-activism like a parasitic host to create more outrage is an important distinction. I would posit that a clear sign of this is a concern for morality in the conduct of activism, a concern for morality and fairness in its communications, and a clarity of moral understanding in its teachings. What's more, the immorality of "the oppressors" cannot modify the moral requirements of the activism in a way that renders the activism indistinguishable from the oppressors. Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve. EDIT: It further occurs to me -- Activism must inherently contain some measure of extra-legality. Often it contains some small element of violence. Even holding hands to block stock brokers from entering a building for an extra 3 seconds is technically an act of violence. However, these actions are carefully considered in an overall moral framework. The care with which actions are considered and taken must be much like the care taken by surgeons. While it can well be energized by outrage, it is the very last sort of thing which should be ruled and guided by outrage.

danharaj 11y ago
> Lastly: From the tenor of your comment, it would seem that my writings have touched a nerve. Let's establish one thing first, and it's that I'm not a teenager and therefore my command of language is such that I have some degree of control over the tone I convey in writing. It does not take a struck nerve to litter someone's writing with fucks and write pointedly. Your writing style is as artificial as mine and I find its dryness uncomfortable to the eyes. > So, if I understand your point correctly, it's that the world is so mired in the use of violence, that logical discourse, a respect for facts, and the avoidance of mental patterns of hate is pointless hypocrisy because everyone is essentially either already guilty of being part of the violence or on the receiving end of it. Therefore, there are no moral limits on the behavior or speech of the victims and those who claim to be siding with them. You have a moral framework. It emphasizes rationality and strongly penalizes emotion. I could write endlessly- but I won't, about how naive frameworks like this can be. I won't say yours is because we're speaking in ridiculous abstractions and I don't have a concrete example. You haven't even named a single instance of outrage on the Internet to demonstrate the validity of your sentiments. So really there's a lot of vague language that clearly resonates with many people but clearly doesn't resonate with me; it's possible a more concrete example would sit better or it might be that I could vehemently disagree with any particular moral judgment you'd like to offer up. Moral frameworks exist strictly in the mind. This is not to say that morality isn't real. I personally am a moral realist but I acknowledge the epistemological problems inherent in applying a mental framework to the world. When you talk about "logical discourse" you are merely saying that if you disagree with someone, they are being illogical. When you talk about "a respect for facts" you are merely saying that if you disagree with someone, they are being disingenuous about their observations. When you talk about "mental patterns of hate", which is a real mouthful for "hateful behavior", what you are saying is that if someone claims grievance or conflict that you disagree with, they are being hateful. I am emphatically not saying that there are no moral limits. That's fucking asinine. The issue is, everyone is justified in their own moral framework. Everyone sees themself as logical. Everyone sees the facts as they see them. Everyone thinks their anger is righteous. You have named your values "logical discourse" and a "respect for facts" but that does not say what your values are. It does not say what logical reasoning you use to come to your conclusions. It does not say what your observational context is that determines how you interpret your experiences into facts. Your moral indignation is as petty and boring as everyone else's. You are not taking a high road. That's the point. No one has the right moral framework. The reality of morality is not making judgments according to the right principles because human principles can be internally consistent in one's mind or in a group's discourse without being reified into action consistently. So when the West bombs Syria to stop Daesh, it is righteous according to their moral framework, but when they ravage the levant, install dictators, deny people their autonomy, reduce their cities to rubble and plunder them of their resources, their morality is deafeningly silent. Your moral framework is just as pernicious and flawed: It cannot police itself from being inconsistent. It cannot verify itself. It cannot claim possession of the truth. People who engage in 'pseudo-activism', whatever the FUCK that is because it is your description is sorely lacking in specifics and feels like a philosophical boogeyman, they, too believe that they are being logical, and have a respect for the facts, and are fighting hate. It so happens that we were all inculcated in Enlightenment (capital L) values since the day we were born. I believe the difference between you and me is actually quite minuscule, because I wring my fingers over the failure of those values as they are reproduced materially. I know this is, like, the most offensive word on Hacker News, but it pays to become acquainted with postmodernism. A little, tiny bit of critical theory goes a long way in ripping away the veil of false consciousness every moral framework and ideology creates. There is always a gap between mental conception and material implementation. It is that gap where good and evil fight. Anyway: People get outraged because they think things are worth getting outraged about. You're not more correct because you aren't outraged. Your values are different. Your experiences are different. A human being is a vast, overwhelming compilation of lived experience. It is a cognitive bias that must be consciously suppressed that we can know other peoples' lives better than they can with a relative paucity of observations. You're not outraged because your values aren't being violated. They are outraged because they are. This is tautological. Judging people is cheap. Finding out how they think, why they think it, what they see, how they see it, and what they value is difficult. A skillful apprehension of morality is one which enables understanding and communication. Blaming others for their failure to measure up to one's own morality is dry pablum for people who want to be reassured that the world is mad and they are not. It is moral elitism. Also, those Internet activists aren't killing people. Seriously. There are far greater violations of morality in the world and they are in service of a status quo you take no outrage in. Because outrage is bad or something. Whatever. People like you have existed since time immemorial. Pick any fight that moved the moral barometer in society towards a more harmonious status quo: There were people like you complaining about fake activists doing everything wrong and being just as bad as their oppressors because you don't like their behavior. You're not as knowledgeable of their motivations as you think you are and the world wouldn't magically solve all its problems if everyone just listened to you. I really hope your biggest complaint with the world isn't that people on the Internet have a greater stake in changing the status quo than you do.

Juliate 11y ago

1. Parent post was not talking about statu quo. 2. Statu quo is not what you try to make out of your examples (there is no such thing as an unanimous moral framework in the West, and what you describe is not even building a statu quo, but more chaos).

danharaj 11y ago
But he did mention the ends of the political spectrum. The absence of the middle, the status quo makes an implicit statement. The middle is just as culpable. People who are comfortable with things as they are are not neutral. They ought to be put on the same footing as people who are not comfortable with things as they are. There is a de facto unanimous moral framework in the West. It is the moral framework of the states and supranational institutions like the UN, the IMF, etc. Authoritarian ideologies always try to make themselves invisible, neutral, but they are not.