/lit/ - Literature

>>>/pol/

>>3470415
I always thought pol was just for people to make edgy shitposts, not actual politics

Politics IS edgy shitposting.

>>3470428
THIS is edgy shitposting

>>3470428
edgy as fuck

>>3470408
What makes and action moral to you? The action itself or the consequence?

The way I play it is take whatever stance benefits you the most. That's how most people do it.

>>3470433
>>3470429
>>3470428
>>3470424
>>3470415

Jesus christ, get out of your house, get a job, get a gf, begin to decide on what you'll do with your life and have better habits and forget that shit. Why the fuck would you be mad at yourself for this shit? Wow.

Fuck off without literature too.

>>3470428
dont cut yourself

>>3470408

>>3470440
I can't even decide on that
I don't think I can even separate the morality of both

>>3470442
I think overall morality is a bit more complicated than simply what benefits you (at least in the sense of finding out what is moral or if anything is moral in the first place). Sure, there are camps which consider this as correct but there are other camps which come to parallel conclusions as well.

"It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property."

In short, fuck material wealth and fuck redistributing it too. Fuck the market and fuck the state.

>>3470454
so you're just an idiot?

>>3470454
Do you believe that ethical judgements can be grounded as fact, or do you think ethical judgements cannot and it is all subjective?

Someone post the existential crisis infograph for OP so this thread can go the way of the Titanic.

>>3470408
Why not just, y'know, go with the flow

>>3470464
The market is just as important as air and water to human existence. Please stop.

>>3470467
I certainly don't have any objective morality
I'm not saying there can't be such thing
But I can't grasp it myself

The concept of morality in itself is hard to grasp
Though again, I don't deny its existence in any way

>>3470408
Life is absurd.

>>3470459
I'm of the camp that thinks a single person can't change morals, they are driven by societies and cultures which are in turn driven by history. I mean, you could maybe, but you would need to spend your entire life working on it. I'm not philosopher so I'm not so interested in that.

I'll take the stance that benefits me, whether that means voting toward some socialist policy so I can afford a better life, or it means agreeing with someone else' views so they'll be more agreeable toward me. In the long run, none of it matters since I won't make a difference but it can make a difference for me personally so I'll take that.

It's a social contract. That's all morals are.

Hey OP! it doesn't matter, because you don't matter. Just continue going to school or working your minimum wage job!

>>3470481
0/10

Back to /pol/ faggot.

>Can't decide if being rich is immoral
It is
>Can't decide if redistribution of wealth is immoral
It isn't
>Can't decide if a free market is immoral
It isn't
>Can't decide if state intervention is immoral
It isn't.

What's the problem, OP?

>>3470524
You forgot to 'it isn't' the first one.

>>3470524
please elaborate.

>>3470655
No, being rich is immoral. There's too much suffering in the world. It's wrong to not stop it.

>>3470660
On what?

property is a complex thing. the possessiveness territorial kind of property is certainly in need of some counterbalancing, especially when it comes to nonnphysical stuff

>>3470679
>No, being rich is immoral.

On what basis?

>>3470695
On your filthy slave morals.

>>3470524
>being rich is immoral but the free market isn't
>business is cool as long as you suck at it

>>3470679
>utilitarianism
lelelelelelelelele

>>3470710
one guy exclusively controlling too much stuff isn't that good. especially when the nature of this control is an unexamined, natural impulse institutionalized within society.

>>3470716
It's not really utilitarianism. It's just logic.

>not realizing that humans have a cognitive bias in favor of inaction
shigitiydigdog, motherfuckers.

>>3470711
>I reject morality/ethics entirely, and yet I feel compelled to comment on the subject

>>3470736
>wrong not to stop suffering
>logic

That's like saying preferring strawberry as a milkshake flavour is math. There are no logical value judgements. Your sentimentalism isn't scientific.

>>3470710
Not helping others is the same as hurting others.

>>3470714
The free market is fantastic, unless you propose to eliminate scarcity entirely. I mean. I don't see what the problem is. What are you saying?

Oh, I get it. Well, I suppose now we're just arguing over the definition of 'rich'. I guess if you define someone who lives a very basic life and consumes very little, but controls a lot or resources which she uses to help others as a 'rich woman' then ... that's a horse of a different color. But that's not really what we're fucking talking about now is it?

>>3470752
Too simple. Teaching a man he has the opportunity to become wealthy is far better than enabling bad habits. You wouldn't continue to feed a man unwilling to find/make his own food. Yet this short shortsightedness is exactly what "liberals" think is "moral".

>>3470741
>atheists can't discuss theology
>vegeterians can't have an opinion on meat consumption
>firefighters in charge of knowing about fire
>cops can't solve crime
>hitler did nothing wrong

You're a joke.

>>3470747
What you're saying is like saying 'numbers don't really exist so math isn't real and nothing is real'.

If hurting people isn't wrong then nothing is wrong.

>>3470797
Are you incapable of conceiving of world-views where making sure Charley down the street doesn't have a boo boo isn't of the highest priority?

Why would precisely this "do no harm" be the highest priority? The only way for people not to hurt people, not to induce suffering, is to not bring forth people, since they will be guaranteed to suffer to some degree. Why are you an anti-natalist? Why are you hostile to life? Why do you want to persuade humanity to leap into nothingness?

>>3470772
That's just a straw man. Fair enough to use it as a rhetorical device, but I hope you don't actually use logical values in your own, private rational discourse.

>>3470781
You're claiming ethics don't exist, but yet you want to discuss them.

None of your analogies are valid.

>>3470810
nothing but a straw man. None of what you said necessarily follows based on what I said. Straw man straw man straw man straw man straw man.

>>3470408
Start by deciding what you favor more: the individual or the collective, liberty or security. Those fall on a single axis each and so many more specific beliefs fall into place under those.

Also, if you're having a particularly bad time with this, keep in mind that you probably won't have another existential crisis after the first one.

>>3470813
>logical values
typo - should have read *fallacies

>>3470716
>>3470736
so utilitarianism and, say, democracy are respectively negative and positive buzzwords when the latter is just an application of preference utilitarianism

>>3470813
>ask someone for a smoke
>gives me a book about tobacco horticulture
Every fucking time.

>>3470813
>>3470752
You're being vague. A rich business man willing to invest his money will "help" much more than making it rain on poor lazy people. rich doesn't equal evil. Please elaborate, or stop playing language games.

>>3470870
see >>3470762

>>3470821
You say it's wrong to not stop suffering. The only way to stop suffering is antinatalism. So either you dismiss your idea that stopping suffering is a good thing to do, or you are anti-life. Your pick.

>>3470875
>Natalism (also called pronatalism or the pro-birth position) is a belief that promotes human reproduction. The term is taken from the Latin adjective form for "birth", natalis. Natalism promotes child-bearing and glorifies parenthood. It typically advocates policies such as limiting access to abortion and contraception, as well as creating financial and social incentives for the population to reproduce.
I guess I am something of an anti-natalist. Natalism seems like a pretty pants-on-head ideology.

>>3470887
You should look up antinatalism, not it's supposed opposite. You also just admitted to being an enemy to life. I request that you merely limit yourself to taking your own if you find it problematic.

>>3470895
>You also just admitted to being an enemy to life.
How so?
>I request that you merely limit yourself to taking your own if you find it problematic.
well, if I was really anti-life, then I guess it would make more sense for me to destroy all life

>You should look up antinatalism, not it's supposed opposite
I suppose you're referring to this:
>Arthur Schopenhauer argued that birth is ultimately negative because any positive experiences will always be outweighed by suffering which is a more powerful feeling.[1]
You must be confused. I'm not Shopenhauer.

