|
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It is not a coincidence that the most internally liberal socities generally come to dominate the world [/ QUOTE ] So the nazis were intenally liberal? Hmm. [/ QUOTE ] I must have missed the part where the Nazis came to dominate the world. [/ QUOTE ] Oh come on, you must at least concede they came pretty damn close. [/ QUOTE ] No. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think you're mistakenly linking an individual's best interest with society's best interest. [/ QUOTE ] Last time I checked, society was nothing more than a group of individuals; all with slightly different preferences and concerns. Where's the mistake? [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] There is no mistake- the jump from this statement to 'what is best for society is best for the individual' (or vice versa) is the mistake. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] LALawPoker, These two quotes seem inconsistent: [ QUOTE ] But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well what do YOU think? Just because some society somewhere has concluded something, that makes the conclusion correct? I thought the whole point of progress and assessment was that we can correct our mistakes. [/ QUOTE ] Are you conceding that the first one is incorrect? [/ QUOTE ] No. Far from it. People can, have, and always will make mistakes. The pleasant side, though, is that we can, have, and always will (tend to) learn from our mistakes. [/ QUOTE ] You said "it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good". It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for murder, theft or rape to be considered a positive value within a society. Now you're saying "mistakes happen", which means it is possible and seems to contradict what you said before. That's how I read it, maybe you meant something different. [ QUOTE ] If you disagree with my first quote, then I suppose you're willing to explain to me why societal norms such as rape, theft, or murder could be good? [/ QUOTE ] Ok. Society X is comprised of whites and a smaller population of blacks. The more powerful whites hate the blacks and take up the occasional practice of murdering them. They consider this "good", because they want to keep the blacks fearful of them so they wont have to put up with treating people they hate as equals or with sharing more of their resources. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's really amazing how often what is "moral" is also to your rational best interest. [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't seem at all the case to me. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're confused by a lot people (think: religious zealots) telling you things are "immoral" when they in fact are not. I reserve the term "moral" for things that I actually believe would be -EV in all situations. And even still, "moral" is an empty word to me. What's "immoral" is immoral because it can be demonstrated to be bad in its own right; not because it "is" some word. By definition (my definition anyways) something could not possibly be moral if it wasn't to my practical best interest. [/ QUOTE ] So does this mean it was "moral" for us to cheat and push around the native americans whenever we wanted to settle new land? Also if you're defining moral as "in your best interest" then how is it "amazing" that the two often coincide? They can't escape coinciding if you define one as the other. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think you're mistakenly linking an individual's best interest with society's best interest. [/ QUOTE ] Last time I checked, society was nothing more than a group of individuals; all with slightly different preferences and concerns. Where's the mistake? [/ QUOTE ] My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Look at the Middle East for example. You know, [censored] Iran, [censored] Iraq. They're archaic [censored] whose best interest I couldn't care less about. But I support leaving them the hell alone not because I give two [censored] about some Iranian's wellbeing, but because I know that in the long run intervention will do me more harm than good (even if my superficial instincts tell *me* to hit the nuke button). [/ QUOTE ] Heh, you seem like a nice guy (no offense). [/ QUOTE ] I'm honest. Would you rather I say I care about some Iranian I've never met when in fact I don't? And LOL: Re-reading my quote there, I actually meant to put the *'s around the first 'me' in that sentence. The emphasis looks so ridiculous where I put it. But hopefully the intended point was not convoluted. [/ QUOTE ] I was just teasing. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce. [/ QUOTE ] Poor people reproduce more. [/ QUOTE ] Hence, why I said it's a big long shot that such is actually the case. You took out the "if" part of my response that I included in parenthesis. Thanks for cherry picking a portion of a quote that's silly and irrelevant to the discussion anyways. Though, in your case you seem like someone who is sincerely looking for answers and honest debate, and I doubt it was done maliciously. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry for not quoting the whole thing. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I also didn't realize it wasn't relevant to the discussion. You said "Poverty is selected against (if that's even the case right now, which I would say is a big long shot in Western societies, but that's beside the point) because people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce." So are you saying it would be selected against in an AC society, but not in a current Western society? Why? Or if not then what are you saying? |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
Harsh times call for harsh measures I guess. At least that's superficially what our instincts tell us. I'd say we have this bias because over the course of our evolutionary journey when you did not succeed, there was no "next time." But today, when you logically analyze certain situations, it is clear to me that there exist certain "harsh measures" that will always do more harm than good to you (the actor) in the long run. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, I think that may be the case. But human reason has resulted in the wrong conclusion before, so it seems dangerous to suggest we rely on human reason to get the "right" answer in the present. [ QUOTE ] It's really amazing how often what is "moral" is also to your rational best interest. If I didn't know better, I'd think this universe had a sense of order or something. [/ QUOTE ] I wouldn't go that far. What's amazing is that, given how little people have to gain from being horrible to their fellow human beings, so many people go ahead and do it anyhow. [ QUOTE ] Think about what the people providing those services might contribute instead if there was not a demand to prevent theft. Capitalism provides a *solution* to a problem; do you really think it's a good thing that some of capitalism's effort is bogged down with preventing theft rather than, say, solving the problem of making my television set an inch bigger and a C-note cheaper? [/ QUOTE ] Okay, you're right. I should have been more careful. Obviously, if theft didn't exist at all, that would be ideal (under reasonable circumstances). But I don't think every instance of theft is bad, and I think many instances of theft are +EV for the individual committing the crime (it stands to reason that the state of security is going to reach some equilibrium in which it's -EV for most people to attempt theft, but the cost of making it -EV for everyone isn't worthwhile). [ QUOTE ] Poverty is selected against (if that's even the case right now, which I would say is a big long shot in Western societies, but that's beside the point) because people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce. [/ QUOTE ] More likely to die I'll give you, less likely to reproduce I won't. I don't think theft (or crime in general) is the only reason poverty is selected against, just a big one. And as for western societies, I think poverty is selected against but selective processes are not allowed to operate (and here I'll jump on the party line and say "because of government"). [ QUOTE ] And yes, if I have 10 dollars and you have 3 dollars and you steal 2 of mine, you've helped move towards fiscal "equilibrium." I fail to see why this is a good thing, since I think more utility will occur when you earn rather than take your 2 dollars. [/ QUOTE ] That's a fine general concept. To say that there are no exceptions, even in a utopia-world, seems hard to justify. Ultimately, under capitalism, there are different mechanisms preventing the much-feared collapse into inevitable polarization of wealth. Arguably some of those mechanisms aren't even necessary under pure laissez-faire capitalism, but in the real world I think they're all relevant. Even if only for psychological reasons - by maintaining that it's fine for a starving person to steal a loaf of bread, we prevent the use of force being justified under some false banner of "capitalism." Which is happening more and more often, particularly in parts of the world where the concept is poorly understood. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I think you're mistakenly linking an individual's best interest with society's best interest. [/ QUOTE ] Last time I checked, society was nothing more than a group of individuals; all with slightly different preferences and concerns. Where's the mistake? [/ QUOTE ] There is no mistake- the jump from this statement to 'what is best for society is best for the individual' (or vice versa) is the mistake. [/ QUOTE ] Why would what's best for one human not be best for a collection of humans? Or more accurately, why would what's best for one human not ever be best for the entire collection of humans when you ALSO consider the value to the one? You can steal ten dollars from me. I guess what's worse for me (- $10) is "best" for the collection of everyone else (+ $10) in some myopic sense. But since the cost to me immediately equals the gain to the collection of everyone else, the action is on one level neutral neutral (since I matter too) and then reduced to whether or not the side effects can be shown to be good or bad. And it's pretty easy to show it's bad in one sense, since if you didn't steal from me, you might have made someone else a really delicious sandwich to get your 10 dollars. I really only give a [censored] cause you took my money; but it's true that one side effect is now that guy eats tuna. And no one likes tuna. You can say it might be good in the sense that you know the $10 matters more to someone else (someone poor) than it does to me. And it can go back and forth for hours. But the whole point of libertarian "ethics" is that we believe private property owners will always make better decisions for how to use their property, and ultimately the bad (of stealing) will outweigh the good in essentially all circumstances. You can keep thinking there is some way to magically make more people better off by encouraging people to act in a way that is not to their best interest. But it is clear to me that such belief is terribly destructive, if maybe well intentioned. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
You said "it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good". It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for murder, theft or rape to be considered a positive value within a society. Now you're saying "mistakes happen", which means it is possible and seems to contradict what you said before. That's how I read it, maybe you meant something different. [/ QUOTE ] The key word (in the first quote) is "rightfully." If someone concludes something different, I think he is wrong (and thus not entitled to act on such belief). [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you disagree with my first quote, then I suppose you're willing to explain to me why societal norms such as rape, theft, or murder could be good? [/ QUOTE ]Ok. Society X is comprised of whites and a smaller population of blacks. The more powerful whites hate the blacks and take up the occasional practice of murdering them. They consider this "good", because they want to keep the blacks fearful of them so they wont have to put up with treating people they hate as equals or with sharing more of their resources. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think this is a rational conclusion on the part of the whites? Wouldn't you agree that this is a very BAD decision, and in the end, the white people will be costing themselves valuable contribution, merely because skin color means something to them? Moreover, why would any black choose to be a part of this society? If this is the best you can do, I think you ought just agree with me. [ QUOTE ] So does this mean it was "moral" for us to cheat and push around the native americans whenever we wanted to settle new land? [/ QUOTE ] This is an odd example since the native Americans did not believe in land ownership. If they did, and were willing to barter for the land, the problem likely never would have arose. But sure, in general, taking people's property involuntarily is very immoral. [ QUOTE ] Also if you're defining moral as "in your best interest" then how is it "amazing" that the two often coincide? They can't escape coinciding if you define one as the other. [/ QUOTE ] Exactly. When I said it was "amazing" I meant it with dry sarcasm. [ QUOTE ] My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money. [/ QUOTE ] My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary. You don't make money without providing some good or service that someone else (with a different preference than your own) values more highly than what he gives to you. [ QUOTE ] Sorry for not quoting the whole thing. I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I also didn't realize it wasn't relevant to the discussion. You said "Poverty is selected against (if that's even the case right now, which I would say is a big long shot in Western societies, but that's beside the point) because people who are poor are more likely to die and less likely to reproduce." So are you saying it would be selected against in an AC society, but not in a current Western society? Why? Or if not then what are you saying? [/ QUOTE ] I was basically just confused by madnak's idea that poverty is selected against through theft. If it is somehow selected against naturally, then the only reason could possibly be that something about poverty makes people less likely to live or reproduce (and I don't think either is the case in current Western society, so it must only be selected against through social and not natural evolution). |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
But human reason has resulted in the wrong conclusion before, so it seems dangerous to suggest we rely on human reason to get the "right" answer in the present. [/ QUOTE ] I'm confused why people keep coming back to this. If not for reason, then what prey tell *should* we rely on to form our conclusions? If all of human reason indicates that theft is bad in all circumstances, where is the magic treasure chest that holds the answer that says "sometimes theft can be good"? Keep in mind that all the mistakes you and others point to are mistakes that didn't follow the conclusion that violation of property is always bad. Since some poker player somewhere has surely folded pocket aces preflop in a ring game, should I relinquish the belief that such action is always bad? |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
I was merely pointing out that defining society as 'a group of individuals with etc.' does not logically mean that was is best for one individual is best for society (and the vice versa statement is neither logically true).
