6 ms·

The people who did the fighting are completely different from the children and teenagers who were recently born. Do you think that certain people should get spe

by whack 8y ago

The people who did the fighting are completely different from the children and teenagers who were recently born. Do you think that certain people should get special legal privileges because of what their family has done in the past? That the aristocrats and nobility are entitled to more privileges than the common serfs, because of the accomplishments of their ancestors? That is the logical conclusion of what you're suggesting.

keiferski 8y ago
To some degree yes, because otherwise there will be very little societal incentive to struggle in the present in order to have a better life in the future. Consider the case of Poland. The country has a pretty brutal recent history: dozens of wars, uprisings, border changes, and other chaos over the last 250-300 years. Many, if not most, of the people fighting against the oppression were doing so with the expectation that they’d be building a future free country for themselves and their family. More broadly, for their culture. If suddenly Poland were composed of X group of people that had zero relationship with the country and zero interest in learning the language or promoting the culture, would all this struggle then not be in vain? More importantly, would Poles have instigated numerous revolutions, uprisings and protests if they weren’t trying to preserve their culture? Would the Soviet Union even have been overthrown? I think one can make a very strong argument that a culture with no future has no present, either. Inherited wealth between individuals and families may be a problem, for sure, but inherited “cultural capital” seems absolutely necessary if you want your civilization to continue existing.
- whack 8y ago
  I agree with everything you've said. That's a very strong utilitarian argument. If you're going to make utilitarian arguments, you might as well embrace utilitarianism and reject competing moral philosophies. That's exactly my critique of Anderson's proposal.

by whack 8y ago

keiferski 8y ago

To some degree yes, because otherwise there will be very little societal incentive to struggle in the present in order to have a better life in the future. Consider the case of Poland. The country has a pretty brutal recent history: dozens of wars, uprisings, border changes, and other chaos over the last 250-300 years. Many, if not most, of the people fighting against the oppression were doing so with the expectation that they’d be building a future free country for themselves and their family. More broadly, for their culture. If suddenly Poland were composed of X group of people that had zero relationship with the country and zero interest in learning the language or promoting the culture, would all this struggle then not be in vain? More importantly, would Poles have instigated numerous revolutions, uprisings and protests if they weren’t trying to preserve their culture? Would the Soviet Union even have been overthrown? I think one can make a very strong argument that a culture with no future has no present, either. Inherited wealth between individuals and families may be a problem, for sure, but inherited “cultural capital” seems absolutely necessary if you want your civilization to continue existing.

whack 8y ago
I agree with everything you've said. That's a very strong utilitarian argument. If you're going to make utilitarian arguments, you might as well embrace utilitarianism and reject competing moral philosophies. That's exactly my critique of Anderson's proposal.