>antinatalists
the philosophical position of the helplessly christian nihilists

please fuck off and keep to your faggot blogger friends

>>3470910
You think suffering should be stopped. Since suffering is an integral part of life, you have no choice but to throw the baby out with the bathwater. To want to eradicate suffering is to want to eradicate life. To want to eradicate life means to destroy or prevent it. Since you oppose suffering, prevention would be the more preferred part. Hence, to be in favour of the abolishment of suffering is to be in favour of the abolishment of birth.

>>3470923
goto bed nietzsche.

>>3470929
I don't like hot summer days.

Ergo, I wish to destroy the sun.

>>3470408
I sometimes light a match, place it in my jap's eye and see if I can smoke my cigarillo before the match falls out. I also consider issues of the day.

>>3470936
If you mean "I don't like hot summer days" you shouldn't say "I prefer temperatures around -270 Celsius"

>>3470930
wish i could, situation doesn't allow for it (better kill myself so i don't suffer like this again, because, as we all know, any life but a carefree and constantly joyous one free from any conflict at all simply is not worth living)

>antinatalists

yes
no
yes
yes

Being wealthy is unquestionably, beyond any shadow of doubt, imoral.

>I want to destroy cockroaches, ergo I have to eradicate all life on planet earth.

Wow, you should write a book! You're rationality staggers the mind!

>>3471006
wu r u quatong

>>3471014
>I don't know how greentext is used on 4chan.

>>3471015
oh shit, I was quoting >>3470929

>>3471015
You are not referring to any post, Marvin.

>>3470408
Yes
No
Absolutely
Depends on what you're talking about

What's the problem, Oop?

>>3471019
Yeah, sorry, I don't know how that happened.

>free market
>immoral

>>3471135
Maybe it is, though.

What if we just let everyone gauge their want/need themselves, on a scale of 1-1000?

So like.. if you were looking for an apartment, you might look at a place downtown and say 'my need/want is a 400' and if that was the highest, then you would get it. And then it would be a matter of public record what you put down as your need/want, so if you put '1000' for everything, and were a huge hog, everyone would know. Maybe 'money' isn't really necessary.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God!"

What do you think, OP?

>>3471135
Of course it is. So is the division of labour.

Both reduce men to beasts, or worse, machines.

>>3471152
What if we all just sat around fellating each other? Then we wouldn't need money or have war or anything nasty!

Just because it looks or sounds good on paper does not mean it'll fly in practice, kid.

Fiat money controlled by a central authoritarian bank is an absolutely immoral system. It follows, then, that making money through such a system is also immoral.

define "immoral"

>>3471180
Not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

We all agree it's unethical to steal. The rich get rich by stealing from the poor. Er go, getting rich is immoral.

>Can't decide if being rich is immoral
Yup
>Can't decide if redistribution of wealth is immoral
Yup
>Can't decide if a free market is immoral
It is only as immoral as its practitioners, so, yup.
>Can't decide if state intervention is immoral
Yup

There, now you can rest easy.

>>3471165
There's really nothing wrong with sucking dicks.

>>3471175
Fiat>Gold

>>3470408

the short answer is op, decide on a state of the universe that you consider ideal, then follows all reason and rationality to achieve this. everything we do in life is an extention of passing judgments, preferring one thing over other recourses.

also, read this http://www.iamthewitness.com/booksndrew.Carrington.Hitchcock/The.Hiory.of.the.Money.Changers.htm

>>3471270
I think the only valid morality is objective.

>>3471215

I don't think he said there was anything wrong with it

>Can't decide if being rich is immoral
Depends on how you got there. Being rich in itself is not immoral, the circumstances that led to you becoming rich can be.
>Can't decide if redistribution of wealth is immoral
Yes, its theft
>Can't decide if a free market is immoral
No, its individuals interacting voluntarily the free market is not a thing, merely a medium of exchange.
>Can't decide if state intervention is immoral
In most cases, yes.

>>3471275

ones ideals are beyond the scope of rationality, its a leap of faith if you will.

>>3471185
>The rich get rich by stealing from the poor. Er go, getting rich is immoral.
>believing this
also
>Er go

never stop being pseudointellectual edgy teens, /lit/. otherwise I might start respecting you

>>3471280
I just seemed like he was advocating subjective morality.

>>3471185
>We all agree it's unethical

Doesn't make it so. And we don't all agree.

>>3471283
I'm not sure I'm talking about ideals. I'm talking about the cold hard reality that we all have to live with every moment.

>>3471303

i am too, to be rational, one needs an ideal first.

>>3471289
Isn't it stealing? The owner of Fry's grocery store has make plenty of money off me because he has the power, controls the store. But today I stole a $4 item (while also paying for $17 worth of goods). I did so because I had some power, controlled part of the situation. He used his leverage in the situation to take some from me, I used my leverage in the situation to take some from him. While his actions aren't regarded as stealing, there's not much difference. His type of stealing is referred to as 'rent', my type is just shoplifting. We're both wrong, aren't we. He's an asshole and so am I. It's a cold world out there.

>>3471298
Why isn't stealing wrong?

>>3471310
Why is it wrong?

>>3471308
So is 'not dieing' an ideal? 'not existing in a living hell', etc?

>>3471311
Not sure. I steal all the time.

>>3471312

they can be, but then you get into the issue of defining the boundaries between 'objects' with certainty, outside of a universal object, of course.

i made a post on /pol/ about this once, lemme find the pic.

here we go.

as a side note, markets can be seen as an extension of alternating ideal frameworks accounting for each other in recursion to a point.

>>3470816
To say that one person's moral beliefs constitute 'filthy slave morals' isn't to deny the existence of ethics. Presumably, if one moral framework is 'filthy slave morals,' then there exists another moral framework that is superior.

>>3471332
Are you using a whole lot of jargon or are you some sort of hypersubjectivist, or both?

Definition of IDEALISM
1
a (1) : a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena (2) : a theory that the essential nature of reality lies in consciousness or reason
b (1) : a theory that only the perceptible is real (2) : a theory that only mental states or entities are knowable

I think that's just wrong. To say that *only* the perceptible is real is an illogical statement, because it's acknowledging the existence of the imperceptible while simultaneously stating its non-existence.
Of course... The imperceptible is, in a sense, not real.. But our language is stunted and incomplete and doesn't seem to allow for the different ways in which something can exist.

In any case, I think it's totally possible for someone to be wrong about their own values. I think that's a fact of life and cannot be altered by your opinion, unless you have no opinions. Otherwise there's bound to be conflict, and you're to eventually declare someone wrong at some point.

>as a side note, markets can be seen as an extension of alternating ideal frameworks accounting for each other in recursion to a point.
pic related? Anyways, markets are just a mechanism for the distribution of scarce resources. I don't think it's very related. Or is it? Perhaps markets are just the result of everybody attempting to steal from everybody else. i.e. Would it be more efficient if all actors were altruistically attempting to achieve optimum allocation? Probably.

>>3471362

my opinion is that when you make a normative declaration, it essentially boils down to the statement that 'i cannot condone a universe where this is/is not the case', the implication being then that the existence of anything that violates your ideals is a potential repudiation of your ideals, hence, the universal nature of responsibility to spread and enforce ones ideals.

Being rich is only immoral if you become rich by taking advantage of others.

>>3470454
lrn2relativism

What do you want?

>>3471378
"The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done."
--Balzac, Le Père Goriot

>>3471377
Can you recommend any books on this subject?

