/sci/ - Science & Math

Objectively? No.

Fuck no.

Is posting this same thread every day ethical?

>>3126693
>objective morals

>laughinggirls.jpg

If you reply to this thread you are the cancer killing /sci/.

It is the only ethical system

>>3126693
>Objective morality
0/10

>>3127119
>>3127135
Get an education.

>>3126686
is spamming this thread ethical?

>>3127146

Get a proper education.

>>3127146

It's funny how /sci/ hates all philosophy except the philosophy done by scientists.

>>3127146
>reads neoatheist troll books
>calls it education

Capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised... except for all the others.

>>3127169
>you've been educated stupid
>timecube.com

>>3127178

Actually, I'm ok with philosophy, but I tend to get drowned out by all the ignorant kiddies who plague this board.

>>3127181
That's not the quote.

>>3127169
>>3127178
>>3127180
Whatever. I have yet to hear a decent argument against moral realism.

Of course not, that's why there are no purely capitalist countries around.

>>3127191
besides it's nebulous definition?

>>3127191

Hurr I want these physical phenomena to be moral therefore they are moral.

>implying that isn't the same as most subjective moral systems

>>3127188
It doesn't need to be an exact quote, because it isn't an appeal to authority anyway. I'M the one saying it.

>>3127232
In that case, you're unoriginal.

No.

Can someone who doesn't believe in objective morality explain their position to me?

>>3127245
>implying I give a shit
I say it because I believe it. Why should I give a fuck who else said it? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

>>3127247

Morality is basically an unspoken man-made law which exists to serve a human end.

>>3127247
We only have a basis for human morals because we all share very similar biology - we have the same basic desires, the same basic needs and conditions for flourishing. On that shared basis, we can form a system of ethics. In that sense, I think that we can explore the science of "what makes humans happy, and what systems best promote it".

However, aliens from Alpha Centauri need not have anything in common with us. Out of necessity, existent species will probably value their continued existence. But there's no reason for much else to be shared.

Even more troubling, who's to say that general human happiness is the goal worth pursuing? If we agree on that, we can make progress, but what if we say that maximizing the chance of humanity's spreading throughout the stars is the best goal? We might have to make compromises on the side of human happiness.

Basically, science can't tell you which goal to pick. Only how to accomplish them.

Not this thread again.

Abstractions such as capitalism and communism are so nebulous as to render any tangible definition of the concepts moot. The primary difference between the US, Western Democracies and other "Capitalist" societies and communist/socialist states such as the USSR and the Peoples Republic of China is that socialist countries do away with the spectacle of elections, having only one party filled with autocratic rulers and appointed officials.

Capitalism and Socialism are so enamored with their respective types of government, (ie Republicanism and Totalitarianism) we sometimes forget that there have been attempts to merge socialism and democracy, as well several dictatorships that were far more mercantile in their approach to governing.

My point here is that when dealing with governments as large as the US, (In terms of territory and spheres of influence, if not population) and China, standard nomenclature breaks down, and any attempt at trying to understand the higher level functioning of such governments by laymen such as you or I is bound to have us spouting random gibberish and nonsense because we are simply not privy to the inner workings of monetary policy OR government decision making.

I think its best we leave such higher thinking to those who have been trained for it, and think of ourselves as privileged for not having to attend ivy-league schools, attend boring party meetings, or deal with the boiler-room politics of corporate culture.

I know it often sounds like "a wonderful opportunity", but most of us would crack under the strain of a Harvard Law School curriculum, and being rich isn't all its cracked up to be. Imagine having to censor every word that comes out of your mouth for fear of having it reflect poorly upon you and those close to you in the media or family business.

As a party delegate, everything you say or do as a representative of that party can be used out of context to make everything you say sound as if you are a fascist, a homophobic bigot, or even a genocidal monster.

I'm just glad I don't have to be a politician.

>This
>Troll
>Thread
>Works
>Every
>Fucking
>Day
>You
>Aspies

morality exists in the sense that christianity exists

but it does not exist in the sense that god does not exist

QED

OH LOOK ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN

>>3127314
I like Social Democracy.

And though I don't think it's ideal, China's combination of communist government and capitalist economy is working well so far.

>>3127289
No it isn't.
Morality is the system by humans attempt to minimize suffering and maximize well-being. Both of those things can be objectively quantified

>>3127312
this thread is unethical

>>3127333
If that's the goal you pick. It's the one I'd pick too, but
>>3127307
>Even more troubling, who's to say that general human happiness is the goal worth pursuing? If we agree on that, we can make progress, but what if we say that maximizing the chance of humanity's spreading throughout the stars is the best goal? We might have to make compromises on the side of human happiness.
>Basically, science can't tell you which goal to pick. Only how to accomplish them.

>>3127332
If you consider only an economic point of view and even then you are stretching it. China is legendary for oppression and generally unacceptable behavior by those in charge.

>>3127344
>Basically, science can't tell you which goal to pick. Only how to accomplish them.
That's true, but some goals make more sense than others.

>>3127350
True.

But Chinese culture is so inherently different from Western culture that I am hesitant to assume that a Western style of government would work as well as it works for the West.

Hell, I'm not even sure it's working so well in the West. We have a good history of human rights lately though. At least towards our own citizens.

>>3126686

Of course.

>>3127125

The national socialist german worker's party did not support capitalism.

>>3127332

> likes social democracy
> champions china
> they kill you for speech
> no free press

Nothing new to see a social democracy fan support the punishment of speech and press.

>>3127333

Tell that to ascetics who intentionally force themselves to suffer for spiritual growth.

>>3127367
They suffer because they believe that there is greater well being afterwards. They don't suffer for no reason.

>>3127332

China's economic growth is the product of high labour productivity. This productivity results from low wages combined with working hours that scarcely seem livable compared to ours.
When you have a population with almost no labour rights, working for tiny percentages of the wealth they produce while working upwards of twenty-hour shifts in factories with health and safety standards so low that they nearly make a certainty their worker's eventual deaths, you have money. However, this money has little to do with their ideology so much as it has to do with their corruption. They aren't a model and they certainly aren't 'working well'.
P.S. They are in no sense a communist government. Worker's control of the means of production =/= Zero labour rights. It's antithetical.

>>3127362

Liberty works everywhere, and all humans strive for it.

>>3127361

Only if you create a criteria of sense which will not be ultimate and inarguable.

>>3127361
And that "making sense" ultimately comes down to human biology, IMO. I think that a globally accepted system of ethics is possible.

The problem is that some people are objectively wrong about what produces human happiness. For instance, self-determination seems to be one important component.

>>3127371

Well being does not equal understanding. If you define 'well being' to include knowledge, then you make it so utterly vague a term as to be descriptively worthless.

>>3127367
Precisely. Morality is a system that attempts to maximize virtue, not minimize suffering.

>>3127247
>>3127307
>>3127333

I haven't read his book, but in one of his presentations Sam Harris basically said that if we take the purpose of ethics as to reduce suffering, then we can arrive at supportable conclusions.

The problem is this: if we quantify suffering, say, through MRI scans to find out if someone is displeased: the ideal society would be Brave New World. Nobody thinks drugging everybody into delusional happiness is ethical, though it does make everyone happiest. The ideal does illogically involve some kind of challenge and relationship to reality, whatever that means. Those are not objective things. Since ethical ideals* are illogical and a product of our minds, we cannot objectively support what people think is ethically right.

* Defining ethics here as what feels right; of course if you define ethics as "maximizing potential to colonize planets" you can objectively support ethics, but this is a buttfuckingly stupid definition.

>>3127333
Everyone has different understandings of suffering and well-being, just like everyone has different tastes in music and books. Objective morality is bullshit.

>>3127375
>tripfag called liberty
>acts like liberty is definable

>>3127381

And we all know the idea of utilitarianism is silly.

>>3127344
>who's to say that general human happiness is the goal worth pursuing?

I'm not suggesting that as the goal. I am saying that we can conceive of the worst possible level of suffering being experienced by all people at all times. Knowing this, we can move progressively toward the other end of the spectrum, maximizing well-being in the best way possible for the largest number of people while minimizing the experienced suffering.

>>3127386
>implying there are undefinable words

>>3127383
>The problem is this: if we quantify suffering, say, through MRI scans to find out if someone is displeased: the ideal society would be Brave New World.
This does not follow.

>>3127386

> implying it is not definable

>>3127383
If you think that the world with the greatest well being is one where we drug everyone up, you aren't thinking very hard about the problem.

