$(".comments_topic_40744 .more").remove(); $(".comments_topic_40744").prepend("
\n\n
\n
\'momoichi\'<\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
\n Lamby<\/span> @momoichi<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n \n commented on\n <\/span>\n debate<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
Lamby<\/span> @momoichi<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n Oct 18, 20 at 4:51pm<\/i>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
ok, i think i understand\n\nso if a human acts outside of this, does something immoral, are they devoid of all moral consideration, like we do with animals/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>
\n\n
\n
\'songofsisyphus\'<\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
\n songofsisyphus<\/span> @songofsisyphus<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n \n commented on\n <\/span>\n debate<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
songofsisyphus<\/span> @songofsisyphus<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n Oct 18, 20 at 4:56pm<\/i>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
Not quite. We're quite capable of devising formal ethical systems and then either adhering to them or not adhering to them. It is the ability to do so, not a specific instance of doing so. It is a quality rather than an act, so for an entity to act immorally (according to the system of ethics that they had constructed) in a moment would not disqualify them from moral consideration. Now, as I foresee an obvious contention coming up from this, I do need to sort of make another clarification with regards to temporality to make sure that people in temporary comas, or people who are sleeping are not rendered also devoid of moral consideration. The ability to devise formal ethical systems and act with respect to those systems in the future would also qualify one for moral consideration, but I had a very difficult time of phrasing this concept so I initially just packed it into the word 'abstract'. EDIT: And consequently from having thought of this (though I admit I did not consider it initially), the ability to have devised formal ethical systems and act with respect to them in the past should also apply.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>
\n\n
\n
\'nebelstern\'<\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
\n Disdain for Plebs<\/span> @nebelstern<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n \n commented on\n <\/span>\n debate<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
Disdain for Plebs<\/span> @nebelstern<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n Oct 18, 20 at 5:37pm<\/i>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
First, where did I say Lenin's Russia was comparable to the US or even some 20+ years later Vargas' Brazil (using 1917 as a point)? We also didn't have any kind of industry until Vargas came into power. Still, Lenin had to change his economical stance for the Union to produce more and, in time acquire world power status under Stalin. Whether I like both is irrelevant, as they bettered the macroeconomical situation of Russia until WWII's end, where Russia stagnated.\n\nSecond... no one here appointed what you are, my friend. No one. I picked Capitalism and extremes from Right (Fascism) and Left (Orthodox Marxist Socialism) to make my argument of Ideology. I don't even know what you are, except Progressive, which is just a trait of a political and social leaning.\n\nAnd also, what mask? The mask of the Assassins Guild Darque wears? \n\nJokes aside, my idealistic approach is that a politician should MAINLY act for the Nation, not for the people. Of the two, I prefer working for the former as the people are secondary in that goal. \n\nBut if this current world is less chaotic than a perceived future that would be unbearable for me, much better to stand for the current era and avoid it to fall. I cannot bring an ideal world forth, so the current one is more suitable (albeit marginally) to my views.\n\nYou are accusing me of anachronism and being multi-faced. And I cannot leave this as it is until I know whether your accusations make sense or not.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>
\n\n
\n
\'songofsisyphus\'<\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
\n songofsisyphus<\/span> @songofsisyphus<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n \n commented on\n <\/span>\n debate<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
songofsisyphus<\/span> @songofsisyphus<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n Oct 19, 20 at 8:15am<\/i>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