For instance, if you and 3 friends go to the cinema, and you really want so see 'Bloody Massacre 3' and your 3 friends want to see 'Fluffy Puffy the Cuddly Teddy', then what is best for you is not best for the group. And likewise that is best for the majority of the group is not best for you - though you may concede to it because the notion of a group of friends going to the movies together is the desired outcome of the evening - but that's more democracy than it is individualism, doing it the other way around sounds more tyrannical than anything else. Now if you can somehow get everybody to think the same way, then your a reformed version of your statement can start to be true. Some of us don't think such societies are possible on a large scale, and empirically we certainly have the data on our side. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But human reason has resulted in the wrong conclusion before, so it seems dangerous to suggest we rely on human reason to get the "right" answer in the present. [/ QUOTE ] I'm confused why people keep coming back to this. If not for reason, then what prey tell *should* we rely on to form our conclusions? If all of human reason indicates that theft is bad in all circumstances, where is the magic treasure chest that holds the answer that says "sometimes theft can be good"? Keep in mind that all the mistakes you and others point to are mistakes that didn't follow the conclusion that violation of property is always bad. Since some poker player somewhere has surely folded pocket aces preflop in a ring game, should I relinquish the belief that such action is always bad? [/ QUOTE ] There's a very big difference between something that has been proved mathematically and something that seems like a reasonable conclusion based on certain premises. Predicting the outcome of a well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps isn't on the level of predicting the outcome of a system involving literally trillions of variables and elements that aren't even finite. And folding AA pre-flop might be a good idea in some circumstances. Say you're playing limit. A certain opponent tends to reach quick conclusions and stick to those conclusions come hell or high water. You expect to play many games with this person in the future. You're on the button, he calls and everyone else folds to you. You raise, and he re-raises. You know he's trying to scare you off your hand, and you know that if you fold, he'll think you're easily bullied and it will take an act of God to convince him otherwise. But you can also tell that he doesn't have much, and he'll collapse if you push him. The mileage you can get by deceiving him is much greater than the bets you can win in this hand. So fold, give his ego a boost, and exploit the [censored] out of his misconception that you're weak. Or say you're in a friendly game and people are starting to resent you for winning too much. Maybe you know your opponent is cheating, looking at your cards, and you want to [censored] with him. Maybe you don't know they're aces yourself, because you bet someone you could beat them even without looking at your hole cards. Maybe an insane terrorist told you to throw this hand - or else he'll blow up the world! Absolute statements suck. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
There's a very big difference between something that has been proved mathematically and something that seems like a reasonable conclusion based on certain premises. [/ QUOTE ] What's the difference? What is "math" (as it relates to the poker example) if not merely a tool for reaching and demonstrating a logical conclusion? The point is, if you can demonstrate that one action is good in all instances (however you are able to demonstrate it), then that action is good in all instances! [ QUOTE ] Predicting the outcome of a well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps isn't on the level of predicting the outcome of a system involving literally trillions of variables and elements that aren't even finite. [/ QUOTE ] I'm guessing you're not a great poker player. If we could see each other's cards, then I suppose you could say it is a "well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps" (and even then it's iffy, in some ways). But the nature of imperfect information makes poker a very complicated game with infinite variables. And that's why the analogy is so good. Because of all the unique variables, in almost all instances the answer is "it depends." I wouldn't tell you it's "wrong" to raise a certain hand from a certain position, because so much depends on your unique assessment of the exact situation at a unique time (i.e. your ability to play later streets, things you know about the people behind you, etc.). "It depends." But still, there are *some* instances, where all you need to say is "I had AA preflop in a ring game and someone pushed in front of me" or, I suppose "I had KK and 900 chips, 5 people left in a sng, blinds 200-400, I'm first to act" and I wouldn't need any other information; because I know it couldn't possibly mitigate a good decision that was anything but call/push (respectively). In life, things like theft, murder, and rape can be demonstrated to be -EV all the time. If you said "I raped someone because X" I wouldn't care what the X was. It's impossible that it was good. It's always a mistake. So, while I don't like the idea of confining myself to rigid moral views (in the same way I don't like the idea of thinking it is always "good" or "bad" to act a certain way in some generic poker situation), there are *some* actions that just will never be good, even if I evaluate the unique situation in its own right. The broader point being, life and politics is complicated. There is so much going on, and indeed so much *MISINFORMATION* available that it is not particularly easy to make good decisions. So, if what you eventually conclude is that you support an action that you know pretty firmly to be wrong in all instances, you should reconsider exactly what led you to this conclusion, and consider that maybe you made a mistake. David, if you're reading this, maybe this would be a fun concept for good ole Baye's Theorem. If we didn't live in a world where the term "moral" was tossed around so loosely, I think my point might be easier to swallow. So forget the word. Do you think stealing is ever +EV? Please give me an example of when it can be. [ QUOTE ] And folding AA pre-flop might be a good idea in some circumstances. [/ QUOTE ] In a ring game? Preposterous. But I'll read your reasoning anyways. [ QUOTE ] Say you're playing limit. A certain opponent tends to reach quick conclusions and stick to those conclusions come hell or high water. You expect to play many games with this person in the future. You're on the button, he calls and everyone else folds to you. You raise, and he re-raises. You know he's trying to scare you off your hand, and you know that if you fold, he'll think you're easily bullied and it will take an act of God to convince him otherwise. But you can also tell that he doesn't have much, and he'll collapse if you push him. The mileage you can get by deceiving him is much greater than the bets you can win in this hand. So fold, give his ego a boost, and exploit the [censored] out of his misconception that you're weak. [/ QUOTE ] As I thought, preposterous. Why would you not reserve this play for the times you have the same read on your opponent, but are weaker yourself? What is so special about going for this at this particular time that makes it so you can't wait for AK to do it? Why is this particular hand so likely to stick in your opponents head, as opposed to the times you (presumably) play to actually win bets from him, that makes it so you should sacrifice your equity and not save the same exact play (which has a diminishing return each time you use it) for when you yourself held less equity? Your argument (if one even accepts its terms anyways) gains equity in some extremely myopic sense, but ignores the cost of the fact that you have spent equity on something that could have been had for much cheaper. If I sell my TV to someone for $100, maybe I've decided that's worth it to me. But if the same model sells on ebay for $200, then it's a mistake to sell it to the first guy. [ QUOTE ] Or say you're in a friendly game and people are starting to resent you for winning too much. Maybe you know your opponent is cheating, looking at your cards, and you want to [censored] with him. Maybe you don't know they're aces yourself, because you bet someone you could beat them even without looking at your hole cards. Maybe an insane terrorist told you to throw this hand - or else he'll blow up the world! [/ QUOTE ] Fine. I'll be more thorough and change my analogy to be "fold pocket aces preflop in a ring game where you're properly bankrolled, motivated only by the goal of winning cash, no one is cheating, you're looking at your cards, and Osama Bin Laden is no where to be seen," which I'd have thought would be understood under the abbreviated version. [ QUOTE ] Absolute statements suck. [/ QUOTE ] I think your denial of truth in the name of maintaining some political philosophy sucks. Does the fact that you've forced yourself to defend the idea of folding aces preflop in a cash game lead you to believe that maybe you might be on the wrong track here? |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You said "it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good". It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for murder, theft or rape to be considered a positive value within a society. Now you're saying "mistakes happen", which means it is possible and seems to contradict what you said before. That's how I read it, maybe you meant something different. [/ QUOTE ] The key word (in the first quote) is "rightfully." If someone concludes something different, I think he is wrong (and thus not entitled to act on such belief). [/ QUOTE ] Ah. Well I don't see how you can objectively claim that someone is right or wrong when it comes to subjective matters such as “goodness”. One thing confusing about this discussion is that you claim to be a moral relativist, yet you also claim that you can judge the behavior of others as morally "right" or "wrong". Can you clarify your stance? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you disagree with my first quote, then I suppose you're willing to explain to me why societal norms such as rape, theft, or murder could be good? [/ QUOTE ]Ok. Society X is comprised of whites and a smaller population of blacks. The more powerful whites hate the blacks and take up the occasional practice of murdering them. They consider this "good", because they want to keep the blacks fearful of them so they wont have to put up with treating people they hate as equals or with sharing more of their resources. [/ QUOTE ] Do you think this is a rational conclusion on the part of the whites? [/ QUOTE ] I don’t see why not. It could very well accomplish their goals. [ QUOTE ] Wouldn't you agree that this is a very BAD decision, and in the end, the white people will be costing themselves valuable contribution, merely because skin color means something to them? [/ QUOTE ] No not necessarily. By keeping the blacks down, they are able to keep the better jobs, resources, etc for themselves. Even if there were costs in terms of contribution benefits, this might be less important to them than the psychological benefits of superiority. [ QUOTE ] Moreover, why would any black choose to be a part of this society? [/ QUOTE ] They may have attachments to land, social networks or work in the area. They may have nowhere better to go. Tons of people have lived in societies that have systematically discriminated against them. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So does this mean it was "moral" for us to cheat and push around the native americans whenever we wanted to settle new land? [/ QUOTE ] This is an odd example since the native Americans did not believe in land ownership. If they did, and were willing to barter for the land, the problem likely never would have arose. [/ QUOTE ] Well this is besides the point, but you’re wrong. The US broke many signed contracts with native American populations and forcibly removed them from land that they wanted to expand to, often resulting in much death and suffering (e.g. the “trail of tears”). [ QUOTE ] But sure, in general, taking people's property involuntarily is very immoral. [/ QUOTE ] Then can you explain why this was not in the US’s best interest since that’s your definition of morality? They wanted to expand and felt it was in their best interest to get the native Americans out of the way, regardless of whatever contracts they may have signed with them. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money. [/ QUOTE ] My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary. [/ QUOTE ] I don’t see why. [ QUOTE ] You don't make money without providing some good or service that someone else (with a different preference than your own) values more highly than what he gives to you. [/ QUOTE ] That’s a far from sufficient explanation of the above statement. But just to give a simple counter-example: Sure you do... You can take it by force (or stealth). |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
