Anarchy is Emergent Human Behavior [Archive]

Havet

5th July 2009, 21:03

lol i know you became excited about confederalsocialist's videos but you don't need to make a thread about them every once in a while haha

What i actually think is that spontaneous order is emergent, and that anarchy isn't chaos.

here's a nice poem just about that (from friedman's machinery of freedom)

In Washington there isn't any plan
With "feeding David" on page sixty-four;
It must be accidental that the milk man
Leaves a bottle at my door.

It must be accidental that the butcher
Has carcasses arriving at his shop
The very place where, when I need some meat,
I accidentally stop.

My life is chaos turned miraculous;
I speak a word and people understand
Although it must be gibberish since words
Are not produced by governmental plan.

Now law and order, on the other hand
The state provides us for the public good;
That's why there's instant justice on demand
And safety in every neighborhood.

Kwisatz Haderach

5th July 2009, 21:17

trivas7

5th July 2009, 21:47

Emergent human behavior is everything that happened throughout human history.

This conflates force and voluntarism in human affairs; but we already knew you were an authoritarian. :)

Havet

5th July 2009, 21:48

Emergent human behavior is everything that happened throughout human history.

Including the state. The state was created by humans without any interference from outside (that is, without any interference by non-humans). Therefore, the state is emergent human behavior.

Or do you two idiots believe that all humans would "naturally" live in anarchy if only aliens hadn't infected some of us with the virus of statism?

So because one group of humans forced the others to submit to them, we should abide by that "natural" condition?

I thought it was you "IDIOTS" that claimed that most people lived in anarchy and common property before a state appeared.

Better that you define what a state is.

Interesting that you brought the word VIRUS, although it wasn't ALIENS that infected people, it was merely the self-interest and the use of force of others, so after a couple of generations the people who are ruled started believing it was necessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-wZ4cPKHrY&feature=channel_page

Kwisatz Haderach

5th July 2009, 23:55

This conflates force and voluntarism in human affairs; but we already knew you were an authoritarian. :)
Oh for God's sake, are you saying violence, of all things, is somehow unnatural? VIOLENCE!? The thing that is done all the time by all living creatures capable of movement?

Violence is as natural as eating. Quite literally. Your precious "voluntarism" may, at most, be better than force in some philosophical sense. But to pretend that it's what humans "naturally" do - to pretend that humans do not have a desire to use force against other humans in certain circumstances - is too insane for words.

Yes, I am authoritarian - in the sense that I consciously oppose "voluntarism" - and I stand as living proof of the natural drive towards the use of force in human affairs. If humans do not "naturally" desire to use force, then how do you explain my existence? Am I not human? Am I not "natural"?

So because one group of humans forced the others to submit to them, we should abide by that "natural" condition?
Did I say we should abide by it? No. I just said it was natural. Which it is. (at least, it is as natural as everything else that humans do)

I thought it was you "IDIOTS" that claimed that most people lived in anarchy and common property before a state appeared.
Yes. Most people lived in anarchy and common property before a state appeared. And then, you know, a state appeared. Society changed. All social change is natural. State societies are just as "natural" as the stateless societies which preceded them. Capitalism is just as "natural" as socialism. Any human society is as "natural" as any other human society.

Of course, some societies are better than others, but as I have already said, "better" and "natural" are two different things. Just because I consider socialism to be better, that doesn't mean I suffer the delusion that socialism is somehow "more natural" than capitalism. It is not.

Better that you define what a state is.
Whatever you want it to be. I said that any kind of human society is as "natural" as any other. Therefore, a state society is as "natural" as a stateless society - regardless of what counts as a "state."

Interesting that you brought the word VIRUS, although it wasn't ALIENS that infected people, it was merely the self-interest and the use of force of others, so after a couple of generations the people who are ruled started believing it was necessary.
Leaving aside your pathetic idealistic conception of history, if the self-interest and the use of force of HUMANS created the state and led to its perpetuation... then guess what: that means the state is a natural product of human society. (at least, human society at a certain stage in its development - but of course you don't believe in stages of development or modes of production, because you're an idealist who imagines that there is such a thing as a single type of social organization possible everywhere, at all times)

Any "virus" created by humans is a natural product of human society. That is so astoundingly self-evident that I am irritated by the fact that I have to spell it out for you.