>>3127375

>all humans strive for it

No, they quite clearly don't. How does the submissive strive for freedom when she's tied up and fucked in the mouth?

>>3127391
This already assumes that you can reduce human misery to a scalar value, and that there is a unique minimum.

>>3127390
All humans want utility.

>>3127394
True, the only way to minimize suffering is to kill every living thing capable of suffering.

>>3127401

Because freedom is subjective to those that can think rationally.

>>3127398
>implying liberty wants the liberty to define liberty liberly.

>>3127411
This is what Sam Harris' logic ultimately leads to, yes.

>>3127376
>>3127377
Does striving for logical arguments make sense? Does striving for accurate data make sense?

Not that you are saying this, but all axioms are subjective and unsupported, then science, logic, mathematics is ultimately subjective.

Axioms, by their nature need to be obvious, and self evident. The only one Harris asks us to consider is "The greatest possible suffering and misery for every human on earth is bad" Is that not self evident?

>>3127424
This assumes an ethical calculus in which no life is worth living.

At that point, I'd check for a sign error somewhere.

>>3127383
>Nobody thinks drugging everybody into delusional happiness is ethical, though it does make everyone happiest.

He addresses this "problem" in his book "The Moral Landscape" in the scenario whereas a drug is developed that eliminates the feeling of grief she experiences from the death of her child and that it might not be the best (read: most moral) action to give this drug to individuals who are not in this mother's shoes.

>>3127412

Firstly, prove it.

Secondly, if freedom is defined subjectively, then it means that something which is freedom to one person is antithetical to freedom for another. In which case, it has absolutely no descriptive value and you're not referring to anything at all when you say that all humans strive for freedom. What you're saying is that all humans strive for SOMETHING, which is almost a tautology and therefore near useless.

>>3127332
China's capitalist tendencies are actually the results of what are called, "special economic zones" which are far removed from the central authority in mainland (central) China. The politics of these zones are often at odds with those closer to the Capital, and the government becomes more and more oppressive as one heads closer to the communal farms, cramped tenements, and run-down factories. Many of the farmers are illiterate and poor, using backbreaking labor instead of modern farming equipment, receiving only enough resources to sustain themselves, though they provide food for many of the central provinces.

>>3127427

People take liberties with axioms.


>>3127418

> implying I would care about the attempt to define Liberty by mongrels on this site

I know it all looks like a big limbo line and conga party, and if you are looking at isolated regions along the pacific or Mediterranean,or are living in a 3rd world country that is being "exploited" by western powers, communism and fair market ideology can be tempting. It may even offer you better allocation of native resources and long sought after political stability, at least at first. But after a while the citizens start to feel the pull of a "revolution" that never seems to end, and find that they are often the ones doing the "sharing", while those in power contribute nothing in the way of administrative leadership or development of new ideas and technology.

>>3127434
Many buddhists strive to cease striving.

>>3127432
No, it assumes that the only way to prevent *all* suffering is to render the organism unable to experience it.

>>3127424
>>3127411
Just like how minimizing disease ultimately concludes with killing every human on the planet!

>>3127427

Someone who has grown to hate the world would disagree.

>Person calls themselves 'Liberty'
>Believes that the necessities of human life should be controlled by unaccountable dictatorships generated by wealth received through inheritance

Okay.

>>3127440
My bad, I thought you were something other than a troll.

>>3127401

Freedom from choice.

>>3127455
Sure. I just deny that minimizing "suffering" is a good metric. Happiness is not just the absence of suffering.

you know what? i'm sick of being anon. it seems like some smuck just ends up taking credit for all my arguments anyway. Anon is for trolling. Ill be back in a few min after i register.

Thats how i troll.

>>3127453
A man who grows to hate logic and math might say that a triangle has more sides than a square.

Should we really listen to him?

>>3127434

Prove the subjectivity of freedom? You did that already with your submissive woman reference.

Freedom applies to an infinite amount of situations, where an infinite amount of people will feel they are free with different infinite actions for every situation. The communist feels freedom comes from taking the factories, the capitalist feels freedom comes from building factories without being stolen from.

>>3127427
>"The greatest possible suffering and misery for every human on earth is bad" Is that not self evident?
And then what? Alright, so we all accept the axiom that suffering should be avoided and well-being promoted. How does that get us *any* closer to an objective morality? We still all have different ideas of what constitutes suffering and well-being.

>>3127450

It is an option. I prefer to dissolve problems rather than solve them.

>>3127466
>it seems like some smuck just ends up taking credit for all my arguments anyway. Anon is for trolling
Oh what
I agree that being anon won't get you recognition, but seriously, if you think that tripfags aren't at least half trolls...

>>3127391
>>3127394
>>3127399

My definition of well being for these purposes is the least suffering, which can be objectively measured. The Brave New World society has the least suffering. It is unethical.

Therefore, ethics is not reducing suffering. Ethical axioms cannot be created objectively because they involve abstract concepts like freedom, jihad, etc. In other words, even maximum endorphin release is not most ethical.

Yield: Ethics are a product of our minds and are intended to cause the most gene population. Ethical conclusions cannot be objectively supported because axioms cannot model our feelings and remain logical.

>>3127427

Okay; NOW DEFINE "SUFFERING" AND "MISERY" IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE BRAVE NEW WORLD SOCIETY IS UNETHICAL. YOU CANNOT CREATE ETHICAL AXIOMS THAT ARE SELF-EVIDENT AND OBJECTIVELY SUPPORTABLE.

>>3127433

I should really read the book, but in the meantime why don't you explain what the resolution is? How does Harris reconcile the drug's use ethically and objectively based on his one special version of utilitarianism?

>>3127461

i.e. Freedom from freedom. Cool story, bro.

>>3127465
>Happiness is not just the absence of suffering.

This may very well be true. We should strive for maximum well being, and if that includes hardships to overcome, then that's what should be done.

>>3127465
And nobody is saying that it is, you stupid fucker. The two are not expressly the same thing.

>>3127477
The idea is that since we're all biologically human, we would agree on what we prefer. The problem is that each person's experience is so limited, that our ignorance leads us to poor decisions. The question to answer is "what would I prefer, if I had knowledge of what all kinds of lives were like".

Everyone *thinks* they know what would make them happy. It's pretty much a guarantee that we're all a little off-target.

>>3127478
Yeah it's not like tripfag gets you anything but a illusion of utility

>>3127475

That didn't prove it at all, it countered it. You're being entirely circular.

If you believe what you just said, then you have eviscerated your moral argument against Communism. Communism is as free as capitalism.

>>3127471

He's just not playing by the rules that we have decided upon. Math is ontologically subjective, just like morals and other man-made systems.

>>3127447

....and that is their Liberty.

>>3127454

> implying money is evil
> implying inheriting always precedes the saving or accumulation of money
> implying you are not just a silly marxist

>>3127488
Then all the "ending all humans is the best way to minimize suffering" statements others are making are pointless. There's more to the metric than minimizing suffering.

>>3127479
And you're wrong because you're against assuming moral absolutes and that there aren't multiple ways to minimize suffering while maximizing wellbeing.

>>3127480
ie freedom from liberty

>>3127490
>Everyone *thinks* they know what would make them happy. It's pretty much a guarantee that we're all a little off-target.
This.

>>3127492

You just found out I do not support absolute freedom, kudos. Freedom is subjective and freedom includes rape, murder, torture, fraud, force and coercion. Liberty on the other hand....

>>3127502
I'm not sure I buy Sam Harris entirely, but I like how he acknowledges the possibility that there might be are multiple ways of human life that are equally desirable.

>>3127479
>My definition of well being for these purposes is the least suffering, which can be objectively measured.

Is that a better definition than say, the greatest satisfaction in life?

>Ethical axioms cannot be created objectively
Neither can mathematical axioms upon which all our science is based on.

>Define misery and suffering
Define health. Just because I can't give a specific definition doesn't mean anything.

>>3127494

>implying money is evil

Never said a word about it. Could you try countering what was actually said, rather than what you'd PREFER had been said?

>implying inheriting always precedes the saving or accumulation of money

Correctly implying. You cannot inherit wealth that does not exist and is not possessed.

>implying you are not just a silly marxist

>Implying I am.

Tell me why private tyranny is superior to state tyranny.

>>3127490
Is that Harris' argument? That we all have the same preferences, we just don't know it yet? Oh my. Genes and upbringing make us all somewhat different from each other, both biologically and psychologically, so an assumption that we'd (subconsciously) develop identical preferences is just ludicrous.