One thing confusing about this discussion is that you claim to be a moral relativist, yet you also claim that you can judge the behavior of others as morally "right" or "wrong". Can you clarify your stance? [/ QUOTE ] Forget that I claimed I might be a moral relativist. Forget the word moral. Let's think about actions and consequences. Rather than address this directly, I'll respond to where you try to show that murder can be good: [ QUOTE ] I don’t see why not. It could very well accomplish their goals [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No not necessarily. By keeping the blacks down, they are able to keep the better jobs, resources, etc for themselves. Even if there were costs in terms of contribution benefits, this might be less important to them than the psychological benefits of superiority. [/ QUOTE ] Do you really think this is reasonable assumption of the human condition when it acts voluntarily? They *might* want to dedicate their lives to learning to fly too. And if they do, the market will speak. So a better question. Let's say these people *do* believe murdering the blacks is good. Which approach do you think is a more efficient solution: to pass a law saying that murdering blacks is very bad, or to allow free interaction on all parts and watch what happens? [ QUOTE ] They may have attachments to land, social networks or work in the area. They may have nowhere better to go. [/ QUOTE ] How would they attain their attachment to land or social networks that exist somewhere where people want to murder them for the color of their skin??? Why would they voluntarily choose to go anywhere near there, let alone grow fond of it? [ QUOTE ] Tons of people have lived in societies that have systematically discriminated against them. [/ QUOTE ] How many of these people have done so voluntarily? [ QUOTE ] Well this is besides the point, but you’re wrong. The US broke many signed contracts with native American populations and forcibly removed them from land that they wanted to expand to, often resulting in much death and suffering (e.g. the “trail of tears”). [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the history lesson, but it's irrelevant to the point. Respect for contracts is at the heart of AC. Violation of contract is bad. So yes, in that case (if what you're saying is historically true), sure I consider that BAD, for some reason I'd be able to elaborate on if I knew the context of your example. [ QUOTE ] Then can you explain why this was not in the US’s best interest since that’s your definition of morality? They wanted to expand and felt it was in their best interest to get the native Americans out of the way, regardless of whatever contracts they may have signed with them. [/ QUOTE ] Who says it wasn't? What you're saying is that the US made some contract where the natives gave them the land for some compensation, and the US later violated that contract. If that is the case, then that is BAD, and the US would have been better off to not do so. Just because we are the most powerful nation in the world does not mean everything is perfect, and that we made no mistakes along the way. Far from it. If you want, link me to whatever the hell you're talking about, and I can elaborate on what the specific consequences could maybe have been for a particular breach of contract. But just saying "These people broke a contract with these people... TELL ME WHY IT'S BAD!!!" isn't gonna be all that productive. [ QUOTE ] You don't make money without providing some good or service that someone else (with a different preference than your own) values more highly than what he gives to you.[ QUOTE ] That’s a far from sufficient explanation of the above statement. But just to give a simple counter-example: Sure you do... You can take it by force (or stealth). [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] That's because you conveniently left out the sentence right before it that actually held the substance, which said: [ QUOTE ] My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary. [/ QUOTE ] If you take it by force, it is not voluntary. Really, stop cherry picking quotes to try to make some argument. You just make yourself look bad. Again, it's clear you are trying to learn and I don't think you're doing it intentionally. I think you're just so excited to find some collection of words that you can stick a good argument against that you are rushing into it, without really considering the context or the broader point. A lot of the things you're saying are very myopic. And I don't mean that offensively. I'm just trying to encourage you to sit back and think about things a bit before you rush to reply. It's more productive. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
Really, stop cherry picking quotes to try to make some argument. You just make yourself look bad. Again, it's clear you are trying to learn and I don't think you're doing it intentionally. I think you're just so excited to find some collection of words that you can stick a good argument against that you are rushing into it, without really considering the context or the broader point. [/ QUOTE ] I think I’m being pretty thorough in responding to all or at least the majority of your points. I have no idea what your broader point is, but attacking your premises is a valid approach, because without them holding up your broader argument wont either. I generally take a bottom-up approach whenever I can. [ QUOTE ] A lot of the things you're saying are very myopic. And I don't mean that offensively. I'm just trying to encourage you to sit back and think about things a bit before you rush to reply. It's more productive. [/ QUOTE ] I’m sorry you feel that way, but I don’t believe I’m being myopic. I can assure you that I’m willing to consider your position critically and have been trying to do so. If you find me unpleasant to joust with then you don’t have to (but I hope you’ll keep it going). [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One thing confusing about this discussion is that you claim to be a moral relativist, yet you also claim that you can judge the behavior of others as morally "right" or "wrong". Can you clarify your stance? [/ QUOTE ] Forget that I claimed I might be a moral relativist. Forget the word moral. Let's think about actions and consequences. Rather than address this directly, I'll respond to where you try to show that murder can be good: [ QUOTE ] I don’t see why not. It could very well accomplish their goals [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] No not necessarily. By keeping the blacks down, they are able to keep the better jobs, resources, etc for themselves. Even if there were costs in terms of contribution benefits, this might be less important to them than the psychological benefits of superiority. [/ QUOTE ] Do you really think this is reasonable assumption of the human condition when it acts voluntarily? They *might* want to dedicate their lives to learning to fly too. And if they do, the market will speak. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, first explain what you mean by “voluntarily”, because I apparently didn’t understand your use of that word in your previous post, resulting in you being peeved. Also what assumption are you talking about? [ QUOTE ] So a better question. Let's say these people *do* believe murdering the blacks is good. Which approach do you think is a more efficient solution: to pass a law saying that murdering blacks is very bad, or to allow free interaction on all parts and watch what happens? [/ QUOTE ] By solution you mean method of preventing blacks from being murdered? To answer your question (if I have it right), I don’t see how allowing free interaction (which includes murder) is a solution and I think illegalizing murder (making it a punishable offense) would help, but not solve the problem entirely. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] They may have attachments to land, social networks or work in the area. They may have nowhere better to go. [/ QUOTE ] How would they attain their attachment to land or social networks that exist somewhere where people want to murder them for the color of their skin??? [/ QUOTE ] The same way they would anywhere else. [ QUOTE ] Why would they voluntarily choose to go anywhere near there, let alone grow fond of it? [/ QUOTE ] They may have nowhere better to go (I repeat). They may have been born there. It may have degenerated to its state of affairs after they’d already been living there for awhile. Etc. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Tons of people have lived in societies that have systematically discriminated against them. [/ QUOTE ] How many of these people have done so voluntarily? [/ QUOTE ] Lived in the societies voluntarily or been discriminated against voluntarily? Either way I never said it had to be voluntary. There’s that word again. I feel I’m missing some sort of premise you’re employing. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well this is besides the point, but you’re wrong. The US broke many signed contracts with native American populations and forcibly removed them from land that they wanted to expand to, often resulting in much death and suffering (e.g. the “trail of tears”). [/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the history lesson, but it's irrelevant to the point. Respect for contracts is at the heart of AC. Violation of contract is bad. So yes, in that case (if what you're saying is historically true), sure I consider that BAD, for some reason I'd be able to elaborate on if I knew the context of your example. [/ QUOTE ] Just make up some context/details if you like. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Then can you explain why this was not in the US’s best interest since that’s your definition of morality? They wanted to expand and felt it was in their best interest to get the native Americans out of the way, regardless of whatever contracts they may have signed with them. [/ QUOTE ] Who says it wasn't? [/ QUOTE ] You, since you defined “in your best interest” as “good” and violation of contracts as “bad”. Am I wrong? [ QUOTE ] What you're saying is that the US made some contract where the natives gave them the land for some compensation, and the US later violated that contract. If that is the case, then that is BAD, and the US would have been better off to not do so. [/ QUOTE ] But can you explain why? That’s what I was asking. [ QUOTE ] Just because we are the most powerful nation in the world does not mean everything is perfect, and that we made no mistakes along the way. Far from it. [/ QUOTE ] That wasn’t my point. I’m challenging your notion that you can make objective universal judgements about what’s “good” and “bad”. I maintain that they’re relative concepts. In the case of my example you could say it was “good” for Americans like Andrew Jackson who wanted the native Americans out of the way, “bad” for the native Americans, “bad” for those who felt empathy for the native Americans or disgust over the unfairness of breaking a contract and a mixture for those who benefited from the land, but perhaps felt bad about it. This is speaking in simplified terms of course. [ QUOTE ] If you want, link me to whatever the hell you're talking about, and I can elaborate on what the specific consequences could maybe have been for a particular breach of contract. But just saying "These people broke a contract with these people... TELL ME WHY IT'S BAD!!!" isn't gonna be all that productive. [/ QUOTE ] If you need specifics and can’t why show something is “bad” on a general level that would appear to suggest that violating contracts is only bad in certain situation. How will showing it's bad in one situation demonstrate that it's always bad? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You don't make money without providing some good or service that someone else (with a different preference than your own) values more highly than what he gives to you.[ QUOTE ] That’s a far from sufficient explanation of the above statement. But just to give a simple counter-example: Sure you do... You can take it by force (or stealth). [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] That's because you conveniently left out the sentence right before it that actually held the substance, which said: [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary. [/ QUOTE ] If you take it by force, it is not voluntary. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I'm not familiar with this idea “when all actions are voluntary”. Can you explain it? I didn’t leave it out out of maliciousness, btw. I assumed that mugging someone was a voluntary act. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good. [/ QUOTE ] How many people voted for Bush in the last US election? He's commiting both massive murder and massive theft, but a hell of a lot of people still think it's ok. Why? Because they have a different set of morals/ethics. Theft and murder are vague concepts. Some will call two very similar actions murder and heroism, theft and justice, etc etc. And rape... I can't think of a more vague concept. Nobody knows what is and what isn't true rape, they just see how they feel about the particular situation and make a judgement, but if you analyze their principles you'll find a lot of contradictions. This applies to many moral issues, but especially rape. The point is, morals/ethics are extremely subjective, how can you not see it? You never answerered my main points. Do you agree that morality necessitates bias? |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about a "tit for tat" morality, which is universal. [/ QUOTE ] So was I. But 60 years ago, racism was the norm, and few people saw it as immoral. Just to give a quick example. [ QUOTE ] Of course. Logic moves from premises to conclusions, nothing more. Without moral premises, you can't get moral conclusions. At least, not logically. [/ QUOTE ] But then there can be no universal, objective, bias-free morality. That's what I was arguing. [ QUOTE ] I go further. I think bias informs every human action to some degree. . [/ QUOTE ] That's not what I meant by bias. Check my post again where I posted the definition. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