Havet

6th July 2009, 01:04

Did I say we should abide by it? No. I just said it was natural. Which it is. (at least, it is as natural as everything else that humans do) okay

Yes. Most people lived in anarchy and common property before a state appeared. And then, you know, a state appeared. Society changed. All social change is natural. State societies are just as "natural" as the stateless societies which preceded them. Capitalism is just as "natural" as socialism. Any human society is as "natural" as any other human society.

Of course, some societies are better than others, but as I have already said, "better" and "natural" are two different things. Just because I consider socialism to be better, that doesn't mean I suffer the delusion that socialism is somehow "more natural" than capitalism. It is not. okay

Whatever you want it to be. I said that any kind of human society is as "natural" as any other. Therefore, a state society is as "natural" as a stateless society - regardless of what counts as a "state."What would you think of the following definitions sedrox posted in his thread "The State" in Theory:

The Marxist Definition: The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled.

The Traditional Definition: A State is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area.

and my personal favourite:

The Alternative Definition: A State is a person or group of people who exercise ownership over property that they have not acquired through the prevalent, inter-subjective criteria of ownership.

Also check out his comment and criticism of each one here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/state-t112106/index.html?p=1483718#post1483718) in case you want to see some devil's advocate before forming your own opinion about it.

yeah i understand your point of natural, but i think it would be important to recognize what is a state in order to best work out how to dissolve it (if that is actually your goal).

Leaving aside your pathetic idealistic conception of history, if the self-interest and the use of force of HUMANS created the state and led to its perpetuation... then guess what: that means the state is a natural product of human society. (at least, human society at a certain stage in its development - but of course you don't believe in stages of development or modes of production, because you're an idealist who imagines that there is such a thing as a single type of social organization possible everywhere, at all times)Hey, it was a very crude way to explain that people had common property, a state emerged and after a while people started seeing it as legitimate.

hmm..proof that i'm just that? Don't put words in my mouth.

Any "virus" created by humans is a natural product of human society.
That is so astoundingly self-evident that I am irritated by the fact that I have to spell it out for you.you can be irritated all the fck you want, your point on natural is taken. This was not the point I adressed. state and non-state are emergent depending on each situation, and the only reason we need to say that anarchy is also emergent is because there are some assholes out there who incorrectly think the state is the only emergent institution out there.

Kwisatz Haderach

6th July 2009, 01:42

Okay then, we have reached agreement on the issue of emergent human behavior and "natural" social structures.

you can be irritated all the fck you want, your point on natural is taken. This was not the point I adressed. state and non-state are emergent depending on each situation, and the only reason we need to say that anarchy is also emergent is because there are some assholes out there who incorrectly think the state is the only emergent institution out there.
I am not sure if such people actually exist - I suspect this may be a strawman - but in any case I am not one of them. As I said, any institution created by humans without non-human interference is emergent human behavior. And, of course, humans have created many non-state institutions.

What remains to be discussed is the definition of the state, but I think that discussion belongs in the Theory thread you mentioned. Still, I want to say one thing about it here: I can see the problems with the Marxist definition of the state, but all the others I have heard suffer from a much bigger problem - the fact that they can only apply to a small minority of the institutions we usually call "states."

Take the "traditional" definition for example. "A state is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area." In that case, no state existed before the 17th century! And in most places, states did not exist before the 20th century! This is because, until modern times, communications were simply too slow for any central state authority to be aware of what was going on in most of its territory. Non-state entities could, and often did, use force with impunity. It was common for more than one government to claim rulership over the same land, or for a state to be only one among many organizations able to legitimately use force in an area (the others being the Church, guilds, tribal warlords, de facto independent aristocrats, town councils, etc). And hostile armies could march into a state's territory - and use force - for weeks or months before the state even knew they were there.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 01:55

I'm a CS fan but I don't agree with him here.

IcarusAngel

6th July 2009, 02:30

I'm a CS fan but I don't agree with him here.

ConfederalSocialist is a right-wing anarcho-capitalist, enjoyed by people on the far-right.

Just look at the "related" convent:

TK8XuStoETg

I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining where this guy goes wrong.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 02:37

ConfederalSocialist is a right-wing anarcho-capitalist, enjoyed by people on the far-right.

Just look at the "related" convent:

TK8XuStoETg

I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining where this guy goes wrong.

