3 ms·

Originally you said I am obligated due to my education (which you also reiterate here), however you've now shifted the goal post: I am obligated to society beca

Originally you said I am obligated due to my education (which you also reiterate here), however you've now shifted the goal post: I am obligated to society because I gained education AND because I choose to participate in it. I say my education is moot, and I am allowed to participate in society with zero obligation. > As a member of a social species of animal, why do you believe this to be true? Because it isn't false. Where is my obligation exactly? What "obligation" does any animal have? I am most certainly an animal, but I'm an intelligent one and I choose my obligations rather than letting others choose for me. Edit to address your other points: > if you’re participating in discussions on HN using a computing device, you have obligations. No, I don't. I can do whatever I wish. > The value of those books is not primarily monetary. Those books have utility because they are transmitting the collective knowledge of our species; ancestors whose thoughts and discoveries are the basis of our lives today. Who cares? I'm obligated because they recorded their knowledge and I studied it? No, I am not obligated, I am educated. > Many people never stop to consider or admit their dependence on this ancestral knowledge, or their own responsibilities as a beneficiary of it. Almost everything we come in contact with (unless you disconnect and go to that cave), comes with implied collective responsibilities. Again, no it doesn't. This is lazy collectivist thinking. > Paying taxes is the minimum legally required level of contribution Taxation is actually theft and shouldn't be allowed. This isn't a contribution at all, it is theft by the government. > but far from the only required activity to maintain a functioning society. OK - sure. I never said it wasn't. I also don't care - it's not my problem, not my focus, not my "obligation". > You might say that you don’t like this society No, I just don't like humans. > or would prefer a different one No, I just don't like humans. > but the only solution to these problems is to involve yourself in the process Involving oneself in the process doesn't imply "obligation" > which is the only path to changing the status quo. No, not really. One can make a big splash being outside of "the process".

w4ffl35 3y ago
I'll take this further since you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying: There is no such thing as an inherent ethical or moral obligation to society. There are actions and there are consequences. There are laws and there are enforcers. Without enforcers there are no laws. Without consequences actions are irrelevant. Nothing is written, in law or in "moral code", which obligates a human to give away their creations because they "owe something to society", as the concept of "owing something to society" is not actually a real thing.
haswell 3y ago
> Originally you said I am obligated due to my education I originally said "It’s not as if the only benefit we enjoy is the education system that we did not utilize.", i.e. education is just one of many things we all collectively benefit from in an organized society. You used your alternative education path as a reason to claim you have no obligations to society, so I focused on that claim, but education (even the self-delivered kind) is just a single example. > Because it isn't false You can't justify an argument by claiming its truth or falsity. Assume I disagree with you, but would like to understand why I should agree with you. > I am not obligated, I am educated. Doesn't this create a huge issue if everyone decides to believe this? If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs? Where does the lack of obligation end? i.e. are you obligated not to steal, not to respect laws, etc? > Where is my obligation exactly? What "obligation" does any animal have? Obligation is a word humans made up to describe something that most cooperative animals do without the capacity to explain to themselves what it is they are doing. Cooperative species that haven't developed language exhibit behaviors that are automatic and expected in what must be the set of traits natural selection arrived at. Humans are unique in that we've invented words to describe these social interactions. There are plenty of reasons to believe/understand that cooperation and certain principles of fairness, mutual respect, reciprocity, etc. are more adaptive for the survival of the group/species and coexistence with other groups. It sounds like we disagree fundamentally one one key point: participation in society imparts implicit expectations on the participant. My core issue with your stance is that it is untenable if chosen by everyone, i.e. it doesn't scale.
- w4ffl35 3y ago
  > You used your alternative education path as a reason to claim you have no obligations to society No, I'm saying that State education is not a reason for obligation and FURTHERMORE I have no State education so assuming that one has State education and basing one's whole premise on something be owed to society because of it is ludicrous. And I apply that sentiment to any form of education. It matters not where the education comes from - the only thing owed is money for the educational materials and labor involved in teaching. > You can't justify an argument by claiming its truth or falsity. Assume I disagree with you, but would like to understand why I should agree with you. Sure. > Doesn't this create a huge issue if everyone decides to believe this? Not my problem. > If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs? not my problem. > Where does the lack of obligation end? i.e. are you obligated not to steal, not to respect laws, etc? Correct, I am not obligated to, but if I choose to violate those things there will likely be consequences. > Obligation is a word humans made up to describe something that most cooperative animals do without the capacity to explain to themselves what it is they are doing. Ok. > Cooperative species that haven't developed language exhibit behaviors that are automatic and expected in what must be the set of traits natural selection arrived at. Humans are unique in that we've invented words to describe these social interactions. There are plenty of reasons to believe/understand that cooperation and certain principles of fairness, mutual respect, reciprocity, etc. are more adaptive for the survival of the group/species and coexistence with other groups. Ok. > It sounds like we disagree fundamentally one one key point: participation in society imparts implicit expectations on the participant. My core issue with your stance is that it is untenable if chosen by everyone, i.e. it doesn't scale. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I got nothing for you. You want to feel morally justified, go for it lol. As a free human, I'm not under any obligations.