>>3127508

Liberty is defined by freedom. They are synonymous. To have liberty is to be free, to be free is to have liberty.

HOLY SHIT GUYS I JUST HAD THIS AWESOME IDEA.

OKAY, SO WE'RE OPTIMIZED TO SPREAD OUR GENES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, RIGHT? AS PER DAWKINS' SELFISH GENE.

SO WE THINK "GOOD ETHICS" = WHATEVER ALLOWS US TO PROLIFERATE OUR GENES THE BEST. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS LIMITED BY KNOWLEDGE (E.G. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT SELF-FLAGELLATION IS BAD IN THIS REGARD, WHICH IS WHY THEY DO IT) BUT BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND.

SO FROM A SOCIETAL VIEWPOINT, GOOD ETHICS SHOULD SOMEHOW INCORPORATE THIS IDEA OF GENE PROLIFERATION. THIS WOULD PROBABLY INCORPORATE COMPETITION, WHICH RELATES TO OP BECAUSE COMPETITION DEFINES CAPITALISM. UTILITARIANISM = COMMUNISM.

AM I RIGHT?

>>3127512
>Just because I can't give a specific definition doesn't mean anything.
Huh? It's pretty damn important, if those are your ethical measuring standards. Of course you have to define them.

>>3127520
>Is that Harris' argument? That we all have the same preferences, we just don't know it yet?

Nope, he never says that. The closes thing he says to that is because we are all humans, we can reasonably assume we all suffer the same way. We are consistent enough such that we can study brains states to see what happiness and misery look like in our brains.

Consequentialists make me laugh. Enjoy you life of watered-down utilitarism, /sci/fags. JSM called, he wants his theory back from you fags.

>>3127515

> implying tyranny is defined as ownership of things needed to live

> implying real choice can ever be tyranny

> implying the world is a zero-sum game

> implying you are still not a silly marxist/fascist

>>3127531
Define health. If you can't all of medicine falls apart.

For lazy, self-entitled people? No.

>>3127508
Liberty means you can take people's liberty.

>>3127520
>Genes and upbringing make us all somewhat different from each other, both biologically and psychologically, so an assumption that we'd (subconsciously) develop identical preferences is just ludicrous.
We're not very different biologically. And though I haven't read his book, I bet he'd agree that the ideal ethical system will recognize and accommodate individual differences. It wouldn't assume we all want to have the same job, for instance.

>>3127523

Freedom can be Liberty subjectively, sure. But freedom that is not Liberty (rape, murder, etc), cannot be Liberty.

>>3127539
Health is much easier to determine that happiness. The only way I can seem to get at the idea of happiness is "subjective preference".

>>3127508

Actually, I didn't say anything of the sort. Again, would you care to reply to what is actually said to you, rather than what you hoped would be said to you? Are you reading comprehension skills not up to snuff?

I never said a word about 'absolute freedom'. I said that, if freedom exists in any situation in which people feel as if they have it, then it's a meaningless descriptor. You have a broken conception of the term. You're confusing the experiential, cognitive aspect of something with its ontological one. It's as if you were doing the following: "I feel that I am right when I say that 2+2=5, therefore 2+2=5."

To "feel right" and to "be right" are two different. To "feel free" and to "be free" are two different things.
Also, in my example of a submissive, they do NOT feel free. They gain sexual pleasure precisely from this fact.

>>3127545

You are confusing freedom with Liberty. That is a common mistake by those that hate Liberty.

>>3127480

Most people do not handle freedom well. Honestly, I am one such person.

I call Dominos and ask for a pepperoni-and-olive pizza. I get asked if I want Brooklyn-style, deep-dish, thin crust, seasoned crust, stuffed crust, deep-fried crust, no crust, do I want a Snickers bar with that, small/medium/large, which of 49 flavors of ice cream do i want on the pizza or would I like three flavors for only $4.99 extra, is it okay if the deliveryman is half-Mexican and wears a pinky ring--

I hang up. I go to the store and get a can of refried beans.

>>3127539

Health: maximizing an individual's perceived ability to proliferate his genes.

>>3127524
Genes don't give a shit about whether you're happy. Serve them if you want.

>>3127549
OR we could study numerous brain scans of people and conclude happiness as brain state X, Y and Z.

>>3127552

Draw the distinction. They are generally taken to be synonymous.

>>3127530
>to see what happiness and misery look like in our brains.
Well, I'm not arguing against the *existence* of emotional states. I'm saying we all have different emotional trigger. Let's say I get an enormous kick out of spitting you in the face, whereas you have a spit phobia and suffer immensely under my torture. All other things being equal, how would Harris resolve this conflict?

>>3127493
While I agree with you that mathematics is ontologically subjective, I believe that it is epistemological objective.

Mathematical statements are true whether we want them to or not.

>>3127552
Right, it's also common for those who hate utility to not realize freedom and liberty are conflated terms. Meaningless only in irrational state of minds.

>>3127550

You emotionally want freedom to be objective, when it is clearly subjective. Freedom is doing whatever you want. Period.

Is chosen pleasure not a freedom?

>>3127559

I don't disagree, but that's irrelevant. You're still giving up freedom, not being 'free' from choice. That's an equivocation.

>>3127573

And the ability to DO that which you want is FREEDOM. What you *desire* to do is not. You've completely missed the point. It's stunning.

>>3127557
The picture will likely become more nuanced. There's distinct patterns for pride in accomplishment, feelings of security, feelings of worth, pleasure in social attachment, etc. I don't think human happiness can be reduced to a scalar.

It assumes perfect knowledge, but the best idea I can come up with is "what I would prefer, knowing what all the possibilities are like".

>>3127562

I'm not saying anyone "should" server their genes. I'm saying we are happiest when we are, because we evolved to be this way. Therefore, the only LOGICAL way to support ethical conclusions would be to involve our biological optimization. If this is not self-evident, then we're back at square one, and ethics are not objective.

>>3127565
If we live in a world that tolerates people spitting in each the faces of people with mental disorders humans are probably pretty miserable.

>>3127573

>Is chosen pleasure not a freedom?

No. The process of choosing is freedom. To choose what you do and to not choose what you do are objectively different things, not subjectively different. The DESIRE is subjective.

>>3127565
You only think that spitting on people is what brings you the greatest happiness. Sure, it brings you pleasure now, but you can reach a state of being that is superior for both of you.

Disclaimer: I haven't read his book.

>>3127588

If 80% if the population gets a sweet high by spitting on the 20%, why is this an unethical society?

>>3127564

Freedom is doing whatever you want. It is a personal, emotionally applied definition, that varies wildly. Liberty is not freedom, as you cannot do whatever you want.

>>3127572

> hate slavery

Logics, you meant to say.

>>3127593
Actually, that line could have come straight out of the book.

>>3127587
I think that "what makes humans happy" is biological, because that's all we are. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily "what propagates your genes the best". Evolution is a good-enough algorithm.

ugh...buried again.

>>3127316
>>3127441
>>3127435
>>3127314

>>3127602

Rape is good.

Can someone explain why 2 + 2 = 4 can be supported more objectively than ethical conclusions?

My best explanation for it is that mathematics is logical, but ethics is fundamentally illogical. I guess this means that our brains are better suited to reaching similar conclusions in mathematics? This doesn't seem right though.

>>3127588
Not if it makes the spitters extremely happy. But we don't actually have to go along with this contrived analogy. We can consider slavery as another example. Let's say the majority of a country would be *significantly* better off if they held a minority as slaves. Would this be an immoral thing to do, given that it would increase the happiness of the majority?

>>3127583

Free thought would be very relevant to freedom.

>>3127594
Because that probably means that they are also okay with enslaving that 20% as well. Which clearly leads only to misery.

Where as there is most likely a set up such that the majority gets their kicks without the minority suffering.

>>3127595

>Freedom is doing whatever you want. It is a personal, emotionally applied definition, that varies wildly.

What is done with freedom varies wildly, freedom does not. Freedom is the ability to choose, not what is chosen.

>>3127594
The underlying assumption is that the greatest possible happiness for those 80% really IS spitting on the other 20%, and there is literally nothing in the universe that could possibly bring them more joy.

Such beings might be possible, but they aren't humans.

>>3127611
Principia Mathematica

>>3127611
>2+2= 4 is an ethical conclusion
A little obvious, but that was pretty funny.

