3 ms·

Huh. And yet Pelosi chooses to enrich herself instead of benefiting society. Which moral framework does this fit more neatly into? Maybe what you think of as m

by kolbe 5y ago

Huh. And yet Pelosi chooses to enrich herself instead of benefiting society. Which moral framework does this fit more neatly into? Maybe what you think of as morality is actually just a set of dictum from powerful people that helps them enrich themselves at the expense of you. There's absolutely no cosmic or objective moral basis for our insider trading laws one way or the other. It just so happens that they conveniently enrich the people who make the laws at the expense of everyone else. Again, what moral framework does this fit into? People acting selfishly, or people acting in the interest of some nebulously defined "society?"

animal_spirits 5y ago
Power is given by the people. If we can culturally all accept that enriching oneself at the expense of many others is morally wrong then that's the moral framework we should judge by. Life is _not_ a zero sum game, and it doesn't _have_ to be thought of that way. We can choose to try to do good for the most amount of people, instead of allowing the most amount of good to go to the least amount people (least here meaning smallest population, I suppose 1% is another way to read)
- kolbe 5y ago
  > Power is given by the people. Kinda? I know that's the supposed cliche, but it doesn't really ring true. The "people's" will as defined by some collective subset of the population has certainly been a powerful influence at times, but it's far from a concept that is simply "given by the people." I don't think Pol Pot's power was given by the people. Hitler's wasn't. Xi Jinping's isn't. And even Nancy Pelosi's isn't given in the way you imply. Through a strong network of bribing and brainwashing, our entire political system leaves us with the choice of empowering corrupt militaristic theocrats or a party that mostly uses tax dollars to bribe voters. I think a very good response to this situation is "I don't like what Pelosi is doing, but I would really hate what a republican would do in her place." And that doesn't sounds like people have much power at all.
  - animal_spirits 5y ago
    I think we can argue that Hitler's power _was_ indeed given by the people. Hitler tried to overthrow the government in the 20s with a march on Munich [0]. He ultimately failed because he didn't have enough support and was driven out. After this incident he pledged to get into power the legal way, and by that time he _did_ have the support of the people. He appealed to the masses. If people did not support his rise to power and immediate control of the government through the Enabling Act [1] they could have marched on the government themselves to try and overthrow him. Higher ups supported him, and the working class supported him. [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
    - kolbe 5y ago
      My history is a little outdated and hazy, but my recollection was that the Nazi Party suppressed voting via violence in 1933. By then, it was clear that if people marched on the government, they would be risking their lives. What little consent Hitler did have before then (which was never a majority) was not based on the views that he ultimately carried out. The people never had any say in anything ever again after 1933. I could grant you the notion that the people under free will chose the Nazi Party in a non-majority way for about a year. But after 1933, dissent was a death sentence. I think it's pretty rough to say Hitler was given power from the people in the sense that Rousseau would use the phrase.
munk-a 5y ago
I think this is a fair argument but one I don't really subscribe to myself. A strong argument in favor of this behavior being morally justified is that Nancy Pelosi is doing it and hasn't been voted out - but I think a strong argument against it is that people are complaining about it vocally. At the end of the day if we allow it to happen it's going to happen and if we disallow it we stop it - whether that allowance or denial aligns with "societal morals" is a pretty murky question with a lot of people having different opinions. My personal opinion is that this is immoral - and we're having this discussion because someone thought it was so immoral that they were motivated to write an article about how much they dislike it - but people write all sorts of articles so that's not a proof at the end of the day... Really, there are some things we can mostly (not all) agree are immoral like murder and rape - but even that isn't universally held (or agreed on to the same limit) because, well, some people do it. So yes - societal morals are pretty vague to define and I'm sure there are some people that feel fervently that House reps trading individual stocks is highly beneficial to society - but I feel like the majority of folks are on the other side on this one.
- kolbe 5y ago
  But you're now relying on the notion that a majority of a subset of people's opinions define moral good and bad. This has never really been true, at least in terms of majorities making objectively good decisions (moral ones are a little harder to gauge). The US is filled with examples of where the majority was probably wrong, starting with the original War of Independence. I don't think you'll find many fully informed people who thinks that house reps trading on insider info is good (myself included), unless they're personally beneficiaries of that system. But this discussion isn't really about that. The original guy asked "why shouldn't she do this?" She can do it. She benefits from doing it. No one will stop her. Why is it immoral for her to do it? Which is a totally different thing from "the majority of informed people don't want her to do it." To that end, she is behaving exactly as should be expected of her given the amount of power she has. The only way as far as I know to get people to not make decisions that are bad for the world but good for them is to not let them have the power to make that decision. The US government has become an atrocity of corrupt and consolidated power. That's the problem, IMO. And so long as its leaders can spy freely on Americans, can take 40% of their income, can deny them rights, etc, then this is what happens.