I think I’m being pretty thorough in responding to all or at least the majority of your points. I have no idea what your broader point is, but attacking your premises is a valid approach, because without them holding up your broader argument wont either. I generally take a bottom-up approach whenever I can. [/ QUOTE ] What I meant is, I replied to you saying essentially "if the action is voluntary, the money gained will always be for the best." And you pasted the part that said "money gained will always be for the best" and then said "not if you steal it," indicating to me that you totally misread my argument. (But based on the rest of your reply, I guess you weren't clear on what I meant by 'voluntary.') [ QUOTE ] I don’t believe I’m being myopic. I can assure you that I’m willing to consider your position critically and have been trying to do so.If you find me unpleasant to joust with then you don’t have to (but I hope you’ll keep it going). [/ QUOTE ] I don't find you unpleasant to joust with at all. How old are you btw? Late high school/early college? (Hope I'm not way off, as that would probably be offensive.) You just remind me of the way I used to see things, before the broader idea really hit me. A lot of your arguments seem sort of impulsive, and I'm trying to demonstrate a broader perspective. This thread is getting a bit tiresome, and I feel like all the points have basically been made, but I don't really feel any need to "stop." [ QUOTE ] By solution you mean method of preventing blacks from being murdered? To answer your question (if I have it right), I don’t see how allowing free interaction (which includes murder) is a solution and I think illegalizing murder (making it a punishable offense) would help, but not solve the problem entirely. [/ QUOTE ] Problems will never be solved entirely. Laws (in some sense) have good intentions, but they can never solve a problem efficiently. Consider what a "law" is. It's a human being or a collection of human beings deciding what is best. God doesn't make laws. The tooth fairy doesn't make laws. Super intelligent aliens don't make laws. *WE* make laws. How can it be that a human or a group of humans who are detached from a situation will be more likely to know what is best than a human or a group of humans who are experience the situation first hand. Consider also that we evolved by making first hand decisions. That alone makes me pretty confident that an error will be more likely when you displace the the decision from the actor. And that's all a law is. It's a decision made by one human being FOR another human being. Why are the people making the laws so superior to the people acting? If all the white people wanted to murder the black people... how/why the hell would they ever pass a law that said you couldn't do this??? But in the absence of centralized law of all sorts (and a dependence on first hand human nature -- the thing that got us here), when individuals have the right to travel, are not captured, displaced, enslaved, and then systematically segregated, it's entirely irrational to imagine a society where blacks and whites coexist, but that one group decides they want to murder the others! Moreover, my question that started this tangent (I think) was simply, "Do you think murder can ever be good?" And this was your hypothetical. So let me ask you, if this group of human beings who irrationally valued killing people because of their skin color (even when it comes at the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity) did indeed exist, what exactly do you think of this society? Is this good, or are they making some sort of mistake? Do you consider this a good place to live? My point with the whole "mistake" thing is that, yes, people do make mistakes. But when people act as individuals those mistakes are very rare compared to the mistakes that occur when you detach decision making from the individual and rely on the innate inefficiency of the bureaucracy. [ QUOTE ] I'm not familiar with this idea “when all actions are voluntary”. Can you explain it? I didn’t leave it out out of maliciousness, btw. I assumed that mugging someone was a voluntary act. [/ QUOTE ] No! Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree? It's voluntary in the sense that someone did it, sure. But a voluntary action is one that both parties agree to (presumably because they consider it in their best interest). So that's the whole point. I know that mugging is bad, in all circumstances, because one party did not agree to it. Everyone by and large agrees with this. Even if you want to consider whether or not theft is bad as a preference (which I have no problem with, because it eventually leads to the same conclusion) you have to admit that then, well, universally it is agreed that this preference is BAD. So then what's the solution to the problem? A lot of peoples' instincts tell them the solution is to steal money from me (taxes) so that we can provide public law enforcement! But like I've been saying, I'm so convinced that theft is bad in all circumstances that it is just crystal clear to me (even if I don't have too detailed of an understanding of how law enforcement works) that the human inevitability problem (the fact that some people will screw up and think it's in their best interest to steal) will get WORSE when you try to solve it with MORE theft. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
How many people voted for Bush in the last US election? He's commiting both massive murder and massive theft [/ QUOTE ] How much power would Bush have if it weren't for a bureaucratic government determining which humans are allowed to make decisions for everyone else? [ QUOTE ] but a hell of a lot of people still think it's ok. Why? Because they have a different set of morals/ethics. [/ QUOTE ] No, they don't. Because they're confused. Ask a Bush supporter if he thinks theft and murder are good, and see what he says. (Hint: The answer is "no.") The problem is in the APPLICATION of their core morality, which gets convoluted in the inefficiency of bureaucratically allotting power, which is my very point. The very REASON why it's bad is because Bush supporters DON'T think his actions are good, but make the mistake of lending support to it anyways. [ QUOTE ] Theft and murder are vague concepts. Some will call two very similar actions murder and heroism, theft and justice, etc etc. [/ QUOTE ] Some will call it what it is, and others will justify the means with certain ends (like electing Bush so they can pay 25% income tax instead of 32%). So they call it what it isn't. But the whole point of logical discourse is to try to analyze things for what they are. So when Bush kills 100,000 Iraqis, what do YOU call it? [ QUOTE ] The point is, morals/ethics are extremely subjective, how can you not see it? [/ QUOTE ] They become subjective when people apply logic the way you are. That murdering is not murdering just cause some people say it is not murdering. If only it were the case the we could close our eyes and pretend these actions carried no consequence, then you might be right that it's truly subjective. [ QUOTE ] You never answerered my main points. [/ QUOTE ] I've answered everything that seemed worth replying to. I'm not sure what you consider your "main points" since I couldn't disagree more with all of it. [ QUOTE ] Do you agree that morality necessitates bias? [/ QUOTE ] What does this question mean? "Morality" is just a term we use to contain what we consider "good." You're getting caught up in a word when there's no reason to, and I've said countless times in this thread to just forget the word (since it's effectively empty), and start thinking about actions and consequences. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you edit out the Dutch? [/ QUOTE ] Because I am not as conversant in Dutch history as I am the Roman, Spanish, British, and American. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] He's talking about a "tit for tat" morality, which is universal. [/ QUOTE ] So was I. But 60 years ago, racism was the norm, and few people saw it as immoral. Just to give a quick example. [/ QUOTE ] Sadly, people outside of the group are rarely beneficiaries of that group's moral standard. Some element of tribal thinking seems to be hardwired, too. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I go further. I think bias informs every human action to some degree. . [/ QUOTE ] That's not what I meant by bias. Check my post again where I posted the definition. [/ QUOTE ] I know. I'm attacking praxeology for its assumption that humans are rational actors (that list is an example of how we aren't). But it seems to me that these kinds of distortions do fit the definition you posted. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Why did you edit out the Dutch? [/ QUOTE ] Because I am not as conversant in Dutch history as I am the Roman, Spanish, British, and American. [/ QUOTE ] The Dutch colonies around the world seem like a perfectly valid example of empire. [ QUOTE ] The Dutch Empire[1] is the name given to the various territories controlled by the Netherlands from the 17th to the 20th century. The Dutch followed Portugal and Spain in establishing a colonial global empire outside of continental Europe. Their skills in shipping and trading and the surge of nationalism and militarism accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain aided the venture. Alongside the British, the Dutch initially built up colonial possessions on the basis of indirect state capitalist corporate colonialism, primarily with the Dutch East India Company. Direct state intervention in the colonial enterprise came later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Empire [/ QUOTE ] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...utchEmpire.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DutchEmpire.png |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There's a very big difference between something that has been proved mathematically and something that seems like a reasonable conclusion based on certain premises. [/ QUOTE ] What's the difference? What is "math" (as it relates to the poker example) if not merely a tool for reaching and demonstrating a logical conclusion? The point is, if you can demonstrate that one action is good in all instances (however you are able to demonstrate it), then that action is good in all instances! [/ QUOTE ] Math is rigorous and, as far as we can tell, infallible. It takes everything into account and each step in the proof is perfectly justified based on the original axioms. Of course, if you could prove that an action is always good using formal logic with premises that everyone agrees with, that would be the same. But you can't. [ QUOTE ] If we could see each other's cards, then I suppose you could say it is a "well-defined game with a small number of variables and a smaller number of steps" (and even then it's iffy, in some ways). But the nature of imperfect information makes poker a very complicated game with infinite variables. [/ QUOTE ] A probabilistic game can be solved easily, and without psychological input of some kind all unknown cards are functionally random. What happens in poker is that you do have some information about the cards in your opponent's hand, but that information is derived from his psychology rather than from any game information. A hand of hold'em has, I believe, something on the order of 10^40 permutations. It's brutally simple even compared to chess (10^120) or Go (10^holy [censored]). But all of those games combined are nothing compared to a single dynamic interaction. Because you're dealing with people in poker, the game-theory correct response isn't always the best way to play. [ QUOTE ] And that's why the analogy is so good. Because of all the unique variables, in almost all instances the answer is "it depends." I wouldn't tell you it's "wrong" to raise a certain hand from a certain position, because so much depends on your unique assessment of the exact situation at a unique time (i.e. your ability to play later streets, things you know about the people behind you, etc.). "It depends." But still, there are *some* instances, where all you need to say is "I had AA preflop in a ring game and someone pushed in front of me" or, I suppose "I had KK and 900 chips, 5 people left in a sng, blinds 200-400, I'm first to act" and I wouldn't need any other information; because I know it couldn't possibly mitigate a good decision that was anything but call/push (respectively). In life, things like theft, murder, and rape can be demonstrated to be -EV all the time. If you said "I raped someone because X" I wouldn't care what the X was. It's impossible that it was good. It's always a mistake. So, while I don't like the idea of confining myself to rigid moral views (in the same way I don't like the idea of thinking it is always "good" or "bad" to act a certain way in some generic poker situation), there are *some* actions that just will never be good, even if I evaluate the unique situation in its own right. [/ QUOTE ] Some poker situations are clear because it is mathematically always advantageous to take a certain action. Psychology doesn't matter at all, and so it can be established mathematically (ie