>>3127618

Brave New World

everyone gets their kicks

why is this unethical again?

I'll read the book, but I want to hear the explanation now. In his presentation Harris got asked this by Dawkins and he copped out despite the fact that half the world must have asked this before.

>>3127612
>Let's say the majority of a country would be *significantly* better off if they held a minority as slaves. Would this be an immoral thing to do, given that it would increase the happiness of the majority?
If that were the case.

But I think Sam Harris would simply deny that the happiness/welfare/flourishing brought to slave owners is worth the suffering of slaves. He might even argue (I would) that the slave-owners do NOT benefit (on the whole) from slavery. Economically, sure, but there's more to happiness than money.

>>3127593
>>3127598
That's meaningless nonsense to me, to be honest. It assumes that a happiness based on "bad" actions could somehow always be topped by a happiness based on "good" actions, but there are circumstances where a person's happiness can *only* be maintained by committing bad actions, no matter what.

>>3127632
Because Well Being can also be derived from leading a satisfying life, a life of meaningful accomplishments. Can that be done in the Brave New World?

>>3127633
>But I think Sam Harris would simply deny that the happiness/welfare/flourishing brought to slave owners is worth the suffering of slaves.
Well, then I would love to hear his argument. I hope it's better than "It's part of my axiom. Pretend it's like math and just roll with it."

>>3127632
Brave New World supposes that humans are happy when they are brainwashed into enjoying what they are told to enjoy, and that being drugged is the highest happiness. Ignorance, absence of self-determination or even the desire for it, and more. Many classes of people are given fetal alcohol syndrome so that they are more suited to their position, which is somehow assumed to be necessary.

One of the discussions in the book is that not all humans can be upper-class, basically. It's a dystopian novel, so they're just exploring concepts.

******
The protagonist ends up committing suicide.

******

>>3127624
>Godel's incompleteness theorm would like a word with you

>>3127611

Mathematics attempts to formalize and extrapolate on some basic observed patterns, so no different than formal ethics.

>>3127624

Nope.

>>3127651
Do YOU believe that what you would gain from owning a slave is worth more than what the slave losing by being enslaved?

>>3127633
>But I think Sam Harris would simply deny that the happiness/welfare/flourishing brought to slave owners is worth the suffering of slaves.

Bingo. Human civilization is a testament to the fact that we are all better off as a whole when we don't treat each other like dicks.

>>3127653
Have you even studied Godel's Incompleteness theorem?

>>3127632
i don't remember this book very well. I remember there was a short, squat, ugly dude who wanted to be an alpha, and a tall, handsome guy who wanted to be a beta. I remember the short dude being peer pressured into an orgy. Everything else is kind of a blur. I guess that's kind've a retention fail, huh?

>>3127659
Absolutely not, but I don't see why my opinion even matters in this regard. I'm not claiming my own moral compass to be an objective guideline.

>>3127640
> but there are circumstances where a person's happiness can *only* be maintained by committing bad actions, no matter what.
This is an inherent contradiction. Good and bad are defined, in this context, by what maximizes human welfare.

I admit that Sam Harris seems to assume that there is no maximum based on exploiting other humans. Local maxima maybe, but inferior ones. It seems reasonable to me, but more importantly, it can be verified.

Can a nation based on exploiting and abusing others be as happy as one which does not?

>>3127670
Have you even studied whether or not it matters whether i've even gone so far as yet decided to do so much as if anything is to what is this I dont know, im 12

>>3127680
This is where Harris would suggest we get off our asses and actually study people who are enslaved, people who are free, and do some fucking research on the matter instead of just wondering about it.

>>3127680
The idea would be that you can verify what you and I both agree to be the case on an objective basis. Though I haven't read Sam Harris' book to see how he gets around all the problems inherent in an ethical calculus.

Here's a wiki article, anyway, for anyone interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

>>3127181
Thats not the qoute at all

its Democracy is the worst form of government

>>3127681
>This is an inherent contradiction.
Not at all. If a pedophile is at his happiest when he's molesting children, then that's not a contradiction. It's his sexuality, and absolutely nothing you could offer him would be an adequate substitute.

I don't get it. what the fuck are you guys arguing about? and what does it have to do with capitalism?

>>3127681

Yes, actually. The most important step down that path is actually pretty simple. Treat anyone not from your nation as inhuman. Once you've psychologically broken things down into exploiting beasts well...everybody does that.

>>3127682
The gist of the Theorem is that there are some mathematical propositions that can neither be proven or disproven. It does not say that ALL propositions can't be proven or disproven.

>>3127684
Fucking THIS. Though I don't really agree with all of Harris, I can certainly get behind an empirical study of factors in human happiness.

>>3127684
>implying we can go back in time and measure chemical changes in the brains of slaves

>>3127695
>absolutely nothing you could offer him would be an adequate substitute.
How about a cookie?

>>3127695
Hypothesis: A society where we stop pedophiles from molesting children has people with higher overall well being than a society that does not.

Science Time! What do you think the answer will be?

>>3127702
People are being enslaved right now.

>>3127708

How about this for an answer: Ancient Greece.

>>3127702
>implying slavery has been eliminated

>>3127697
The assertion is that (pardon the Godwin) Nazis can be as happy as those who do no dehumanize beings who are biologically human.

Sam Harris would say you can check this empirically, I think. I would suggest that torturers generally suffer guilt for decades afterwards, as evidences by accounts of reconciliation between torturer and torturee years after the fact.

The counter-assertion I would make is that it is not possible to dehumanize and abuse others without fundamentally becoming a person who is less capable of happiness. Again, this is subject to verification, not just taking it at face value.

>>3127715
Ancient Greece compared to what?

>>3127713
>implying 3rd world cunts who own slaves would let you study their slaves

>>3127720

Any nation at the time of comparable technological development.

>>3127708
I think you should re-read my post, and maybe this time in context. I was talking about the happiness of an individual, not society. My point was that there's nothing inherently contradictory about a situation where someone's maximum pleasure can only be achieved through someone else's pain.

>>3127721
There are people being enslaved here in America.

>>3127721
Women in some countries are effectively slaves, and yet interviews and such occur.

This entire point is rather perverse. I don't think anyone honestly believes that slaves generally want to be slaves. Some people believe that slavery is acceptable, however.

Capitalism is ethical. Its a simple idea, really. You have something i want, i have something you want, so lets trade. Everybody wins. If you don't want to trade, you don't have to. Its only when you start taking things that don't belong to you that the problems start.

/sci/ - Philosophy

>>3127725
Nothing logically contradictory. But how about we do some research on the matter.

Here, I'll set up an experiment. We have two groups of two people. The first group has people who cooperate with each other to achieve their goals. The second group has one person who sacrifices the other for their own gain.

Which group will have the greatest overall well being? Which group will have the happiest individual?

>>3127725
I suppose then that the choice of metric comes into play. Sam Harris would probably argue that general human nature has some kind of happy cooperative maximum (or several), but what do we do with pedophiles, sociopaths, etc? Do we simply call them broken? They are recognized as mentally ill, after all.

What does Harris say about animal rights? Specifically, what is the golden superior resolution for breeding pigs to kill for dem Big Macs?

People who claim their morals to be objective truth scare the shit out of me.

>>3127747
Big macs are made out of pork now?

>>3127744
The problem would arise if it is possible to actually have a higher maximum by throwing some members under the bus.

I personally don't believe that to be the case, but it could be studied on a small scale.

(not the guy you were replying to, BTW).

Maybe capitilism would be more ethical of the lesser countries of the world got their fucking shit together.

how can you discuss the science of economics without seriously considering the political implications of capitalism, socialism, and communism?

Its a legitimate post.

>>3126686
>>3127117
/thread

Try coming up with something fresh and original. Considering reporting for spam...

Bots. I'm talking to a bunch of bots.

>>3127762

fuck off cock gobbler. this is actually an interesting discussion.

although Harris would say that you can report the thread if you like, since it won't do anything and might make you feel better. although you might be happier in the long term if you stopped being such a dumbass.

>>3127747
Haven't read his book, but I think it would be human-centric. The question is "does eating animals limit human happiness". There's a legitimate argument to be made on those grounds, but it's all about human happiness.

For instance, I think it's likely that being inflicting unnecessary pain on animals limits personal happiness, but that medical testing and food are worth the minimum suffering necessary for those tasks.

>>3127749
>implies capitalism doesn't provide incentives to remain governmental autocracies

>>3127747
No room for pigs in the moral landscape. This is about human happiness after all.