by kolbe 5y ago

animal_spirits 5y ago

Power is given by the people. If we can culturally all accept that enriching oneself at the expense of many others is morally wrong then that's the moral framework we should judge by. Life is _not_ a zero sum game, and it doesn't _have_ to be thought of that way. We can choose to try to do good for the most amount of people, instead of allowing the most amount of good to go to the least amount people (least here meaning smallest population, I suppose 1% is another way to read)

kolbe 5y ago
> Power is given by the people. Kinda? I know that's the supposed cliche, but it doesn't really ring true. The "people's" will as defined by some collective subset of the population has certainly been a powerful influence at times, but it's far from a concept that is simply "given by the people." I don't think Pol Pot's power was given by the people. Hitler's wasn't. Xi Jinping's isn't. And even Nancy Pelosi's isn't given in the way you imply. Through a strong network of bribing and brainwashing, our entire political system leaves us with the choice of empowering corrupt militaristic theocrats or a party that mostly uses tax dollars to bribe voters. I think a very good response to this situation is "I don't like what Pelosi is doing, but I would really hate what a republican would do in her place." And that doesn't sounds like people have much power at all.
- animal_spirits 5y ago
  I think we can argue that Hitler's power _was_ indeed given by the people. Hitler tried to overthrow the government in the 20s with a march on Munich [0]. He ultimately failed because he didn't have enough support and was driven out. After this incident he pledged to get into power the legal way, and by that time he _did_ have the support of the people. He appealed to the masses. If people did not support his rise to power and immediate control of the government through the Enabling Act [1] they could have marched on the government themselves to try and overthrow him. Higher ups supported him, and the working class supported him. [0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
  - kolbe 5y ago
    My history is a little outdated and hazy, but my recollection was that the Nazi Party suppressed voting via violence in 1933. By then, it was clear that if people marched on the government, they would be risking their lives. What little consent Hitler did have before then (which was never a majority) was not based on the views that he ultimately carried out. The people never had any say in anything ever again after 1933. I could grant you the notion that the people under free will chose the Nazi Party in a non-majority way for about a year. But after 1933, dissent was a death sentence. I think it's pretty rough to say Hitler was given power from the people in the sense that Rousseau would use the phrase.

munk-a 5y ago

I think this is a fair argument but one I don't really subscribe to myself. A strong argument in favor of this behavior being morally justified is that Nancy Pelosi is doing it and hasn't been voted out - but I think a strong argument against it is that people are complaining about it vocally. At the end of the day if we allow it to happen it's going to happen and if we disallow it we stop it - whether that allowance or denial aligns with "societal morals" is a pretty murky question with a lot of people having different opinions. My personal opinion is that this is immoral - and we're having this discussion because someone thought it was so immoral that they were motivated to write an article about how much they dislike it - but people write all sorts of articles so that's not a proof at the end of the day... Really, there are some things we can mostly (not all) agree are immoral like murder and rape - but even that isn't universally held (or agreed on to the same limit) because, well, some people do it. So yes - societal morals are pretty vague to define and I'm sure there are some people that feel fervently that House reps trading individual stocks is highly beneficial to society - but I feel like the majority of folks are on the other side on this one.

kolbe 5y ago
But you're now relying on the notion that a majority of a subset of people's opinions define moral good and bad. This has never really been true, at least in terms of majorities making objectively good decisions (moral ones are a little harder to gauge). The US is filled with examples of where the majority was probably wrong, starting with the original War of Independence. I don't think you'll find many fully informed people who thinks that house reps trading on insider info is good (myself included), unless they're personally beneficiaries of that system. But this discussion isn't really about that. The original guy asked "why shouldn't she do this?" She can do it. She benefits from doing it. No one will stop her. Why is it immoral for her to do it? Which is a totally different thing from "the majority of informed people don't want her to do it." To that end, she is behaving exactly as should be expected of her given the amount of power she has. The only way as far as I know to get people to not make decisions that are bad for the world but good for them is to not let them have the power to make that decision. The US government has become an atrocity of corrupt and consolidated power. That's the problem, IMO. And so long as its leaders can spy freely on Americans, can take 40% of their income, can deny them rights, etc, then this is what happens.