I'm not sure I can endorse any ideology. The entire concept of an ideology seems predicated on the idea that humans can create their own reality, when this simply isn't the case. Any sort of normative declaration in this context seems to be doomed to fail except within the context of its own mythology. [calvin and hobbes 'academia here I come' comic again related]

For instance, this is an ideology:
>All the world's problems can be solved with coconuts.
This is not an ideology:
>If I do not eat then I will die.

Do you sort of see what I'm getting at?

>>3471378
How can you become rich without taking advantage of others? I can't think of a single way.

And I don't mean that to be a dig on rich people.. but to get rich without extracting any rents is basically inconceivable.

>>3471406

im the kind of faggot who preferred to form his ideas by arguing (or having a jolly olde time) with people on the internet, i could recommend you books that might be on the subject explicitly, but if they wernt connected to history or science in some way, i generally havent read them.

anyways, i wouldent call it 'creating reality', youre working within reality to do something you see as right. for instance, your very act of deciding to post here, instead of something else, is a judgment call on your part.

>All the world's problems can be solved with coconuts.

wherever a man presumes to say, 'this is good', one must answer, 'good for what?'.

>>3471400
lel his name sounds like ballsack

>>3471416
>your very act of deciding to post here, instead of something else, is a judgment call on your part.
It's not like my decision was created in a vacuum, though.

And by that logic isn't everything a judgement call? An engineer might say 'it either flies, or it doesn't.', but one can still look up in the air at a plane flying and say 'i see no plane' or 'that plane is not real', etc... There's always a judgement call to be made.

>>3471426

>It's not like my decision was created in a vacuum, though.

of course its wasnt, nothing happens without externality.

describing reality is not the same as judging reality, as far as i can tell. if the plane is there its there, how the person reacts to this reality is the function of judgment, whatever parameters the engineer is aiming for in design is a function of judgment.

>>3471432
>whatever parameters the engineer is aiming for in design is a function of judgment.
Isn't this lending too much credence or strength, so to speak, to free will, though? We're all victims of our own subconscious, feelings, bodies, etc... So to pretend we make 'judgment calls' for all these things is just wrong. And so it is for reality - if the plane is there it is there. If the morals are there they are there. Everything else is just denial or fantasy.

>>3470408
>Can't decide if being rich is immoral
Look at it like this, you have all this money and it's literally going towards buying garages of corvettes and mansions that you might not even ever visit rather than going to people who need it.

Not helping someone who clearly needs it is when you clearly can seems like the same as hurting them.

Also, I mean in the sense that hoarding money that you don't need instead of using it to reduce suffering and/or death in the masses is essentially antinatalism and therefor immoral.


Of course, this is all relativism and someone could disagree and there's no way I could prove them wrong because it's all opinion, but I'm going by the general standard of morals in today's society.

>>3470488

I am in love with you. Marry me.

>>3471446
So in summary, yes.

Although it could also be considered immoral if you get your money by stealing from/taking advantage of people.

>>3471446
>it's all opinion
I don't really think it's opinion, not for the people who are suffering.

>>3471466
It's human nature to support something that benefits yourself, so I suppose not.

>>3471472
Yes but aren't we all basically the same person, barring the existence of souls.

>>3471479
Not really, maybe barring the existence of consciousness.

But the idea of a soul is relative, so once again, I wouldn't be able to prove you wrong.

>>3471487
barring the existence of consciousness? What do you mean? What makes one consciousness different from another?

>>3471497
Sorry, I mean like.. personal experiences and general personality.

ITT teenagers arguing about things they don't understand

>>3471511
It's not that they don't understand it, they just have very adolescent morals.

You don't have to depend on people to get you all the Things that surround you, you earn them with your wit;
Therefore, you have a say on how it is to be very Fairly be distributed.

You should never build things for yourself and you Should never misinform people on how to build these Things;
In your rapid consumerism for nonexistence to those
That due in fact exist.

>>3470752
Good to know. Did you know you could conceivably save 6 people by killing yourself now and donating your organs to society?

Since not helping them is the equivalent to harming them, by not doing so, you're effectively killing 6 people. You monster.

>>3471509
Well sure, but that's all trivial. Are you a different person if your personality changes?

>>3471511
Then why don't you explain it to us? God forbid people discuss something. Recommend some literature, at least, oh wise man.

>>3471520
Well when you have an excessive amount of money, way more than you need, yeah it would be wrong in my opinion. That's why it says rich people.

If I had an excessive amount of vital organs lying around I would give them out gladly, mostly because it disgusts me and it's not currency, but also because it would help people.

>>3471528
You have one extra lung, on extra kidney, and half of a liver to give.

Get going.

>>3471530
I said excessive, I could one day need those. Having a back-up fund isn't the same as throwing money into mansions that I won't ever visit.

>>3471520
Well, there are plenty of ways to refute your ridiculous and shitty argument, but I'll just say this: I think death is under-rated. Do you want to live forever? Should we be a society of geriatrics, and never know childhood ever again? It's such a blessing to be young, why trade that for the curse of old age?

Other arguments include all sorts of shit regarding the pain they would feel knowing I killed myself to give them my organs.. The pain and horror of a world where people kill themselves to donate organs, etc.... To suggest that's a better world, even for one who values longevity, is absurd. You're advocating dystopia. And furthermore, the people that need organs could donate a few themselves. If you have a bad heart, good kidneys, etc... why not just 404 yourself and donate everything? Your argument is pants on head.

>>3470408
categorizing things by morality level is such an archaic way of looking at things. everything is subjective.

>>3471535
I assume he means by society's standards/morals, or at least this shitty social network's.

>>3471531
Ah, I see. There's an arbitrary limit set by yourself to define the moral range of acceptable wealth. (Sidenote: How can you live with yourself, paying for the internet when children in africa could be fed with that money? Do you even realize that you're likely one of the top 20% richest people in the world?)

Doesn't change the fact that by principle "not helping equals harming" you're still harming people by not doing everything you can.

>>3471532
>never know childhood ever again?
You won't ever know childhood ever again now. This is not different if there's a society of charitable gifts of life.

>Other arguments include all sorts of shit regarding the pain they would feel knowing I killed myself to give them my organs
Donate them anonymously.

>The pain and horror of a world where people kill themselves to donate organs, etc.... To suggest that's a better world, even for one who values longevity, is absurd.

A world where people value each other's lives and take steps to preserve them with noble sacrifice isn't better? Also still doesn't get around the fact that you're "Harming" people by not helping them. Anyways, I'm not advocating anything beyond that anyone who truly believes that to not help someone is harming them own up to the logical conclusions of that principle.

>>3471546
>>never know childhood ever again?
>You won't ever know childhood ever again now. This is not different if there's a society of charitable gifts of life.
>>Other arguments include all sorts of shit regarding the pain they would feel knowing I killed myself to give them my organs
>Donate them anonymously.
>>The pain and horror of a world where people kill themselves to donate organs, etc.... To suggest that's a better world, even for one who values longevity, is absurd.
>A world where people value each other's lives and take steps to preserve them with noble sacrifice isn't better? Also still doesn't get around the fact that you're "Harming" people by not helping them. Anyways, I'm not advocating anything beyond that anyone who truly believes that to not help someone is harming them own up to the logical conclusions of that principle.

So basically you think you can say something ridiculous and I'm going to take you seriously. Interesting theory.

>>3471549
Funny, that's how I feel about the "not helping equals harm" statement.

Also, nice argument.