>>3127767
If you are, they're probably more intelligent than you.

>>3127756
the question isn't who is happier, the question is, who has a higher survival rate?

>>3127780
>>3127776
>>3127747
Actually Harris says we should value the Well Being of Sentient Creatures.

If we could understand how much pigs suffer, we should take that into consideration. If they do suffer from being raised in such conditions, we should consider that.

>>3127783
Ah, now you've switched metrics: Long-term survival maximized at all costs, rather than something which weights human happiness more heavily.

I'm not sure what Sam Harris would say about the long view on human survival. It's easily possible that there is a tradeoff to be made - some of our personal happiness for the success of future generations.

>>3127788
that's fucking gay

>>3127794
I'd wager that a world with long living humans is also one with happy humans.

>>3127794
>implying he knows one anon from another

>>3127788
The arithmetic of "how important are pigs relative to humans" would be hard to develop, and I think Sam Harris would say so - but I think it's worth trying. All undeveloped sciences are vague at first.

what about the hierarchy of needs? At what point does human happiness become a threat to survival?

>>3127811
I doubt it will.
>>3127800

>>3127800
That would certainly be convenient, and may be the case. However, to cite an example from fiction, it's not the view that the Dune series takes. The God Emperor was a *dick* for thousand of years to force humanity into becoming impossible to wipe out.

>>3127797
He's not saying "pigs are people too".

Instead of insinuating we are pigs, why don't you just come out and say it.

Capitalism is superior to socialism from an ethical standpoint.

>>3127805
>All undeveloped sciences are vague at first.
"what same harris thinks" =/= science

>>3127818
You know, I've never understood exactly what socialism is. You seem to know what you are talking about, why don't you help me to understand it.

>>3127824
Yea, neuroscience isn't a science! Duh. The brain runs on pixie dust, scientists can't study that!

>>3127771
I said I was considering it, no need to get mad because someone points out this same shit is posted every day, you can continue to indulge in this full retard clusterfuck if it means that much to you then. I'm not hating.

True dat a million times over.>>3127750

socialism is when the government controls the means of manufacture of material goods and raw materials. Communism is when the government controls the means of manufacture and distribution of material goods.

>>3127832
You're making a giant leap of fath between suffering lifeforms and it being objectively immoral to not stop it.

>>3127877
I am making the assumption that promoting the well being of creatures that are capable of it is good.

It is what I want to do, anyway.

>>3127877

Harris would say we make similar leaps of faith in every other field.

<---- read this

>>3127877
Well, I *personally* would just argue that it's bad for *human* happiness when we don't care about the suffering of animals at all. Being cruel to animals... does things to us. But I'm no PETA faggot. Medical research and food are fine - but unnecessary suffering should be limited.

>>3127898
It's on my list.

>>3127898
Ayn Rand? No. As though she were an example of human happiness.

>>3127898
I've read it. The premise of her argument is flawed. The rail industry went into decline because air and road traffic replaced the need for freight.

I still support capitalism.

>>3127918

Look at me! Look at me! Look how smart and edgy I am!

>>3127924
>implying you wouldn't say the same if he supported Rand

>>3127922
Mathematics makes a "leap of faith" with the mathematical axioms.

Scientists make a "leap of faith" with assuming that evidence based observations provides accurate information about the world.

Empiricism is a "leap of faith"

These aren't blind guesses, these are axioms.

>>3127896
That's not completely true, but even if it were it wouldn't support Harris' case.
>>3127924
Is it possible to have a discussion on ethics and morality without calling people edgy for having different views?

>>3127936

Keep telling yourself that, kid.

>>3127940
There is a massive difference between 'leap of faith' that is necessary to bridge the epistemological gap and what Harris is proposing.

>>3127924
You're an ass. I was agreeing with you, you fucking troll. Rand had a lot of good ideas, but she failed to understand that the basis of altruism IS selfishness. Helping other people, at least initially, tends to make people feel good about themselves, who they are, and how they view other people.

>>3127965
What Harris is proposing is "Promoting the well being of conscious creatures is good"

Or more obviously "The greatest possible suffering and misery for everyone is bad and worth avoiding"

That's rather obvious. Isn't it?

>>3127984

I disagree.

>>3127995
So it's possible that the greatest possible suffering for everyone ISN'T bad? Could you explain what could be worse?

Could you explain your basis for disagreeing? Because I don't think you actually think that.

>>3128023

Ugly things are bad.

Ethics are difficult to define and are about as objective as an argument between coke vs pepsi.

Think of it in more simpler terms: As a winner of the birth lottery, you are a person who (compared to most of the world) has come out on the top of the capitalistic system, you have at your disposal a luxurious lifestyle most of the world can only dream of. Your life is built upon the backs of dozens of sweatshop workers, miners, and fruit-pickers working for money that you casually throw away every day.

Nevertheless, how do you feel about this? Are you supportive of a system that has brought you so much for so little effort, or is your heart so troubled that you would be willing to forgo your car, your two story house, your Friday night outings, your computer, and everything else in your life for the sake of a set of ill defined "morals"? It's your choice.

>>3128171
I deny that capitalism is essentially exploitative. A more equal power distribution would be preferable, and indeed that is where things are headed globally.

But your fundamental point is still there. Me? I'd eat less beef so that people in the third world can stop living in mud huts on nothing but rice (if that's what is needed).

There are no alternatives to capitalism.

>>3128171
Let's look at that from the parent's perspective.

You work hard all your life, climbing you way up the corporate ladder to ultimately be in an extremely secure financial position, all for the benefit of your children for whom you wish to provide the best possible life for...

If that were me, I'd be plenty pissed if my children couldn't benefit from my success, which was pursued entirely for that purpose.

is being willing to do anything no matter how low or horrible for cash ethical?

Gee I don't know OP is it?

>>3128193
>deny that capitalism is essentially exploitative

Why not? It's the same thing as saying everyone should be rich. Wealth is finite and cannot be equally divided. If you have it, there has to be someone else in the world that doesn't.

Even if there is a hypothetical situation in which wealth was equally shared, the average GDP per capita of the world would approximate to around $8500, barely a fifth of that of the US.

Yes. Capitalism requires voluntary action between two parties to even conduct business. It's that simple. Both parties have to make a choice to go into this contract of trading services (food for your money - your contract being your receipt).

In any other system, you can be forced to do this. The initiation of force is unethical in cases were the individual feels it is unwarranted and unnecessary.

Your picture OP shows the state of a person deprived of private property, deprived of any means to produce wealth and means to create food. That poor boy was probably born into a life of savagery something that would not happen in a civilized capitalistic society.

>>3127910

Ad hominem, bro. Come on /sci/ I thought you were better than this. You have no reason to hate her, she's probably the most misunderstood author I've ever read because she has a different definition of selfishness.

She's one of the few authors who even praised individual excellence, something which /sci/ is a model of (on 4chan), I presume.

>>3128193
>I deny that capitalism is essentially exploitative.

That's like denying mass though. Capitalism is based on unequal exchange in order to get ahead.

Is it ethical? That depends on your own worldview.

Someone has to be on top and bottom. We can't all be middle class. There'll be a day when all labor is automated though and hopefully that will fix the right side of the picture.

>>3128559
Capitalism will alone eliminate a lower class.
With future technology and the advancement of robotic/mechanical labor, there will be few people who even have to work as say a burger flipper at McDonalds. Of course, this all takes time and advancement in scientific knowledge. All the crappy jobs will be left to teenagers or people who don't care to have a "corporate" job.

>>3128597

McDonald's could have gone fully automated years ago. They keep people at the registers because customers want to have a human to scream at and ridicule.

Insulting a computer doesn't make you feel better, but insulting a person does. Customer service workers are abuse sponges.

>>3128619

So society itself is not ready to let go of a lower class? Hmm...Shame. Guess we have no one to blame but the current state of society and the state of education.

But you see /sci/ the liberals in this thread will yell for government to do it, but it is us, the educators who must persuade enlightenment and push towards a better future for ourselves and the ones we care for.

In modern-day capitalism, everything is owned by somebody. So, if nobody has a task that they'd be willing to pay you to do, that you're capable of doing, you're just fucked, and there's no way to earn your way in the world. Simple as that. Pure capitalism is a flawed system.

>>3128636
>But you see /sci/ the liberals in this thread will yell for government to do it, but it is us, the educators who must persuade enlightenment and push towards a better future for ourselves and the ones we care for.

