5 ms·

The problem is that a lot of people genuinely think "If a large institution approved of it, it must be good". Which is a lot scarier than people not giving a da

The problem is that a lot of people genuinely think "If a large institution approved of it, it must be good". Which is a lot scarier than people not giving a damn about good or evil. Morality is not something you outsource.

dec0dedab0de 12y ago
The bigger problem is that many potentially evil things are really cool.
- krenoten 12y ago
  Things cannot be evil in and of themselves. It takes sentient intention that you judge to be so for it to be (to you).
  - jonmrodriguez 12y ago
    I guess it's hard to prove, but I think certain objects are inherently correlated with good/evil. E.g. a torture device is inherently evil IMHO, and a vaccine is inherently good.
    - seba_dos1 12y ago
      I guess you could kill with vaccine if you really wanted to, and you can have sex using torture device if you're into that kind of stuff.
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      Maybe for some object, but I can't think of any, and I don't think that vaccines or torture devices fit the bill. One could sell a spoiled, ineffective, tainted, or defective vaccine. That would be evil. Or, one could torture Hitler to learn how to disarm the doomsday machine.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        The original vaccine is still good, and it's evil to torture anyone, even Hitler. I think you're stretching too far.
        krenoten 12y ago
        "Good" is inherently normative. Nothing can be "good" exterior to a normative claim. This is in contrast with "positive" statements, which are true regardless of anything happening to perceive them that way or not. The original vaccine, if it exists in a vacuum, is neither good nor bad, because there is nothing else to attach the normative claim to it. Further - and while this is an entirely normative claim - if you would happen to agree that if you could save 1,000,000,000 lives by torturing one person for 5 seconds, that you should do so, then I would argue that torture is not inherently evil within your own normative value system.
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        >in a vacuum It wouldn't be a 'vaccine' if it was in a vacuum, it would just be a vial of fluids. Once you have enough context to define vaccine, you can demonstrate that it is good. >1,000,000,000 lives by torturing one person for 5 seconds This argument is just obnoxious. Give me a moment. ... You can play with all the numbers you want, they don't change the underlying act. Except to the extent that you make the time period so short it no longer qualifies as torture and you're not even asking a question any more.
baddox 12y ago
A lot of people (probably the vast majority, at least in the West) also believe that, because you can occasionally vote on things, anything the government does is fine because, after all, "government is us."
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  Who, exactly, is this "lot of people" you refer to? > "anything the government does is fine" I have literally never met a single person who believes this. I have met someone who believes that anything the market does is fine (revealed preferences, doncha know?) but fortunately he's a minority, even among libertarians. If we instead interpret your statement as hyperbole with the intention of accusing people of complacency, then... http://xkcd.com/610/ http://xkcd.com/610/ ... you're no better.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Right, so "anything the government does is fine" was a really bad way to phrase it. What I meant is that many people have the same attitude toward government as the attitude toward markets that you reference. It's not necessarily that they agree with or personally like all actions of government, but rather that they believe that the fundamental workings of government are sound, and that the occasional disagreeable actions are acceptable because this is simply how society has chosen to come together and solve certain issues. Many people also go further, and claim that even when there are unjust government laws or actions, they should not be disobeyed or resisted, and that political action is the only valid approach to disagreeable actions of government. This is extremely common in any discussion about police violence.

dec0dedab0de 12y ago

The bigger problem is that many potentially evil things are really cool.

krenoten 12y ago
Things cannot be evil in and of themselves. It takes sentient intention that you judge to be so for it to be (to you).
- jonmrodriguez 12y ago
  I guess it's hard to prove, but I think certain objects are inherently correlated with good/evil. E.g. a torture device is inherently evil IMHO, and a vaccine is inherently good.
  - seba_dos1 12y ago
    I guess you could kill with vaccine if you really wanted to, and you can have sex using torture device if you're into that kind of stuff.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    Maybe for some object, but I can't think of any, and I don't think that vaccines or torture devices fit the bill. One could sell a spoiled, ineffective, tainted, or defective vaccine. That would be evil. Or, one could torture Hitler to learn how to disarm the doomsday machine.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      The original vaccine is still good, and it's evil to torture anyone, even Hitler. I think you're stretching too far.
      - krenoten 12y ago
        "Good" is inherently normative. Nothing can be "good" exterior to a normative claim. This is in contrast with "positive" statements, which are true regardless of anything happening to perceive them that way or not. The original vaccine, if it exists in a vacuum, is neither good nor bad, because there is nothing else to attach the normative claim to it. Further - and while this is an entirely normative claim - if you would happen to agree that if you could save 1,000,000,000 lives by torturing one person for 5 seconds, that you should do so, then I would argue that torture is not inherently evil within your own normative value system.
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        >in a vacuum It wouldn't be a 'vaccine' if it was in a vacuum, it would just be a vial of fluids. Once you have enough context to define vaccine, you can demonstrate that it is good. >1,000,000,000 lives by torturing one person for 5 seconds This argument is just obnoxious. Give me a moment. ... You can play with all the numbers you want, they don't change the underlying act. Except to the extent that you make the time period so short it no longer qualifies as torture and you're not even asking a question any more.

baddox 12y ago

A lot of people (probably the vast majority, at least in the West) also believe that, because you can occasionally vote on things, anything the government does is fine because, after all, "government is us."

jjoonathan 12y ago
Who, exactly, is this "lot of people" you refer to? > "anything the government does is fine" I have literally never met a single person who believes this. I have met someone who believes that anything the market does is fine (revealed preferences, doncha know?) but fortunately he's a minority, even among libertarians. If we instead interpret your statement as hyperbole with the intention of accusing people of complacency, then... http://xkcd.com/610/ http://xkcd.com/610/ ... you're no better.
- baddox 12y ago
  Right, so "anything the government does is fine" was a really bad way to phrase it. What I meant is that many people have the same attitude toward government as the attitude toward markets that you reference. It's not necessarily that they agree with or personally like all actions of government, but rather that they believe that the fundamental workings of government are sound, and that the occasional disagreeable actions are acceptable because this is simply how society has chosen to come together and solve certain issues. Many people also go further, and claim that even when there are unjust government laws or actions, they should not be disobeyed or resisted, and that political action is the only valid approach to disagreeable actions of government. This is extremely common in any discussion about police violence.