formally, rigorously) that the action is correct (give certain assumptions - that the goal is to win money, for instance). It is only when the human variables are irrelevant that an action is always right or wrong in poker. You can never have a theory of human action that is analogous, because human variables are always relevant in human action. [ QUOTE ] If we didn't live in a world where the term "moral" was tossed around so loosely, I think my point might be easier to swallow. So forget the word. Do you think stealing is ever +EV? Please give me an example of when it can be. [/ QUOTE ] There is no way possible way to get food within the next 24 hours other than to steal it. If you don't get food within the next 24 hours, you will die of starvation. If you do get food within the next 24 hours, you will live a happy life and soon be able to replace the food you stole (with interest). You can argue whether this scenario is possible given certain assumptions and definitions of property, but I think it's (at least hypothetically) possible given conventional assumptions and definitions. [ QUOTE ] Why is this particular hand so likely to stick in your opponents head [/ QUOTE ] I can come up with a contrived reason (A certain song just came on the radio that happens to cause the opponent to behave irrationally - now's your chance!), but that would miss the point. Which is that variables outside the context of the specific hand are relevant, and that the number of things that can potentially affect human action is almost infinite (there's some crazy stuff out there due to pure variance in psychology and brain mutations/etc). [ QUOTE ] I think your denial of truth in the name of maintaining some political philosophy sucks. Does the fact that you've forced yourself to defend the idea of folding aces preflop in a cash game lead you to believe that maybe you might be on the wrong track here? [/ QUOTE ] I proudly defend the statement that the earth could spontaneously turn into a ball of cheese at any time. It's a true statement, and worthy of defense. Denial of truth is claiming that because something is extremely improbable, that means it is impossible. This is without even going into the relevant probabilities. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
I don't find you unpleasant to joust with at all. How old are you btw? Late high school/early college? (Hope I'm not way off, as that would probably be offensive.) You just remind me of the way I used to see things, before the broader idea really hit me. A lot of your arguments seem sort of impulsive, and I'm trying to demonstrate a broader perspective. [/ QUOTE ] I feel like I’m talking to a Mormon missionary when you say things like this. I’m a senior in college. Like I said, if your premises are faulty then your broader perspective has less value. I’m trying to be as logical as I can and if I see something that doesn’t appear to hold up logically, then I will (perhaps “impulsively”) try to dissect it. You may see it as nitpicking, but tangible/sound premises are essential when you’re trying to argue for an absolutist position. [ QUOTE ] This thread is getting a bit tiresome, and I feel like all the points have basically been made, but I don't really feel any need to "stop." [/ QUOTE ] Have they? I think you have a great deal of work ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that AC is the only logically correct political philosophy. [ QUOTE ] How can it be that a human or a group of humans who are detached from a situation will be more likely to know what is best than a human or a group of humans who are experience the situation first hand. [/ QUOTE ] That’s why power isn’t completely centralized in effective governments. We have city, county, state and federal levels. And someone who is somewhat detached will be able to make better judgements than someone who is emotionally involved in a situation. [ QUOTE ] And that's all a law is. It's a decision made by one human being FOR another human being. Why are the people making the laws so superior to the people acting? [/ QUOTE ] It’s a decision made by a group of individuals who were selected by means of voting to represent their constituents. And it applies to everyone including those who came up with it. [ QUOTE ] If all the white people wanted to murder the black people... how/why the hell would they ever pass a law that said you couldn't do this??? [/ QUOTE ] They wouldn’t. That’s why I was confused about what you meant by “solution”. The whites might not see anything needing to be solved. [ QUOTE ] But in the absence of centralized law of all sorts (and a dependence on first hand human nature -- the thing that got us here), when individuals have the right to travel, are not captured, displaced, enslaved, and then systematically segregated, it's entirely irrational to imagine a society where blacks and whites coexist, but that one group decides they want to murder the others! [/ QUOTE ] Since I’m not sure what reasoning you’re basing this on, all I can say is “no it’s not.” [ QUOTE ] Moreover, my question that started this tangent (I think) was simply, "Do you think murder can ever be good?" And this was your hypothetical. So let me ask you, if this group of human beings who irrationally valued killing people because of their skin color (even when it comes at the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity) did indeed exist, what exactly do you think of this society? Is this good, or are they making some sort of mistake? Do you consider this a good place to live? [/ QUOTE ] I challenge the notion that it comes at “the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity”. I’ve already said that they may reserve more power and resources for themselves this way. But my subjective opinion is that the society blows. I’m an empathetic person who dislikes racism and murder. I wouldn’t want to live there personally, but I’ve encountered a fair number of racist a-holes who may well say they’d love to live there. I can’t objectively call it good or bad, nor can I objectively point to any mistake. What is the mistake? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm not familiar with this idea “when all actions are voluntary”. Can you explain it? I didn’t leave it out out of maliciousness, btw. I assumed that mugging someone was a voluntary act. [/ QUOTE ] No! Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree? [/ QUOTE ] It’s subjective. [ QUOTE ] It's voluntary in the sense that someone did it, sure. But a voluntary action is one that both parties agree to (presumably because they consider it in their best interest). So that's the whole point. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, let me backpedal a bit, with this new information. I said: “My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money.” You said: “My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary.” Why are we working within the context of “when all actions are voluntary”? Why would all actions ever be voluntary? [ QUOTE ] I know that mugging is bad, in all circumstances, because one party did not agree to it. [/ QUOTE ] So you’re claiming that any action involving two parties that one party does not agree to is “bad”? How so? There are lots of holes in this and I can elaborate, but I’d like to just verify that it’s your stance. [ QUOTE ] Everyone by and large agrees with this. Even if you want to consider whether or not theft is bad as a preference (which I have no problem with, because it eventually leads to the same conclusion) you have to admit that then, well, universally it is agreed that this preference is BAD. [/ QUOTE ] Again since I don’t know what you’re basing this claim on all I can say is “no it’s not”. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way possible way to get food within the next 24 hours other than to steal it. If you don't get food within the next 24 hours, you will die of starvation. If you do get food within the next 24 hours, you will live a happy life and soon be able to replace the food you stole (with interest). [/ QUOTE ] ACers agree that this is completely OK. I certainly think this is OK. But your last sentence is the key. Just because it was "OK" to steal in an act of self-defense, it does not mean that you don't owe whomever you stole from some compensation for your action. It sounds like you agree entirely. [ QUOTE ] Denial of truth is claiming that because something is extremely improbable, that means it is impossible. This is without even going into the relevant probabilities. [/ QUOTE ] So what's the difference? This is why I really wish David thought about this stuff. Bayes' theorem. (I put that in there because I imagine David's brain working like google, so I figure that ups the chance he sees it, and maybe thinks about it.) Bayesian. Bayes. Wouldn't you say the thing that makes you 99% to die is 100% BAD? Why would you ever choose to favor a social norm where (you basically concede that) it's more likely to do bad than good. If I get my chips in with pocket aces against pocket jacks (and am only concerned about money) that's GOOD. It's 100% good even though there is only an 80% chance that it will work. Just accept it. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
You may see it as nitpicking, but tangible/sound premises are essential when you’re trying to argue for an absolutist position. [/ QUOTE ] No, nitpicking I'd have no problem with. [ QUOTE ] Have they? I think you have a great deal of work ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that AC is the only logically correct political philosophy. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't know I was trying to demonstrate that. My OP says it's the logical destination *to me*. But I realize that convincing others of this is a tedious, drawn out endeavor, and I have no interest in doing so right now. This gynormous tangent started when soon2bepro argued there is no way I could have much insight into David's moral beliefs based on observing his logic. I'm merely arguing (in addition to all the minor tangents) that "morality" should not be seen as separate from logic, and that it's reasonable to gain insight into a man's "moral" assumptions based on his logical application of various hypotheticals. And it isn't that other philosophies aren't "logical" in some limited/myopic sense, or that people who hold them aren't logical people. It's just that AC, to me, is human nature. It's truth. And I eventually realized it. It's not like I believe in AC, so I want to do my best to convince everyone to join me. I just believe in truth and logic, and can't help but concede that AC is exactly that. I made some posts in politics recently where I tried arguing against AC; because I really, desperately, wanted to believe that there was some merit to the state and all that stuff that's ingrained in our heads to be good. And I really like being tolerant of other people's thoughts, so I wanted to find some logical justification to be able to be. And eventually I came to the conclusion that there isn't one. Tolerance of the statism bias is separate from logic. Oh well. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree? [/ QUOTE ]It’s subjective. [/ QUOTE ] Why won't you answer the question? I'm asking what YOU think. I'm willing to admit it's subjective in some sense. But my point is that if every human being who logically examines the issue will conclude one thing, then it's effectively objective. It's subjective in the sense that human reason is not necessarily objectively good. But if you accept human reason as objectively good, then so too are its conclusions. Nothing is objective in the grand scheme of things. I could jump off a building, and what the [censored] does it matter? My friends and family would be sad, but why do their feelings matter? Ultimately everything is subjective. So in a sense you're right. But to whatever extent human life is objectively worthwhile, it follows that so too must be something that the human condition universally determines is a good preference. If you don't consider that objective, then in your mind there just is no objective. I understand your position. It leads to the conclusion that human life is not objectively good, and the destruction of it is not necessarily bad. My argument maintains the assumption that human life is good and worthwhile. If you disagree with such assumption, then that's fine. I've smoked enough blunts in my life to erode a lot of my human bias, so I can relate. But eventually you just realize that while there may be no true "objective goodness," the natural bias we have as humans is such where it seems good to conclude that life is better than destruction. Whether or not you want to consider this objective or subjective is pretty semantical. But what you should be able to agree to is that if life, rather than destruction, is objectively good, then so too are the things that encourage it. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
Much of the time the distinction isn't important. Unfortunately, we can't predict when it will be. If we treated 10^-500 as being "equal to zero," math and science would fall apart reasonably quickly. In some cases I can't foresee any specific threats, in others I can. But just because I can't foresee a given issue doesn't mean that issue doesn't exist. Hell, if we find a way to iterate something infinitely, "extremely improbable" might end up meaning "certain." But there are subtler differences. With a 99% chance of death, that 1% chance of life seems insignificant. What if it were the other way around? I think a 1% chance of death is worth worrying about.
