5 ms·
It will always be true. We're not entitled to anything. Nothing. We're not entitled to life. We're not entitled to breath. We're not entitled to a damned thin
by jmcdiesel 10y ago
It will always be true.
We're not entitled to anything. Nothing. We're not entitled to life. We're not entitled to breath. We're not entitled to a damned thing.
People feel entitled to free speech, to living itself, and there is no such entitlement. You have to ensure, yourself, that the things you feel you should have, you have. If you don't they will be taken away over time.
- samirillian 10y agoJust to be clear, you're not intending to imply that institutions shouldn't be held to certain implicitly moral standards, are you?
- modalduality 10y agoThe problem is, they can't be held accountable if no one knows what they're doing (how they process data, how they store data, etc.).
- aoeu345 10y agoHe is saying that we the people must hold them to those standards. We should not sit idly and say "We hold you to these standards" while not actively ensuring that the standards are being followed.
- Taek 10y agoThe implication is that you shouldn't expect it to be there, you can hold them to those standards but that means actually putting work into verifying that they are meeting the standards, and having some recourse if they are not.
- nojvek 10y agoWe are just selfish agents who only cooperate when it benefits us in the long term. The world doesn't give a shit about you.
- samirillian 10y agoa) We're also inherently social creatures. Saying we're all just selfish agents implies a little too strongly that we are islands, which we famously aren't. b) There are few systems of thought more explicitly "self-centered" than Hinduism, and yet they take "non-harm" as their highest ethical imperative. And, of course, ethics for them is about decreasing misery. So they believe that not-harming is the most self-centered thing you can do. c) Cynicism isn't always inherently more accurate. Sometimes it's just cynicism. d) What precisely do you mean by "the world"? Let's take your clever reductionism to an even more logical end: pure solipism. That is, solus ipse. What is the world when there is only the subject? It's kind of meaningless to say that it does or does not give a shit about "you." e) Or, you know, we could take Aristotle's words to heart when he says "it is necessary to stop." That is, accept at face value that external consciousnesses exist and that they do have a fundamental capacity for caring. Unselfishly, even, by your definition of selfishness. f) Clearly you give a shit, since you thought it worthwhile to use such strong language. clearly I give a shit, since I took the time to respond. g) Finally, do realize the uniquely American cultural tone of voice that takes selfish/greed/etc. as the only moral absolutes. People act like it's "realism," but it simply isn't, it's obfuscation. It's "stopping" at the worst points.
- jabgrabdthrow 10y agoyes they should be - by you
- jmcdiesel 10y agoThen by definition, its not an entitlement.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- blubb-fish 10y agoI totally get your perspective. For anybody who's confused about it - watch a couple of documentaries about wild life from BBC and meditate about the fact that in the grand scheme you are no more than a Gnu sipping water while a crocodile silently approaches. The Gnu maybe dies - maybe not - did it deserve that fate - wasn't it entitled to more life? Seeing its children grow up?