Well, if you insist, @nebelstern .\nYou didn't explicitly say that regarding Russia, but from the use of language there was an implication that we could use the Russia between the October Revolution and the New Economic Plan as a failure of 'Orthodox Marxism', which is a little misleading, because Lenin was in fact criticised for his approach by other people we would consider Orthodox Marxists, such as Rosa Luxemburg - well, up until her torture and death in 1919 at the hands of the Freikorps, which is very regrettable as it would've been interesting to see a theoretical back-and-forth between her and other Marxists of the time. Also, Lenin's particular strain of things between 1917 and the NEP was under "War Communism" for almost its entire duration, considering that the Russian Civil War actually only ended in 1922 (and the White Army only collapsed in 1923; of course the Russian economy was practically decimated by the time the NEP had been enacted, they had been having to fight against counter-revolutions and attempted coups in which the allied powers had participated. There were some big problems with 'war communism', mainly in how the Bolshevik party took all of the powers away from the worker's councils that had been built up in the October Revolution and centralised them into the state. Listing off a number of them (this isn't all of them, but the other points are less relevant to my argument here): \n"1: Nationalization of all industries and the introduction of strict centralized management\n2: State control of foreign trade\n3: Strict discipline for workers, with strikes forbidden\n4: Obligatory labor duty by non-working classes\n5: Prodrazvyorstka, or the requisition of agricultural surplus (in excess of an absolute minimum) from peasants for centralized distribution among the remaining population"\nNow, it is still practically miraculous that they did manage to win the war, considering the sheer amount of pressure that they had come under, and I'm sure to many people that was very inspiring, but I can't really see that as a communist venture, in actuality.\nListing off some of my other problems with Lenin, because why not, his assassination of notable anarchist figures in the revolution, the purge in the Bolshevik party of 1921, and the putdown of the Kronstadt rebellion are all unforgiveable crimes, and I do see something to the idea that the people who were held up as the heroes of the October Revolution were also the among the biggest traitors to its spirit (though of course I may be exaggerating a tad in wording it this way, eh, I like my poetic flourishes every now and then). And of course the machine that Lenin and the higher echelons of the Bolshevik party had constructed was put to very sinister ends by Stalin, who I consider to have been a tyrant. Though for all my condemnations of them, as you said, the economy of Russia did indeed grow quite markedly during the period leading up to 1945.\n\n\n\nTotally off-topic, I will also grant you from a while back that from what little I've read of Yugoslavia under Tito, they did their absolute best to make the best of a very bad geopolitical situation (and to my knowledge decentralised the economy and used worker co-operatives, which seem like some pretty good things for them to have done) as well as considering many of the internal troubles of Yugoslavia which if I recall correctly tended to have a lot of ethnic dimensions, and also I do have to admire the response to an assassination attempt from Stalin that Tito sent back. I will have to do a good deal more research before I could even hope to make definitive statements on Yugoslavia though.\n\n\n\nI will then take the point that you didn't explicitly call me out on economic views, I had assumed that based on your statement on 'Orthodox Marxism' on Lenin and then later your comments and wild projection thrown in my broad direction regarding progressivism more generally that these would sort of blend together. So, that being said I ought to focus on your approach to progressivism. (though just before that, I don't really see what 'false virtue' people are supposedly pursuing, but I can assure you that at least for me, not only am I against 'false virtue' because I don't think there's a static and unchanging human nature and think that looking towards virtue as a normative ethics perspective is not a useful way of organising society, but whatever critiques I have have nothing to do with virtue)\n\n\n\nYou believe that a politician should mainly act for the Nation and not the people. I take from this that you see people as subordinate to the nation in terms of importance. Also in your previous post you conflated ethnicity and national identity ("provided we, Iberian descendants and you, Anglo-Saxons have different cultures (and, by consequence, different institutions)"), which are not the same thing and is also something that fascists tend do do a lot; certainly there are different cultures in the United Kingdom and Brazil, but this is based on socioeconomic, historical and geographical context, not determined by ethnicity. It is also strange to me that your definition of a principle explicitly includes a "National sense"; surely there are principles that can exist free of nationhood. It does raise the question of what precisely you think a nation actually is.