Security is a good concrete example, because one person can do a lot of harm. As technology moves forward at a more and more rapid pace, the weapons people can manufacture in their garages will become more and more powerful. Maybe someday a person will be able to blow up a city with equipment bought at Radio Shack. And if that day comes, a single wacky anomaly could be the end of everyone. Some decisions must be made based on what applies to "most people," other decisions have to be made with possible exceptions in mind. Either way, I think having all the information is important. I value my awareness that AA may lose sometimes, even if it doesn't serve me in any concrete way. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The reason individual acts of theft might once in a while be +EV is because life is a random assortment of a bunch of variables. Maybe I stole my friend's $5 bill and bought a lottery ticket, won, and now will help him pay for his sister's knee surgery. That happened to work out for me.
Theoretically, there was a better chance that more harm than good could come from it (when you factor, among other things, the guilt I might feel, and the chance he would notice). The reason why theft may as well be looked at as bad is because it's more likely to be bad and you have no way of knowing when it will be good. You could say the same about slitting your wrists. It isn't like I'm unwilling to consider that there are a bunch of factor's unique to an individual going into a certain decision; it's just that given what I sense about human nature and how we got here, the action is blatantly destructive to human prosperity. My argument is that the move is always -EV (in the same way getting it in against aces is always -EV). If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim. So even though ya, sure, you may as well be aware that sometimes your mistake can work, there still never exists an instance where you should *do* it. Have you ever encountered an instance where you concluded stealing something was to your best advantage? That little nagging voice inside you is pretty powerful. Years of trial and error at work. So while I'm not omniscient, and thus can't predict exactly how the pieces will fall given an action, I know that the one which is more likely to be a success is objectively better. Since humans can't see through the back of playing cards, I know that holding AA is objectively 100% better than holding KK. I know that respect for property rights is 100% objectively better than theft in all instances, even though some of those instances will get lucky. And please, if you choose to respond, don't nit about the poker analogy by introducing the idea that players are cheating or terrorists will blow up the world if X happens. It should be pretty clear my analogy assumes a straightforward poker game (since the "theft" we're talking about does not include the idea that aliens or God came down and told us something). |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't know I was trying to demonstrate that. My OP says it's the logical destination *to me*. [/ QUOTE ] My mistake. Looking back I remember that you were merely trying to demonstrate that morals can be logically deduced. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree? [/ QUOTE ]It’s subjective. [/ QUOTE ] Why won't you answer the question? I'm asking what YOU think. I'm willing to admit it's subjective in some sense. But my point is that if every human being who logically examines the issue will conclude one thing, then it's effectively objective. [/ QUOTE ] I understand you're asking what I think. What I think is that it's relative, meaning it can't be called good or bad in an absolute sense. If you're asking if I like mugging my answer is no. I'm sure I could think of a circumstance in which I endorsed it, but I generally don't. Are you saying that everyone dislikes mugging? Because I'm sure that's not the case. If it was the case mugging would never happen. [ QUOTE ] But to whatever extent human life is objectively worthwhile, it follows that so too must be something that the human condition universally determines is a good preference. If you don't consider that objective, then in your mind there just is no objective. [/ QUOTE ] I can't think of anything that humans universally agree is a good preference. [ QUOTE ] the natural bias we have as humans is such where it seems good to conclude that life is better than destruction. [/ QUOTE ] I can't agree on this. Partly because the terms "life" and "destruction" are far too vague and partly because humans as a whole are highly destructive, therefore a claim that we have a natural bias against it will take some convincing. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever encountered an instance where you concluded stealing something was to your best advantage? [/ QUOTE ] Does downloading music and sharing software count? |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why did you edit out the Dutch? [/ QUOTE ] Because I am not as conversant in Dutch history as I am the Roman, Spanish, British, and American. [/ QUOTE ] The Dutch colonies around the world seem like a perfectly valid example of empire. [ QUOTE ] The Dutch Empire[1] is the name given to the various territories controlled by the Netherlands from the 17th to the 20th century. The Dutch followed Portugal and Spain in establishing a colonial global empire outside of continental Europe. Their skills in shipping and trading and the surge of nationalism and militarism accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain aided the venture. Alongside the British, the Dutch initially built up colonial possessions on the basis of indirect state capitalist corporate colonialism, primarily with the Dutch East India Company. Direct state intervention in the colonial enterprise came later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Empire [/ QUOTE ] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...utchEmpire.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DutchEmpire.png [/ QUOTE ] Then by all means, include it in the list. Didn't mean to belittle your warmongers. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim. [/ QUOTE ] You said in your last response that theft in self-defense is okay. This seems to contradict that. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you're determined to look at it as some subjective "it can be right sometimes" type of thing, then you must hold the axiom that -EV poker decisions can be "right" when they work. Or you must think there exist instances where theft can be +EV. I don't agree with either claim. [/ QUOTE ] You said in your last response that theft in self-defense is okay. This seems to contradict that. [/ QUOTE ] I also said that you still owe the owner compensation for what you took. I don't really consider that theft anyways (but that's beside the point); particularly because the owner would almost certainly voluntarily agree to let you have the food if he was given an option. Murder in self-defense is fine too. Rape in self-defense is, if nothing else, interesting and fairly erotic. If you don't like the "self-defense" exception, consider that the whole rationale behind the AC/voluntaryism/property rights ideology is that we humans understand and evaluate future consequence. So, if you're about to die, the concept is irrelevant. Sounds silly, but hopefully that helps clarify. Foal, I'll have to reply to you later. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying that everyone dislikes mugging? Because I'm sure that's not the case. If it was the case mugging would never happen. [/ QUOTE ] I'm saying that even people who mug would be better off if they didn't. The $20 I have in my pocket isn't worth the potential retaliation. People mug because they mistakenly conclude it is their best play. People slit their wrists too. Do you think that is ever +EV? People *will* act as they please. So the mugger *will* act on the bias that tells him mugging is a good idea. To me, acting on a bias rather than eroding it is not entirely bad. There is some good to it too. But in my mind, the good sort of "approaches" the bad. I think of it as 9.999 repeating vs. 10. The erosion of the bias is always slightly better, even if acting on the bias, in some instances, comes pretty damn close. And that, my friend, is pretty deep. [ QUOTE ] I can't think of anything that humans universally agree is a good preference. [/ QUOTE ] Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes. But take a mugger. How do you think even he would feel if someone steals his television set? I'm guessing he feels ripped off, and different than say, when he lost a big poker hand. The subconscious is tougher to trick. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
ALP,
I think an important concept that would help you understand the mugger more clearly is time preference (from a previous post): A human being seeks, through action, to exchange a less satisfying state of being for a more satisfactory one. He prefers more goods to less, for therefore he can satisfy more wants or needs through their use (consumption). Furthermore, he must in every action consider, even if subconsciously, the time required to achieve his goal, for he prefers goods sooner rather than later. If this were not the case, and he cared only for a greater quantity of goods, he would always choose to employ the most productive methods of production. Robinson Crusoe would undertake to built a fishing trawler to catch his fish, and in the meantime, he would long be dead. But since to eat some fish before he dies of stavation, he demonstrates his time preference for fewer sooner goods rather than more future goods. A human being also, however subconsciously, consider the durability of whatever goods he produces. Goods with a longer servicable lifetime will allow him to be more productive, and he prefers more goods to less. Therefore he prefers not only sooner goods to later one, but also more durable goods to less durable goods. This is the phenomenon of time preference. Every action requires some amount time to accomplish; time is scarce. A man's time spent on one action can never be regained and respent on another. Furthermore, man cannot not act. In sitting on the couch and watching TV a man exchanges the less satisfactory state of walking about or toiling for the more satisfactory state of leisure. His time is consumed during this action. By acting a human being displays his preference, i.e. he displays his subjective valuation of alternate states of affairs or goods. Hence we see that, all other things being equal, sooner goods are always more valuable than later goods. Hence, we see that man will only exchange the immediate consumption of present goods for the delayed consumption of future goods if he believes that by doing so he will attain more future goods that are more valuable than the current satisfaction he forgoes by not consuming the present goods. His degree of time preference determines how long he is willing to delay consumption and what premium in future goods he requires. The higher his time preference, the less willing he is to defer consumption, and the more valuable the rewards must be. The lower his time preferece, the more willing he is to defer consumption, i.e. the more willing he is save, and the more modest will be the future premium he requires. Thus a lower time preference allows savings, i.e. the accumulation of unconsumed goods, i.e. the formation of capital and capital goods. Capital goods are goods that cannot be immediately consumed, but lead to increased production of future consumer goods. I cannot consume a spear. I must in fact forgo the satisfaction of picking and consuming berries in order to fashion my spear. But the spear once formed is a durable capital good. With it I may spear and consumer rabbits, which are far more satisfying than berries, for an extended period of time. I may be able to spear 20 rabbits before my spear is broken or blunted beyond repair. A low time preference allows savings and the formation of capital goods and leads to increased production of consumer goods. But an increased quantity of consumer goods acts to lower time preference still more. As more and more wants and needs are satisfied, the remaining wants and needs are less urgent. An actor will be more willing to trade the consumption required to satisfy these less urgent needs for the savings required to produce still more goods of even higher value in the future. Since his needs are less urgent the premium he damnds will diminish and the time he is willing to defray consumption will extend, leading to ever larger accumulation of capital and capital goods, ever higher productivity, and hence ever larger quantities of consumer goods, which again act to lower time preference. Furthermore, because the accumulation of capital and capital goods increases the demand for labor to increase productivity, the capital accumulated by the saver benefits not just the saver but non-savers as well. The saver exchanges some portion of his savings or production for the labor that his ever more efficient production processes necessitate. The increased goods (material wealth) of the laboring non-savers reduces their time preference, and they are themselves more willing to forgo immediate consumption for savings and accumulation of capital goods. Society thus becomes wealthier and wealthier as lowered time preference leads to increased savings and accumulation of capital and capital goods, which leads to ever greater productivity, which continually lowers the degree of time preference in the population. As the time preference of the population decreases, high time preference behaviors (behaviors that provide immediate satisfaction with little concern for long term consequences), like theft, murder, rape, rudeness, hedonism, etc. diminish. Thus by ever decreasing time preference, society proceeds through ever higher states of civilisation. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
Awesome. I'll give that a re-read in the morning when I'm less exhausted.