>>3471437

thats something ive been reflecting on myself.

im inclined to a deterministic view of the universe, because, afterall, if there is no causality, then no action has matter in any case.

but interesting things start happening when you begin factoring cognition. at its most basic, could we not say that for any action, we could generate an endless stream of 'whys' for successive objective results of any given action, yet clearly people generally do not get trapped in such existential loops, some default is reached somewhere, or somehow.

more then this, reason to achieve a specific objective can be easily logically defined, yet by what means do we arrive at objectives to begin with? it would seem to be outside this scope, but clearly people do it regardless.

more over, it seems that a reasonable man would also, based on his knowledge of others, account for the ways other cogitating organisms will react to his actions, and we also know from history that when someone learns of someones plans, and that they know that theyve learned, it can throw the whole matter back up into the air, would this not also create a loop where the expected changes in reaction to ones own actions then creates new conditions for ones own action inorder to most 'perfectly' achieve ones objective? clearly again this does not happen, a conclusion is reached somehow.

as you pointed out, we are not always wholly united ourselves either, people can be of differing minds in differing contexts, or even have objecting minds within the same context, emotions too have their own logic. could we say that here too there is recursion between systems to reach a single point? wherefore shall we draw the lines between these systems? clearly they are connected somehow in the end, people still act in the manner they ultimately feel is best at any given moment.

but just as clearly, people also obviously do not necessarily act in identical manners, how does one account for this?

>>3471550
You didn't address my strongest argument, which is the fact that people who need a replacement organ have others that are healthy. So why don't they an hero and donate?

inb4 you say some nonsense, and then say 'no, it is you that is nonsense' as if that's proving some sort of subjectivist point. Nope, it's just you pretending to be retarded.

>>3471555
Sure, they can too, if they're organs aren't totally damaged by the health condition they have. Then they can stop harming people by not helping them. The fact is though that your organs would help more people then their organs would because they have, by assumption, at least one faulty organ.

Still doesn't change the fact that you're harming them by not helping them.

And if your strongest argument is that you aren't good (as you define it) because other people aren't, then it isn't a very strong argument is it?

>>3471559
You're advocating that everybody on the planet earth fall over themselves suicide and donating organs.You're just pretending to be retarded.

>>3471559
>The fact is though that your organs would help more people then their organs would because they have, by assumption, at least one faulty organ.

Then why the fuck are we comparing it to being financially rich?

>>3471562
/thread

>>3471562
How is it not comparable? You have surplus organs. They need organs.

>>3471561
No. If I were advocating a societal change, I'd advocate for a survival lottery system. I'm not. I'm just asking you to take your "Not helping=harming" principle to it's logical conclusion. If you find that that conclusion is retarded, it's because you started that way.

>>3471571
>I'm just asking you to take your "Not helping=harming" principle to it's logical conclusion.
No, you're just pretending to be retarded. Only a retard would 'reason' the way you do. And why bother arguing with just you? I end up just making myself look foolish by associating myself with your idiocy.

>>3471571
Because I'm talking about giving it to people who are suffering wrongly, lazy poor people who don't want to work for the money.

>>3471574
*not lazy poor people

>>3471573
>can't find fault with his reasoning
>call him retarded and leave the thread.
And a good day to you as well sir.

>>3471574
I admit, you have me confused here. Are you arguing that it's wrong for lazy people who don't want to work to suffer in poverty, but it's not wrong for someone through no fault of their own to be stricken by a life threatening injury/illness?

>>3471581
>Are you arguing that it's wrong for lazy people who don't want to work to suffer in poverty, but it's not wrong for someone through no fault of their own to be stricken by a life threatening injury/illness?

Other way around.

>>3471553
>we could generate an endless stream of 'whys' for successive objective results of any given action
I see no reason why this would happen. Such an organism would die.
>by what means do we arrive at objectives to begin with?
The forces of evolution
>would this not also create a loop where the expected changes in reaction to ones own actions then creates new conditions for ones own action inorder to most 'perfectly' achieve ones objective?
such an organism would die
>could we say that here too there is recursion between systems
sure, all part of the same animal
>people also obviously do not necessarily act in identical manners, how does one account for this?
They're different people.

>>3471582
>>3471577
Okay, then it seems you should be more liberal with organs than you are with money (so long as certain conditions are met with the donee of course).

On a more sincere note, I think we are probably in agreement. I don't seriously advocate that you should give your organs up to save more people. But unlike others, i see that as a logical conclusion of the not helping equals harming doctrine. Rather than be illogical or accepting that conclusion, I just reevaluate the principle that led to it and find it to be false. I don't think that other guy gets arguments from absurdity.

>>3471581
I didn't leave the thread. I've already pointed out the flaws in your logic, and a 'lottery system' is just as patently stupid. I would point out the OBVIOUS reasons why it's stupid, but you'll just deny them because you're pretending to be retarded. So what's the point then?

>>3471584

yes my friend, obviously we would evolve in a manner that is not completely self-destructive, or else we would not be here.

but that doesnt inform us on how its actually working.

>>3471589
What flaws? You tried, but they were easily dismissed. Even your (by your admission, not mine) strongest argument just boils down to not saying I'm wrong, but saying that because other people wouldn't do it, you shouldn't either.

Hey, that's great reasoning! Since other people are unwilling to refrain from killing, I won't either!

>>3471591
You mean the exact mechanisms? Yes, that seems mysterious.

>>3471593
>strongest argument just boils down to not saying I'm wrong, but saying that because other people wouldn't do it, you shouldn't either.
I didn't say that

And they were easily dismissed by your amazing strategy of pretending to be retarded. This is how these threads always go. Interesting conversation for a while then somebody comes along and see's that there's a bunch of replies and uses it as an opportunity to troll. It looks like you have a few suckers on the line, deal with them.

>>3471596
Can you stop saying that he's pretending to be retarded?
He's obviously not pretending at this point

>>3471596
>You didn't address my strongest argument, which is the fact that people who need a replacement organ have others that are healthy. So why don't they an hero and donate?

And then the response in the next post. In fact, since that post, you haven't actually provided anything substantive. You've just continued to call me retarded. It's an interesting strategy for a time, but it doesn't do much for a discussion.

>>3470424
The deal with /pol/ is you have to know when to leave and have an excellent bullshit filter.
I've had some very enlightening conversations on /pol/. Just make a thread and ask your questions,ignore debates as soon as someone makes stupid insults and if you present your points/questions well enough someone will talk to you in a beneficial way.

>>3471601
The only time I went on /pol/ I had to spend 2 hours teaching libtards what game theory and the tragedy of the commons are. That's probably how people with a background in philosophy feel when on /lit/, actually.

>>3471607
You can get some pretty in depth discussions of economics on /pol/. The key to doing it is to troll either the libertarians or the socialists in the OP.

Usually that keeps out the cuckold and the conspiracy nuts.

>>3471523
You're arguing about what whether or not a thing is moral, not considering the meta-ethics of it, the thing that makes something moral or not.

Your reasoning goes something like "hurting people is bad, being rich hurts people, therefore being rich is bad."

You start from completely arbitrary and groundless axioms. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about hurting people, nothing about reality makes it wrong.

>>3471608
I was actually fairly interested in socialist arguments, but they just kept claiming that socialist economies have failed due to US intervention.

>moral

now there's your problem

>>3471588

youre not considering that fact that him giving up organs would impinge on his ability to perform and help in other ways and other areas.

>>3471609
>There is nothing intrinsically wrong about hurting people, nothing about reality makes it wrong.
There's nothing about reality that makes anything anything.

>>3471613
Yes.

>>3471612
The real problem with mr pants on head is that he's suggesting that everyone donate their organs to everyone else. Or that everyone be subject to some sort of 'kill you and take your organs' lottery. It's pretending to be retarded. Complete nonsense.

