21–30 of 68 posts
Rather than expecting people to standardise beliefs, perhaps it would be easier to identify a set of practices that make it easier for people with different "moralities" to coexist? https://xkcd.com/927/
For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality.
BTW, I upvoted your comment.
> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use? The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > It’s true that Greene is…
The reduction of suffering is also not a universal aspiration; many thinkers believe that meaningful suffering is desirable and necessary to form an identity and find meaning in the universe.
“Only the English [philosophers] want to be happy.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Personally I remain unconvinced that this drive to make everyone everywhere look, act, and think the same way is desirable or conducive to actual diversity. It mostly just makes the world less interesting; McDonalds and the western business suit replacing centuries of local cuisines and clothing. Solutions should instead focus on how to manage various ethical and cultural values under the banner of a secularized political state. Otherwise you’ll get secession and fracturing into smaller states, which are highly undesirable from a geopolitical perspective (see: Germany and Italy prior to their unifications in the 1800s.)
[flagged]
Libertarianism seems to follow pretty directly from individualism, which most people reject. (I actually support it.) Individualism is directly comparable to utilitarianism. The rational people in our society should be debating individualism vs. collectivism vs. utilitarianism (possibly vs. others). That is in lieu of discussing the higher-level political instantiations of these things (e.g. libertarianism vs. social…
I am not so sure about this...
Rather than expecting people to standardise beliefs, perhaps it would be easier to identify a set of practices that make it easier for people with different "moralities" to coexist? https://xkcd.com/927/
Most moralities are not mutually compatible. For instance, if my morality is individualism, and your morality is collectivism, we can't coexist without one side being forced by the other to compromise their morality. BTW, I upvoted your comment.
True, it's cutting off hydra heads to replace one big problem (should we all be individualist or all be collectivist?) with many many small ones (is this particular problem better addressed with individualistic solutions or collectivistic solutions?) but I'd say expecting that one big problem to be solved would be inhuman.
[1] this hypothetical is not very. As far as I can see, none of Eastasia, Eurasia, nor even Oceania, hold to a pure individualism or pure collectivism. (Even north korea, while still apparently very collectivist, looks more individualist in fashion and cuisine than in prior years.)
> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use? The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > It’s true that Greene is…
The idea that a universal moral system is preferable to a hierarchical or individually diversified one is itself a moral opinion which draws significantly from the Christian universalist conception of human value. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it certainly doesn’t make it culturally universal. The reduction of suffering is also not a universal aspiration; many thinkers believe that meaningful suffering is…
Nazis abused his writings but he wouldn't have like them of course. His dislike for christian morals is understandable because he saw them as a form of subjugation and contrary to emancipation. I think this grew to an unfortunate amount of hatred later on. He is partially correct as are the morals of Christianity in my opinion.
> One question you confront if you’re arguing for a single planetary moral philosophy: Which moral philosophy should we use? The Golden Rule is practically universal. I'm surprised it doesn't get a mention. I'm partial to Hillel's version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others—this is the whole of Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule > It’s true that Greene is…
The Golden Rule is too simple to be universal. We'd hate to be treated ourselves as we treat our kids, what helps someone could handicap others. We all have different modes of behaviour, included how we treat pain, harshness and transparency. Empathy would be a facet among many others for any moral system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that a universal moral system is preferable to a hierarchical or individually diversified one is itself a moral opinion which draws significantly from the Christian universalist conception of human value. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it certainly doesn’t make it culturally universal. The reduction of suffering is also not a universal aspiration; many thinkers believe that meaningful suffering is…
I think Nietzsche was a great man and not nearly as judgmental as he conducted himself. But I also believe the classical explanation that he had a problem with his mother and that is the reason why he had such strong expectations towards himself and others. Nazis abused his writings but he wouldn't have like them of course. His dislike for christian morals is understandable because he saw them as a form of subjugatio…
But sure, I don’t agree with him on everything, and while I think his diagnosis of Christianity is in many ways correct, it also is flawed in others. Of course we have to differentiate between what Nietzsche actually wrote and what the popular culture notion of his ideas is.
Otherwise, I don’t think I’d agree that his high expectations come from a Freudian read of his childhood. For the most part they are pre-Socratic Ancient Greek cultural values, especially agon, which was a sort of competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost. China believes US is the bully, but I've never heard of anybody believing the US unfairly gained.
Can you recommend any sources (selfishly I'll say preferably in a european language) for relatively mainstream chinese viewpoints? One might hope HN would provide a non-siloed venue including (one would guess, self-selecting for relatively pro-western) chinese geeks, but as far as I've seen, those who openly identify as such are discouraged.
From an American perspective, the stuff said there is absolutely bizarre and contradictory to virtually every talking point you'll hear from everybody else, but it aligns very closely with what people I know who live in China/still have strong ties to China say. Expect lots of cherry picked data and extreme reaching just to prove a point. Though to be frank, that's politics everywhere.
If you're frequently caught up in American/European politics, a few minutes of reading discussions there might frustrate you, but it'll also make you think because the viewpoints are so contrary to what most Westerners regard as the norm.