Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments • Hacker News Board

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#191

Post by Retra » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 12:37 PM UTC

lazaroclapp wrote: post #173

Retra wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make decisions based on information you don't have. An unknown ideal is not "higher" -- it's unknown -- as in, you don't actually know that it's "higher," and you couldn't do anything about it even if it were. You certainly can't believe in the unknown. "Pursuit of the unknown" is not itself an unknown ideal. You should look for new information. That's not a mystery, that's an ideal you can have right now.…

> You can't make decisions based on information you don't have. You can't. But you can make decisions based on the information that your information is incomplete. A sort of 'bias towards inaction' in those cases in which the action would be irreversible. Consider the death penalty. You may think that's morally right to apply the death penalty to, say, mass murderers. You may also, without contradiction, decide that…

Inaction is just another kind of action, and an ideal that demands it it just as much an ideal as any other. You can't say "the best moral decision is to wait for more information" and "there is no best moral decision" at the same time. That's nonsense.

You can be aware that you don't know the best course of action, but if you can't take the best course of action, that matters very little.

I get what you're trying to say, but I don't approve of the mechanism you are using to say it. You are essentially asking me to agree with you as a matter of social ritual; we should all go bow our heads and whip ourselves every time we think we know something! Here's the thing, though: you can't preach humility without being a hypocrite. You've taken "don't stick to a moral stance!" as a moral stance and you're sticking right to it.

I get that there is no roadmap to perfection. You can't sort the points on a plane. But we live our lives sequentially, and you will order those points, because you cannot do anything unless you do. So you get busy trying to find an order that will maximize your goals, and you make sure that "you" is broad enough to include everybody else as well. You don't sit around beating on yourself because you can't handle the fact that the plane has no intrinsic total order.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#192

Post by Grue3 » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 12:44 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #106

pekk wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough, I am skeptical that the correct diagnosis for violence is "sin" when people who identify as Christian do not seem especially less likely to commit violence than people who identify as adhering to some other worldview with moral entailments. Frankly, if you want everyone else to believe that Christians are less violent than people of other religions, you have t…

> Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as "not being Christian enough" is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. If people self-identify as Christian, how do we identify the liars and the self-deluded? 2. If we can't trust people to identify themselves properly, how do we identify each other as Chri…

This entire post is an amazing textbook example of "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#193

Post by option_greek » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 12:48 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #189

rustynails wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

Both womens rights and LGBT right sit at a strange point in history. The bad behaviour has largely become socially unacceptable, but a lot of the people who committed crimes are still extant in society. We have collectively decided to forgive and forget without any kind of process. Why should we expect the anger to just disapear?

I understand that crimes have been committed against the LGBT community (including prosecution of Turing). But crimes based on women's right ? Do we base them on the same scale ?

(genuinely curious)

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#194

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:06 PM UTC

rustynails wrote: post #177

TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Toxoplasma Of Rage", an excellent essay[0] by Scott Alexander, points out that sadly there are only two choices for activists today - behave nicely, gather universal agreement to their cause and then get completely ignored, or draw attention to their cause by being so hated by everyone, that half of the audience starts working against the cause just in spite. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxopl…

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

You're actually sort-of proving the point of the essay. Just like Scott contrasts well-known and hated PETA to decent but almost completely invisible Vegan Outreach, you're contrasting toxic Social Justice Warriors to friendly neighborhood LGBT people who just want to feel safe and accepted by society as equals. The second group is not the one known from the media, or the one directing the public discourse.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#195

Post by werber » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:10 PM UTC

rustynails wrote: post #177

TeMPOraL wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Toxoplasma Of Rage", an excellent essay[0] by Scott Alexander, points out that sadly there are only two choices for activists today - behave nicely, gather universal agreement to their cause and then get completely ignored, or draw attention to their cause by being so hated by everyone, that half of the audience starts working against the cause just in spite. [0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxopl…

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

Reducing feminism to extremists who co-opt the term feminism is the same as holding up "Islamist" terror groups as a representation of all Muslims. Initiatives to bring up a group that has is underrepresented have to be explicit about welcoming people outside the current reigning majority, that's not discrimination, it's an attempt for equality.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#196

Post by fennecfoxen » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:21 PM UTC

throwaway7767 wrote: post #190

rustynails wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you're saying but it isn't true. Let's look at 2 examples, the LGBT community and Feminism. LGBT celebrates its differences. It welcomes everyone. It is open minded and tolerant. Feminism bullies, ridicules, excludes, creates us/them divides and is continually hypocritical. You could not have 2 more different different approaches. You don't need to be a bully. You don't need to threaten or ridicule or div…

Now you're elevating a vocal subset of "feminists" to represent the entire group. There are plenty of old-school feminists, from when feminism was about equal rights. They just don't create as much internet drama as the other kind, so you hear about them less.

