4 ms·

I have a few questions for you Who gets to decide what is "Good" and "Ethical" behavior ? What exactly would be the "incentive" "Good" and "Ethical" behavior.

by qazpot 9y ago

I have a few questions for you Who gets to decide what is "Good" and "Ethical" behavior ? What exactly would be the "incentive" "Good" and "Ethical" behavior. ? You say that capitalism can be dismantled in favor of another form cooperation that directly incentivizes helping your fellow human survive. Is this not in direct contradiction the base animal instinct of self survival. The incentive would have to be huge in order to override this base instinct. You suggest Golden Rule as sufficient way to define "good behavior". But Golden Rule itself has shortcomings and criticism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Criticism). Do you have any sufficient argument against these criticism.

liberte82 9y ago
I like the Inverse Golden Rule - Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  That's the Silver Rule: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to others." Sometimes reformulated as "An it harm none, do as ye list."
- qazpot 9y ago
  Using this rule A suicidal person can say "I don't want other people to save me from dying therefore I will not stop others from dying." A rich person can say "I do not want charity from others therefore I will not give charity to others."
kiliantics 9y ago
> Who gets to decide what is "Good" and "Ethical" behavior ? Why should any one person get to decide? Right now we have given the power over that decision to the worst people. I think a good first step is to recognise when someone has the power to incentivise behaviour and see whether they are using that power to incentivise negative behaviour. This is currently the case with most of the powerful institutions in our capitalist society. We do not live in a world of scarce resources. In most places there is more than enough food to go around, more than enough housing for everyone to be housed. We are forced into "survival mode" by the fact that wealthy people and institutions are hoarding resources and preventing access to them so that they can exploit us for profit. If we simply checked and limited the power of such institutions, allowing people the freedom to act in a less competitive manner, we would probably have more co-operation and a more ethical society. We've seen plenty of examples of this before.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ionised 9y ago
> Is this not in direct contradiction the base animal instinct of self survival. What about the basic social animal instinct of co-operation and empathy?
- qazpot 9y ago
  The animal instinct of co-operation and empathy is also due to for the self survival. We co-operate and empathise with each other ensure our own survival. This is why people who sacrifice their lives for others are exceptions rather than norm. Seeing somebody lying on tracks in front of an oncoming train, the common instinct of onlookers is not to jump but stay where they are.

by qazpot 9y ago

liberte82 9y ago

I like the Inverse Golden Rule - Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

logfromblammo 9y ago
That's the Silver Rule: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to others." Sometimes reformulated as "An it harm none, do as ye list."
qazpot 9y ago
Using this rule A suicidal person can say "I don't want other people to save me from dying therefore I will not stop others from dying." A rich person can say "I do not want charity from others therefore I will not give charity to others."

kiliantics 9y ago

> Who gets to decide what is "Good" and "Ethical" behavior ? Why should any one person get to decide? Right now we have given the power over that decision to the worst people. I think a good first step is to recognise when someone has the power to incentivise behaviour and see whether they are using that power to incentivise negative behaviour. This is currently the case with most of the powerful institutions in our capitalist society. We do not live in a world of scarce resources. In most places there is more than enough food to go around, more than enough housing for everyone to be housed. We are forced into "survival mode" by the fact that wealthy people and institutions are hoarding resources and preventing access to them so that they can exploit us for profit. If we simply checked and limited the power of such institutions, allowing people the freedom to act in a less competitive manner, we would probably have more co-operation and a more ethical society. We've seen plenty of examples of this before.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ionised 9y ago

> Is this not in direct contradiction the base animal instinct of self survival. What about the basic social animal instinct of co-operation and empathy?

qazpot 9y ago
The animal instinct of co-operation and empathy is also due to for the self survival. We co-operate and empathise with each other ensure our own survival. This is why people who sacrifice their lives for others are exceptions rather than norm. Seeing somebody lying on tracks in front of an oncoming train, the common instinct of onlookers is not to jump but stay where they are.