4 ms·

> From what broad tradition do you acquire your sense of what is good, normal and worthwhile in life, and – if I can put it this way – your general vibe too? Wh

> From what broad tradition do you acquire your sense of what is good, normal and worthwhile in life, and – if I can put it this way – your general vibe too? When I’ve asked my non-religious friends, colleagues and students this question, they’re almost always stumped. Their impulse is to say one of three things: ‘from my experience’, ‘from friends and family’ or ‘from human nature’. But to this I reply, as politely as possible, that those are not suitable answers. Personal experience, friends and family and human nature are situated and formed within wider social, political and cultural contexts. So I ask again: ‘What society-or-civilisation-sized thing can you point to as the source of your values? I’m talking about the kind of thing that, were you Christian, you’d just say: “Ah, the Bible,” or “Oh, my Church.’’’ Simple: Our constitution, our legal framework that (mostly) protects us from corruptive forces, our ability to trust that sellers can't sell us poison and lie to us about it, our ability to enter into transactions with total strangers without worry, our free elections, our freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of movement, freedom to be who we are. People are stumped because they're not looking at it for what it is. There's no mysticism wrapped around our secular societies like there are around religions, so people tend to not notice it. But if you look at it - REALLY look at it - it's nothing short of miraculous what we've achieved. Life before we had these things was VERY, VERY different from the peace and prosperity we've enjoyed for almost a hundred years. And it's unfortunate that people have become so entitled and myopic that they've lost sight of it to the point where they actually favor strongmen as heads of governments... Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

