Christian Overconfidence

[RabbiKnife]

I'm not sure I'm tracking that.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is where that perfect balance you described is?  And, for the individual, if you are the kid having his arm removed for the benefit of "the greater good," is the collective benefit satisfactory enough for you to enjoy the name "Lefty" for the rest of your life?

That seems to be outcome derivative, not input derivative.  Something cries out for justice for the One armed man.

Is this ethics on a purely subjective scale, or are there some actions that are simply not permitted regardless of the sociological implications?   Said another way, if society permits otherwise, is there anything taboo?

[Athanasius]

It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.

In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?

[Oscar_Kipling]

I'm not sure I'm tracking that.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is where that perfect balance you described is?  And, for the individual, if you are the kid having his arm removed for the benefit of "the greater good," is the collective benefit satisfactory enough for you to enjoy the name "Lefty" for the rest of your life?

That seems to be outcome derivative, not input derivative.  Something cries out for justice for the One armed man.

Is this ethics on a purely subjective scale, or are there some actions that are simply not permitted regardless of the sociological implications?   Said another way, if society permits otherwise, is there anything taboo?

I don't think I did describe a perfect balance, Like a world with the most food and psychological health isn't necessarily a perfectly sustainable balance or anything but I also don't know if that is the best possible. Again in that arm situation I don't know, maybe that world has the best healthcare for the most people or whatever I said but it doesn't maximize individual happiness. I think you are maybe asking if I think this is the road to Utopia or something which I don't know, but I'm not confident that Utopia is a possible state of the world.

Yes It is very Outcome based, we still have to choose the kind of world we want to live in and work toward it and what we want to prioritize just because its this world. I think harris puts it like it seems unlikely that humans would coordinate within the possibility space prioritize the most possible suffering for everyone which is not to say everyone will be sufferings because maybe some people are wildly happy in that world and a perfect hell is also not possible. I'm not talking about how great it could or couldn't be, The examples were to illustrate that this possibility space exists and has parameters around it because of objective facts on the ground about humans and earth and nature.

Its not ethics in the sense that we have a list or the precisely best and worst or right and wrong for every possible situation at every scale. I think as close as we could get to absolutely not permitted is extinction, impossibility within the objective facts of the totality of the system or some sort of chaotic oscillating imbalance that takes any meaningful choices out of our hands. Even if we can get as fine grained as is possible, we might choose destruction because we really rather prioritize cheap phones or chocolate or the throaty roar or a v8 more than we prioritize continuing to have a planet suitable for human life. Either way I think we can reason about this space, discuss it and make informed decisions without there ever being a golden spike where everything is in perfect balance in perpetuity...that don't sound like this universe, moreover that doesn't sound like people.

[RabbiKnife]

Then talk about people

Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?

[Oscar_Kipling]

It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.

In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?

I was just trying to illustrate that we work within confines, objective ones. We do live in a world where we prioritize cheap chocolate over human life, but it's not the only possible setup we could have, and honestly I don't even think it produces the cheapest possible chocolate. If the world really prioritized the cheapest production of chocolate I highly doubt slave labor would be in the space of cheapest possible chocolate humanity can muster but It would probably be a whole other kind of nightmare world.

I don't think the problems of chopped off limb world would be any more minor than our current world, and I think we could apply reason to it. I think that no matter how we slice it we have to suss out what is possible and then make the choices about what kind of world we want, why we want it and how best to get there...there is no magic bullet, no instructions and the ever looming possibility of totally and irrevocably screwing it up.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Then talk about people

Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?

permissible? I mean ideas around rape in my little neck of the world have changed drastically just in my lifetime. When my mother was young rape was practically poo poo frequently except under certain privileged circumstances....Turns out though people don't care much for being raped and rapist don't much like being called out on rape when they cannot control the spread of information. I can say that people seem to not like being raped and that's a pretty common view, and at least in societies where the part of the population that bears the brunt of rapes has the ability to voice this opinion it changes minds i'd argue because it works within the empathy system that most people have (just a fact of human design) and our sense of bodily autonomy. There is also a tipping point where It just becomes socially unacceptable to support it or the culture of basically ignoring it because it's no longer in fashion which has a reinforcing feedback effect. Does any of this mean that the laws of nature preclude rape, very obviously not...we gotta choose if we want to say screw rape victims and just live in a world where you might get raped and no one will do anything about it but the technology is there to constantly hear about them, or does that world seem icky and like its probably going to lead to some very obvious issues that you'd just really rather not? we can pick the world we live in (within parameters), we already did, and we can pick something else.

I think rape is wrong, clearly nobody wants it foisted on them otherwise its not rape its consensual. None of that changes that anyone can attempt a rape at any time, maybe with no consequence maybe not it certainly seems as if the universe permits it, heck God allows it so, who is going to make a change where its minimized as best we can but us?

[Athanasius]

It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.

In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?

I was just trying to illustrate that we work within confines, objective ones. We do live in a world where we prioritize cheap chocolate over human life, but it's not the only possible setup we could have, and honestly I don't even think it produces the cheapest possible chocolate. If the world really prioritized the cheapest production of chocolate I highly doubt slave labor would be in the space of cheapest possible chocolate humanity can muster but It would probably be a whole other kind of nightmare world.

I don't think the problems of chopped off limb world would be any more minor than our current world, and I think we could apply reason to it. I think that no matter how we slice it we have to suss out what is possible and then make the choices about what kind of world we want, why we want it and how best to get there...there is no magic bullet, no instructions and the ever looming possibility of totally and irrevocably screwing it up.

