4 ms·

For sure - Gandhi (and pretty much anyone who we consider to have "changed the world" - MLK, Steve Jobs, etc.) fits a lot of the uberman characteristics - hence

For sure - Gandhi (and pretty much anyone who we consider to have "changed the world" - MLK, Steve Jobs, etc.) fits a lot of the uberman characteristics - hence my note re: the fact that the uberman is actually viewed as a positive. Distinction here for me is that Gandhi and/or MLK and/or Pussy Riot relied on and broke certain social rules based on what I consider to be moral abstractions that (I would argue) (1) pre-existed their own thinking and receive validation from a separate pre-existing moral code (love, human rights, spiritual dignity, etc.) and (2) the realization of which benefit others as equally as they would benefit the leader, if not more (Gandhi was, relatively speaking, part of the educated elite, and could have enjoyed a decent life under the status quo). On the other hand, I would say that ubermen are (at least by FN's definition) wholly the creators of their moralities, and often are opportunistic in how they use moral abstractions, and (most interestingly) often tend toward creating moral systems that coincidentally(?) benefit themselves and those they value at the expense of others (see: Kim Jong Un, Stalin, Ted Cruz...haha). I'm glossing over some meat about whether moral abstractions can pre-exist a person's understanding of them and what the difference is between benefiting yourself and benefiting others if benefiting others provides you with serious self-benefit, but those are totally separate discussions =)

jasonisalive 12y ago
I think what you're really saying with all those fancy words about pre-existing moral validations (which is really just an argument from authority) is that you agree with Gandhi/MLK/Pussy Riot that the laws they willfully broke were in fact unjust, and the authorities they were fighting against were tyrannical, and their motives were wholesome, whereas you don't feel that the laws Uber willfully breaks are unjust (or perhaps not unjust enough), and the authorities they are fighting are tyrannical etc. etc. - enough to justify their behaviour. Keep in mind that at the time Gandhi and MLK were acting, the "right-thinking" dominant majority would have had the same reaction to them - sure, the British might not be perfect, but is it really necessary to cause all this awful fuss about it? Why not just work with them and try and be reasonable? Sure, blacks might not have everything the way they'd like it in the South, but let's not get too extreme here people! Of course now we all know that negotiating with and beseeching the power agents in these cases was never going to work - the British were never interested in giving up their golden goose, and the whites in the South were never interested in treating blacks as equals. These systems had to be fought against and willfully resisted for people to see what happened when those in power asserted their entrenched position, to understand that it was an absurd, unjust, and exploitative power structure shielding itself with flimsy moral justifications. Change required swimming against the tide of social opinion. Of course now it's all very easy to say "well they were right and weren't they wonderful people" and forget the fact that at the time they were hated. People in the future may well look back at companies like Uber and similarly appreciate the service they did to humanity by fighting incumbent, corrupted institutions, by fighting for the right for people to make their own decisions about the services they purchase, the contracts they enter into, and the risks they are willing to bear. They may well realise that at the time there was no point negotiating or pleading with the various feudal power brokers of the world - these city halls were never interested in giving up their rights to say who was allowed to sell what to whom under what conditions and at what price - they were too corrupted and no longer really existed to serve their putative original purpose. You might feel like Uber rubs you the wrong way but at the very least you should realise that there is a significant possibility that people in the future will see you as naive and socialised as those who felt distaste and discomfort at Gandhi and MLK. That alone should give you cause to reconsider your position.
- joshjkim 12y ago
  Hm - ya, I guess I didn't make it clear enough but I think Uber is net-positive to society, to be sure, no questions asked. How many businesses in the past 30 years have created that many $25-$35/hour jobs that allow for huge flexibility to the workforce while simultaneously fulfilling a huge consumer need? Not more than a few, and I think they are all awesome. This all was more just a thought-experiment and an attempt to draw a connection I found interesting, but not something I necessarily believe at all - see my "Note on Uber" towards the end of the post: "Note on Uber: I think Uber is a great business and has a significantly net-positive impact on society, and I reserve judgment w/r/t whether TK and the other Uber execs are good or bad people - I can't conclude they are good because they run a good business, and I can't conclude they are bad because they say stupid things in public."
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jasonisalive 12y ago

I think what you're really saying with all those fancy words about pre-existing moral validations (which is really just an argument from authority) is that you agree with Gandhi/MLK/Pussy Riot that the laws they willfully broke were in fact unjust, and the authorities they were fighting against were tyrannical, and their motives were wholesome, whereas you don't feel that the laws Uber willfully breaks are unjust (or perhaps not unjust enough), and the authorities they are fighting are tyrannical etc. etc. - enough to justify their behaviour. Keep in mind that at the time Gandhi and MLK were acting, the "right-thinking" dominant majority would have had the same reaction to them - sure, the British might not be perfect, but is it really necessary to cause all this awful fuss about it? Why not just work with them and try and be reasonable? Sure, blacks might not have everything the way they'd like it in the South, but let's not get too extreme here people! Of course now we all know that negotiating with and beseeching the power agents in these cases was never going to work - the British were never interested in giving up their golden goose, and the whites in the South were never interested in treating blacks as equals. These systems had to be fought against and willfully resisted for people to see what happened when those in power asserted their entrenched position, to understand that it was an absurd, unjust, and exploitative power structure shielding itself with flimsy moral justifications. Change required swimming against the tide of social opinion. Of course now it's all very easy to say "well they were right and weren't they wonderful people" and forget the fact that at the time they were hated. People in the future may well look back at companies like Uber and similarly appreciate the service they did to humanity by fighting incumbent, corrupted institutions, by fighting for the right for people to make their own decisions about the services they purchase, the contracts they enter into, and the risks they are willing to bear. They may well realise that at the time there was no point negotiating or pleading with the various feudal power brokers of the world - these city halls were never interested in giving up their rights to say who was allowed to sell what to whom under what conditions and at what price - they were too corrupted and no longer really existed to serve their putative original purpose. You might feel like Uber rubs you the wrong way but at the very least you should realise that there is a significant possibility that people in the future will see you as naive and socialised as those who felt distaste and discomfort at Gandhi and MLK. That alone should give you cause to reconsider your position.

joshjkim 12y ago
Hm - ya, I guess I didn't make it clear enough but I think Uber is net-positive to society, to be sure, no questions asked. How many businesses in the past 30 years have created that many $25-$35/hour jobs that allow for huge flexibility to the workforce while simultaneously fulfilling a huge consumer need? Not more than a few, and I think they are all awesome. This all was more just a thought-experiment and an attempt to draw a connection I found interesting, but not something I necessarily believe at all - see my "Note on Uber" towards the end of the post: "Note on Uber: I think Uber is a great business and has a significantly net-positive impact on society, and I reserve judgment w/r/t whether TK and the other Uber execs are good or bad people - I can't conclude they are good because they run a good business, and I can't conclude they are bad because they say stupid things in public."

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]