>>3471614
So what of it?

>>3471607
I'd ask what that meant,but I think I'll just google it so you don't get mad at me.
Anyway I do feel like I learn a lot about political systems on /pol/.
Before I get called a retard for taking anything on 4chan seriously,you have to understand what the jokes are,what to ignore and when to leave.
Things I've learned about /pol/ after a few weeks of lurking/questioning.
>The jew thing is kind of a joke.
>Ignore racist bickering,you won't ever learn anything no matter how much you humor the idea that maybe the nazi's may of had some truth in their logic about racial stuff.
>Leave when you get pissed.
And it can be fun to collect all the versions of the jew guy face.

>>3471612
It's as unknown as the capacity of the people he would save to do the same. Though he would save more than he would lose, so if people are generally good, then odds are the world gains more ability overall to help in other ways and other areas by his donation.

>>3471615
I didn't think I'd have to explain arguments when I entered this thread, but here you go:

Argumentum ad absurdum:
If a principle yields an absurd (for you, retarded) result, then it is probably wrong.
The principle [not helping people is equivalent to harming people] yields the result [you're harming people by not donating your organs to them when they're in need]
We agree this is retarded
Therefore the principle [not helping people is equivalent to harming people] is probably wrong.

>>3471618
**Nazis.
Oh jeez I mad a grammatical error on /lit/

>>3471615

a lottery is just a convenient way to get around having to make a judgment call.

if im hiring someone for a job, or choosing ministers for a cabinet, i wouldent draw lots unless there is literally no difference between the options i have, which as far as im aware is technically impossible.

>>3471619
You can't just make something up and call it 'argumentum ad absurdum'. The terrible shit you suggest doing in the name of human welfare is not a logical consequence of not hurting people. What you're doing is called 'pretendo ad retardo'

>>3471619

excecpt you cant just assume those people would be just as good, whether or not donating organs would be good is highly contextual, bringing this debate in abstract planes of hypotheticals is how you get nonsense conclusions.

>>3471619
>>3471625
For being on /lit/ this sure is turning into a /pol/ thread.
You guys should feel bad.

>>3471628
Well, I suppose I'm half as guilty for responding to a guy who's only strategy is to call his opponent retarded. Sorry about that.

>>3471627
We have no idea the status of the individual donating it either, so your counter point relies on an assumption that you yourself decry in this post. The donees have equal status as the donor. If you want to have some control over the quality of people who receive the organs, society already does this, or could easily do it.

>>3471618

whats there to learn? the obvious case being the negroe, likely due to lack of selective pressures in the more bountiful african continent, and lack of neandethal admixture, is generally less suited to the functions of society and civilization in comparison to other ethnicities.

>>3471631

>We have no idea the status of the individual donating it either

in an extant context, we would, which i assume is the case, if you want to suggest he get to donating organs.

>The donees have equal status as the donor.

nope.

>>3471628
I feel fucking awful.

Actually, on second thought, I don't feel bad at all. I said here >>3471573 that I would end up making myself look foolish by associating myself with this >>3471559 drivel. In the end this thread was ruined no matter what I did.

And we've addressed some valuable points, such as:

Is it reducing to the point of absurdity, if the absurd conclusion that you're suggesting bears no relation to your opponents stance?

and

What's the most efficient way to deal with someone who feels that his opinion frees him from any sort of commitment to rationality?

>>3471641
this is why jews are master race

>>3471646
>in an extant context, we would, which i assume is the case, if you want to suggest he get to donating organs.

Arguing now we do not. You can assume the doner is a productive member of society, and I can assume he isn't. Both are equally valid assumptions. Similary, we can assume the same for the donees. They all have equally unknown statuses.

I will put forward the proposition that the good one man can do is usually not more than the good 6 men can do. Obviously there are exceptions but I wager this is a principle we can agree on in the general.

>>3471651
>Is it reducing to the point of absurdity, if the absurd conclusion that you're suggesting bears no relation to your opponents stance?

It bears logical relation. I could care less what your stance is on any issues so long as you support the awful notion that not helping is equivalent to harming.

>What's the most efficient way to deal with someone who feels that his opinion frees him from any sort of commitment to rationality?

Your seem to think it involves continually calling them retarded without backing it up with any substantive arguments. Notice that hasn't shut me up.

>>3471659

yes we can have a good time arguing these hypotheticals, but that still doesnt mean that it will bear relation when it comes time to actually doing and deciding in life, in which case, yes, we would know.

>>3471659
You've put fourth zero rational arguments so far. And that... my friend.. is why I say you're pretending to be retarded. Your thought process is something like this:

>read post
>'hey, that's retarded'
>'I'll pretend to be retarded, to show how retarded that post was'

yes?

>>3471671
Try
>Read principle
>Oh boy, not this shit again
>show logical conclusion of principle that is absurd

>>3471667
Then we can know the donees as well. Organ doners often know who they're donating too, so again, the doner and donee have equal status.

>>3471653

khazars are like east asians in some ways, great in computorial aptitudes, but more difficulty in conception of ideals or transcendental belief (perhaps due to the smaller neanderthal admixture), which can manifest itself lack of 'scruples' or convictions, or lack of creativity in the face of uncertainty.

>>3471676
>Not helping others is the same as hurting others.
therefore
>we all need to kill ourselves and give our organs to each other, or, at the very least set up a murder/organ harvesting lottery.

makes perfect sense.

>>3471676

>Then we can know the donees as well.

yes we would.

>>3471684
>not helping others is the same as hurting them
>therefore not donating organs to save people in need is the same as hurting them

>>3471687
Then I don't see your point. Kindly explain it.

>>3471693

im going to sleep soon so you guys will be on your own.

in an extant situation, we would know both doners and donees, in such a case, we could then judge whether or not an overall interest would be served by which people giving up which organs to who.

thank you and goodnight.

>>3471695
Sure. Goodnight to you as well.

In general though: there are good people out there, who could be saved by the donation. Even if you limited the donation to them, somebody could donate their organs for a judge of character to distribute, and increase the overall value of the world. many people could.

>>3470718
But what if he is competing with millions of people just like him who control a lot of stuff? Is he still controlling too much stuff?

Rich people usually invest in something. A lot of times this advances society somehow.

>>3471164
Men are beasts. We tend to glorify ourselves. Machines? IDK, that's a bit of a stretch... I suppose you mean purposeful workers.

Alpha moral person here. I observed the world and made up my own morals. I dictate them to my family and friends.

Feels John Goodman.

>>3471406
Totally.

>>3471693
see >>3471555

>>3471733
Contributing your organs to someone isn't even objectively moral. You can give your organs away to some dickhead who left his wife and kids, and he goes on to continue screwing people over because he has a new kidney. On the same token you have a person who has never wronged anyone in his or her life who suddenly needs a transplant. That person is saved, but years later they go on to murder someone. Are your transplants still moral?

>>3471742
I actually am not even an organ donor. Earlier in the thread somebody accused me of being 'anti-life', and, though that person was making a poor argument ( >>3470810 i.e. 'the best way to stop suffering is to kill everyone, or make sure they were never born' i.e. pretending to be retarded), I really don't see anything wrong with death, necessarily.

In the future I may change my mind and become an organ donor. Maybe if my adult life becomes really wonderful one day (if I fall in love, or whatever) then I'll be inspired to help people stay alive for as long as they possibly can.

As it stands now I'm more likely to glorify childhood. It's not that my childhood was perfect, but I think it's one of the best things you can be. To have everything be made new is so nice.

>>3471749
>To have everything be made new is so nice.
Indeed.