w4ffl35 3y ago

I'll take this further since you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying: There is no such thing as an inherent ethical or moral obligation to society. There are actions and there are consequences. There are laws and there are enforcers. Without enforcers there are no laws. Without consequences actions are irrelevant. Nothing is written, in law or in "moral code", which obligates a human to give away their creations because they "owe something to society", as the concept of "owing something to society" is not actually a real thing.

haswell 3y ago

> Originally you said I am obligated due to my education I originally said "It’s not as if the only benefit we enjoy is the education system that we did not utilize.", i.e. education is just one of many things we all collectively benefit from in an organized society. You used your alternative education path as a reason to claim you have no obligations to society, so I focused on that claim, but education (even the self-delivered kind) is just a single example. > Because it isn't false You can't justify an argument by claiming its truth or falsity. Assume I disagree with you, but would like to understand why I should agree with you. > I am not obligated, I am educated. Doesn't this create a huge issue if everyone decides to believe this? If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs? Where does the lack of obligation end? i.e. are you obligated not to steal, not to respect laws, etc? > Where is my obligation exactly? What "obligation" does any animal have? Obligation is a word humans made up to describe something that most cooperative animals do without the capacity to explain to themselves what it is they are doing. Cooperative species that haven't developed language exhibit behaviors that are automatic and expected in what must be the set of traits natural selection arrived at. Humans are unique in that we've invented words to describe these social interactions. There are plenty of reasons to believe/understand that cooperation and certain principles of fairness, mutual respect, reciprocity, etc. are more adaptive for the survival of the group/species and coexistence with other groups. It sounds like we disagree fundamentally one one key point: participation in society imparts implicit expectations on the participant. My core issue with your stance is that it is untenable if chosen by everyone, i.e. it doesn't scale.

w4ffl35 3y ago
> You used your alternative education path as a reason to claim you have no obligations to society No, I'm saying that State education is not a reason for obligation and FURTHERMORE I have no State education so assuming that one has State education and basing one's whole premise on something be owed to society because of it is ludicrous. And I apply that sentiment to any form of education. It matters not where the education comes from - the only thing owed is money for the educational materials and labor involved in teaching. > You can't justify an argument by claiming its truth or falsity. Assume I disagree with you, but would like to understand why I should agree with you. Sure. > Doesn't this create a huge issue if everyone decides to believe this? Not my problem. > If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs? not my problem. > Where does the lack of obligation end? i.e. are you obligated not to steal, not to respect laws, etc? Correct, I am not obligated to, but if I choose to violate those things there will likely be consequences. > Obligation is a word humans made up to describe something that most cooperative animals do without the capacity to explain to themselves what it is they are doing. Ok. > Cooperative species that haven't developed language exhibit behaviors that are automatic and expected in what must be the set of traits natural selection arrived at. Humans are unique in that we've invented words to describe these social interactions. There are plenty of reasons to believe/understand that cooperation and certain principles of fairness, mutual respect, reciprocity, etc. are more adaptive for the survival of the group/species and coexistence with other groups. Ok. > It sounds like we disagree fundamentally one one key point: participation in society imparts implicit expectations on the participant. My core issue with your stance is that it is untenable if chosen by everyone, i.e. it doesn't scale. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I got nothing for you. You want to feel morally justified, go for it lol. As a free human, I'm not under any obligations.