This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, I mean why do you endorse a position in which technology and civilization have such value that they can balance out moral obligations? Most people would say that morality comes first, always. In a sense, that's precisely what morality is, the rules that hold utmost importance and must be obeyed should there ever be any conflict. You don't even dispute the idea that what Israel is doing is immoral.
You say that technological innovation and civilization creation are aspects in which Israel does so well that its immoral actions can be ignored. Would you say the same if the costs or consequences of those actions fell on you or those you cared about? If the cost for Israel's success was the death of your parents, your wife, your children, or even you, would you still make the same argument?
Now, you could argue that your human responses are irrational. Feelings are stupid and gay, after all, there's no reason your chemical reaction to seeing your family killed by a drone should dictate the actual morality you hold to. But talk is cheap. I've debated people who struck me as incapable of separating the reality we all inhabit from any hypothetical world I proposed. It's easy to bite bullets about what you would accept when the only one biting actual bullets are your adversaries.
I would say it's largely because my own idiosyncratic morality can differ quite significantly from the norm.
I'd go so far as to say that people who are 100% on board with all the values preached around them are NPCs, which is what I gave as my definition for the term when someone asked in a CW thread a while back. Seemed to match up with most of the answers too.
This is a deontological take, and I'm a consequentialist.
Such a naive approach runs into the immediate roadblock of someone pointing out how you resolve the Kantian imperatives of not lying and not letting someone come to harm when an murderer knocks on your door and asks where you friend is. (Or the SS comes for the Jews in your annex, if we're to stay close to the topic at hand)
Keep resolving the edge cases, blatant conflicts and order of operations, and you have a dumbed down version of utilitarianism/consequentialism. Reality isn't so kind that it always gives you one option unreproachably better than the other.
(Some suggest that Deontology can also be considered Utilitarianism for Dummies, or people who don't trust themselves to think too hard, which is close enough, we don't have infinite computing power in our skulls and some heuristics are good enough to use most of the time. I'm also not a Benthamian Utilitarian/Effective Altruist, I just model myself as having a utility function)
There are plenty of people who proclaim democracy as valuable in-of-itself, and point to downstream observations about socio-economic output as a justification for the more hard-headed.
Well, I'll happily sacrifice some democracy for a lot of wealth, and I would head to Singapore right away if they didn't only take the top 0.1% of doctors from India.
Further, what comes when we make an AGI (which is obedient instead of killing us immediately)? It takes chutzpah to think that humans should be the ones micromanaging it, instead of asking it to examine our goals and desires and figure out what's best for us, even if we enforce a requirement to let us decide in the end.
I would take being utterly politically powerless in a post-scarcity society over being the ruler of a state like Palestine. And you know what, that's the same dilemma they face. Surrender their useless autonomy, already well compromised, and accept Israeli rule, which very much wants to be kind, or else they'd have leveled the strip.
As for Human Rights?
Spit. They're a contingent outcome of immense global wealth where we can agree to pretend that they descend from the heavens or emerge fully formed from our temples, not pure Logos that we stray from at risk of eternal damnation.
In other words, they're nice to have as Schelling Points, not sacred as far as I'm concerned. And eventually every single one ends up riddled with exceptions for the public good and whatever the bored judge or civil servant feels like that afternoon.
Nope. I wouldn't say that if that was the price, but once again, Palestinians don't face that tradeoff either. They could diminish their risk of drone strikes killing them and their loved ones to ~0% by not doing everything in their limited power to piss off their more powerful neighbors.
Or condoning and celebrating those who do, to an extent.
You can have mine for free, I'm commenting here because I like to, not because I have a Substack or Patreon to shill (maybe later). I'm sure I'm inconsequential in the greater scheme, and I've made my peace with that long ago, as long as things keep improving.
If the modal Palestinian was that pragmatic, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I understand that morality is hard. That's not the same as saying that the creation of technology or civilization is itself a moral good.
You're letting implementation dictate the value of the theoretical.
But then you're also okay if Israel happens to, intentionally or with reckless disregard, kill Palestinians who do precisely that because the Israelis think this particular person or family are terrorists or criminals. After all, these are the "occasional human rights violations" you're talking about.
Meaning that your statements on any moral issue are contingent upon whether you have political or social power, correct?
I deny that objective morality even exists. Or that it's a even a coherent concept!
As far as my personal subjective morality goes, I don't find it particularly difficult, not as much as say, quantum mechanics or memorizing every single fucking interaction in medicine I am expected to learn for the next set of exams I need to give.
Not that I let moral relativism stop me from being a moral chauvinist, why, yes, I prefer my own morals, and I think society would be better off adopting it.
Whether the creation of a technology is a moral good or not obviously depends on the technology, even for an unabashed transhumanist? Gain of function research? Hell no. Eliminating mosquitoes with gene drives? Hell yes. AI? Depends, will it save us or kill us? In expectation I slightly lean towards the former, even if I worry about the latter.
Civilization is a social technology in itself, us bootstrapping from Monke to apotheosis.
Of course the net sum of all technological advances since fire has been overwhelmingly positive, and if Ted K wants to disagree, sucks to be dead I guess. May we develop the technology to solve that particular problem soon.
And?
I hereby declare that it's a Human Right to be free from the tyranny of gravity, if not Israeli occupation. Look, I don't float, at least not without a rocket.
What is a Right to Internet Access without the internet? Healthcare, without at least 20th century medicine?
Ain't nobody perfect. It's still the smart decision, even if the dice or Mossad roll against you.
A little? Not that I would even frame it as a bad thing, per se. It should be clear by now that I consider morality to be quite contingent on the circumstances one finds one's self in.
You sure? I just tried it and cracked levitating. Maybe you aren't believing strongly enough.
Jokes aside, I think 'objective' morality is an incoherent concept, because objectivity is an incoherent concept! Jordan Peterson has some great discussions on how everything bottoms out to morality - basically related to relevance realization a la John Vervaeke and how there are so many facts out there (like impossible numbers) that you have to have some a priori framework to get them down to a manageable size to make decisions on.
There's also Hume's is-ought gap, if you're looking for the steelmanned version of what I think @drmanhattan16 is trying to argue.
Shoots your balloon down. One at a time, because I don't particularly want to kill you.
Maybe my chakras will stop being so lazy, if I could levitate it would save me a lot of pain in the literal ass and legs.
Hah well I appreciate your forbearance.
Don't worry about your chakras man, you just gotta believe in rights. Everyone knows the path of Human Rights will give you a far stronger foundation and easier cycling than the path of Yoga. Duh!
I read Cultivation novels, this path doesn't exist haha
It's a secret held onto by my clan for generations, I'll share it with you for some Essence of Draconic Might. Or some cocaine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link