3 ms·

> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? Why is there a requirement for consequences to act mor

by malfist 10mo ago

> And why shouldn't it when there is zero negative ramifications for being completely fucking unethical? Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? If I have to have a threat of punishment to be good, then I'm not being good and it's all transactional.

metalcrow 10mo ago
That's one of the points in favor of capitalism. Most people are not innately good (even "normal" people). The goal of capitalism in theory is to cajole them into acting good by linking helping a customer with monetary benefits.
- paulryanrogers 10mo ago
  That is what our conservative parents and teachers taught us. In reality capitalism cares only for the owning class. Which isn't to say capitalism is worthless, it can be a powerful force when regulated for the benefit of everyone.
  - metalcrow 10mo ago
    Which is why i say in theory, yes. If there are no regulations the ideal job for a capitalist to take is robbing people!
- buellerbueller 10mo ago
  Capitalism has no goal beyond the propagation of capitalist entities, just as evolution has no goal beyond the propagation of evolved entities.
  - metalcrow 10mo ago
    The _implementation_ of capitalism has a goal, it should be obvious that's what i meant from the context.
    - pixl97 10mo ago
      This sounds like goal post moving. Not much different from the people that say "We've just not tried the right kind of communism yet, I'm sure it will work next time". Real world behaviors and markets are far more complex than a dogmatic market ideology.
pixl97 10mo ago
>Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? See, most people don't want to murder and kill other people. For them we don't need to make laws saying murder is wrong and we'll hook your ass to ole'sparky if you proceed to do it. For you, we do need to make that law so you have to think twice about carving people up like cantaloupes, and for dealing with those that do break the law. A lot of law is the encoding of moral and ethical behavior. We didn't have the law, some people acted immoral, then we made the law to punish said behavior. For many people this pushed them away from the grey area between legal behavior that is immoral because if they act unethical new laws would be developed to punish them further (and people wonder why we have so many laws in the first place, quit acting like shitheads and we won't). >then I'm not being good and it's all transactional. Hurray, you've realized there is no god and the physical world we live in is built on cause and effect, thank you for catching up to the 20th century. Cause: "you act good" Effect: "I don't crack open your head and eat the tasty goo inside while screaming like a primate, since acting good allows us to build societies that have benefits for us all"
cfiggers 10mo ago
Because, "opt-in ethics" turns stronger ethical preference into a game theoretic disadvantage. There are two populations: population A is those who prefer ethical behavior internally and would volunteer for it even if not compelled. Population B is those who don't prefer ethical behavior internally, wouldn't volunteer for it, and must be compelled to act ethically from without if they are to act ethically at all. In a landscape that impartially disincentivizes unethical behavior, both A and B can coexist. But in a landscape that DOES NOT impartially disincentivize unethical behavior, everyone acts the same as before—unless there's a benefit to acting unethically. In which case, A, those who prefer to be ethical for its own sake, will inevitably be outcompeted by B, those who engage in any behavior regardless of ethics, so long as that behavior confers advantage. Enough of that on a long enough time scale and the voluntarily ethical population just disappears. So, either we enforce ethical behavior (even on those who need no forcing), or we create an unethical free-for-all waiting to happen. In some cases the "waiting to happen" stage can last a surprisingly long time. Centuries, maybe. But never, as long as B's exist and are free to act, without end.
- pixl97 10mo ago
  >stage can last a surprisingly long time. Typically the behavior is "Very slowly, then suddenly all at once". Which makes issues easy to ignore and by the time all at once happens there is no time to actually deal with it.
  - cfiggers 10mo ago
    Yes, absolutely. In fact, it behooves all B's to make all the A's BELIEVE that society is still "Basically Ethical" for as long as possible. That's what prevents the A's from banding together and forcibly restructuring things to reset the clock... for as long as possible.
- cfiggers 10mo ago
  One solution to this problem that was popular in certain ancient societies was, "Round up and execute all the B's." But A) that's not very ethical, so we can't do that without becoming B's ourselves; and B) you can't tell who is a B just by looking at them, or their skin color or race or eye color or religion or whatever; and C) B's have a maximal incentive to become those who decide who is to be executed for being a B, so the whole thing is prone to MASSIVE corruption. So the thing Liberal societies have done is create systems where we punish BEHAVIOR rather than trying to classify people. And it works, as long as we do the "impartially disincentivizing unethical behavior" thing I mentioned before.
buellerbueller 10mo ago
>Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? If I have to have a threat of punishment to be good, then I'm not being good and it's all transactional. Morals are not universal; different people have different morals. Ancient Greece would not have batted an eye at relationships that we consider pedophilia. Slaves were kept in various societies over time, as recently as 6 generations ago, with varying levels of "morality" attributed to the practice.