You're comparing an an-cap to a statist drone? ConfederalSocialist has some very good historical videos although the conclusions he draws are absurd in my opinion. I also enjoy his anti-statist videos. This doesn't mean I will accept everything he says, I strongly agree with Jack as well, CS has a very racialist, nationalist sentiment to his ideology.

IcarusAngel

6th July 2009, 02:41

Yes. If anything, I'd say cofederalsocialist is even worse.

Most ancaps are Miseans and Miseans combine ridiculous pseudo-science - which I despise - with ridiculous economics. Their system may in theory by freer but in practice there is no way it would resemble freedom.

trivas7

6th July 2009, 03:06

Most ancaps are Miseans and Miseans combine ridiculous pseudo-science - which I despise - with ridiculous economics. Their system may in theory by freer but in practice there is no way it would resemble freedom.
Kwitzach Haderach has made it clear to me that his idea of freedom is naked aggression. If you're saying voluntarism isn't freedom, what does it resemble?

IMO in a free society all forms of property could exist -- private, communal, corporate. Also restrictive covenants and money as long the state has nothing to do w/ it.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 03:15

Yes. If anything, I'd say cofederalsocialist is even worse.

Their system may in theory by freer but in practice there is no way it would resemble freedom.

Why and why?

Havet

6th July 2009, 11:43

I am not sure if such people actually exist - I suspect this may be a strawman - but in any case I am not one of them. As I said, any institution created by humans without non-human interference is emergent human behavior. And, of course, humans have created many non-state institutions.

Well, just go to the street and ask anyone. Most people think anarchy is chaos and that a new state would always appear in a stateless society. I know you arent one of those people by your arguments.

What remains to be discussed is the definition of the state, but I think that discussion belongs in the Theory thread you mentioned. Still, I want to say one thing about it here: I can see the problems with the Marxist definition of the state, but all the others I have heard suffer from a much bigger problem - the fact that they can only apply to a small minority of the institutions we usually call "states.

Take the "traditional" definition for example. "A state is a monopoly of the use of legitimate force over a geographical area." In that case, no state existed before the 17th century! And in most places, states did not exist before the 20th century! This is because, until modern times, communications were simply too slow for any central state authority to be aware of what was going on in most of its territory. Non-state entities could, and often did, use force with impunity. It was common for more than one government to claim rulership over the same land, or for a state to be only one among many organizations able to legitimately use force in an area (the others being the Church, guilds, tribal warlords, de facto independent aristocrats, town councils, etc). And hostile armies could march into a state's territory - and use force - for weeks or months before the state even knew they were there.

well i think they did exist, but the geographic area was a lot smaller than the concept of a state we have today, like you said, due to communications. In the past, there were more but smaller states, and with the increase in communications we now have bigger (but less in number) states.

Anyway, what do you think of the third definition?

Havet

6th July 2009, 12:59

ConfederalSocialist is a right-wing anarcho-capitalist, enjoyed by people on the far-right.

Just look at the "related" convent:

TK8XuStoETg

I wouldn't even know where to begin explaining where this guy goes wrong.

This guy IS NOT ConfederalSocialist and IS NOT an anarcho-capitalist. He is at best, justifying Minarchism. Also his name is HowTheWorldWorks.

This is CS youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/confederalsocialist?blend=1&ob=4

Kwisatz Haderach

6th July 2009, 15:21

Kwitzach Haderach has made it clear to me that his idea of freedom is naked aggression.
My idea of freedom is equality of power. A person is free to the extent that her power is equal to the power of other individuals in society.

Misanthrope

6th July 2009, 19:06

This guy IS NOT ConfederalSocialist and IS NOT an anarcho-capitalist. He is at best, justifying Minarchism. Also his name is HowTheWorldWorks.

This is CS youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/confederalsocialist?blend=1&ob=4

He was just comparing the two.

Havet

6th July 2009, 19:08

He was just comparing the two.

woops, apologies.

trivas7

6th July 2009, 22:54

My idea of freedom is equality of power. A person is free to the extent that her power is equal to the power of other individuals in society.
How can there be equality of power bt individuals if violence is the basis of human interaction?

Kwisatz Haderach

6th July 2009, 23:10

How can there be equality of power bt individuals if violence is the basis of human interaction?
Your idea of "violence" is a strange one and I do not subscribe to it, but I will answer your question nonetheless.