>>3471742
Not donating your organs is immoral, donating them is neutral-moral. It's not immoral if someone abuses the gift you've given them. They are morally culpable for that. It might be immoral if you knew they were going to go on and hurt people and wanted to help them do that, but I don't think that's ever the case. You seem to be under the illusion that morals can be passed around like a bundle of sticks.

>>3471760
I guess I just don't feel like I would want an organ if I needed one. I don't really see the point in drawing your life out. I might feel differently in the future, but for now I just don't see the point. People die. I guess if I knew more of the goodness of adult life I would feel differently.

If you think any of the things OP listed are objectively immoral, you don't belong on /lit/.

>hurting others is immoral

[citation needed]

inb4 edgy

>2013
>morality
>objectivity

>>3471453
Are you rich?

>>3471584
evolution does not designate any objectives, it is only a concious agent that interprets the contemporary state as it is

you failed evolution 101

>>3471584
>>by what means do we arrive at objectives to begin with?
>The forces of evolution
evolution does not designate any objectives, it is only a concious agent that interprets the contemporary state as it is

you failed evolution 101

Tucker wrote: "Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism" and went on to observe that, "under any of these regimes a sufficiently shrewd man can feather his nest."

Social liberalism is best for nest feathering though.

>>3471591
>yes my friend, obviously we would evolve in a manner that is not completely self-destructive, or else we would not be here.
define "us"
some of "our" ancestors certainly did evolve self-destructive manners - and they are not here (regardless whether they managed to procreate before death or not)

How would you call, inherent to homo sapiens, self-interest- and self-aggrandizement seeking but self-destructive? Those weren't catastrophic before industralization and globalization but now with technologies and far-reaching social power leverages we developed the threats of nuclear holocaust, anthropogenicc climate change, and self-cannibalizing global financial system are truly apparent, with no, null, zero realistic solutions to the problems on sight.

>>3472022

To be fair, the solutions to nuclear armament and climate change are pretty obvious. No one wants to do what is necessary to solve these issues though.

>>3471995
>Capitalism is at least tolerable, which cannot be said of Socialism or Communism"
cool opinion, Tucker
too bad no one gives a shit about "opinions"

Why has this thread taken off

>>3472022
Nothing wrong with upping the ante, you last man safety seeking peace of shit. Great things come from great catastrophes.

>>3472022
Nothing wrong with upping the ante, you last man safety seeking piece of shit. Great things come from great catastrophes.

>>3472028
All argument is opinion, silly. Go sit under a Bodhi tree in silence because anything but absolute truths upset your sensibilities.

>>3472033
>Nothing wrong with upping the ante, you last man safety seeking peace of shit. Great things come from great catastrophes
>2013
>he still thinks theres gonna be humans after nuclear holocaust

>Great things come from great catastrophes
>Great
opinions, opinions never change

>>3472040
>he things independently, empirically verifiable facts about reality are the same as "opinions"
I've seen dumb here but you just reached the new low.

>>3472042
You grossly overestimate the ease with which humanity can be obliterated. If nuclear war truly breaks out centers of power will bomb the shit out of each other doing a lot of damage before they both become unable to launch any more shit, which will probably leave places like the Pitcairn Islands habitable in some way. Humanity is very hard to destroy, we're like roach army ant ratgulls.

Also, even if you were right, who says humanity should necessarily be those greats? Might as well see what the chimps do in a billion years. The end of human life isn't the end of life and it's much more interesting to go full nuclear instead of becoming a planet of placated shopkeepers.

>Great things come from great catastrophes
>Great
opinions, opinions never change
Right back at you, Hobbit.

>>3472040
>he thinks saying "X is Cool" is an argument
>he still can't see the difference between an argument and an arbitrary value judgement
sure is /pol/ in here today

>>3472048
Your facts are based on arbitrary axioms which you accept by divine grace of your opinion and they only remain the 'factual' status because of that. It's like you haven't even started thinking yet.

>>3472061
An argument is just an arbitrary value judgements dolled up to be more persuasive.

>>3471978
you failed psychology 101. Every heard of the subconscious? Does babby think he controls his feelings and thoughts? how quaint.

>>3472064
>which you accept by divine grace of your opinion
by divine grace of independent, empirical verifiability

now he will come and say that independent, empirical verifiability is hurrr opinion using computer with internet with electricity while being a part of a civiliziation living thanks to antibiotics and vaccines

how do you like your solipsism?

>>3472075
I don't think you are replying to the right post, in any case I think babby should work on expressing itself.

>>3471310

you are living in a victim's mind. The store owner's not stealing, he is producing value for his community. YOU are stealing, placing a drain on society, and deserve punishment.

Did you have a troubled upbringing?

>>3472027
>No one wants to do what is necessary to solve these issues though.
yes, that was kinda my implied point - how (if at all) do we change the nature of a man?

>>3472076
>by divine grace of independent, empirical verifiability
There is no such thing. Huge leaps of faiths and arbitrary assumptions everywhere. Are you even familiar with scepticism like any proper scientific minded person would be?

Solipsism is way too assuming and childishly self-centered, by the way. It isn't near sceptical enough.

>>3472033
>Nothing wrong with upping the ante, you last man safety seeking piece of shit. Great things come from great catastrophes.
Spoken like a true first worlder that never experienced a day of distress. You are not an Übermensch, you bleed like everyone else

>>3472079
Ok, babby will do that. Yes, I must have been referring to some *other* 'you failed ____ 101' post. Obviously. Your powers of deduction astound.

>>3472099
So regular humans can't see the benefit of a bit of a shake up and catastrophe then? I would either have to be a Darfurian orphan or a God of War to state such things? I'm by my very position obliged to think that yes, more comfort and less trouble is what we need, because our current lazy and untroubled complacency is surely the best for us, and everything but asking for less boo boo's and more TV channels is hypocritical? Lel.

Also, I suffer plenty and check my privilege every single day.

>>3472030
The first half of the thread was reasonable discussion - the second half is just trolling.

>>3472104
you are not a "regular human", you are a privileged first worlder, top 20% of human population like every poster here

dreaming up holocausts and genocides while not having experienced a day in distress, you are a true keyboard hero

>>3472104

I'm only jumping in now but wow this guy is edgy

>>3472099
exactly.

>>3472112
Stop projecting your mundane and less than eventful life on me pls. Also, most catastrophes are willed into existence by the top 20%, so I don't see any particular problem here. Also, your idea that only people with shit lives are allowed to be in favour of a bit of a shake up is nonsensical. Also, stop trying to bring holocaust and genocide into this, you sneaky jew.

>>3472127
his point is that it is easy to sit at home and say how great a cleansing apocalypse would be. But it is clear you have no life experience, otherwise you'd have some measure of compassion or at least the common decency to admit your being a little shit

your reference to "sneaky jew" helps confirm that you are not a reader, and thus a /lit/ poseur. the only one in need of cleansing is you

>>3472060
>Pitcairn Islands
>bunch of tiny Islands with a population of 50 and no resources, with fucked up climate, lack of sunlight after holocaust and shitton of radiation are gonna "up the ante" for humanity

you are a titan of intellect, my friend

>>3472127
You do get really wet when thinking about this "shaking up", don't you?

>sneaky jew
aw shit, how did you know?

>hopes for genocides
>an antisemite
damn, we really need the /pol/ filter here

>>3472148
The point being, obviously, that a complete wipe out of the human race as a result of nuclear warfare would be highly unlikely, not that our sole hopes should lay with the Pitcairnians.