sjducb 2y ago
[flagged]
postpawl 2y ago
The trust placed in the US’s constitutional and legal frameworks to safeguard transactions is commendable but often doesn't reflect the full picture. While these systems are designed to prevent overt harm, they frequently fail to protect against subtler forms of exploitation prevalent in many capitalist enterprises. For instance, industries like fast food and tobacco not only legally sell products known to harm health, but they also heavily market these to vulnerable populations, maximizing profit at the expense of public well-being. This issue isn't just about individual interactions or the inherent honesty of our society; it's about systemic structures that prioritize profit over people. The reality is that our economic model often allows, and sometimes encourages, practices that are detrimental to consumer interests but beneficial to corporate bottom lines.
- kstenerud 2y ago
  > The reality is that our economic model often allows, and sometimes encourages, practices that are detrimental to consumer interests but beneficial to corporate bottom lines. Thank you for proving my point. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there never will be. Human society is simply too complex to be modeled perfectly - and without a perfect model, a perfect system is an impossibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to improve it, but it ALSO doesn't at all detract from the marvelous, unlikely miracle we witness every day and are so blasé about that we'd even contemplate supporting those who intend to burn it to the ground. Every time I bring this subject up, the curmudgeons always come out to tell us how bad we have it today. And they can do it too, because everyone who experienced the before times is now dead and can't speak up (I'm only old enough to speak up about the air pollution). Only a careful study of history can give a (partial) picture of just how shitty life was for 99% of people compared to today.
  - postpawl 2y ago
    While it's true that no system is perfect, recognizing the US's achievements doesn't mean we should overlook its flaws, especially when they're as tangible as rapidly rising costs for essentials like housing and healthcare. The harsh conditions of the past shouldn't justify complacency today. Instead (as Rawls recommends), we should acknowledge these challenges should compel us to strive for a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities, ensuring progress continues for future generations.
    - jahewson 2y ago
      Could you criticise US capitalism in the form of a sea shanty?
- jahewson 2y ago
  I’m not sure why you’d place the blame on capitalism for this set of problems. If the reward were status or sainthood or whatever else, enough people would still be sufficiently motivated to mistreat each other. That the reward is “profit” in the form of some government money tokens doesn’t seem particularly important. If you look at the food in the US for example one of the most distorted elements is the abundance of high fructose corn syrup - because the government subsidises it.
totetsu 2y ago
I just listed to a podcast interviewing Alexandre Lefebvre about his book ‘Liberalism as a Way of Life’ He draws a parallel with Sorin Kierkegaard’s idea of “Christendom” and a new kind of “liberal-dom”. Where our personal values system is born out of the sea of liberal institutions that we love in, like constitutions. Philosopher's Zone: https://podcasts.apple.com/jp/podcast/philosophers-zone/id135353439?i=1000664781956d https://podcasts.apple.com/jp/podcast/philosophers-zone/id13...
paganel 2y ago
The “constitution” becomes (again) just a piece of paper when most of the people can’t afford housing (valid for all Western countries) and when they’re a major medical emergency away from fucking up their life for good (valid mostly for US). Without housing and without decent healthcare everything else doesn’t matter anymore. But as this forum is full of techies who are among the only ones still benefiting from this current system then of course that pro-liberalism nonsense like the stuff espoused by Rawls will have lots of adherents.
vishnugupta 2y ago
> unfortunate that people have become so entitled and myopic ... where they actually favor strongmen as heads of governments... And yet in nation after nation hundreds of millions are voting strongmen to lead them. If one is serious about understanding the reasons a good place to start is to stop blaming them ("entitled", "myopic", "curmudgeons"...) and make a genuine effort to understand their world view. These are not fringe elements but hundreds of millions dissatisfied with status quo and want something to change, and are willing to give strongmen a chance. They don't care how the life was 50 or 100 years ago or that life today is 99% better. Their lived reality has lead them to believe they are leading a shitty life. Telling them they are myopic or entitled will only lead to further disconnect.
- nsaagent 2y ago
  I always find it hard to understand if someone wants to give up their human rights whats stopping them, just do it and be done with it and enjoy all the oppression and atrocities you want heaped upon yourself, why do they want to drag the rest of humanity into their fetishes.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Their goal isn't to "give up their human rights" or to heap oppression and atrocities upon themselves. Their goal is to escape their current position in the social hierarchy. That's one of the reasons why it's important to make sure that everyone in society is provided for; because if their needs aren't met under the current society then they have an incentive to destroy it in favor of a different society.
    - nsaagent 2y ago
      But they are deliberately choosing a society that would be even worse for them and actually repressive, so regardless of their stated goal this is what they actually want. They want to be oppressed, kept in the dark, have atrocities committed upon themselves. Instead of a solution they want to dive head first into the death trap rather. It is my viewpoint that we should fast track the process and give such people exactly what they want, and isolate them into their authoritarian dream shithole so that the rest of the world does not have to be involved in their personal fetishes.
rqmedes 2y ago
I believe it is Christianity, even though I am not religious, my parents were not either, but my grand parents and their parents and so on where. And even though my parents stopped they took their guide from their family and society steeped in this and many of the values stick around for a while
matrix87 2y ago
> There's no mysticism wrapped around our secular societies like there are around religions, so people tend to not notice it. The claim to not having mysticism is part of the mysticism. The current economic system funnels economic value from the poor to the ultra rich. You're telling me that having two different groups of people with the same physiological needs being given vastly different quantities of resources is some kind of natural state? That "mysticism" isn't required there? > And it's unfortunate that people have become so entitled and myopic that they've lost sight of it to the point where they actually favor strongmen as heads of governments... If you're waxing on about how great the status quo is, you're most likely the entitled one
- vladd 2y ago
  > The current economic system funnels economic value from the poor to the ultra rich. The economic system creates values (and you can compare it with alternatives such as Soviet Union to realize just by how much). It does this in an unequal way, by chance, historical context and self-selection preferences. But the creation of value still trumps any inequality it might have. With TV, air conditioning and phones, an entry mid-class person in US is having it ten times better than the kings of middle ages.
  - matrix87 2y ago
    > you can compare it with alternatives such as Soviet Union Not really because there are too many other variables > But the creation of value still trumps any inequality it might have. Why is inequality even necessary here in the first place? How do you know that creation of value can't exist in the presence of equality? The Nordics do a better job at it > With TV, air conditioning and phones, This is the mysticism I was referring to. Look at all of this cool stuff, no don't look at the rich people poisoning the water supply > is having it ten times better than the kings of middle ages. yeah and it's 1000x better than cavemen banging on rocks in the stone age, so the peasantry should be 1000x as grateful
    - vladd 2y ago
      > Not really because there are too many other variables You can average out countries that equalize property rights to the state vs. average of countries where property variance is respected, and check which ones are doing better vs worse. > How do you know that creation of value can't exist in the presence of equality? Equality of output would imply equality of inputs? People will no longer have the right to decide for themselves if they want to be busy creating wealth or busy doing more social/pleasurable things? > yeah and it's 1000x better than cavemen banging on rocks in the stone age Why do you take that improvement for granted? (in the context of today's nuclear treats, it's not a given that we'll able to propel this rate moving forward in the next 100 years, there's a non-zero probability that we wipe ourselves back to the stone age). Or more generically, if you had to chose between two economic policies, one with 1'000x improvement where people can take risks and see variation in rewards according to their choices (and an element of luck/historical background), and another one where everyone is forced to the same output, irrespective of their actions, which leads some to pursue more pleasure activities to a larger fraction of their existence and the improvement is just 50x, which one would you choose for the society? Is equality worthy as a goal in itself? And if so, enough in order to stop people in self-selecting doing what they want and letting them keep some percentage as a reward for assuming the risk? Even if it leads us as a society to slower growth?
harimau777 2y ago
Thousands of people are choosing strongmen over our current system. That suggests that our current system is not viable regardless of what position in society you happen to end up in. In other words, democracy is threatened by dictatorship precisely because it fails the "original position" test.