If I have a gun and you have a gun, our power is equal. If I point my gun at you and you point your gun at me, our power is equal. It is likely that we will both choose to lower our guns and come to some agreement. Here you have interaction based on violence, and the result is freedom. Because our power is equal.

On the other hand, if I have a gun and you only have a knife - or if I have a tank and you only have a gun - then our power is not equal. I am stronger than you, and thus I can enslave you. Inequality of power destroys freedom.

And wealth is power.

trivas7

6th July 2009, 23:33

Your idea of "violence" is a strange one and I do not subscribe to it, but I will answer your question nonetheless.

The initiation of force is violence. What is strange re that idea?

If I have a gun and you have a gun, our power is equal. If I point my gun at you and you point your gun at me, our power is equal. It is likely that we will both choose to lower our guns and come to some agreement. Here you have interaction based on violence, and the result is freedom. Because our power is equal.
Force doesn't lower its gun. Its entire raison d'etre is that my gun is bigger than yours. "Coming to some agreement" is the opposite of violence.

And wealth is power.Wealth is not violence or the threat of violence.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th July 2009, 00:06

The initiation of force is violence. What is strange re that idea?
The "initiation" part. It is strange, incoherent, and ridiculous.

Force is force. Violence is violence. Regardless of who "initiated" it. Every side in every conflict has always claimed that the other side started it.

Force doesn't lower its gun. Its entire raison d'etre is that my gun is bigger than yours. "Coming to some agreement" is the opposite of violence.
My point was about equality of power, not about violence.

Wealth is not violence or the threat of violence.
Wealth can buy you a bigger gun.

trivas7

7th July 2009, 01:01

The "initiation" part. It is strange, incoherent, and ridiculous.

Force is force. Violence is violence. Regardless of who "initiated" it. Every side in every conflict has always claimed that the other side started it.

Absurd. Defending my life against an aggressor isn't the initiation of violence. And everyone understands the moral distinction.

My point was about equality of power, not about violence.
What point?

Wealth can buy you a bigger gun.More absurdity. Wealth still isn't violence.

534634634265

7th July 2009, 20:42

trivas7

7th July 2009, 22:32

trivas,
you say you're defending your life against an aggressor, but what does that aggressor see you as? they may feel entirely justified and morally certain they are making the right choice. morals are relative to the individual that possesses them.
So are you saying that that there's a moral equivalence bt violence in self-defense and attacking people in order to rob them? I don't know what relevence "morals are relative to the individual that possesses them" has in this context. Are you trying to justify expropriating someone else's property?

Kwisatz Haderach

7th July 2009, 22:38

Are you familiar with consequentialist ethics?

The morality of an action is to be judged by its consequences. If two people fight, and one of them ends up dead, the consequence is a human death. Any human death is just as bad as any other human death. It does not matter if "he started it." That's a child's excuse.

trivas7

7th July 2009, 22:48

The morality of an action is to be judged by its consequences. If two people fight, and one of them ends up dead, the consequence is a human death. Any human death is just as bad as any other human death. It does not matter if "he started it." That's a child's excuse.
I'm defending the non-aggression principle, not consequentialist ethics. What makes a human death "bad" in terms of consequentialist ethics?

534634634265

9th July 2009, 20:47

So are you saying that that there's a moral equivalence bt violence in self-defense and attacking people in order to rob them? I don't know what relevence "morals are relative to the individual that possesses them" has in this context. Are you trying to justify expropriating someone else's property?

if i see it as required for my survival to displace you from your land, then we are at a fundamental clash between what we both consider as the moral high ground. if i am a fascist, and you're a jew, then theres nothing in my mind saying killing you and taking your house for my own is bad. in fact, it would be good. morals and ethics are relative.

trivas7

9th July 2009, 22:18

if i see it as required for my survival to displace you from your land, then we are at a fundamental clash between what we both consider as the moral high ground. if i am a fascist, and you're a jew, then theres nothing in my mind saying killing you and taking your house for my own is bad. in fact, it would be good. morals and ethics are relative.
No, morals aren't relative. In no society is murder, rape and theft condoned.

I understand that you might steal from me if it were a matter of your survival, nevertheless I have the right to be compensated for my loss.

Havet

10th July 2009, 00:21

No, morals aren't relative. In no society is murder, rape and theft condoned.

I understand that you might steal from me if it were a matter of your survival, nevertheless I have the right to be compensated for my loss.

who would compensate you of that right? yourself? a private defense agency? a state?

