3 ms·

Every time, the people suffering are correct to revolt, and the people trying to repress them are incorrect to repress them, from the perspective of human being

Every time, the people suffering are correct to revolt, and the people trying to repress them are incorrect to repress them, from the perspective of human beings. Every time, the "increased productivity" is inevitable, but that is not the same as better off. None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, and this one is shaping up to be the most disappointing of them all in that dimension. Inevitable != purely good. You can be pragmatic and give a shit about humans at the same time. It's not a puzzle.

bawolff 5mo ago
> None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, Personally i do in fact think we are better off (in the long term) because of e.g. the industrial revolution. Short term, it was horrific, but i'd still rather live now than as a peasent in the mid-1700s. I'd be intersted in hearing a counter argument from anyone who disagrees, as its hard for me to imagine.
- happytoexplain 5mo ago
  I said 100%. Not on average. Billions of humans are more complicated than that. We can be elevated in some ways while being degraded in others. I.e. progress is not free, and some costs last forever, they are not only up-front. Ignoring the costs is deadly.
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    This view seems morally rephrensible. Basically everything you just said could be used to justify slavery or any atrocity you want.
    - happytoexplain 5mo ago
      Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. Good news: I promise I don't endorse those things. I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic). Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid). I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.
      - bawolff 5mo ago
        > Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. I don't think i'm twisting here in the slightest. Every moral choice involves weighing the harms vs the benefits at some level. Things that are 100% good or 100% bad don't exist in real life. > I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own Ok, as in morally ok? Always? I do not subscribe to the view that it is morally ok for humans to act in their own interests in all cases. Whether something is morally ok to do depends on a lot of factors. There is no blanket, X is always ok. > Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions Typically the term "correct" is an endorsement. It is a value judgement saying someone is behaving in the way you think they should behave. Are you using the term to mean something else? ----- Edit: i read a little too fast. I guess you are more claiming a moral relativism argument that everyone always thinks their own cause is just, not a moral nilihism argument. Personally i've never found moral relativism all that useful because at the end of the day decisions still have to be made, people are still going to be hurt as a result of those decisions. Somehow someone still has to make the choice and they still need some framework to ground their decision in.

bawolff 5mo ago

> None of these changes has been 100% positive, even in the long run, Personally i do in fact think we are better off (in the long term) because of e.g. the industrial revolution. Short term, it was horrific, but i'd still rather live now than as a peasent in the mid-1700s. I'd be intersted in hearing a counter argument from anyone who disagrees, as its hard for me to imagine.

happytoexplain 5mo ago
I said 100%. Not on average. Billions of humans are more complicated than that. We can be elevated in some ways while being degraded in others. I.e. progress is not free, and some costs last forever, they are not only up-front. Ignoring the costs is deadly.
- bawolff 5mo ago
  This view seems morally rephrensible. Basically everything you just said could be used to justify slavery or any atrocity you want.
  - happytoexplain 5mo ago
    Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. Good news: I promise I don't endorse those things. I don't think you're coming at this from a place of thoughtfulness (it's a tough, broad topic). Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions, it just means that people are correct to resist against things that harm their lives and their children's lives, even if it theoretically makes life easier for their grandchildren (which isn't even clearly true in this case, making my point even more valid). I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own. This can be a really tough point with complicated implications, but it's fundamentally unassailable.
    - bawolff 5mo ago
      > Anything can be used to endorse anything if you twist the underlying implications enough. I don't think i'm twisting here in the slightest. Every moral choice involves weighing the harms vs the benefits at some level. Things that are 100% good or 100% bad don't exist in real life. > I.e. it's OK for humans to behave in the interest of their own Ok, as in morally ok? Always? I do not subscribe to the view that it is morally ok for humans to act in their own interests in all cases. Whether something is morally ok to do depends on a lot of factors. There is no blanket, X is always ok. > Saying that people are correct to resist does not imply the endorsement of any actions Typically the term "correct" is an endorsement. It is a value judgement saying someone is behaving in the way you think they should behave. Are you using the term to mean something else? ----- Edit: i read a little too fast. I guess you are more claiming a moral relativism argument that everyone always thinks their own cause is just, not a moral nilihism argument. Personally i've never found moral relativism all that useful because at the end of the day decisions still have to be made, people are still going to be hurt as a result of those decisions. Somehow someone still has to make the choice and they still need some framework to ground their decision in.