>>3472157
I do. I like things to happen and I dislike the lack of things happening. That's why I dislike the whole "let's just make good things happen and bad things never happen hurrrheheh" because it fails to to recognise the relativity of that polarity and doesn't think things through to their final consequences, namely that a lack of bad things happening would imply a lack of things happening and that a lack of suffering would imply a lack of pleasure. All acting towards a more moderate polarity runs the risk of leading towards a static not much different form non-existence, so militant Parmenians pls go.

>>3472205
>spoiled first world college kid says "suffering is worth it"
>proceeds to live his spoiled sheltered life
oh god, my sides, we've got an armchair Hitler here

>>3472241
>calling me Hitler because I don't share his antinatalist death cult

Lel.

Fill your house with posessions and hoard money as a joke. God has a good sense of humor.

Inward, despise materialism. Outward, you will appear a succesful man to others.

>>3472245
Can you tell us more about genocides and Jews? You seem to be opinionated in these matters.

>>3472249
I'm actually quite indifferent to those matters, it was the other anon who equated seeing the benefit of conflict and catastrophe with the willfully eradicating of a particular people. Looking forward to your next reaction imagine.

>>3470408

What would happen if every rich person gave up all their money and evenly distributed it to everyone. Prices would fluctuate to reflect how much more money was being spent instead of saved, and would eventually rise because of increased demand, thus making everyone poorer; then, those who run businesses that sell or produce the newly demanded products would become rich, and a new rich class would form.

There has never been a classless society, and there never will be. You can try to limit stratification, you can try to protect the bottom X%, and try to make X as low a number as possible, but that's it. You can't make everyone rich. You can make everyone poor, but only for a while. You can't make everyone anything for an extended period, even in Communist nations with no goal other than classless society, elites formed. It's a pointless exercise, and, that being the case, there's no point in refusing to be rich yourself; you just give up the money you could have made to someone else who might be less generous than you would have been, or even malevolently seek greater and greater profits with no concern for the lives he ruins in the process.

So stop being a commie, dumbass.

This thread is still kicking? Holy shit.

>>3472355
>There has never been a classless society, and there never will be.

Early human civilization has seen classless societies bro.

>>3472396
You mean man-apes? Good argument.

>>3472396
As soon as you have agriculture you will have hierarchy.

What would be the downsides if we developed a global system where there was a maximum cap on how much an individual could earn in a year. Just guessing a number here, but say a million dollars? Anything above that would be given to charities, scientific research, and the improvement of infrastructure.

>>3472397
Not man-apes, generally before farming is discovered. Some rare ones still maintained that lifestyle afterwards.
>>3472401
Yes, but that still completely supports what I said.

>>3472408
Most would consider failure in the society there an eventuality, so if you're really using a potentially failed civilization in your argument, god help you.

>>3472401
>As soon as you have agriculture you will have hierarchy.

Says who?

>>3472416
Why are you taking such offense to me correcting that post? He claimed that "There has never been a classless society, and there never will be. " which is incorrect. I'm just pointing out a factual error so that people won't walk away with incorrect information.

>>3472422
Oh, I apologize, it's him with the weak argument.

>>3472396
you don't need agriculture to have hierarchy
contemporary hunter-gatherers primates are all hierarchical

>>3472401
division of labor does not imply a hierarchy of power

>>3472401
you don't need agriculture to have hierarchy
contemporary hunter-gatherers primates are all hierarchical

>>3472404

Potentially, it would create inefficiencies where the job that is currently done by one person, is not going to have to be divided between many.

This is inefficient because the potential value does not reflect the work done. An influential person will create more "wealth" or move "wealth" around with substantially less work put in than less influential people.

Besides, the influential are bound to seek a haven were this type of system won't exist. "Global systems" don't exist, and if there is demand somebody will provide a supply, where in this case it would be an economy with no such income cap.

>>3472404
>we
You presupose some naive things.
The "we" that are able to develop anything are the "haves" not the "have nots" like you and me. Good luck convincing them that they should have less than they do.

>>3472422
Classless doesn't mean without hierarchy though. Hunter/gatherer bands are simply too small and not specialised enough to have classes as we know it, that doesn't mean they are egalitarian.

>>3472445
A mass cultural change would have to cross the globe I suppose.

>>3472446
We as in all of humanity bro.

>>3472452
"all of humanity" as an entity doesn't exist, bro
you are so naive, in a cute way

>>3472355

True but the period would undoubtedly redistribute some of that wealth and be a welcomed relief for our stifled economies. Not to mention that the "newly rich" will probably be better of than dynasties going back since the middle ages just like today a lot of the philanthropic are those who are newly rich from the new technology markets that have sprung up as of late.

So yes, in the end we will end up in the same place but we would still benefit hugely.

>>3470408
yes
no
yes
yes

>>3472452

Good luck with that. I guess while you are at it you might as well agree on climate change counter-measures and get rid of all nuclear proliferation programs simultaneously.

>>3472461
It does exist as an entity, but it's completely disjointed without some sort of catalyst to bring it together that humanity may never see. Something that basically only exists in fiction like apocalyptic situations or warfare against an alien race.

>>3472355
This is a sad state of affairs when someone who studies economics forgets or doesn't ever learn that those operate on MODELS - for which the correct representation of reality is always secondary (for pragmatic purposes) to computability and workability. Understanding the role and limited power of models in economics is the single most important thing in the field. If you fail this first step you should be schooling anyone, dumbass.

Your simplistic simulation of "what would happen" shows how ignorant you are. There are millions of variables that would come into play and prediction of the exact state of affairs is beyond brazen. You are full of shit and you hide it behind mistaken understanding of what economists actually can hope achieve with their work.

Let me guess, you are an austrian libtardian, aren't you?

>>3472470

That's like saying a 3.5B circlejerk does exists as an entity. We just need to agree to do it sometimes.

What are you, a theologian or something? You can't just change definitions whenever your faults are pointed out.

>>3472476
What are you, annoyed at people on the internet for some reason? You can't just predefine things to suit your argumentative needs.

>>3472468

What kind of moral authority or source do you use for such conclusions?

>>3472484

I'm just going by the normal use of the word, "exist" that implies that something is already present instead of having a vague possibility of of forming in the future.

>>3472470
Let's just say our perception of human race differs fundamentally. I've seen too much shit and learned too much of history and biology to think we are some kind of "family" happily dancing and singing and fucking for ages to come. Homo homini lupus, open your eyes and see the state of the world.

>>3470408
Are you me OP? To sleep through the dream life or live through the nightmare...

>>3472492

Pretty much this. Realize that we are our biggest enemy. Not some lion of some wolf or some intergalactic alien, but fellow humans.

>>3472472

My post was simplified because this is not an economics board, or a political board, it is a literature board.

I do not invoke models because try are irrelevant; they are used to explain observed phenomena. Im cutting out the middle man and going straight to that observed phenomena, I.e. all of recorded history.

If A) human societies have almost always been a certain way, and B) those exceptions to rule A were extremely short- lived and inevitably ended with a return to rule A, then I do not think it unreasonable to conclude C) human society will always naturally return to state A, and experimental deviations will always fail.

I posit as a cause the inescapable nature of self-interest, but the specific nature of the cause is irrelevant if it is truly inescapable, and recorded history says that it is indeed inescapable.

One can only escape self-interest if the vast majority of the population of the planet chooses to eschew it, otherwise you will never escape it, and you cannot compel people to give it up, not has brainwashing or education done a very good job at that either. I am making no normative statements here: this is simply what is.

Now, free market enthusiasts suggest that rational self-interest is a good thing, and we should simply accept that unbridled self-interest will allocate resources more efficiently than any other system; but that view is in no way necessary for my argument to be correct.