How about this: let's imagine stealing isn't the prevalent criteria for gaining ownership in a society, therefore the society/the majority/most people wouldn't consider you a state or ilegitimate when trying to get that property back.

crackedlogic was right, morals aren't an absolute (even though rand did try to prove so), it all depends in what society we are. But since we are discussing free market, likely you or a private defense agency trying to retrieve what was stolen wouldnt constitute a state, or exploitive action, or ilegitimate action, when seen through the eyes of society.

trivas7

10th July 2009, 01:41

crackedlogic was right, morals aren't an absolute (even though rand did try to prove so), it all depends in what society we are.
Do you ascribe to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)?

WhitemageofDOOM

10th July 2009, 08:06

Wealth is not violence or the threat of violence.

Wealth is power. Power is the ability to force your will upon the universe.

No, morals aren't relative. In no society is murder, rape and theft condoned.

Of course there relative. There a social fiction designed to support the existing power structure.
Plenty of societies have condoned rape, murder and theft. Ussually on outsider groups or groups deemed inhuman, but rape, murder and theft regardless. No one gave two shits in rome if you raped your slaves, in fact no one in america gave two shits if you beat and raped your slaves.

I understand that you might steal from me if it were a matter of your survival, nevertheless I have the right to be compensated for my loss.Your rights exist only as long as violence is used to enforce them. Your property exists only as long as someone is willing to commit murder to protect it.
If i try to take your stuff, you have no way to stop me except to iniatite violence.

Do you ascribe to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)?

No one subscribes to the non-aggression principle, especially not the people who claim to.
The moment it becomes inconvenient for you, you'll toss it aside.

Havet

10th July 2009, 10:08

Do you ascribe to the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)?

i try my best to abide by it, just as i try my best to follow my vegetarian ideas. The problem is other people don't. Some people, like utilitarian Kwisatz Haderach think its ok to kill someone if it will save a lot of lives. You would think it would legitimate for you to defend from his agression, but he would not see the action of agression as ilegitimate.

So either nonagression principle is truly axiomatic (which i doubt) or the only way to stop these agression divergences is to show why his concepy of agression is ridiculous. Because killing one to save many justifies:

-me killing him right now and donate his organs to a medical institute which will save thousands of lives
-me stealing him right now and sell his possessions and use the money to donate to charity which will help save more lives, especially because they need it more than anything he does.
-it also justifies me torturing him if i think he is a terrorist and there is a threat of an attack

feel free to add more idiotic conclusions of his utilitarianism

WhitemageofDOOM

10th July 2009, 11:34

feel free to add more idiotic conclusions of his utilitarianism

I have never seen an ethical theory that does not rely on the appeal to utilitarianism.

Havet

10th July 2009, 11:40

I have never seen an ethical theory that does not rely on the appeal to utilitarianism.

Well yes, you're right. But the way he uses his arguments to justify that it doesn't matter who suffers or dies unless he helps to overall utility is, in my opinion, wrong, for the reasons stated above. One can use the utilitarian principle to justify that doing something in a certain way will be more helpful at the expense of no one. I think that is preferable than to engage in human sacrifices.

trivas7

10th July 2009, 13:59

I have never seen an ethical theory that does not rely on the appeal to utilitarianism.
Then you don't know much re ethical theories.

Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontology, in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action, and from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached.

Kwisatz Haderach

10th July 2009, 18:11

i try my best to abide by it, just as i try my best to follow my vegetarian ideas. The problem is other people don't. Some people, like utilitarian Kwisatz Haderach think its ok to kill someone if it will save a lot of lives. You would think it would legitimate for you to defend from his agression, but he would not see the action of agression as ilegitimate.
Yes, precisely.

And furthermore, since I oppose the idea of private property, if workers were to take over a factory I would not consider that an act of aggression at all. On the contrary, it would be a defensive act against the illegitimate factory owner.

So either nonagression principle is truly axiomatic (which i doubt) or the only way to stop these agression divergences is to show why his concepy of agression is ridiculous.
I do not have much of a concept of aggression, because I do not care about "aggression" one way or the other. It is neither good nor bad. It is irrelevant.

Because killing one to save many justifies:

-me killing him right now and donate his organs to a medical institute which will save thousands of lives
A medical institute which may or may not save lives, you mean. The positive outcome of such an action (saving lives) would be highly uncertain, while the negative outcome (killing one person) would be very certain and very... final.