|
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Are you saying that everyone dislikes mugging? Because I'm sure that's not the case. If it was the case mugging would never happen. [/ QUOTE ] I'm saying that even people who mug would be better off if they didn't. The $20 I have in my pocket isn't worth the potential retaliation. People mug because they mistakenly conclude it is their best play. [/ QUOTE ] You can't define what is someone else's best play. Mugging doesn't always carry a high risk of retaliation and even if it did, maybe the mugger enjoys the excitement of that knowledge. [ QUOTE ] People slit their wrists too. Do you think that is ever +EV? [/ QUOTE ] If they want to die or want attention/help, it can be. Mainly if they want attention, because it's not a very effective suicide method unless you cut really deep. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I can't think of anything that humans universally agree is a good preference. [/ QUOTE ] Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes. But take a mugger. How do you think even he would feel if someone steals his television set? I'm guessing he feels ripped off, and different than say, when he lost a big poker hand. The subconscious is tougher to trick. [/ QUOTE ] Hmmmm (trying to wrap my mind around what your position is). I take it you've given up on the claim that morals are universal, because no one would disagree with them. The people who disagree you say are making a mistake. Your position is that there is a set of principles or morals that are in everyone's best interest even if they don't realize it. But I don't think you can convince me of this. You can't measure everything by some universal scale of expected value, because "value" is different for everyone based on their differing psychologies. How would a mugger feel if his TV was stolen? Pissed off most likely, but mugging doesn't necessarily make him more likely to be stolen from (especially if he mugs the right people, like tourists etc. someone I know was mugged while a tourist in Italy). |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
I'm not saying mugging makes him more likely to be mugged. I'm saying even he who mugs (he who makes a conscious error) has the same subconscious reaction as you and I. That tells me something.
To help you understand what I mean, I do not believe in "morals" in the way you might be thinking I mean the word. I don't believe things are right because one says they're right (or because God says they're right, etc.). I believe things are right only when you can logically deduce they are in your best interest. How can anyone (or at least, any non-theist) disagree with that? I actually hold the open and tolerant assumption of morality that I think you think is exclusive to your argument. Now, what's best for one might not be best for another. This is because we all have different preferences. But *some* things *are* always contradictory to the (albeit ultimately subjective) value of human life and prosperity. BECAUSE HUMAN LIFE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT GOT HERE WHIMSICALLY. When you consider human life and its prosperity to be objectively good (which, if you don't, fine), then it follows that the things which logically seem to encourage it will also be objectively good. You talk about it as if what I'm saying is some odd subjective belief. It's pretty clear. If life and prosperity is good, then the destruction of life and prosperity is bad. Killing someone or raping someone is definitely contradictory to the interest of human prosperity. So, if you want to consider it still a preference, it's the preference I *rationally* hold. It's the preference our ancestors held for as long as we could reason some sense of cause and effect; and their consequence begs our condition. Our condition, to me, is objectively good. It's what I am and it's all I have. People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad." Vhawk posted in politics a while ago about a study that demonstrated that (which, I forget the specifics of). But one study is not important anyways. How is it not intuitive? How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value? The problem comes when people screw up the application, and act with conscious bias. You seem to hold the belief that when people act with bias, this is "OK" or even "good." I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible. You might be able to draw up some instances where it *worked out* but never where the expectation was positive. Some mistakes get lucky. But we will not agree (at least for now), so I am essentially done with the point. Evolution is pretty powerful. Nothing you're saying is illogical in any way. But you're maintaining an odd assumption about nature (that being that even if some action can be logically demonstrated to be to a species' best interest, that such species should not consider that action objectively good). You should read Borodog's post above about time preference. Then think about what happens if you give 10 cheeseburgers to your dog, and whether or not he'll be a happy pup 2 hours later. Then think about whether you would consider our preference to delay immediate gratification, and our conscious decision to encourage such actions, as "objectively" good, or if it's just some subjective idea that others can rationally disagree with. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying mugging makes him more likely to be mugged. I'm saying even he who mugs (he who makes a conscious error) has the same subconscious reaction as you and I. That tells me something. [/ QUOTE ] I don't see what this has to do with his own mugging practices not being in his best interest. [ QUOTE ] I believe things are right only when you can logically deduce they are in your best interest. How can anyone (or at least, any non-theist) disagree with that? [/ QUOTE ] I don’t disagree with that being a legitimate way of looking at things. What I disagree with is that you can quantify “best interest”. Sweeping statements such as “behavior x is always in everyone’s best interest” or “behavior y is never in anyone’s best interest” never hold up. I accept that your “life and prosperity is good” it’s a legitimate bias/preference to have in a vague sense. I also accept that biases and preferences can have rational and logical foundations. But I don’t agree that they are universal. A preference such as “x is good” cannot be the basis for a system of morality (or best interest or whatever you want to call it) unless you can reduce everything that is good to x. Otherwise you will have situations where both “x is good” and “y is good” and the two conflict in a given situation. If you can reduce everything to x then I think x would become so vague as to be meaningless (not useful). [ QUOTE ] People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad." [/ QUOTE ] When I disagreed with this you said “Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes.” Isn’t that admitting I’m right and giving an excuse for it? If someone disagrees then they disagree (regardless of whether this is based on faulty thinking or not). Are you suggesting with your mugger example that everyone agrees even if they don’t know they agree? [ QUOTE ] How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value? [/ QUOTE ] Not sure what this means. [ QUOTE ] I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible. [/ QUOTE ] I strongly disagree, but since you say you’re done with the point I’ll leave it alone. [ QUOTE ] But you're maintaining an odd assumption about nature (that being that even if some action can be logically demonstrated to be to a species' best interest, that such species should not consider that action objectively good). [/ QUOTE ] No I’m not saying that, I’m saying that you cannot logically demonstrate something to be universally in everyone’s best interest. And also that what is in an individual’s best interest might be very different than what’s in the best interest of the species as a whole. [ QUOTE ] You should read Borodog's post above about time preference. Then think about what happens if you give 10 cheeseburgers to your dog, and whether or not he'll be a happy pup 2 hours later. Then think about whether you would consider our preference to delay immediate gratification, and our conscious decision to encourage such actions, as "objectively" good, or if it's just some subjective idea that others can rationally disagree with. [/ QUOTE ] Both current happiness and future happiness are important. Are you saying that immediate gratification can never trump future benefits? I’d say that is clearly false. Both are important and need to be weighed against each other based on the details of the situation at hand. If you’ve ever eaten anything unhealthy and don’t think that it was a “mistake” then you agree with me. Of course one can find extreme examples where one clearly outweighs the other. By the way I certainly agree that humans are capable of doing things that aren't in our best interest. I'm not saying every action anyone takes is the action that benefits him the most. The actions that are in someone's best interest are the actions that best get them the things that they value. Since everyone values different things and weighs the things they value differently there can be no universal system of best interest. BTW, link me to vhawk's study if you like. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
I don’t disagree with that being a legitimate way of looking at things. What I disagree with is that you can quantify “best interest”. [/ QUOTE ] That's because you refuse to look at human life and prosperity as objectively good. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] People DO universally agree that certain acts are "bad." [/ QUOTE ]When I disagreed with this you said “Because some humans act erroneously. The conscious screws things up sometimes.” Isn’t that admitting I’m right and giving an excuse for it? If someone disagrees then they disagree (regardless of whether this is based on faulty thinking or not). Are you suggesting with your mugger example that everyone agrees even if they don’t know they agree? [/ QUOTE ] I'm saying that if you reduce a man's thought process, you will eventually either get to the conclusion that theft is bad or you will get to a mistake. Think about it for a while. And stop thinking that every time maybe I word something unclearly or you misread me that it might means you might be "right" as if you've solved some riddle. This whole debate is pretty semantical, and aside from the fact that you're dead wrong, no one sentence here or there is gonna be the straw that broke the camel's back. I tried moving away from the paste every sentence and add 3 paragraphs strategy, and really do not think it will be constructive. I'd rather you took some time to just explain your ideas more broadly, instead of merely dwelling on my words sentence by sentence. I know where you're coming from in your assumptions that there is no universal goodness. And if I wasn't a human being, I might be able to agree with you. You should think about it more deeply. It really isn't a matter of semantical back and forths. It's really a paradox of sort. Ultimately it has become clear to me though that what's in the best interest of my condition is objective to me, and to you, even though it's biased by omniscient standards. Like it or not, we do share the same condition, and thus will share certain core values. Eating food (or in case you want to get real nitty, nourishment) is good. That's universally good. That's bad for no one. Deal with it. The idea that there's no fundamental good is really destructive, because it encourages bias. Consciousness is weird. It's a gift. Use it. When you don't use it rationally (and act with bias) nature speaks. And instead of remaining consciously aware, your condition will change to hardwire the correction (though I'm getting a bit fruity, and maybe muddying the point). Rational conscious analysis (as per Borodog's post) begs a condition with a lower time preference and which is more prosperous. [ QUOTE ] I accept that your “life and prosperity is good” it’s a legitimate bias/preference to have in a vague sense. I also accept that biases and preferences can have rational and logical foundations. But I don’t agree that they are universal. A preference such as “x is good” cannot be the basis for a system of morality (or best interest or whatever you want to call it) unless you can reduce everything that is good to x. [/ QUOTE ] You don't agree that everyone human values human life, happiness, and prosperity? And to whatever extent some don't, what do you think is the evolutionary consequence of that? [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How is it unclear that the actions which shaped our condition are actions our condition will value? [/ QUOTE ]Not sure what this means. [/ QUOTE ] Man steal spear. Other man not like. Other man tribe agree bad man. Tribe abandon man. Man suffer. Man no baby. The rest is history. It's not just whimsical magic that gives us that bad feeling when we do something wrong. [ QUOTE ] Both current happiness and future happiness are important. Are you saying that immediate gratification can never trump future benefits? I’d say that is clearly false. Both are important and need to be weighed against each other based on the details of the situation at hand. If you’ve ever eaten anything unhealthy and don’t think that it was a “mistake” then you agree with me. Of course one can find extreme examples where one clearly outweighs the other. By the way I certainly agree that humans are capable of doing things that aren't in our best interest. I'm not saying every action anyone takes is the action that benefits him the most. The actions that are in someone's best interest are the actions that best get them the things that they value. Since everyone values different things and weighs the things they value differently there can be no universal system of best interest. [/ QUOTE ] You don't get it. Sorry, I just don't know how else to respond to this right now. I'm a bit occupied, ATM. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
Also, you insist that nothing can be universal.. for no reason other than that you claim nothing can be universal!