My point is that we are the nightmare world already, we just like to brush off the reality because it's not as bad as it conceivably could be. But then, why should any of that be a problem? Should there be no greater power what reason is there to side with Socrates over Thrasymachus? A psychopath would simply understand what others merely wish to deny, and is advantaged thusly. It's a miracle the world isn't in a worse state than it is.

China seems to be doing well for itself despite all those great evils. Why not do the same?

[RabbiKnife]

Then talk about people

Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?

I think rape is wrong,

On what basis do you make this moral and ethical judgment?

If I want to rape, by what authority do you tell me that I cannot do as I please?

Natural law or sociological agreement?
That's a binary question.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It turns out that if you let companies abuse children and employ slave labour using people who look different from you, you can eat chocolate and enjoy the latest clothes and technology. The West loves to talk about ethics, but unless we conduct our lives in very particular ways, we're just perfectly monstrous because the suffering is 10,000 miles away.

In other words, there's no need to theorise about children with missing limbs. Why theorise about something so minor when the West steals entire lives?

I was just trying to illustrate that we work within confines, objective ones. We do live in a world where we prioritize cheap chocolate over human life, but it's not the only possible setup we could have, and honestly I don't even think it produces the cheapest possible chocolate. If the world really prioritized the cheapest production of chocolate I highly doubt slave labor would be in the space of cheapest possible chocolate humanity can muster but It would probably be a whole other kind of nightmare world.

I don't think the problems of chopped off limb world would be any more minor than our current world, and I think we could apply reason to it. I think that no matter how we slice it we have to suss out what is possible and then make the choices about what kind of world we want, why we want it and how best to get there...there is no magic bullet, no instructions and the ever looming possibility of totally and irrevocably screwing it up.

My point is that we are the nightmare world already, we just like to brush off the reality because it's not as bad as it conceivably could be. But then, why should any of that be a problem? Should there be no greater power what reason is there to side with Socrates over Thrasymachus? A psychopath would simply understand what others merely wish to deny, and is advantaged thusly. It's a miracle the world isn't in a worse state than it is. I think you also read and write other stuff.

China seems to be doing well for itself despite all those great evils. Why not do the same?

I mean it seems we both acknowledge that It could be worse, but maybe I'm alone in thinking that better choices are available to us? How do you decide, you read them, you discuss them, you reason together about them and about the world you want to live in and if it applies. Again I'm not remotely pretending that its easy or fast or that mistakes and unforeseen outcomes can't or won't pop up, There is no magic here Its people using what is available to them to affect change in what is available to them just like it probably has been since we showed up. What should be is something we strive toward while working within what is, but should isnt coming to us from on high because it can only come from us Unless there is a GOD, but looks the same to me so why add it as an explanation for a situation that is already explicable.

A certain population of psychopaths can do pretty well within a world of mostly non psychopaths and might on average be beneficial at a certain level,  Empathy is probably beneficial for working together in large complex societies, so I don't think a lack of it would be a purer world somehow or a truer vision of the world any more than ants disabled from working together are a more realistic ant colony. Its beside the point because we are what we are and unless we change what we are the facts of earth are that humans live here (for now) and humans (mostly) have empathy and that is a fact just like bees sting and everybody poops acting as if ignoring it is anything but ignoring an actual existing fact of the world is not more realistic its ignoring reality.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Then talk about people

Is rape ever permissible?
If not, we not?
If yes, in what circumstances?

I think rape is wrong,

On what basis do you make this moral and ethical judgment?

If I want to rape, by what authority do you tell me that I cannot do as I please?

Natural law or sociological agreement?
That's a binary question.

I mean I already said nature doesn't prevent it, that is obvious, the only things that even care about it in any way is us, so we are the only ones who have both a vested interest and ability to do anything about it. Like I wish if a rapist was about to rape the universe would prevent it but that has never ever happened to my knowledge, only people have ever stopped it or allowed it.

I feel like I did my best to explain my reasoning, no one wants to be raped I think that is as good a basis as anything to create a world where rape is minimized. I'd bet that even most rapist don't want to live in a world where the most rapes humanly possible occur...but i do not think rapetopia is any more realistic than Utopia considering that we are talking about people who don't want to be raped even if they want to do rape. who cares if the universe is apathetic about it because its not happening to the universe its happening to us.

Okay lets actually play this out, you be pro rape and i'll be anti-rape and you use what is available to you to make your case and i'll do the same.

[Oscar_Kipling]

China seems to be doing well for itself despite all those great evils. Why not do the same?


We might give it a go if we decide that we want to both live in another china, understand how to replicate it and have the will and resources to do it. I think that there might be some arguments as to why 2 Chinas would be less successful than one China and one USA, but hey again no rulebook

[RabbiKnife]

If someone wants to rape you on what basis do you object?

[Oscar_Kipling]

If someone wants to rape you on what basis do you object?

I don't want to be raped.

[RabbiKnife]

So who cares?

If I can do it then there is nothing to condemn me for doing so,right?

[Oscar_Kipling]

So who cares?

If I can do it then there is nothing to condemn me for doing so,right?

Well if you do this you will burn in Hell forever, unless you sincerely repent and ask God for forgiveness in which case you will be forgiven by him and join the father in heaven when you die.

Well there is me, Id frown upon it. Probably my friends and family, Perhaps my greater community, and maybe the justice system, but you also might get away scott free. Whether I forgive you  or not eventually you will die and nothing will happen.