by malfist 10mo ago

metalcrow 10mo ago

That's one of the points in favor of capitalism. Most people are not innately good (even "normal" people). The goal of capitalism in theory is to cajole them into acting good by linking helping a customer with monetary benefits.

paulryanrogers 10mo ago
That is what our conservative parents and teachers taught us. In reality capitalism cares only for the owning class. Which isn't to say capitalism is worthless, it can be a powerful force when regulated for the benefit of everyone.
- metalcrow 10mo ago
  Which is why i say in theory, yes. If there are no regulations the ideal job for a capitalist to take is robbing people!
buellerbueller 10mo ago
Capitalism has no goal beyond the propagation of capitalist entities, just as evolution has no goal beyond the propagation of evolved entities.
- metalcrow 10mo ago
  The _implementation_ of capitalism has a goal, it should be obvious that's what i meant from the context.
  - pixl97 10mo ago
    This sounds like goal post moving. Not much different from the people that say "We've just not tried the right kind of communism yet, I'm sure it will work next time". Real world behaviors and markets are far more complex than a dogmatic market ideology.

pixl97 10mo ago

>Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? See, most people don't want to murder and kill other people. For them we don't need to make laws saying murder is wrong and we'll hook your ass to ole'sparky if you proceed to do it. For you, we do need to make that law so you have to think twice about carving people up like cantaloupes, and for dealing with those that do break the law. A lot of law is the encoding of moral and ethical behavior. We didn't have the law, some people acted immoral, then we made the law to punish said behavior. For many people this pushed them away from the grey area between legal behavior that is immoral because if they act unethical new laws would be developed to punish them further (and people wonder why we have so many laws in the first place, quit acting like shitheads and we won't). >then I'm not being good and it's all transactional. Hurray, you've realized there is no god and the physical world we live in is built on cause and effect, thank you for catching up to the 20th century. Cause: "you act good" Effect: "I don't crack open your head and eat the tasty goo inside while screaming like a primate, since acting good allows us to build societies that have benefits for us all"

cfiggers 10mo ago

Because, "opt-in ethics" turns stronger ethical preference into a game theoretic disadvantage. There are two populations: population A is those who prefer ethical behavior internally and would volunteer for it even if not compelled. Population B is those who don't prefer ethical behavior internally, wouldn't volunteer for it, and must be compelled to act ethically from without if they are to act ethically at all. In a landscape that impartially disincentivizes unethical behavior, both A and B can coexist. But in a landscape that DOES NOT impartially disincentivize unethical behavior, everyone acts the same as before—unless there's a benefit to acting unethically. In which case, A, those who prefer to be ethical for its own sake, will inevitably be outcompeted by B, those who engage in any behavior regardless of ethics, so long as that behavior confers advantage. Enough of that on a long enough time scale and the voluntarily ethical population just disappears. So, either we enforce ethical behavior (even on those who need no forcing), or we create an unethical free-for-all waiting to happen. In some cases the "waiting to happen" stage can last a surprisingly long time. Centuries, maybe. But never, as long as B's exist and are free to act, without end.

pixl97 10mo ago
>stage can last a surprisingly long time. Typically the behavior is "Very slowly, then suddenly all at once". Which makes issues easy to ignore and by the time all at once happens there is no time to actually deal with it.
- cfiggers 10mo ago
  Yes, absolutely. In fact, it behooves all B's to make all the A's BELIEVE that society is still "Basically Ethical" for as long as possible. That's what prevents the A's from banding together and forcibly restructuring things to reset the clock... for as long as possible.
cfiggers 10mo ago
One solution to this problem that was popular in certain ancient societies was, "Round up and execute all the B's." But A) that's not very ethical, so we can't do that without becoming B's ourselves; and B) you can't tell who is a B just by looking at them, or their skin color or race or eye color or religion or whatever; and C) B's have a maximal incentive to become those who decide who is to be executed for being a B, so the whole thing is prone to MASSIVE corruption. So the thing Liberal societies have done is create systems where we punish BEHAVIOR rather than trying to classify people. And it works, as long as we do the "impartially disincentivizing unethical behavior" thing I mentioned before.

buellerbueller 10mo ago

>Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? If I have to have a threat of punishment to be good, then I'm not being good and it's all transactional. Morals are not universal; different people have different morals. Ancient Greece would not have batted an eye at relationships that we consider pedophilia. Slaves were kept in various societies over time, as recently as 6 generations ago, with varying levels of "morality" attributed to the practice.