sjducb 2y ago

[flagged]

postpawl 2y ago

The trust placed in the US’s constitutional and legal frameworks to safeguard transactions is commendable but often doesn't reflect the full picture. While these systems are designed to prevent overt harm, they frequently fail to protect against subtler forms of exploitation prevalent in many capitalist enterprises. For instance, industries like fast food and tobacco not only legally sell products known to harm health, but they also heavily market these to vulnerable populations, maximizing profit at the expense of public well-being. This issue isn't just about individual interactions or the inherent honesty of our society; it's about systemic structures that prioritize profit over people. The reality is that our economic model often allows, and sometimes encourages, practices that are detrimental to consumer interests but beneficial to corporate bottom lines.

kstenerud 2y ago
> The reality is that our economic model often allows, and sometimes encourages, practices that are detrimental to consumer interests but beneficial to corporate bottom lines. Thank you for proving my point. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there never will be. Human society is simply too complex to be modeled perfectly - and without a perfect model, a perfect system is an impossibility. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to improve it, but it ALSO doesn't at all detract from the marvelous, unlikely miracle we witness every day and are so blasé about that we'd even contemplate supporting those who intend to burn it to the ground. Every time I bring this subject up, the curmudgeons always come out to tell us how bad we have it today. And they can do it too, because everyone who experienced the before times is now dead and can't speak up (I'm only old enough to speak up about the air pollution). Only a careful study of history can give a (partial) picture of just how shitty life was for 99% of people compared to today.
- postpawl 2y ago
  While it's true that no system is perfect, recognizing the US's achievements doesn't mean we should overlook its flaws, especially when they're as tangible as rapidly rising costs for essentials like housing and healthcare. The harsh conditions of the past shouldn't justify complacency today. Instead (as Rawls recommends), we should acknowledge these challenges should compel us to strive for a fairer distribution of resources and opportunities, ensuring progress continues for future generations.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    Could you criticise US capitalism in the form of a sea shanty?
jahewson 2y ago
I’m not sure why you’d place the blame on capitalism for this set of problems. If the reward were status or sainthood or whatever else, enough people would still be sufficiently motivated to mistreat each other. That the reward is “profit” in the form of some government money tokens doesn’t seem particularly important. If you look at the food in the US for example one of the most distorted elements is the abundance of high fructose corn syrup - because the government subsidises it.

totetsu 2y ago

I just listed to a podcast interviewing Alexandre Lefebvre about his book ‘Liberalism as a Way of Life’ He draws a parallel with Sorin Kierkegaard’s idea of “Christendom” and a new kind of “liberal-dom”. Where our personal values system is born out of the sea of liberal institutions that we love in, like constitutions. Philosopher's Zone: https://podcasts.apple.com/jp/podcast/philosophers-zone/id135353439?i=1000664781956d https://podcasts.apple.com/jp/podcast/philosophers-zone/id13...

paganel 2y ago

The “constitution” becomes (again) just a piece of paper when most of the people can’t afford housing (valid for all Western countries) and when they’re a major medical emergency away from fucking up their life for good (valid mostly for US). Without housing and without decent healthcare everything else doesn’t matter anymore. But as this forum is full of techies who are among the only ones still benefiting from this current system then of course that pro-liberalism nonsense like the stuff espoused by Rawls will have lots of adherents.

vishnugupta 2y ago

> unfortunate that people have become so entitled and myopic ... where they actually favor strongmen as heads of governments... And yet in nation after nation hundreds of millions are voting strongmen to lead them. If one is serious about understanding the reasons a good place to start is to stop blaming them ("entitled", "myopic", "curmudgeons"...) and make a genuine effort to understand their world view. These are not fringe elements but hundreds of millions dissatisfied with status quo and want something to change, and are willing to give strongmen a chance. They don't care how the life was 50 or 100 years ago or that life today is 99% better. Their lived reality has lead them to believe they are leading a shitty life. Telling them they are myopic or entitled will only lead to further disconnect.