A serious utilitarian must think about probabilities. It is not reasonable to cause great harm on the off chance that it might provide a greater benefit. The probabilities of the harm and the benefit must be relatively similar in order for the trade-off to be justified by utilitarianism.

-me stealing him right now and sell his possessions and use the money to donate to charity which will help save more lives, especially because they need it more than anything he does.
You are correct, that would be good. However, that would be an inefficient use of your time and effort. If you are going to steal things to help the poor, it is best to steal from the rich, or at any rate from someone who has an above average amount of wealth. By the standards of the Western world, I am poor (though of course I'm not poor by the standards of other places, in case you want to bring that up).

I do not intend to steal from the rich and give to the poor, because I would almost certainly get caught, and I can't help anyone if I'm in jail.

As for my own wealth, I do donate as much as I can.

-it also justifies me torturing him if i think he is a terrorist and there is a threat of an attack
If you think...? No. You have to be sure of it, and you have to be sure that torturing me will help prevent the attack, in order for such an action to be justified by utilitarianism.

Havet

10th July 2009, 18:40

I do not have much of a concept of aggression, because I do not care about "aggression" one way or the other. It is neither good nor bad. It is irrelevant. So it's irrelevant if i torture you? For whatever reason i have as my motive?

A medical institute which may or may not save lives, you mean. The positive outcome of such an action (saving lives) would be highly uncertain, while the negative outcome (killing one person) would be very certain and very... final.

A serious utilitarian must think about probabilities. It is not reasonable to cause great harm on the off chance that it might provide a greater benefit. The probabilities of the harm and the benefit must be relatively similar in order for the trade-off to be justified by utilitarianism.

Oh they WILL save lives with your organs. There are GREAT probabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation#Organ_shortfall). That is why i hear medical institutions complain all the time on tv they need more donations, more blood, more organs. That is why they have now very aggressive advertising in the streets. In any case, ill just take you to a hospital, stay there for a while, and when someone needs a part of your body i'll just ask the doctors to saw it off.

"A persistent issue relating to organ donation is the scarcity of organ donors relative to the number of potential recipients on organ donation waiting lists. No matter what laws and systems are in place, the demand for kidney transplants has outstripped supply in every country."

You are correct, that would be good. However, that would be an inefficient use of your time and effort. If you are going to steal things to help the poor, it is best to steal from the rich, or at any rate from someone who has an above average amount of wealth. By the standards of the Western world, I am poor (though of course I'm not poor by the standards of other places, in case you want to bring that up).

I do not intend to steal from the rich and give to the poor, because I would almost certainly get caught, and I can't help anyone if I'm in jail.

As for my own wealth, I do donate as much as I can.

And the rich have more defense mechanisms to prevent them being stolen because...well..they ARE richer. They can afford it. You on the other hand are far more easy to steal from because i am less likely to get caught (and you wouldnt be able to defend yourself because you aren't allowed to have a gun in the first place, except if you're in america or switzerland).

well, thats too bad that you donate, because i'm still coming over. The pc you are now using, unless you only use public pcs, you can say goodbye to it, because people need the money i can make from it (for food) much more than you need the computer.

If you think...? No. You have to be sure of it, and you have to be sure that torturing me will help prevent the attack, in order for such an action to be justified by utilitarianism.

But thats the thing isn't it? Nobody can EVER be sure when interrogating a terrorist that was plotting to attack, because otherwise why would they interrogate in the first place? If one is SURE one doesnt need interrogation and torture.

Kwisatz Haderach

10th July 2009, 20:48

So it's irrelevant if i torture you? For whatever reason i have as my motive?
If it serves the greater good, sure. However, I have never seen any situation where torture could serve the greater good.

We can imagine some far-fetched scenario in which torture might be justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it's extremely unlikely to happen in the real world.

Oh they WILL save lives with your organs. There are GREAT probabilities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation#Organ_shortfall). That is why i hear medical institutions complain all the time on tv they need more donations, more blood, more organs. That is why they have now very aggressive advertising in the streets. In any case, ill just take you to a hospital, stay there for a while, and when someone needs a part of your body i'll just ask the doctors to saw it off.
Except, of course, that there are plenty of dead people you could get organs from. We suffer from a persistent lack of organs for transplants because most people take their healthy organs with them when they die. There is no reason to harm the living when you could instead take what you need from the dead.

