4 ms·

And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would b

by and0 9y ago

And if you have morals, you can also say they weren't worth it. You could make the same argument about slavery, etc, but suggesting it was totally worth would be pretty bonkers. Humanity can accomplish great things without dehumanizing or hurting most of the population, and being critical of the morality of these systems is a big part of that.

ameister14 9y ago
Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost? I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.
- and0 9y ago
  Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do. This isn't black and white issue, like I have to pick between "a couple generations have horrible working lives" vs "antibiotics exist". I'm asking if both were possible, and I'd argue that they would be if the people at the top were willing to accept even a little less.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I think the phrasing of your first sentence is fascinating. Does that mean you think that the behavior (union busting, incorporation, or the creation of financial markets, for example) was solely intended to have malicious consequences, and that there were no positive motivations or intent? Also, it's not that odd. It's a direct response to the criticism you levy - that these things are not worth it. How are you to judge if you only take the immoral acts in a vacuum? You brought up slavery again; their conditions were not slave-like, simply impoverished. I agree that it's a good idea to question whether periods of chaos, destruction or immorality are actually necessary for progress. It's been pretty much taken as a given since Hegel, but it's a good thing to verify and even within those boundaries there may be some behaviors we can effectively limit while leaving the good bits. As to your final argument, I don't actually know if that's true, but it's immaterial because that's not how people have done it.
    - and0 9y ago
      The actions that led to the conditions of the gilded age were most certainly selfish acts of the ruling class. The conditions were not created for the sake of it, or because it was funny etc. I sincerely doubt the people making all the money were not doing it because the poor people they were exploiting (or killing) might eventually get iPhones or penicillin I also don't know why I can't criticize the conditions resulting from policies in the gilded age because there's a chance that the policies were maybe not "soley intended to have malicious consequences". Again, things aren't black and white. "Modern tech is nice" and "poverty is bad" are not diametrically opposing ideas. I'm confused by what you're arguing here. People want to reduce inequality, and you're argument seems to boil down to "nothing really matters anyway" or "maybe them being poor is for the best" (which you insist is something we can never actually find out..?) If you're saying that human nature is inherently corrupt and humanity can't unite to make progress for broadly selfish reasons, I might actually agree. But talking about how this is shitty and / or how to fix it doesn't seem pointless, either.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        I have never said and do not support a statement that 'maybe them being poor is for the best.' You started out saying a moral person would say that the positive consequences of the gilded age were not worth its negative experiences. I disagree. You then say: "Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do." By saying this you are effectively saying that I am defending immoral behavior with the misconception that such behavior directly led unintentionally to positive consequences. I don't think that, and I'm not doing that. I'm specifically saying that removing 'robber barons' from the equation entirely removes both the positive effects and actions and the negative. The positive and negative are done by the same person, but the actions causing them were entirely different. This isn't simple, as you continue to point out (while, it seems, attempting to simplify it entirely) People want to reduce inequality - ok, how? I think that's important to figure out. What kind of inequality? Wealth or income or some other kind? What is the consequence of inequality? To find out, we need to view history as a complex thing and understand both the pleasant and unpleasant, as well as their consequences. Conflict has been a powerful tool, historically. The excesses of one group have often given rise to conflict with another group, which then created a system of greater equality. Could that have happened without the conflict? I'm not sure, I don't have many examples where that happened and a ton of examples where it didn't. There are a lot of times where people did awful things and they either didn't result in positive consequences or what was positive was not worth the loss. The Gilded Age? Probably not one of those times.

by and0 9y ago

ameister14 9y ago

Are you actually saying that the advancements coming from a foundation built in the latter half of the 19th century aren't worth the cost? I don't agree with that at all, and I'm not sure I would if I had to pay that cost myself, either.

and0 9y ago
Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do. This isn't black and white issue, like I have to pick between "a couple generations have horrible working lives" vs "antibiotics exist". I'm asking if both were possible, and I'd argue that they would be if the people at the top were willing to accept even a little less.
- ameister14 9y ago
  I think the phrasing of your first sentence is fascinating. Does that mean you think that the behavior (union busting, incorporation, or the creation of financial markets, for example) was solely intended to have malicious consequences, and that there were no positive motivations or intent? Also, it's not that odd. It's a direct response to the criticism you levy - that these things are not worth it. How are you to judge if you only take the immoral acts in a vacuum? You brought up slavery again; their conditions were not slave-like, simply impoverished. I agree that it's a good idea to question whether periods of chaos, destruction or immorality are actually necessary for progress. It's been pretty much taken as a given since Hegel, but it's a good thing to verify and even within those boundaries there may be some behaviors we can effectively limit while leaving the good bits. As to your final argument, I don't actually know if that's true, but it's immaterial because that's not how people have done it.
  - and0 9y ago
    The actions that led to the conditions of the gilded age were most certainly selfish acts of the ruling class. The conditions were not created for the sake of it, or because it was funny etc. I sincerely doubt the people making all the money were not doing it because the poor people they were exploiting (or killing) might eventually get iPhones or penicillin I also don't know why I can't criticize the conditions resulting from policies in the gilded age because there's a chance that the policies were maybe not "soley intended to have malicious consequences". Again, things aren't black and white. "Modern tech is nice" and "poverty is bad" are not diametrically opposing ideas. I'm confused by what you're arguing here. People want to reduce inequality, and you're argument seems to boil down to "nothing really matters anyway" or "maybe them being poor is for the best" (which you insist is something we can never actually find out..?) If you're saying that human nature is inherently corrupt and humanity can't unite to make progress for broadly selfish reasons, I might actually agree. But talking about how this is shitty and / or how to fix it doesn't seem pointless, either.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      I have never said and do not support a statement that 'maybe them being poor is for the best.' You started out saying a moral person would say that the positive consequences of the gilded age were not worth its negative experiences. I disagree. You then say: "Ignoring that it's very odd to retroactively justify immoral behavior because of unintended, positive side effects: I'm saying that being critical, like asking if the slave-like conditions of most of the population were actually necessary, is a pretty reasonable thing to do." By saying this you are effectively saying that I am defending immoral behavior with the misconception that such behavior directly led unintentionally to positive consequences. I don't think that, and I'm not doing that. I'm specifically saying that removing 'robber barons' from the equation entirely removes both the positive effects and actions and the negative. The positive and negative are done by the same person, but the actions causing them were entirely different. This isn't simple, as you continue to point out (while, it seems, attempting to simplify it entirely) People want to reduce inequality - ok, how? I think that's important to figure out. What kind of inequality? Wealth or income or some other kind? What is the consequence of inequality? To find out, we need to view history as a complex thing and understand both the pleasant and unpleasant, as well as their consequences. Conflict has been a powerful tool, historically. The excesses of one group have often given rise to conflict with another group, which then created a system of greater equality. Could that have happened without the conflict? I'm not sure, I don't have many examples where that happened and a ton of examples where it didn't. There are a lot of times where people did awful things and they either didn't result in positive consequences or what was positive was not worth the loss. The Gilded Age? Probably not one of those times.