Well the government is supposed to protect people from events which are beyond their control.

>>3128654

lol really? As if any person, able and willing, would stand by and do nothing. You pick up a new trade dumbass, humans have to do this in nature - to survive and adapt to changes in the environment. Don't give me that logical fallacy bullshit here, especially on /sci/.

>>3128671
>You pick up a new trade dumbass,

You say that as though that's easy, most people already can't keep their heads above the water working more than 40 hours a week. Their possibility of changing jobs, especially if schooling is required is nearly 0.

It's an employers market.

>>3128670
>Well the government is supposed to protect people

I lol'd

>>3128671
>As if any person, able and willing, would stand by and do nothing.
It happens. We've seen it.
>You pick up a new trade dumbass,
Yes, that works, because education is always either free or available through government-subsidized loans.

>>3128671
His point was that you can't just say 'fuck this' and go live in the woods because the forest rangers will have you jailed.

>>3128670

> Well the government is supposed to protect people from events which are beyond their control.

In our case, protection from what? A better life and condition for all? I guess if you want to keep people flipping burgers then don't bitch about how people have shitty pay that work those jobs - it's a job that can be done by an automated robot.

>>3126686
It's more ethical than the thing actually responsible for what you're blaming on capitalism.

>>3128695
But then why do we have machines picking cotton when we have an ample supply of niggers?

>>3126686

Yes, it is ethical. Everybody lives to serve their own ends and under capitalism this can be achieved.

>>3128671

Its called leftist entitlement syndrome.

They expect the world to revolve around them. That sentence very simply explains a whole lot of their stuff.

>>3128687
>You say that as though that's easy, most people already can't keep their heads above the water working more than 40 hours a week. Their possibility of changing jobs, especially if schooling is required is nearly 0. It's an employers market.
>>3128694
>His point was that you can't just say 'fuck this' and go live in the woods because the forest rangers will have you jailed.

You're both exactly right. What I was getting at is the belief amongst some free market fundamentalists that anybody who fails in a free market economy does so because they're too lazy or too stupid to earn a living. The point I was making is that sometimes it's impossible to earn a living, and it would be even more of a problem in a world without government-provided education.

>>3128687

You know, I begin to question: What is the state of a persons mind that drives them to start a business? Is it the act of risking everything they have when they have very little? I think so.

Corner an animal into death and they will do anything in their power to stay alive. Humans have only their intelligence to earn a living. You either create something (planting and growing) or you work for something (harvesting and hunting) to stay alive.

Choose. If you have nothing to lose why not take the risk to start your own business? Or move to an environment that is business friendly?

>>3128735
>Choose. If you have nothing to lose why not take the risk to start your own business? Or move to an environment that is business friendly?

Because probability says any business you start will not return positive gain and you'll be bankrupt anyways.

>>3128735
You're not being practical. How could somebody with the problem of being broke start a business without any cash to get it started? Do you expect a homeless man to walk into a credit union, request a small business loan, and start renting out a space for a workshop? Just like that?

>>3128709

Cause it's cheaper but libs will scream at McDonald's for even trying to replace workers for these machines.

>>3126686

can someone explain how the OP pic is supposed to be anti-capitalism? the fat kid is in a capitalistic country while the starving kid is in a non capitalistic country. socialists have the most moronic logic.

>>3128779

These are conditions not prevalent of a middle class man. I assume the topic was on middle class people who earn about 50,000. Who historically have savings and such. Heck, if you want to stoop that low, I know a friend who's in a family of Mexican immigrants who's father started his own lawn mowing business. He's making enough to support 5 people and is considering expanding.

What I'm saying is, in a capitalistic society, it's not impossible to find a job; there will be opportunities and conditions to start your own or find one.

>>3126693
>>3127146

>Sam Harris
>ohboyherewego

>>3128787
Point was why should we let people do strenuous labor for insufficient income (effectively no gain to the worker) if we don't allow slavery (effectively no gain to the worker)?

That's the type of thing the government should protect us from.

>>3128810
Related to this.

To a socialist, all of the failures of socialism can be blamed on capitalism.

>>3128837
> why should we let people do strenuous labor for insufficient income if we don't allow slavery?
Slaves don't choose and can't quit if they find a better job. Enforced unemployment is a very poor employment strategy. Working and making half a living wage still lets me buy food even if I can't afford rent or a place to stay. If they had to pay me full wage or not hire me, I wouldn't have a home or food or a job, and I'd starve to death instead of being able to keep looking for better work.

>>3126693
>>3127146
>>3128827

Oh hell no. This could have been a decent thread on the relatively interesting gray area between productive Capitalism and degenerative Capitalism, BUT NO.

Let's talk about our awesome moral calculating engine pie-in-the-sky bullshit. Fucking Sam Harris... goddammit.

>>3128822
>These are conditions not prevalent of a middle class man. I assume the topic was on middle class people who earn about 50,000. Who historically have savings and such.
Nope. I was actually arguing with the urban poor in mind. You thought I was talking about myself, didn't you? The whole "Liberals just feel entitled to everything" idea isn't really very close to reality, you know. I'm making this argument from altruism.
>Heck, if you want to stoop that low, I know a friend who's in a family of Mexican immigrants who's father started his own lawn mowing business. He's making enough to support 5 people and is considering expanding.
>What I'm saying is, in a capitalistic society, it's not impossible to find a job; there will be opportunities and conditions to start your own or find one.

Do you have any statistics on how many people succeed at this sort of thing, vs how many people try?

>Blame capitalism for everything
>Have highest quality of living
>Best care
>best best best

But yeah, capitalism is unethical.

SHOW ME A GOOD WORKING SYSTEM THAT DOES BETTER THAN CAPITALISM.

Fucking morons, grow up.
If capitalism is unethical then everything else 100 times worse.
If we assume ethics in the first place.

>>3128848

Am I supposed to be mad? There's about 2.3 millionaires in the U.S. I can be part of that if I tried hard enough. I'm just willing to admit that right now, I'm too lazy and don't want to think about doing that. I'm quite comfortable watching netflix and scoping the internet and being a lab researcher intern.

The reason, I think, we see such a distribution like that is because the creators of this wealth we see all around us are not big spenders. They find ways to make more and more money; they invest and capitalize.

I like to use the analogy of a lake: the greatest source of water comes from a lake, not a river.

>captialism
>ethical
>implying any system wherein our species competes with itself and hordes resources into a few hands based on political power and circumstance is ever ethical

Everyone ought to be working together to ensure the survival and advancement of the species as a whole. Instead everyone seems to want t orun around and fling poop/nukes at each other to try and be the monkey with the most fucking bananas. It's abusice and disgusting, and it will be the end of us.

And then the /sci/fags wonder why the aliens (assuming they exist and have shown up) haven't come here overtly yet. Maybe because we kinda suck?

>>3128881
>There's about 2.3 millionaires in the U.S.
waht

Economist here.

Listen little guys.

Capitalism: Big guys have 100$ , small guys have 1$
Its not fair?

Well:

In other systems:
>Big guys have everything, small guys have nothing
>Big guys own the country like literal king, small guys are dying everyday because they said a bad thing about the big guy.


A small guy in capitalism have food, entertainment, house, etc etc etc.
A small guy in non capitalism thinks thats all fairy tale.

Have fun bashing capitalism.
Why when it comes to politics people abandon critical thinking?

>>3128881
>I can be part of that if I tried hard enough.

You're delusional if you think you could do that. Even more delusional if you believe somebody else who was born into the poorest 50% of the world's population could achieve that feat in one lifetime.

>>3128868

Urban poor? Are you talking about people who make less than 20,000 a year? If so, that's in my field of expertise; single mom, an immigrant. Don't care to get into life story.

And I'm not some kind of statistician to go around doing this, but I'm lending my two cents to the argument where I've seen some seemingly impossible things happen (assuming we're talking about able people and not mentally or physically disabled).

>>3128909
What do you think about the mixed system used in Northern Europe?

>>3128889
Capitalim =/= war

Actually capitalism produced less wars than any other system, and more gentle than any other system.

All you know about war is
>iraqqzz hurrr innocent people die durrr

lrn2history mate.

>>3128862
>Slaves don't choose and can't quit if they find a better job.
And that is different from an under-qualified burger flipper how exactly? Or an over-qualified burger flipper who's specialized job was permanently outsourced for that matter?

>Enforced unemployment is a very poor employment strategy.