Utilitarianism only condones hurting people when there is absolutely no other way to achieve the desired positive result.

And the rich have more defense mechanisms to prevent them being stolen because...well..they ARE richer. They can afford it. You on the other hand are far more easy to steal from because i am less likely to get caught (and you wouldnt be able to defend yourself because you aren't allowed to have a gun in the first place, except if you're in america or switzerland).
Yes, it is likely that you'd be able to get into my house far easier than into a rich man's house. But the same police will come after you in the same way in both cases. Thanks to the wonderful workings of the state, you are still extremely likely to get caught in the end - especially since you're not a professional thief and would probably make all sorts of mistakes that leave clues behind. And then you'll rot in jail and be unable to help people. Not a very utilitarian thing to do.

well, thats too bad that you donate, because i'm still coming over. The pc you are now using, unless you only use public pcs, you can say goodbye to it, because people need the money i can make from it (for food) much more than you need the computer.
But consider: Is the value of my computer greater than the amount of money that I would be able to donate over my lifetime if I were allowed to keep my computer? I don't think so.

The reason I do not give up all my possessions is because giving up all my possessions today undermines my ability to help people in the future.

But thats the thing isn't it? Nobody can EVER be sure when interrogating a terrorist that was plotting to attack, because otherwise why would they interrogate in the first place? If one is SURE one doesnt need interrogation and torture.
Right. Which is why you should never use torture. Because if you're unsure, then it's unjustified; and if you're sure, then you don't need to use it.

Havet

10th July 2009, 21:20

If it serves the greater good, sure. However, I have never seen any situation where torture could serve the greater good.

We can imagine some far-fetched scenario in which torture might be justified, but that doesn't change the fact that it's extremely unlikely to happen in the real world. good point. I think were we mostly depart is about forcing others or not to serve the greater good.

Except, of course, that there are plenty of dead people you could get organs from. We suffer from a persistent lack of organs for transplants because most people take their healthy organs with them when they die. There is no reason to harm the living when you could instead take what you need from the dead.

Utilitarianism only condones hurting people when there is absolutely no other way to achieve the desired positive result.Cool, i never thought of that in that perspective. Makes sense though. I still think it should be a person's own choice (or the deceased family), and the clinics should offer some sort of incentive (discount on medical bills? health insurance free for X years?). I for once plan to let people use my body for medical purposes when I die. I hope they make sure i am really dead and there is absolutely no way of healing me back when they start operating though.

Yes, it is likely that you'd be able to get into my house far easier than into a rich man's house. But the same police will come after you in the same way in both cases. Thanks to the wonderful workings of the state, you are still extremely likely to get caught in the end - especially since you're not a professional thief and would probably make all sorts of mistakes that leave clues behind. And then you'll rot in jail and be unable to help people. Not a very utilitarian thing to do.again good point. Suppose i were to murder you, watched plenty of CSI to protect myself when i did so, and had years of experience behind me? That would make it more difficult. But even so, the chance of ending up in jail is greater in any normal case than being outside.

But consider: Is the value of my computer greater than the amount of money that I would be able to donate over my lifetime if I were allowed to keep my computer? I don't think so.

The reason I do not give up all my possessions is because giving up all my possessions today undermines my ability to help people in the future.I agree, good point. What do you donate most to by the way? And why do you donate it? Is it to follow the utilitarian principle no matter what, or is it some cause you are particularly fond of aiding?

Right. Which is why you should never use torture. Because if you're unsure, then it's unjustified; and if you're sure, then you don't need to use it.completely agree on this. screw jack bauer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_bauer)

WhitemageofDOOM

11th July 2009, 16:40

I think that is preferable than to engage in human sacrifices.

Every moral system demands human sacrifice.
You think starving people in the street aren't being sacrificed? You think a poor family who can't make ends meet aren't being sacrificed?

It sucks yeah, but someone sadly is going to end up getting fucked up the ass by every morality there is. The world sadly isn't perfect.

Then you don't know much re ethical theories.

Consequentialism is usually understood as distinct from deontology, in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of an act from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes of the action, and from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the action itself. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached.

Ahem "So why is blank wrong.", that is what i mean by every morality ends up using an appeal to utilitarianism.