3 ms·

The intellectual arrogance in this post is nauseating. It is extremely rare that a 22 year-old is qualified to speak so authoritatively on such a deep topic as

by defen 17y ago

The intellectual arrogance in this post is nauseating. It is extremely rare that a 22 year-old is qualified to speak so authoritatively on such a deep topic as ethics, and this post demonstrates that Aaron Swartz is not one of them. 1) I've never seen a more clear example of Nietzsche's "inversion of values." I'm not a libertarian, but this is straight out of Ayn Rand - the good, the strong, the responsible, owe a moral debt to the weakest, poorest, least able people in the world -- regardless of how they came to find themselves in such a parlous state. 2) Like any totalitarian ideology, it complete ignores the reality of human nature. Instead, it attempts to conform reality to simple, preconceived theories and assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that all humans are equal autonomous individuals, and the theory is that disparate individual or national outcomes are caused by the strong oppressing the weak. It ignores that a community's, society's, or nation's character is an expression of the collective nature of the people who compose it. It ignores the interlocking responsibilities - both wanted and unwanted, asked and unasked - that enable society to work. 3) His entire system of "ethics" is based upon making oneself feel superior to others. It completely ignores the problem of incentives, as Tichy mentioned - what happens when you apply Kant's Categorical Imperative to these prescriptions? There is literally no incentive to do anything productive, because a more-moral person is probably going to unilaterally decide that you, as a filthy kulak, are not morally worthy of possessing the fruits of your labor. Truly a repugnant philosophy.

rw 17y ago
Appeal to age? Really? Where's your reliance on merit? The "behind the veil of ignorance" argument from Rawls has a solid basis. The premise is merely that if you were born with a higher a priori chance of living a fulfilled life, why not assist those who didn't get that chance? At the very least, you'll feel good while you're doing it. There are basic human needs that we all share. It's possible to do anything in a totalitarian way, so just avoid doing things in that manner. You can say all you want that helping others causes them to be lazy or weak (after all, you said "There is literally no incentive to do anything productive"), but--let's be frank about the world situation--I'd rather have the problem of widespread abundance, than that of terrifying, indefensible scarcity. I lose sleep worrying about the hundreds of millions of malnourished and undereducated people who are getting completely fucked just because of where, and to whom, they were born. I'm sitting here trying to pay off my student loans, so I can get moving, solving some real problems. Like you, I enjoy the latest and greatest O(log n) distributed social marketplace, but we have to have priorities in life--what is wrong with an egalitarian, humanist priority? Actually, what could be a better priority? That is the ethic I want to strive for, that's my damn imperative. If you're a causal determinist (which is a very defensible position), you can ascribe everything to luck, or nothing, depending on your mood. But nothing inbetween. I don't want to see the word blame or responsibility thrown around without some serious reason to back it up. You want to talk about choice and empowerment and I'll show you a dozen people who have never had reason to believe in their own agency. "Human nature" is a semantic stop sign [1]. What does that phrase even mean? We're sapient apes with tendencies toward the ugly when things get scary, and the beautiful when things get nice. We respond to our environment (this includes other people); in fact, we are merely another part of our environment. There are a few sciences dedicated to studying this phenomenon, e.g. sociology, economics and psychology. The reason you even have a high horse upon which to sit is because you got lucky. You're smart, or well-fed, or connected, or whatever--that's all luck. Good luck or bad luck, that's all it is--probability. And I say: when it comes to living a fulfilled life, fuck probability. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ EDIT: Obviously, if you disagree, reply.
- Tichy 17y ago
  "I'm sitting here trying to pay off my student loans, so I can get moving, solving some real problems." It appears as if you deemed it necessary to study to be able to make a difference, which also kinds of means you needed the advanced infrastructure that can support a society. Yet you have the problem of having to pay your student loans. Are those not real problems? Sure, you are not starving, and I agree it is important to end starving. But I don't think it is that easy. I guess if you think it is easy you subscribe to the world view that people are starving at the other end of the world only because of our lavish lifestyle. I am not convinced that is true. And maybe "helping" for example by giving food only helps the dictators in bad countries to exploit their people even more. Also, while I think it is important to help, it is also a bit of a cop out. It makes your life depend on there being people that need helping. So it avoids the real issue to find a meaning of life. In that sense I think our "advanced" problems are also worthy, in a sense. The girls from "Sex And The City" figure out how to date in New York - it might seem absurd from the perspective from a starving person somewhere. But what if we rescue that person and make her rich - suddenly she might be thankful that other people worked on the problem of choosing the right mate or buying shoes before her. I would be interested to hear what you think causes the worlds problems. Why is there scarcity, you think it is only because people are not educated enough about modern farming methodologies? I find that hard to believe.
  - jongraehl 17y ago
    The idea that my not paying to feed the poor in broken African countries is really in their best interests is far too convenient for my liking. I prefer to acknowledge that I care less about their plight than my own values.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      How would you pay for them then? Maybe/probably you are right, there are more direct actions one could take. But I don't think it is so obvious as to what actions promise the most success. Maybe if you really care you have to become a politician or an activist, but what if that is not what you do best?
Radix 17y ago
Your intro is really too harsh, and as rw pointed out (just) a rhetorical trick. Aaron didn't even submit the article.