nsaagent 2y ago
I always find it hard to understand if someone wants to give up their human rights whats stopping them, just do it and be done with it and enjoy all the oppression and atrocities you want heaped upon yourself, why do they want to drag the rest of humanity into their fetishes.
- harimau777 2y ago
  Their goal isn't to "give up their human rights" or to heap oppression and atrocities upon themselves. Their goal is to escape their current position in the social hierarchy. That's one of the reasons why it's important to make sure that everyone in society is provided for; because if their needs aren't met under the current society then they have an incentive to destroy it in favor of a different society.
  - nsaagent 2y ago
    But they are deliberately choosing a society that would be even worse for them and actually repressive, so regardless of their stated goal this is what they actually want. They want to be oppressed, kept in the dark, have atrocities committed upon themselves. Instead of a solution they want to dive head first into the death trap rather. It is my viewpoint that we should fast track the process and give such people exactly what they want, and isolate them into their authoritarian dream shithole so that the rest of the world does not have to be involved in their personal fetishes.

rqmedes 2y ago

I believe it is Christianity, even though I am not religious, my parents were not either, but my grand parents and their parents and so on where. And even though my parents stopped they took their guide from their family and society steeped in this and many of the values stick around for a while

matrix87 2y ago

> There's no mysticism wrapped around our secular societies like there are around religions, so people tend to not notice it. The claim to not having mysticism is part of the mysticism. The current economic system funnels economic value from the poor to the ultra rich. You're telling me that having two different groups of people with the same physiological needs being given vastly different quantities of resources is some kind of natural state? That "mysticism" isn't required there? > And it's unfortunate that people have become so entitled and myopic that they've lost sight of it to the point where they actually favor strongmen as heads of governments... If you're waxing on about how great the status quo is, you're most likely the entitled one

vladd 2y ago
> The current economic system funnels economic value from the poor to the ultra rich. The economic system creates values (and you can compare it with alternatives such as Soviet Union to realize just by how much). It does this in an unequal way, by chance, historical context and self-selection preferences. But the creation of value still trumps any inequality it might have. With TV, air conditioning and phones, an entry mid-class person in US is having it ten times better than the kings of middle ages.
- matrix87 2y ago
  > you can compare it with alternatives such as Soviet Union Not really because there are too many other variables > But the creation of value still trumps any inequality it might have. Why is inequality even necessary here in the first place? How do you know that creation of value can't exist in the presence of equality? The Nordics do a better job at it > With TV, air conditioning and phones, This is the mysticism I was referring to. Look at all of this cool stuff, no don't look at the rich people poisoning the water supply > is having it ten times better than the kings of middle ages. yeah and it's 1000x better than cavemen banging on rocks in the stone age, so the peasantry should be 1000x as grateful
  - vladd 2y ago
    > Not really because there are too many other variables You can average out countries that equalize property rights to the state vs. average of countries where property variance is respected, and check which ones are doing better vs worse. > How do you know that creation of value can't exist in the presence of equality? Equality of output would imply equality of inputs? People will no longer have the right to decide for themselves if they want to be busy creating wealth or busy doing more social/pleasurable things? > yeah and it's 1000x better than cavemen banging on rocks in the stone age Why do you take that improvement for granted? (in the context of today's nuclear treats, it's not a given that we'll able to propel this rate moving forward in the next 100 years, there's a non-zero probability that we wipe ourselves back to the stone age). Or more generically, if you had to chose between two economic policies, one with 1'000x improvement where people can take risks and see variation in rewards according to their choices (and an element of luck/historical background), and another one where everyone is forced to the same output, irrespective of their actions, which leads some to pursue more pleasure activities to a larger fraction of their existence and the improvement is just 50x, which one would you choose for the society? Is equality worthy as a goal in itself? And if so, enough in order to stop people in self-selecting doing what they want and letting them keep some percentage as a reward for assuming the risk? Even if it leads us as a society to slower growth?

harimau777 2y ago

Thousands of people are choosing strongmen over our current system. That suggests that our current system is not viable regardless of what position in society you happen to end up in. In other words, democracy is threatened by dictatorship precisely because it fails the "original position" test.