Ironic, too, because the worst part of $hypothetical_feminist_subgroup is that if you disagree with the policy prescription de jure (say, spending $3 trillion annually on pre-K education) then they will hit you back with an accusation that you are a terrible misogynist who doesn't acknowledge the fundamental dignity of women as human beings. Don't aid and abet this rhetorical crime.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#197

Post by 7952 » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:24 PM UTC

option_greek wrote: post #193

7952 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both womens rights and LGBT right sit at a strange point in history. The bad behaviour has largely become socially unacceptable, but a lot of the people who committed crimes are still extant in society. We have collectively decided to forgive and forget without any kind of process. Why should we expect the anger to just disapear?

I understand that crimes have been committed against the LGBT community (including prosecution of Turing). But crimes based on women's right ? Do we base them on the same scale ? (genuinely curious)

>Do we base them on the same scale ?

I am not sure why we need to assign a badness rating to this kind of thing. And people should not need to equivocate based on some sliding scale of injustice. Anger does have a role to play in changing society. It just gets tricky when people base their whole world view and identify on a single issue. Feminist views are interesting and elucidating but need to be read with a critical eye. Of course a lot of the victims will have no choice in how profound these issues are to them so it is best to be forgiving.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#198

Post by allengeorge » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:28 PM UTC

gutnor wrote: post #7

Xcelerate wrote: post #2

I believe the author's hypothesis is probably correct. It seems the only way to avoid the "well my case is different; violence is justified in this situation because..."-bias is to instill or promote a common moral that "violence is not okay – ever". It's the only way you can be sure that you're not falling into the same biases that our "enemies" have fallen into. The more I learn about cognitive biases, the more I t…

> promote a common moral that "violence is not okay – ever" I guess that's generally was is tried in the Western world. Especially (marginally more) in Europe, where even being in the army is not as regarded as in the US, and there is nowhere the same support for the troops even when deployed. But then all of that is drown in a sea of entertainment, the majority of which not only promote virtuous violent reaction, bu…

It's easy to believe that violence is not the answer if you can outsource the application of it (to police, other governments, etc.)

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#199

Post by imron » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #124

dmfdmf wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.

So, do you have an objective source of morality for us to refer to?

'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', does a pretty good job of covering things.

Re: Most violence in the world is motivated by moral sentiments

#200

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Dec 10, 2015, 1:39 PM UTC

Grue3 wrote: post #192

humanrebar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where "sin" means essentially not being Christian enough... "sin" in Christian theology is disobedience (and therefore rebellion) against God. Defining it as "not being Christian enough" is problematic for at least two reasons: 1. If people self-identify as Christian, how do we identify the liars and the self-deluded? 2. If we can't trust people to identify themselves properly, how do we identify each other as Chri…

This entire post is an amazing textbook example of "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

I actually realize things appear that way. I started discussing it but thought it would be a tangent and deleted it.

First, just because there is a fallacy doesn't mean the conclusion is false. It just means that the middle part is not a strong logical argument.

Second, the final judge for who receives eternal life is Christ. There is no circular reasoning as far as that goes, assuming you believe the Bible is true. To have a "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you need to have moving goalposts. The goalposts on this are very clear but not very useful for several purposes.

Third, some of those purposes are legitimate from a Christian, or even non-Christian, perspective. People do lie, including to themselves (cognitive dissonance, even). How do you know if your pastor or fiance believes in Christ? The Bible gives us some heuristics for determining how spiritually mature a person is. One of those is the presence and absence of certain character traits and behaviors. Humility, peace, truth, love, selflessness, and absence of sin are all part of that heuristic. And that heuristic, again, has been fixed for two thousand years. No moving goalposts, so no "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Anyway, maybe all that is not convincing to you and you still think it all adds up to a No True Scotsman fallacy. If so, maybe we should leave it at that. The labeling of the strength of argument is not very interesting to me.

I do find, however, that for the intents and purposes I've experienced, looking for evidence of a Christ-like character, or at least growth towards one, has proved to be useful as long as I understand that I'm working with partial information since I'm not omniscient. But I don't really need a full set of information to know Pol Pot didn't really follow the teachings of Christ.