Only because capitalism says so, being bound by rules you invented until the point you've killed yourself is just silly.

>If they had to pay me full wage or not hire me, I wouldn't have a home or food or a job, and I'd starve to death instead of being able to keep looking for better work.

You mean you'd starve to death instead of dieing on the street from a preventable illness. Your assumptions that there is 'better work' for which you 'qualified' is increasingly fallacious.

>>3128909

No one person should have arbitrary power over another just because they have more resources. Point blank end of story period. Any system that allows this to happen, to any degree whatsoever, is ethically questionable.

>>3128925
But you do agree that capitalism is the best system so far, right?

>>3128925
ironic that you post a picture of a libertarian while holding that view

Capitalism is inherently exploitative because the employees of a business do not share in the profits or the decision making process.

Social stratification and the high cost of education creates distinct socio-economic classes. People who make a profit off the system support the status quo. People who don't support the status quo anyway because they think that anything other than capitalism will lead to a totalitarian hellhole.

Solution is to use the cooperative business model instead of the capitalist one, and have government support for people trying to start new businesses to overcome the (in some cases huge) barriers to entry.

If worker's control proves unworkable in some cases due to the size of the business or the idiocy of employees, a management board could be employed to run administration and investment decisions for a fair share in the profits. The rest of the profits should be distributed as wages or held to build up capital for a new expansion.

>>3128937
Highlight 'SO FAR'

>>3128937

Ask the south americans that.

>>3128921

>Implying economic competition, wherein the stakes are, ultimately, the ability to survive and advance, isn't a type of interspecies warfare

Now you're just being cognitively dissonant.

>>3128878
>everything previously was shit because the conditions (the least important of those being economics) neccessary for our current quality of life weren't yet met
>nothing better will ever be invented and we shouldn't try because capitalism is best

I really can't even be surprised by this dribble anymore.

>>3128912

lol what? This is not physically impossible.

"...most American millionaires today (about 80 percent) are first-generation rich." - Britannia rich? par. 4.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

>>3128848

you're assuming that the rich are responsible for the poor being poor. that is not the case. *wealth can be created.*

>>3128944
I believe there's a segment in Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story' which goes over democratically-run businesses and how it has actually been really lucrative for everyone involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFYdVfp9Nj0

>>3128968

Indeed. There are many cooperatives in the world, but they don't generate huge profits as it all goes to the employees.

The Mondragon Corporation in Spain is the biggest, and Argentina has seen some awesome takeovers of bankrupt factories by the unions; who then managed to extract a profit from them, to the butthurt of capitalists everywhere.

This is the kind of socialism that we need, not a state tyranny but worker's control.

But you know, the right-wingers and stalinists will just keep herping and derping about how socialism means gulags and command economies.

>>3128904

Sorry bro, that's about 8.4 millionaires in the U.S. as of 2011.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7475023.html

>>3128937
No I really don't. Decentralised network of communes composed primarily of people with a similar set of skills and mutual goals per capita per area and trading based on the most accurate available supply/demand data (based on data collection, not on arbitrary bullshit like subjective price systems) is probably the best system available. Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect the cooperation of everyone, and so there would have to be a systematized opt-out program that didn't involve sending them to the gulag. Just wanted to make that last point clear before you launch into that age old bullshit straw-man about how planned economy = evil totalitarian dictatorship.

lrn2 libertarian socialism

>>3128938
Yes I'm aware of the irony. However, Paul is concerned about governmental overreach and so I support is anarchist tendencies.

>>3128984

Then do it faggot. Team up with a group of workers and start a business. No one's stopping you.

>morals
>ethics
Who needs that when you can have money and power instead? Ethics wont pay for shit.

>>3128944
>Capitalism is inherently exploitative because the employees of a business do not share in the profits or the decision making process.
Do you know why employees don't make important decisions? Because it's not their company. If I'm a boss, and I want someone to do labor, I pay them to do labor. I'm not paying them to have democratic control, I'm only paying for labor. If an employer wants someone to make important decisions, he would pay them for management. Lower level laborers don't get a vote becasue it's not their place to have a vote. That's not what their job is. If they have a problem, go somewhere else.

It's like leftists are incapable of understanding what a contract is. Trying to turn a private company into a democratic company by force is a violation of that owner's rights. Workers can't complain about not having any power, because it was never their corporation to begin with.

>>3128984
>>3128968
>>3128987

>>3128991

What the fuck gives you the idea I'm not going to do this?
inb4 hurrdurr cooperatives can never work

>>3128964
You guys realize the value of the dollar has significantly fallen against itself due to inflation over the past few decades right?

Being a millionaire means increasingly less these days inside the US.

WEALTH?
FUCKING MORONS?

YOU COMPARE WEALTH OF AFRICA WITH THAT OF AMERICAS?

THEY ARE NOT POOR, THEY ARE LIVING IN THIS WAY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS IT IS NORMAL FOR THEM.
JUST BECAUSE WE GOT RICH DOESNT MEAN THEY ARE POOR.
>native american tribes : hurr they nature are good durr
>native african tribes: lurr they poor, we must give billionz furrr
>HURRR THE ANIMALS ARE POOR LETS GIVE THEM MONEY
>DURR THE ROCKS DONT HAVE ENOUGH HOUSES LETS GO BUILD SOME
>DURPITY HURP THE PLANTS OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE McDONALDS LETS GO MAKE SOME.

No, there is no "WEALTH" inequality ,there is political inequality.
And capitalism has the bet equality, unless you know one that has better, so far NONE....NONE have proposed a better system YET keep bashing the system that brought them everything they have.

Grow up kids. Grow the fuck up.

>>3128987
>>3128984
That's the point. A democratic company or a syndicate is completely legal in a capitalist economy. Free trade means you can structure your company however you please. My problem is that private industries can't exist in a socialist nation. Just because you like a business model, doesn't mean you can force it on everyone else. Let your ideals compete in the marketplace, don't force it.

>>3128999

Mhmm, sure is sound ethics in here. Did you get that from ayn rand?

You think that having a lot of money or physical capital entitles you to the profits of other peoples' labour?

You sicken me.

>>3129026
>You think that having a lot of money or physical capital entitles you to the profits of other peoples' labour?
As long as the 'other people' have made the choice of working for you, yes, it does. If they didn't want me to profit they are free to work on their own, there is always someone willing to take their place.

>>3129038

Except that next to no capitalist employers will give their employees a share in the profits.

If you don't take what they offer, they reject you and go on to the next guy trying to avoid unemployment. lrn2 reserve army of labour.

If businesses needed to compete for labour they'd probably offer better conditions, but they don't. There is no such thing as the free market.

>>3129026
>profits of other peoples' labour
I don't think you understand what that means. A capitalist pays market value for labor, which is used to create products.Labor isn't inherently worth anything, labor doesn't have any value until it's converted to useful work or until a product is sold. A capitalist doesn't profit off others' labor, he profit's off a product o service produced by labor. That product or service is what the worker was paid to do. After the transaction is made, the worker has no right to the profits, since he was only paid for the initial labor. Again, don't sign the contract i you're not happy with the agreement.

>>3128999

So someone is paid very little to do mind-numbingly dull work, and the employer knows he can get away with it because the employee's only other options are prison or starving to death. How is that not exploitative?

>>3129053
How is that exploitative? It was a completely mutual decision. The employer has no idea of the background conditions of the other guy. He is simply offering money for labor at market price. The poor man has no "right" to the rich man's profit, although he can certainly take the job. Exploitation only occurs if the employer made him take the job at gunpoint.

>>3129049

The capitalist is not necessary to the enterprise, though. Only capital is, the investing, marketing etc is just white-collar labour. Labour *is* necessary. Why should someone be paid the lion's share of the profits simply for having money?

>>3129038
>As long as the 'other people' have made the choice of working for you, yes, it does.

>>3128999

leftists do understand contract, they just belive that the type of contracts you are defending should be against the rules. And yes that is to a certain extent a violation of your perceived property rights. But go figure, property rights are part of the debate. Duh.

>>3129066
And this is why libertarians are retarded. A laborer has little choice; he can go to work for shitty exploitative corporation A or shitty exploitative corporation B or even (gasp!) shitty exploitative corporation C! In this case, he doesn't *really* have a choice, but libertardians assert that because it doesn't fit their stupid definition of exploitation that it therefore is not exploitation.