by defen 17y ago

rw 17y ago

Appeal to age? Really? Where's your reliance on merit? The "behind the veil of ignorance" argument from Rawls has a solid basis. The premise is merely that if you were born with a higher a priori chance of living a fulfilled life, why not assist those who didn't get that chance? At the very least, you'll feel good while you're doing it. There are basic human needs that we all share. It's possible to do anything in a totalitarian way, so just avoid doing things in that manner. You can say all you want that helping others causes them to be lazy or weak (after all, you said "There is literally no incentive to do anything productive"), but--let's be frank about the world situation--I'd rather have the problem of widespread abundance, than that of terrifying, indefensible scarcity. I lose sleep worrying about the hundreds of millions of malnourished and undereducated people who are getting completely fucked just because of where, and to whom, they were born. I'm sitting here trying to pay off my student loans, so I can get moving, solving some real problems. Like you, I enjoy the latest and greatest O(log n) distributed social marketplace, but we have to have priorities in life--what is wrong with an egalitarian, humanist priority? Actually, what could be a better priority? That is the ethic I want to strive for, that's my damn imperative. If you're a causal determinist (which is a very defensible position), you can ascribe everything to luck, or nothing, depending on your mood. But nothing inbetween. I don't want to see the word blame or responsibility thrown around without some serious reason to back it up. You want to talk about choice and empowerment and I'll show you a dozen people who have never had reason to believe in their own agency. "Human nature" is a semantic stop sign [1]. What does that phrase even mean? We're sapient apes with tendencies toward the ugly when things get scary, and the beautiful when things get nice. We respond to our environment (this includes other people); in fact, we are merely another part of our environment. There are a few sciences dedicated to studying this phenomenon, e.g. sociology, economics and psychology. The reason you even have a high horse upon which to sit is because you got lucky. You're smart, or well-fed, or connected, or whatever--that's all luck. Good luck or bad luck, that's all it is--probability. And I say: when it comes to living a fulfilled life, fuck probability. [1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/ EDIT: Obviously, if you disagree, reply.

Tichy 17y ago
"I'm sitting here trying to pay off my student loans, so I can get moving, solving some real problems." It appears as if you deemed it necessary to study to be able to make a difference, which also kinds of means you needed the advanced infrastructure that can support a society. Yet you have the problem of having to pay your student loans. Are those not real problems? Sure, you are not starving, and I agree it is important to end starving. But I don't think it is that easy. I guess if you think it is easy you subscribe to the world view that people are starving at the other end of the world only because of our lavish lifestyle. I am not convinced that is true. And maybe "helping" for example by giving food only helps the dictators in bad countries to exploit their people even more. Also, while I think it is important to help, it is also a bit of a cop out. It makes your life depend on there being people that need helping. So it avoids the real issue to find a meaning of life. In that sense I think our "advanced" problems are also worthy, in a sense. The girls from "Sex And The City" figure out how to date in New York - it might seem absurd from the perspective from a starving person somewhere. But what if we rescue that person and make her rich - suddenly she might be thankful that other people worked on the problem of choosing the right mate or buying shoes before her. I would be interested to hear what you think causes the worlds problems. Why is there scarcity, you think it is only because people are not educated enough about modern farming methodologies? I find that hard to believe.
- jongraehl 17y ago
  The idea that my not paying to feed the poor in broken African countries is really in their best interests is far too convenient for my liking. I prefer to acknowledge that I care less about their plight than my own values.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    How would you pay for them then? Maybe/probably you are right, there are more direct actions one could take. But I don't think it is so obvious as to what actions promise the most success. Maybe if you really care you have to become a politician or an activist, but what if that is not what you do best?

Radix 17y ago

Your intro is really too harsh, and as rw pointed out (just) a rhetorical trick. Aaron didn't even submit the article.