So I mean, ya, if you want to base the discussion on nothing, then the conclusion is indeed nothing. But I am arguing from the position that natural human bias is accepted as objective (and there's no way whatsoever to prove or disprove that), and am confused what the point of any discussion could be when such is not the accepted terms. |
Re: David Sklansky is an ACist
[ QUOTE ]
I tried moving away from the paste every sentence and add 3 paragraphs strategy, and really do not think it will be constructive. I'd rather you took some time to just explain your ideas more broadly, instead of merely dwelling on my words sentence by sentence. [/ QUOTE ] Okay. Let’s step back and look at the big picture of the debate so far. I’m sorry if this post is an especially long one. Your claim is that murder, rape, theft and violation of contract are “objectively bad”. Since the burden of prove weighs more heavily on the positive than the negative, I have been counterpunching and will continue. Let’s look at your arguments in support of this claim. Argument 1: (This is the most recent point of contention between us, but I’m calling it “argument 1”, because other of your arguments could be seen as being in support of this as an overall argument.) You claim that everyone would conclude that these things were bad if they considered it logically. This is obviously a very tough point to sell and I don’t think you can do it. I certainly believe I’ve considered it logically and I don’t come to such a conclusion. You’ve even said yourself that I’m not being illogical. To try to convince me that these are the only logical conclusion you’ve brought up several examples (and I’ve brought up a couple). 1a: I asked why it wasn’t in the US’s best interest to break their contracts with the native Americans. You said something like “I know it’s bad, but to know why it’s bad I’d have to know the details of the situation.” How on earth can you know it’s bad without knowing why it’s bad? You have to have an underlying reason. That’s like saying “All Tarantino films are bad.” “Why is Reservoir Dogs bad?” “To know the reason it’s bad I’ll have to watch it first.” 1b: You challenged me to come up with an example of a human society “rightly concluding that murder is good”. I believe I did so and don’t feel that I’ve been refuted in any way. This exchange ended with you saying: [ QUOTE ] So let me ask you, if this group of human beings who irrationally valued killing people because of their skin color (even when it comes at the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity) did indeed exist, what exactly do you think of this society? Is this good, or are they making some sort of mistake? Do you consider this a good place to live? [/ QUOTE ] and me responding: [ QUOTE ] I challenge the notion that it comes at “the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity”. I’ve already said that they may reserve more power and resources for themselves this way. But my subjective opinion is that the society blows. I’m an empathetic person who dislikes racism and murder. I wouldn’t want to live there personally, but I’ve encountered a fair number of racist a-holes who may well say they’d love to live there. I can’t objectively call it good or bad, nor can I objectively point to any mistake. What is the mistake? [/ QUOTE ] 1c: You said [ QUOTE ] People slit their wrists too. Do you think that is ever +EV? [/ QUOTE ] I responded [ QUOTE ] If they want to die or want attention/help, it can be. Mainly if they want attention, because it's not a very effective suicide method unless you cut really deep. [/ QUOTE ] Where were you going with this? 1d: You claimed that mugging could never be in someone’s best interest, but from what I can remember you made no compelling argument as to why other than that a mugger would feel bad if stolen from and that that “tells you something”. 1e: You say [ QUOTE ] Eating food (or in case you want to get real nitty, nourishment) is good. [/ QUOTE ] It’s good if you value being alive and healthy. You still could not build a system of universal “EV” based on a preference like “food is good”, because there will be times when other things that are “good” outweigh the “food is good” preference. Gandhi for example, for significant chunks of time, found it more valuable to make a political statement than to nourish himself. No matter what values we may have, besides something completely nonspecific and overarching like “Satisfaction is good,” there will always be conflicting values. No one value can ever be absolute. And hell it’s even conceivable that someone might not value being alive or healthy, unusual as that may be. 1f: [ QUOTE ] I really think you'll be hard pressed to find an example where someone initiates force and is more likely to be better off. You just won't find it. It's impossible. [/ QUOTE ] I’ve already come up with examples and you haven’t refuted me in my eyes. Stating “it’s impossible” does nothing to help your viewpoint, it just makes you look un-open to critical thinking. Argument 2: You claim “Life and prosperity are objectively good.” And therefore things that promote life and prosperity are also good, while things that harm them are bad. You say this should be a given. This is a weird paragraph by you: [ QUOTE ] So I mean, ya, if you want to base the discussion on nothing, then the conclusion is indeed nothing. But I am arguing from the position that natural human bias is accepted as objective (and there's no way whatsoever to prove or disprove that), and am confused what the point of any discussion could be when such is not the accepted terms. [/ QUOTE ] Why why whyy would you have ever thought those were the accepted terms? I made it clear from the beginning that my position is that there is no objective good, bad, right or wrong. Anyway, even given that premise I would disagree with you based on this argument I made earlier: [ QUOTE ] A preference such as “x is good” cannot be the basis for a system of morality (or best interest or whatever you want to call it) unless you can reduce everything that is good to x. Otherwise you will have situations where both “x is good” and “y is good” and the two conflict in a given situation. If you can reduce everything to x then I think x would become so vague as to be meaningless (not useful). [/ QUOTE ] You ask if I agree that life, happiness and prosperity are valued by everyone. I’ll grant you happiness. I prefer the term satisfaction personally, but I wont be picky. "Life" is a vague term. Do you mean do they value their own life? Most do, but people who commit or attempt to commit suicide clearly don’t. In a broader sense people who support abortion or capital punishment clearly don’t value life in all instances. As for "prosperity", well yes people generally prefer to have money than not to have it, but some people give it a very low value in comparison to things they value more. You can never dictate a “right” course of action for someone based on the fact that they value prosperity, because you can’t know how their value for prosperity will measure against their values for other things. [ QUOTE ] to whatever extent some don't, what do you think is the evolutionary consequence of that? [/ QUOTE ] I’m not well versed in evolution, but nuns and homosexuals are still around and I see no reason why they wont continue to exist in the future. One more response to this (and I’m sorry you don’t like me responding to specific sentences, but when you’re arguing for or against an absolute, being exacting is important): [ QUOTE ] But I am arguing from the position that natural human bias is accepted as objective (and there's no way whatsoever to prove or disprove that) [/ QUOTE ] So If there’s no way to prove it then why do you claim that <u>everyone</u> would agree with you if they didn’t engage in faulty thinking? Do we need to just have faith? Should we accept Jesus Christ as our lord and savior too while we’re at it? Argument 3: You said [ QUOTE ] Also, you insist that nothing can be universal.. for no reason other than that you claim nothing can be universal! [/ QUOTE ] I never said that “nothing can be universal”. I said “nothing can be universally good or bad”. I’d actually be willing to grant you “personal happiness” or “personal satisfaction” as universally good among humans, since everything we value pretty much boils down to this. Like “I find giving money to charity satisfying” or “I find raping children satisfying” etcetera. By universally good in this sense I don’t mean that what’s good for one individual will be good for the group as a whole, I just mean that there’s a measure of “goodness” you could apply to every individual (human or not). I view this more as a definition of what “goodness” is than part of a listing such as “a is good, b is not good…” I also never applied this reasoning that you’re putting into my mouth, that I’m basing my claim on nothing other than my claim itself. I’m basing it on the fact that it’s not refutable. I can’t prove a negative to you, the burden of proof is on you. I think that pretty much sums up the main points. If you think I’ve missed anything important, feel free to point it out. Oh and in response to your PM, I’m sure your intentions are good, but do you not see how ridiculously condescending and presumptuous that is? Deal with my logic, please, not your crude perceptions of my psychology. You really are coming off like a religious missionary and your debate also seems to be degenerating into pointless statements like “really think about it”, “you don’t get it”, “it’s impossible” or “deal with it”. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.