2 ms·

Concur completely. Having the capacity to differentiate or make an explicit distinction for why one set of actions is preferable over the other in any type of w

Concur completely. Having the capacity to differentiate or make an explicit distinction for why one set of actions is preferable over the other in any type of way that has a epistemological grounding, is not something the vast majority people have the time, patience, training, personality type, etc. to be able to do. So then we have a problem don’t we? Either the expectation is that some plurality of humans have the ability to coherently manage this kind of epistemological chain reasoning. Or it is untenable for that level of coherency to be able to drive functional assumptions that are generalizable across all human communities. And us, we’re back to where all moral philosophers have always gotten stuck, which is to say, we have no objective epistemological grounding for any particular type of moral reasoning chain - making every single, moral debate impossible to agree on generalized first principles. So how do you structure society in a way such that the default behaviors diffuse power and increase pro social responsibility, given the fact that the current social structures demonstrate infinite examples of anti-social behaviors leading to power and wealth. That is to say, how do you create a society where nobody even wants to be a millionaire because that level of relative over-consumption relative to others would just feel too bad.

devonkim 3y ago
There is a huge difference between the arguments I'm seeing for large groups of people disagreeing completely upon what people have control over, which very quickly devolves into what control and rules we should exert upon others. There seem to be thankfully some general ideas about consent that seem pretty obvious like for the most part people don't want to be murdered and dismembered, but the hardest part of the human species IMO is basically cat herding - how do we get collective action performed when both its strengths for evolution (ability to splinter off and form separate groups) is precisely the evolutionary biases that keeps it from achieving higher aggregate functions as a species. It seems kind of unfathomable to me how people do not understand that privatized tyranny is still tyranny by a system that is socially reinforced - it doesn't have to be a government that does it whatsoever and the general rules of power kind of matters more for first principles than some arbitrary definition of "capitalism" or "socialism" or whatnot that may be irrelevant in another thousand years. It's always been about how to organize collective actions compatible with the context of human social development.

devonkim 3y ago

There is a huge difference between the arguments I'm seeing for large groups of people disagreeing completely upon what people have control over, which very quickly devolves into what control and rules we should exert upon others. There seem to be thankfully some general ideas about consent that seem pretty obvious like for the most part people don't want to be murdered and dismembered, but the hardest part of the human species IMO is basically cat herding - how do we get collective action performed when both its strengths for evolution (ability to splinter off and form separate groups) is precisely the evolutionary biases that keeps it from achieving higher aggregate functions as a species. It seems kind of unfathomable to me how people do not understand that privatized tyranny is still tyranny by a system that is socially reinforced - it doesn't have to be a government that does it whatsoever and the general rules of power kind of matters more for first principles than some arbitrary definition of "capitalism" or "socialism" or whatnot that may be irrelevant in another thousand years. It's always been about how to organize collective actions compatible with the context of human social development.