 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 3235
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Apple_in_my_Eye wrote: | There are two kinds of people in the world: the dominant and the dominated. Not to strive to control, subjugate, and use others for one's own benefit is the philosophy of losers. This is evolution, this is why life exists, and that is why it is essential.
To use such measures as "morality," or to say "that is too far," is, again, the talk of losers. Because they harbor such weak-mindedness they will fail, and they deserve to. Such notions are poison to the mind and must be abandoned. The only moral limits are those imposed externally by the self-interest of others. It is only in the unrestrained free-marketplace of morality that the true morality is found: some are born to be kings and others slaves. There are no other possibilities. Any internal "moral," or "ethical" limitations against that are things that do not even exist in the real world, and are therefore dangerous and under-cutting delusions. This has been the natural order of things since time immemorial, and that is not an accident.
Slaves deserve to be slaves. The murdered earned they deaths. Rape victims are serving their role and purpose in life. If you can take something, you have earned the absolute moral right to have it. Any other view is self-castration.
If they were sick, or otherwise having "bad luck" that is, in essence, a divine indication to you of their destiny (and yours). You need not feel hesitation, "sympathy," or "compassion" -- to realize this is to understand what separates the strong from the weak. If they are "disadvantaged," that is the way of things; letting the opportunity pass is your failure if you do not capitalize on it.
To rape, steal, and kill is the way of the world and that is beautiful.
[edited for typo] |
I seriously hope you are joking. If this is how you really view things, you should probably be locked away, because you are a severe danger to others around you. This sounds like pure psychopathy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 3235
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, nvm, I finally got what this thread was about lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: | | Sargon: you did an excellent job of arguing the deontological position, especially if you really don't believe in it (I do). |
Well, I tend to think that people have done pretty well in arguing their opposite position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 3235
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well I'm rather confused here because I don't believe I have a position, except trying to define truth. I never take sides in debates over things, "liberals vs. conservatives", "religion vs. science", etc etc.... I usually try to look at all sides and referee the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 3235
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What exactly do you mean by my position? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kalister1
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 09, 2007
Posts: 2882
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Argh this thread is hard 
_________________
Warghh!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snake321 wrote: | | Well I'm rather confused here because I don't believe I have a position, except trying to define truth. I never take sides in debates over things, "liberals vs. conservatives", "religion vs. science", etc etc.... I usually try to look at all sides and referee the situation. |
Well, you do because you must. Your very continued existence is a positive statement about the world. You also take sides, usually your own side, but still a side. The fact that you attacked Apple as being psychotic and told him that if he really thought that then he should be locked up is a sign that you aren't passively neutral but rather have active opinions on matters.
| Quote: | | What exactly do you mean by my position? |
Your position is what you think or consider correct on a given issue. If you think that polygamy should be outlawed, then that is your position on polygamy, and you could, in this thread argue for it's legalization. Heck, your position could be so basic as to be that your life is worth living or that it is an acceptable use of time to post on WP, and you could argue that life is not worth living(perhaps not recommended because of high risk individuals) or that posting on WP is an intolerable waste of time(also not recommended because then you could drive away cool people). But right, if there is anything you consider true or have an opinion about, then you can consider that your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kalister1 wrote: | | Argh this thread is hard |
Good, it is meant to be a thinking exercise. Most people systematically try to undermine their opposition and support their own conclusion as a function of their personal cognitive biases. Exercising the mental muscle against these trends allows you to see things from a more even-handed perspective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3710
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The idea that some actions are inherently "good" or "bad," regardless of their outcome, is absurd. Trying to claim the moral high ground when your actions lead to suffering or even death because you refused to compromise your "principles" is hypocritical and selfish; in a sense it is putting your own sense of self-righteousness over the good of humanity. Kant said that it would be wrong to lie in all circumstances, even to someone who asked where a friend of yours was in order to kill him. That is nonsense, maintaining a rule about not lying over preserving a human life can not possibly be considered moral. True morality comes not in adherence to a set of abstract rules but in doing that which leads to the optimal real outcomes in this world. Whatever is done that minimizes pain, suffering, and death is good, whatever is done that increases these things is evil. As you can see, this requires a situational approach where you must use your judgment because a specific action that might be evil in one circumstance could be good in another. For example, murder is wrong, but if you had the opportunity to kill Hitler you would have to, because otherwise you would be ultimately responsible for the deaths of all the millions who perished in WWII and the Holocaust. This principle can be applied to many more scenarios; it is permissible to lie to avoid hurting someone's feelings, it is OK to lie in gaining support to pass needed but unpopular legislation if it is in the best interest of the people and they are simply not able to understand that. It is OK to kill people who pose obvious and imminent threats of being mass murderers. It is moral to torture terrorists to prevent them from carrying out attacks that would kill many people; for what is the temporary suffering of one balanced against a thousand lives? Deontological views are short-sighted and selfish, utilitarianism looks at the big picture and offers a truer morality.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sargon
Sea Gull
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most the posts so far do seem fairly good in this thread. Anyone mind if it go again? Since AG took socialism in a way, I'll do monarchy (it's easier to believably argue for anyway).
