3 ms·

The Chinese farmer story has something to say about it too. https://matterco.co/the-maybe-story/ https://matterco.co/the-maybe-story/ > One thing for sure is t

by graphe 3y ago

The Chinese farmer story has something to say about it too. https://matterco.co/the-maybe-story/ https://matterco.co/the-maybe-story/ > One thing for sure is that life is uncertain. We never really know what situations may yield us—good, bad, or otherwise. Whatever happens in our life, we’ll never be sure of the consequences it may bring in the future.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
If that's true, "maybe" we should have let Hitler live. In real-life, losing a horse or breaking a leg is a bad outcome over 99% of the time, and gaining free horses and avoiding conscription (and defeating despots attempting to conquer the world) is a good outcome over 99% of the time.
- graphe 3y ago
  Hitler could have united Europe. Had he won and taken over Russia and Europe it could have been much better. Had Genghis Khan not attacked so many places, legends of centuars may not exist and the world could be better. We don't know.
  - User23 3y ago
    I find this line of argument to be a compelling refutation of any kind of consequentialist ethics from a human perspective. No human being ever has had or ever will have the ability to predict out the full consequences of an action throughout all time.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      I invite you to put your ideology to practice and chop off your own arm. We don't have the ability to predict the full consequences after all. The rest of us understand that though few things are 100% certain, many things are possible to predict with a high amount of certainty.
      - User23 3y ago
        I assume that sounded clever to you when you typed it, but I invite you to consider how it completely fails to follow in any way from the statement that human understanding of higher order consequences rapidly approaches absolute deficiency as the causal chain lengthens. My practical ethic is something closer to deontology. And it includes things like “don’t mutilate your body.” It’s precisely because I can’t follow those higher order consequence chains that I settle for following general moral principles instead of attempting teleological justifications for my actions.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        Why doesn't your practical ethic include the general moral principle of not promoting religious nonsense? The causal chain is simple. People who believe religious nonsense can be easily made to believe any nonsense that hurts them (and have done so again and again), including mutilating their own genitals and the genitals of their children, which conflicts with and takes priority over your other moral principle. Your defeatist attitude leads to bad public policy, where the powerful take advantage of the weak because the weak are stupidly convinced that they cannot understand the consequences of limiting their own exploitation.
        User23 3y ago
        You obviously have a lot of emotional baggage here and it’s keeping you from making much sense.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        I'm simply stating facts about religious mutilation as an impartial outsider who has never mutilated their own body or others'. I can understand why you might not like facts given your likely upbringing within a fact-denying community, but facts are what the rest of the world use as the grounding of a common framework for understanding.
        3y ago
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    Or more likely, Hitler would have exterminated millions more, and civilization would have crumbled under fascist ideology. Why don't you chop off your arm? You don't know if that will turn out to be good. Stories like that of the Chinese farmer and Pippi Longstocking are for children, not for thinking adults to blindly believe. The point of the Chinese farmer for children is that even though bad things happen, things can get better, which helps them get over it. To make it go down easier, they show that even though good things happen, things can get worse.
    - User23 3y ago
      And maybe that crumbling of civilization would have prevented a runaway greenhouse heating effect that destroys all life on Earth. Your attitude that you can understand a complex dynamical system such as the one that we live in is the truly childish one.
    - graphe 3y ago
      Instead someone else exterminated millions more and civilization crumbled under another fascist leader. If you ask "why don't you" you're either asking in bad faith or don't fundamentally understand the fable.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        Do you really think Hitler's additional extermination would be limited to Russia had he completed his world conquest? I assert that if you don't understand the "why don't you" question, you don't fundamentally understand the fable. Why don't you tell me why it doesn't apply?

by graphe 3y ago

lern_too_spel 3y ago

If that's true, "maybe" we should have let Hitler live. In real-life, losing a horse or breaking a leg is a bad outcome over 99% of the time, and gaining free horses and avoiding conscription (and defeating despots attempting to conquer the world) is a good outcome over 99% of the time.

graphe 3y ago
Hitler could have united Europe. Had he won and taken over Russia and Europe it could have been much better. Had Genghis Khan not attacked so many places, legends of centuars may not exist and the world could be better. We don't know.
- User23 3y ago
  I find this line of argument to be a compelling refutation of any kind of consequentialist ethics from a human perspective. No human being ever has had or ever will have the ability to predict out the full consequences of an action throughout all time.
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    I invite you to put your ideology to practice and chop off your own arm. We don't have the ability to predict the full consequences after all. The rest of us understand that though few things are 100% certain, many things are possible to predict with a high amount of certainty.
    - User23 3y ago
      I assume that sounded clever to you when you typed it, but I invite you to consider how it completely fails to follow in any way from the statement that human understanding of higher order consequences rapidly approaches absolute deficiency as the causal chain lengthens. My practical ethic is something closer to deontology. And it includes things like “don’t mutilate your body.” It’s precisely because I can’t follow those higher order consequence chains that I settle for following general moral principles instead of attempting teleological justifications for my actions.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        Why doesn't your practical ethic include the general moral principle of not promoting religious nonsense? The causal chain is simple. People who believe religious nonsense can be easily made to believe any nonsense that hurts them (and have done so again and again), including mutilating their own genitals and the genitals of their children, which conflicts with and takes priority over your other moral principle. Your defeatist attitude leads to bad public policy, where the powerful take advantage of the weak because the weak are stupidly convinced that they cannot understand the consequences of limiting their own exploitation.
        User23 3y ago
        You obviously have a lot of emotional baggage here and it’s keeping you from making much sense.
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        I'm simply stating facts about religious mutilation as an impartial outsider who has never mutilated their own body or others'. I can understand why you might not like facts given your likely upbringing within a fact-denying community, but facts are what the rest of the world use as the grounding of a common framework for understanding.
        3y ago
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  Or more likely, Hitler would have exterminated millions more, and civilization would have crumbled under fascist ideology. Why don't you chop off your arm? You don't know if that will turn out to be good. Stories like that of the Chinese farmer and Pippi Longstocking are for children, not for thinking adults to blindly believe. The point of the Chinese farmer for children is that even though bad things happen, things can get better, which helps them get over it. To make it go down easier, they show that even though good things happen, things can get worse.
  - User23 3y ago
    And maybe that crumbling of civilization would have prevented a runaway greenhouse heating effect that destroys all life on Earth. Your attitude that you can understand a complex dynamical system such as the one that we live in is the truly childish one.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Instead someone else exterminated millions more and civilization crumbled under another fascist leader. If you ask "why don't you" you're either asking in bad faith or don't fundamentally understand the fable.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      Do you really think Hitler's additional extermination would be limited to Russia had he completed his world conquest? I assert that if you don't understand the "why don't you" question, you don't fundamentally understand the fable. Why don't you tell me why it doesn't apply?