Why exactly is being "forced" to take a job at gunpoint wrong? I mean hurrrrr you could have refused right? Since you agreed it isn't exploitation! This is the logic of the libertarian.

>>3129071
Because he, um, started the business and set everything in motion. Capital doesn't appear out of nowhere, it has to be invested first, and that comes with risk. Ultimately, labor is only a means, profit is the goal, and the capitalist is the start, or the catalyst. Labor is just labor; without the capitalist it would be useless.

>>3129082
Al contracts should be legal as long as there is no active coercion. "Against the rules" doesn't apply here, you're essentially limiting the worker much more than the employer.

It's pretty sad that you don't know the difference between active and passive. Your type of philosophy ironically leads to things liberals hate like social conservatism. The belief that someone needs to be protected even though they're making a consensual decision. The government has no place in regulating consensual acts, whether they involve something liberals support like gay rights, or whether it's something conservative, like capitalism. Leftists and social conservatives are very similar in that they want to deny agents freedom of choice.

>>3129125
This was to >>3129095, bah.

>>3129125
>consensual decision

See
>>3129077

You could chose not to "buy shit." Or you could do your part and spend to improve the economy. Whatever you chose.

>>3129038

THIS JUST IN: capitalist-fundies think it's perfectly ok to exploit other people because "they made the choice", even though that choice may have been forced by circumstances and was thus a non-choice, or made it based on innacurate or incomplete information, some of which could have been purposely fabricated or manipulated by the decision presenter for exploitative or political purposes. MORE AT 11.

>>3129151
Exploitation is active. It's not the employer's responsibility for you being poor or rich. His only job is to trade money for labor, everything else is irrelevant. If it was based off of inaccurate information, that's fraud. take it up with the courts. However, merely not getting the amount of money you wanted, especially if you already signed the contract, is not being "exploited." You're demeaning the term exploited by applying it to workers. There's no exploitation in consensual acts.

>>3129146
Picture was about the worker, capitalists seriously think wearing a red hat over a blue hat is a significant choice that defends their position.

>>3129177
Exploitation is taking advantage of a situation, fortunately for employers a surplus of employees means lots of people for them to exploit at their leisure.

>>3129125
Oh please. Learn the definition of the term "informed consent".

There's a reason we don't allow children to make important decisions for themselves, and it's because they don't have what it takes to make them intelligently.

Someone giving "consent" doesn't mean a thing if they're completely ignorant and don't understand that what they're consenting to is going to leave them worse off. That's not a legitimate contract, that's taking candy from a babby.

>>3129191
So you don't think adults can make their own decisions, and the state should dictate a person's life?
>>3129183
You're ignoring the fact that the worker can start his own "green" corporation.

>>3129199
>So you don't think adults can make their own decisions, and the state should dictate a person's life?
I think most people are far too stupid to make their own decisions. The ignorant should be protected from those who would profit off their ignorance by making it difficult to prey on ignorance.

Additionally, schools should devote a significant amount of time teaching students basically how to live -- how to balance a checkbook, how to avoid becoming the next meal of some greedy jackhole, etc.

>>3129199
You're ignoring that realistically you're full of shit and it likely wouldn't get off the ground. It's equivalent to saying anyone can be rich if they hit the lottery or if a million dollars worth of meteor lands on their car.

Let me play devil's advocate for a second here.

The defense of private property could fall under the definition of the initiation of aggression, and could be called not consensual, whereas theft could be called consensual, since one person is taking something and the other is losing it, but not actually being harmed or imprisoned in any way.

What I just wrote, right up there, would be stupid, of course. Technology is man's method of surviving in the world. Steal the means by which a man does his job, and you may as well be taking the claws and teeth of a wildcat. In some ways, a person's property could be considered a part of them, in a tangentially biological sense, because it's how they manage to survive.

But what do we say when the entire world is owned by 20% of the population? Moreover, what if most of that property is completely unnecessary to the survival of those 20%? Could stock in Lockheed-Martin be considered a part of you, especially if it is unnecessary to survival?

>>3129283
>>3129283
>>3129283
The point I'm making is, there's no god out there commanding us to take on rock-solid property rights with few to no exceptions. Property rights are, in the end, something that is negotiated by human beings. If we do not create exceptions to them, some people will get screwed. They'll want to do work, but be unable to, because the economy doesn't need them. They'll want to eat, but they can't, since all of the land is owned, even if it isn't used. They'd "choose" to do what the economy needs them for, or they'd "choose" to starve. When the whole world is owned, property rights have to be breached from time to time, because doing otherwise would deprive many of any sort of choice in how they live their lives.

Remember, mankind lives by making and modifying inanimate things. If you can't do that because all of the inanimate things are owned, you can't do a goddamn thing.

Going beyond the hypothetical arguments, we've seen that a social safety net decreases crime and improves a general sense of well-being. It makes the world a safer and more pleasant place. This is far more important than the pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook we've all been spewing ITT: Actual, physical, results.

Like these, for example:
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NO
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/DK
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/SE
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/DE

>>3129177

Well let me put it this way. Lets put aside any concept of forcing a system on anyone, and go along with a world of contracts and choices. It makes things simpler and de-conflates the issue away from any notion of undue coercion so that just he raw socio-economic point is at hand.

In this case the "leftist" point is basically this: Any contract between a worker and a capital owner wherein the worker is being paid for time or the labor itself, instead of a cut of the overall profits, in an unethical arrangement and should be avoided.

The Philosophical basis for this claim can in fact be stated in terms much the same as the general libertarian argument for natural property rights: When I work on something, I mix my labor inexorably with the final product and so in that way have a homesteaded ownership of it. Thus, when that product is sold or exchanged, I as the laborer who helped make it am entitled to a cut of the profit from the exchange.

When I enter an employment contract wherein my labor itself is what is being paid for over time or by salary, then the said contract basically a waiver of my homesteaded, labor-mixed property rights.

To get a little more in depth, what Marx's point was (partially) is that this system, wherein the workforce is paid for their labor and time instead of the products the helped make, is the only reason why the captialist mode of prodcutoin creates profits. The money that a capitalist saves by buying labor instead of treating all the employees as shareholders is what allows for money to be made off the top. If all businesses were essentially co-ops, then there would be no profits and all the production in the economy would end up being at-cost, as it ostensibly logically should be.

(cont.)

>>3129290
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2000s

Here's some more statistics.

Oh, also, I believe that it's possible to do the whole "social safety net" thing wrong. Many countries have.

>>3129312

The next consequence of this system is that the labor force is never able to fully recoup the cost of their own products - that is, being paid for their labor (which is always net less than the combined price of their products), means that they will never have the ability to buy back all of what they made. The excess money is in the hands of the capitalist, who will use it to reinvest, make a new business, and/or buy a gold-plated toilet. In effect, Marx argued that capitalism is a system wherein the business cycle is only stable when the workers get paid for their labor instead of their homestead-share, and in effect end up as a class of people who are always going to have less economic power. This cycle will eventually spiral until the working class has no real socio-economic power and the capitalist back themselves into a supply-demand mis-allocation corner, artificial scarcity becomes maximized in an attempt to raise capital , and a market crash ensues.

(cont.)

>>3129319

The implication is that if every business were to suddenly switch to a co-op model, then everyone would realize that profits are bullshit, only existing when someone gets screwed over or waives their homestead rights in exchange for a wage. Thus, there would be no reason not to have a planned economy of some kind, because the idea that you need a capitalist class to make arbitrary, market-based, or greed-based private investment decisions is shown to be unnecessary. Marxes third point was that technological progress will ultimately make this point clear regardless of the amount of co-ops vs "regular" businesses.

That whole Marxian point is of course somewhat debatable, but it is simply a large thought experiment trying to show why wage-labor, non-co-op, non-profit-share contracts are bad for the economy in the long run and may in fact be fundamentally destabilizing.

Ergo, if you are flipping burgers, and are getting paid by the hour, you are getting fucked over. You Ought to be getting a cut of the profits made from the burgers, or perhaps even a certain amount of burgers themselves after a particular period of time (should you decided you wanted the burgers themselves rather than the money from their sale.

The leftists sure are tl;dr tonight.

>>3129369

the rightists sure are backward-thinking tonight.

>
Ergo, if you are flipping burgers, and are getting paid by the hour, you are getting fucked over. You Ought to be getting a cut of the profits made from the burgers, or perhaps even a certain amount of burgers themselves after a particular period of time (should you decided you wanted the burgers themselves rather than the money from their sale.

Go to bed Max!