As long as self-interest exists, there will never be a classless society.

>>3472420
Life thus far.

>>3472439
Yes, because division implies divising. Devising is then supposedly done within the group. As soon as not everyone perfectly agrees people will still have to come to a consensus in order to act. This leads to the dominion of some opinions over others, with every possible form of disicion making. Even democracy is hierarchical, because it places the many above the few.

>>3472470
>It does exist as an entity
don't have a spook, mann!

>>3472449

They aren't even classless. The chief gets the most food and the hottest bitches, which is what stands in for wealth.

A hunter gatherer elites are economic as well as political, even if most people in the tribe hold property in common. Just like all communist societies, the smartest, wiliest and or strongest guys end up bullying everyone else into obedience and acceptance of their privileged status

>>3472570
Such is life, and such is the reason why egalitarian utopianists set themselves up for a life of frustrated disappointment because they can't come to term with the fact that life, eh, will not be controlled in such a way, and will not adhere to their arbitrarily founded ideals.

Morality and ethics are human creations. Nothing in nature is good or bad: depends on what people think. In other words: all the options you listed are moral and immoral, depending on your own opinion. The moral and human creation has been identified a long time; research about the naturalistic fallacy of Hume (and also on Positivism).

>>3472594
>hey guys relativism
You're ~2300 years l8, m8.

>>3472594
>all the options you listed are moral and immoral, depending on your own opinion
nope, they are neither moral nor immoral
FTFY
no need for relativism when morals per se don't exist, moral nihilism is where it's at

>>3472626
moral nihilism makes up only one of the opinions of le morale relativisme.

>>3472633
I don't see how morals can be relative when you deny them as a concept

>>3472650
(cont.) the word "morals" is superfluous, reminiscent of simpler times of simple folk - all it means is either values (when internalized) or ethics (when values are externalized and propagated)

>>3472650
Because others don't. Which makes it relative.

>>3472658
it just makes others make up shit and pose it as a real thing

if some anon said jesus was good and other that allah was not good it doesn't make the objects real in any pragmatic sense

>>3472658
>>3472650
relativism in a purely descriptive context can coexist with meta-ethical nihilism
the thing is everyone gets worked up about meta when they should be saving their emotional responses for debate in the normative realm which actually matters in everyday life

>>3472672
Doesn't make the objects real, but it makes the concepts real, which makes their moral positions real to the degree that they influence you or offer you resistence, making moral relativism an apt descriptive term.

>>3472688
what you are saying is it is making them "equally retarded" for externalizing values (value systems) for which they cannot possibly have an actual argument to justify their validity to other agents

Since there is no universal, external, objective system that would "validate" them in any way, their only purpose is manipulation and power play - and we already have names for those, "morals" is redundant. The concept of morals doesn't make sense.

I don't like the word morals because it is either a purposefuly misleading meme word play or ignorance. The word has etymology and historical baggage that make it unworkable. As I said, values and ethics is sufficient.

>>3472570
You're subsuming scads of diverse cultures into this "hunter gatherer" label. Not that some of us on the Left don't do it, but it's stupid and useless, and ignores the very real fact that some societies are much more horizontal than others.

The point of what I'll bastardizedly call the anthropological argument is that the form of organization a human society can take are so numerous and so diverse that our current one is not in any sense fixed or inevitable.

>>3472584
1) None of us are in this because we believe this world is perfectible. People's reasons are obviously diverse, but for me and many left-wing activists I talk to, the attitude is one of "desire to push the world in a certain direction," to expropriate a word from Orwell, and a sense of inherent, autotelic worth in "the struggle," in the things we do to do that and the ways we do them. And a desire to share to them.

2) Very few of us look at this as trying to control life. For most of us, we see a morass of toxic social structures controlling life and want to break ourselves and others out of them.

>>3470408
To answer OP:

>Can't decide if being rich is immoral
No, not in and of itself, of course not. And/but please read "Letter to the Well Meaning 1%" in issue three of Tidal:

http://occupytheory.org/

>Can't decide if redistribution of wealth is immoral
"Redistribution of wealth" is sort of putting the cart before the horse. The question isn't if "redistribution of wealth" is moral, but if the way wealth is distributed in our society is moral. If it's not, the question is what actions can we take to make it that way. Call it "redistribution" if you like, but it's a pretty barren and literal-minded way to conceive of the continual creation of a society.

>>3472741
[con't]
>Can't decide if a free market is immoral
>Can't decide if state intervention is immoral

Again, "free market" and "state intervention" as a dichotomy (even one that has to be "balanced") are leading, do-your-thinking-for-you terms that only really have relevance in the sort of discourse that brought us to this impasse.

The question isn't if "free markets" are moral; the question is if people are acting morally inside the markets we have, and if not, how does the way our markets function encourage immorality and what can we do to change that?

And the question isn't if "state intervention" is moral; the question is if people imbued with the power of a state apparatus are acting in a moral with it, and if not, what actions they can take to morally improve a situation.

Finally, historically and practically, markets and the state go hand in hand. It's a great book for a number of reasons, but a good part of it is taken up demonstrating how the market system we have is a result of state intervention, usually military, going back thousands of years.

>>3472570
Bullying certainly exists within hunter-gatherer tribes, but its pretty fucking rare for an individual to bully the group. Generally the group bullies the wayward individual instead when they transgress the social norms that maintain tribal cohesion.

Source for claim: "Ayn Rand vs. the Pygmies"
http://www.slate.com/articles/heal_and_science/human_evolution/20120/groups_and_gossip_drove_the_evotion_of_human_nature.single.html

Know that feeling. I was pretty sure i was fond of socialism but I talked to my cousin who is against statel intervention and that kind of messed up my thoughts.

I have been thinking theres no solution to it, lately.

>>3472741
I'd say a common problem with horizontal societies is that they are less capable of quick decision making and defending themselves than the more vertical, chain of command types. So while they may have some little possibility to thrive on a lone, isolated island, they will soon be devoured by more centralised and hierarchical groups.

>>3471898

ya man, matter is like totally subjective, so is space, the same for time! and morality?? lol i tihnk we should all just seek as much pleasure as possible until we die, it;s all relativ man

>>3473108
>a lack of objective moral values leads to hedonism
People who fear this always accidentally reveal their own lack of rigour and discipline.

>>3473108

yea, morality is whatever your friends will let you get away with -richard roarty

so do these prescriptivists not see that moralsare just patriarchal hegemonic performativity and social constructs??? wow, purtian nazis detected! are they gonna call us sluts?? fact everything is a social construct including the universe.

>>3473057
Yes, definitely. I've seen it happen myself.

The seeming impossibility of preserving pure horizontalism in the face of people not willing to go along is the one reason I don't identify as an anarchist, even though a literal translation from the Greek is pretty much how I see things. I just sort of default to "anti-authoritarian," which makes a nice split with liberalism. It can be overcome with very good process and culture inside groups, and it's worth the struggle there, but it's hard and we haven't by any means perfected it.

Intragroup it's a bit more difficult to make an analysis. In every example off the top of my head, the vertical group was much better resourced than the horizontal group, and frequently in such a situation horizontal groups decrease their horizontalism in practice while retaining it in principle. (Most anarchist militia units in Spain, for instance, did have a guy calling the shots- elected and always provisional, but someone who, in the euphemism of activist groups today, "bottom lined" tactical decisions.)

>>3472744
Big whoops. The book I'm talking about in the last sentence is "Debt" by Graeber.

>>3473253
>I've seen it happen myself.
Please elaborate.

Also, what do you find inherently wrong with vertically arranged society?