\n\n\n\nOnto the projections you seem to have made:\nWell, Frank, I don't place a moral expectation on you to adopt any particular ideology based on your demographic. I think that in a long-term self-interest sense many people could probably give you some good rational arguments why it isn't a good idea to have the particular ideology you do hold, but there are definitely sometimes people of certain minority demographics who adopt abhorrent political ideologies that in the long run would lead to their own demise were they to come to fruition, but in the short-term do have a rational self-interest to push them; an example of someone like this would be Jessee Lee Peterson (who makes a lot of money off of his media platform), and people like this are often paraded out by fascists and neo-Nazis as somehow an indication that they aren't virulently racist (or whatever bigotry is associated with discrimination against the minority group in question). So to reiterate, no, I will not place an expectation on you based on your demographic. Rather, I think that you should adopt a particular ideology that largely agrees with mine because it is a more rational and less unjustifiably misanthropic ideology than the one you in fact hold. I never said anything to the effect of Trump or fascists only ever winning because of stupid people, and to do so would be to reduce to the point of absurdity the number of factors at play in the rise of fascists to power. Also, who is 'you people' and who are 'we' or 'they' mongering hate against? I know that I personally am far more concerned with a system of social and material relations between people than I am in demonising any particular group on the basis of immutable facts about themselves; in fact I would say that I am not at all concerned for the latter, though based on your arguments can you really say the same of yourself?\n\nFrom all I've heard you say I can only imagine that for example if you were in a comparable situation as in Russia in 1917 you'd probably have sided with the White Guard and tried to reinstate a Tsarist autocracy. When push comes to shove I can only ever see your position devolving into support for the worst kind of despotic regimes the world has known, because it seems more likely to me that you would prioritise more highly being a dampener on progress than an enforcer of whatever few positive rights you claim yet to champion.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>
\n\n
\n
\'alephy\'<\/a><\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
\n αlερh-2<\/span> @alephy<\/span><\/a><\/span>\n \n commented on\n <\/span>\n debate<\/a>\n <\/div>\n
\n
αlερh-2<\/span> @alephy<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n <\/div>\n Oct 19, 20 at 2:51pm<\/i>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n
I'm mainly a logical nihilist. I'm not a full blown nihilist. Just a little n nihilist. I won't argue the nihilistic perspective. As that will likely cause a lot of pain and confusion. Therefore, I will debate the subjectivity of morality from more of a humanistic perspective and not from my nihilistic side.\n\nYour stated that, "as far as morals being subjective, ill ask this is unnecessary murder ever morally justified? turning it into a hypothetical, timmy goes outside and sees sally, he walks up to her and guts her with a hunting knife. sally was 5 years old and playing dollies. is a grown man murdering an innocent child not objectively immoral?"\n\nTo answer your question. Is unnecessary murder ever morally justified? Under my moral system. Not, it is not. You gave a hypothetical scenario about an unnecessary murder. I think your argument is as follows. Because unnecessary murder is objectively wrong under some X moral system. Morality is therefore objective. You found a specific element in your morality i.e. unnecessary murder. Where unnecessary murder is viewed as objectively wrong. The question then arises. Under what moral system can unnecessary murder be justified? Under the extreme radical morality of Wahhabism. What is Wahhabism? Wahhabism is an extreme ultraconservative, fundamentalist part of Sunni Islam. Think of ISIS. Think of the 9/11 hijackers. Before I get taken out of context. Under my moral system. I do not think that the 9/11 hijackers were morally justified. What about the moral system of Wahhabism? The 9/11 hijackers felt morality justified by the extreme morality of Wahhabism. Which in turn shows the subjective nature of morality. A moral truth is definitely true within your moral system. But that moral truth may not be true within another moral system. If morality was indeed truly objective. Then regardless of what moral system you choose. Unnecessary murders would always be deemed unjustifiable. But unnecessary murders like the killing of innocent people are justified in other moral systems. I'll reiterate, so I don't get taken out of context. Under my moral system. The actions of extreme fundamentalist Muslims are not morally justified. But under the the moral system of Wahhabism. Some unnecessary murders are justified within the moral system of Wahhabism. Not everyone follows the same moral compass. Different cultures, societies, religions follow different moralities. There is no objectively true morality. Because so many moral systems exist. Not everyone follows the same morality. Morality is ultimately subjective. You can argue that some moral systems are better then others. Which I completely agree on. I think that Wahhabism is an extremely dumb moral system that deduces its morals from some unknown invisible man in the sky. The practitioners of Wahhabism probably wouldn't mind killing me. \n\nI really have to be careful in the crafting of my words. Just so that things are clear with this subject. Shit doesn't taken out of context. I do not think that all Muslims are evil. Just the extremists sides of religion. Like the fundamentalist Christians that blow up abortion clinics. People abide by different moralities. Because so many moral systems exist. Not everyone follows the same morality. Morality is subjective not bound by one ultimate truth. @momoichi<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n