4 ms·

Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time an

Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore. It’s wrong, and has been shown to be so time and time again. To have to rehash such foolishness is pointless.

TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
> It’s wrong ...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.
- tunesmith 8y ago
  The Nash equilibrium is also natural, efficient, and non-optimal in many cases. Which, in the face of "optimal", could be described as "wrong" if the belief is that optimal is desirable.
- tripzilch 8y ago
  Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it can't be ethically wrong. We have another word for things like that--they're called "amoral" and it literally means there is no ethical choice being made. The concept of "natural" is orthogonal to this. Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to. Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back. For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality? We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential. Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you". Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!
- Confusion 8y ago
  Killing newborn cubs and impregnating the mother with your own is also very natural and efficient. I hope you agree it's also very wrong and that the argument from nature is an amazingly awful argument.
manfredo 8y ago
Proclaiming that something is not up for debate and refusing to engage meaningfully is an extremely easy way to lose the debate.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  It's a way to try to win the debate on the cheap. Whether it works or not depends on the other party in the debate.
  - llcoolv 8y ago
    and on the mental and cultural capacity of the spectators :)
    - chillee 8y ago
      See social shaming here[1]. >Social shaming also isn’t an argument. It’s a demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of people who deserve to be heard; to classify them as so repugnant that arguing with them is only dignifying them. If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default. > Nobody expects this to convince anyone... People who use this strategy know exactly what they’re doing and are often quite successful. The goal is not to convince their opponents, or even to hurt their opponent’s feelings, but to demonstrate social norms to bystanders. [1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentat...
- tripzilch 8y ago
  Actually, it's stratagem no.32 for winning a debate. http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm Of course it's fine for you to dismiss their entire point with derailment even further into meta-arguments because, after all, they started it /s
- Confusion 8y ago
obmelvin 8y ago
There is absolutely merit to discussing ideas that you disagree with. And in particular to this context, I personally found lots of value in Atlas Shrugged. Often it lead to me disagree with her philosophy. If anything, reading things that you disagree with allows you to intelligently refute claims instead of vaguely claiming that someone is incorrect and refusing to engage. That is a sure fire way to make people dig into their beliefs.
bendbro 8y ago
> Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.

TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago

> It’s wrong ...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.

tunesmith 8y ago
The Nash equilibrium is also natural, efficient, and non-optimal in many cases. Which, in the face of "optimal", could be described as "wrong" if the belief is that optimal is desirable.
tripzilch 8y ago
Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it can't be ethically wrong. We have another word for things like that--they're called "amoral" and it literally means there is no ethical choice being made. The concept of "natural" is orthogonal to this. Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to. Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back. For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality? We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential. Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you". Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!
Confusion 8y ago
Killing newborn cubs and impregnating the mother with your own is also very natural and efficient. I hope you agree it's also very wrong and that the argument from nature is an amazingly awful argument.

manfredo 8y ago

Proclaiming that something is not up for debate and refusing to engage meaningfully is an extremely easy way to lose the debate.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
It's a way to try to win the debate on the cheap. Whether it works or not depends on the other party in the debate.
- llcoolv 8y ago
  and on the mental and cultural capacity of the spectators :)
  - chillee 8y ago
    See social shaming here[1]. >Social shaming also isn’t an argument. It’s a demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of people who deserve to be heard; to classify them as so repugnant that arguing with them is only dignifying them. If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default. > Nobody expects this to convince anyone... People who use this strategy know exactly what they’re doing and are often quite successful. The goal is not to convince their opponents, or even to hurt their opponent’s feelings, but to demonstrate social norms to bystanders. [1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentative-experience/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentat...
tripzilch 8y ago
Actually, it's stratagem no.32 for winning a debate. http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm Of course it's fine for you to dismiss their entire point with derailment even further into meta-arguments because, after all, they started it /s
Confusion 8y ago

obmelvin 8y ago

There is absolutely merit to discussing ideas that you disagree with. And in particular to this context, I personally found lots of value in Atlas Shrugged. Often it lead to me disagree with her philosophy. If anything, reading things that you disagree with allows you to intelligently refute claims instead of vaguely claiming that someone is incorrect and refusing to engage. That is a sure fire way to make people dig into their beliefs.

bendbro 8y ago

> Yes this happens to not be one of those cases, espousing the virtues of selfishness isn’t up for debate anymore In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.