Under democracy, politicians have strong incentives for short term gains even if they result in long-term losses. By sacrificing future wealth, they can increase their chances of being elected, and since most voters are stupid, they'll buy into the elected politician's schemes. These actions, however, make the country much worse off in the longer run and its overall wealth will be lower than it would have been otherwise. However, if the country was ruled by a monarch, that monarch would have an incentive to maintain his country for future generations (his children, which is a major incentive difference between a King and a dictator). Parents often leave inheritances for their children, and most companies do not solely focus on the short term. Because the King will want to preserve his country for the future, the problem many politicians create in democracies will be resolves. Also, the King will have an incentive to grow GDP and promote good economic policies because that will make his Kingdom wealthier overall in the long run (even if it causes short term losses). While the King does not have to worry about approval ratings on the same level a politician does, he still would not desire zero percent approval since his subjects would be in unrest or might revolt. If people are happy, they would likely be more productive, so there should be little to fear about a King oppressing his subjects (especially considering he will wish to preserve his subjects for future generations). The King could also act more effectively than a legislative body that would take months to get laws passed. If there is an economic or military crisis, the King could act instantly against it if need be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sargon
Sea Gull
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Haha, nice consequentialist/utilitarian response, Orwell (I think I would agree with most of it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sargon wrote: | Most the posts so far do seem fairly good in this thread. Anyone mind if it go again? Since AG took socialism in a way, I'll do monarchy (it's easier to believably argue for anyway).
|
I should have probably limited myself a bit more, but I figured that the biggest opposite view to my own would have been something fascistic/national socialist, but I did not actually outright say fascism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3710
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the economy, though the free market often does very well, in many cases government intervention is necessary because of market failures, externalities, monopolies, and unfair exploitation. A true free market has no means of dealing with environmental issues and leads all too often to a "tragedy of the commons." Also, as seen in the Industrial Revolution, unfettered capitalism leads to the exploitation and mistreatment of common workers. It is necessary to have a social safety net and a welfare state to preserve basic human dignity, and to these ends it is also necessary to enact minimum wage legislation, support the right of labor to organize, and establish a progressive income tax. Because of the diminishing marginal utility of any good, including money, the marginal utility of the last units of income for the wealthiest people in a country are vastly less than for the poorest. Therefore, the rich should be taxed at a higher rate in order to gain revenue for the government while doing as little as possible to decrease the total utility of American citizens. Taxing the rich at higher rate is not unfair, it is simply asking them to pay their fair share. "From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required, and form the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded." (Luke 12:48, NRSV) The rich have greater resources, and they need a lower percentage of their income to survive, so it is unfair to ask the poor to pay at the same rate as the rich. Also, to promote competition, stiff anti-trust laws are desperately needed. Anti-competitive behavior by large corporations will drive smaller competitors out of business, and powerful monopolies would grow to dominate every sector of the economy, resulting in higher prices and poorer service. A government must also be able to take strong action to ward off the instability of the market, with its incessant cycles of boom and bust that led to the Great Depression. Keynesian fiscal policy and transfer payments facilitated by the welfare state will result in a net transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor, and since the poor have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the rich, the Keynesian multiplier will come into effect as more money is spent, jump-starting the economy and staving off a recession. However, fiscal policy is not enough, the state must also have control over a fiat monetary system which can be used to help ease the problems caused by shocks in aggregate demand or aggregate supply, preventing catastrophic deflationary spirals as caused by such pipe dreams as "commodity money" or the gold standard, while also keeping inflation in check and at a level roughly consistent with real GDP growth. However, because there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment, the government must carefully coordinate this balancing act so that neither gets out of hand.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Orwell
Outer Party Member
Joined: Aug 09, 2007
Age: 18
Posts: 3710
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sargon wrote: | | Haha, nice consequentialist/utilitarian response, Orwell (I think I would agree with most of it). |
Thanks. I figured that since you were so great about eloquently arguing my view, I should try to return the favor for some balance. I liked your monarchy, so maybe I will argue for some Rousseauian democracy in a bit, but already having argued consequentialism and Keynesianism is enough of a threat to my intellectual health for one night.
BTW, AG, I just consulted my psychology textbook to review something I learned last summer that was setting off alarm bells when I saw this thread. Cognitive dissonance: when you are forced to defend a view that is not your own, you often end up actually adopting that view, or at least moving closer to it, in order to lessen the mental discomfort that comes from producing lies such as everyone in this thread has done. Just so you know, if in a few months I am a Keynesian utilitarian, it is your fault.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5725
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orwell wrote: |
BTW, AG, I just consulted my psychology textbook to review something I learned last summer that was setting off alarm bells when I saw this thread. Cognitive dissonance: when you are forced to defend a view that is not your own, you often end up actually adopting that view, or at least moving closer to it, in order to lessen the mental discomfort that comes from producing lies such as everyone in this thread has done. Just so you know, if in a few months I am a Keynesian utilitarian, it is your fault. |
Yeah, I know about cognitive dissonance. In the levels that we are exercising this, we are not going to have major position shifts, but rather just counteract our natural confirmation biases that cause us to overstate our own position's strengths, such as found with people who cannot understand their opposition and attribute it to idiocy rather than other factors. Cognitive dissonance will mostly work if we continue to defend our new idea, sort of like how you try to claim that you love hot weather. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
