I think these appeals to humanism often fail to see the rational realities that underlie the moral questions. Morals and culture are just a simplification of principles which make a society competitive. The scope of possibilities is massive even within our own observation: totalitarianism, constitutionalism, fundamentalism, nationalism, anarchy. Competition among and enforcement within these societies has been, by far, the greatest modern historical risk for premature death. This article seems to be proposing a society where everybody is guaranteed a good life. Sounds great, but the bigger question is whether such a society is competitive against ones where individuals are driven to contribute through fear of failure. My guess is that, yes, it could be, but only under conditions where pro-social motivations are greater than the fear motive they replace. We know that this exists in our natural tribal state, but small homogeneous tribes were not competitive against massive hierarchical use of force. The brilliance of capitalism is that it provides an indirect fear/greed motive that requires little organization, mostly enforcement of property rights and taxation. It was writing, e.g. the domesday book, that enabled this, and the result gradually proved superior to feudal slavery. We have great technology today, maybe even a crisis of overproduction, or misallocation to negative social goods. Unfortunately, redistributive welfare has a definite social cost, and, ignoring the personal benefits, a terrible track record for motivating pro-social contribution, in some societies. In others it seems to do better. The moral heuristic that people should be taken care of at others’ expense, is only rationally valid within certain social organizations and cultural norms. An objection to this may be that the moral reasoning is superior by nature, and I believe this is massively flawed, simply because the cost of non-competitive morality, is death by social competition, which cannot be avoided. I do believe, maybe blindly, that there are conditions in which universal guarantees of a ‘good life’ increase a society’s competitiveness, but I do not certainly know what those conditions are, so without that, this moral pleading seems hopeful at best.
What Is a Minimally Good Life?
51–60 of 162 posts
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#52What is needed minimally? - a loved and loving partner, a sane and fulfilling sexuality - enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future - absence of other justifiable existential worries and anxiety about the future such as cataclysms, threats, oppressive social, political and work environments, political instability, etc. - a decent amount of recognition in work or private life (one of them suff…
Is this sarcasm?
Because this seems like a list of "pick some, but not all"... I'd say that 99.99 percent of humanity has not hit all of these goals ever in the history of humanity. If this is the minimally required list, then depression is way, way underdistributed.
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#53I know that personally I really don't need much for my own happiness - the basics of survival, a very modest house, and being away from people and in nature would do it for me. The problem comes when these simple things are denied to me, and I am put in a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses. Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-endi…
The controversal part is the first paragraph, you are nursing a victim mentality here. What stops you going to Alaska and get your cabin in the woods.
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#54I know that personally I really don't need much for my own happiness - the basics of survival, a very modest house, and being away from people and in nature would do it for me. The problem comes when these simple things are denied to me, and I am put in a society in which one is treated badly when one doesn't strive to keep up with the Joneses. Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-endi…
> Controversial opinion: the people with the power to change the never-ending hamster wheel situation are primarly women, in that it is women's selection of mates and desire for consumer goods etc. that drive male competition. If women chose something different, perhaps humanity wouldn't be so rapacious of the earth. I think you are correct that the main driving force here is sex. Sex drives far more of the world tha…
Women care about money and education but it's not as if they're all the same. Some care a lot about humour, confidence, hell even artistic abilities. Yes some broke musician can appear very sexy to some women even if he isn't a great provider.
Some even care a lot about looks just like men. Women vary quite a lot by who they consider mating potential.
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#55Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#56What is needed minimally? - a loved and loving partner, a sane and fulfilling sexuality - enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future - absence of other justifiable existential worries and anxiety about the future such as cataclysms, threats, oppressive social, political and work environments, political instability, etc. - a decent amount of recognition in work or private life (one of them suff…
Is this sarcasm? Because this seems like a list of "pick some, but not all"... I'd say that 99.99 percent of humanity has not hit all of these goals ever in the history of humanity. If this is the minimally required list, then depression is way, way underdistributed.
Should have added that if a person is sufficiently in denial about negative externalities and risks, black swan events, etc it would be possible to achieve the feeling of accomplished that list, even without having in fact accomplished it... Just as good?
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#57[deleted]
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you got that idea from, but your impression of the entire female gender is flawed, stereotypical, and yes, wrong. I'm male. My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. Most people I know similarly refute your opinion by their goals, personalities, and life status.
> My competitive streak and desire for material goods is in direct conflict with my wife's desires. I find it hard to believe that your wife would prefer you to be a materially/economically poor individual who doesn't strive vs your peers. To each her own, of course. (I take no position on the GP's controversial theory. Just calling out that the implications of the parent's comment strike me as unintuitive.)
Note I said material goods, not material wealth. She values stability and safety, not the acquisition of stuff.
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#59What is needed minimally? - a loved and loving partner, a sane and fulfilling sexuality - enough income to not have any substantial worries about the future - absence of other justifiable existential worries and anxiety about the future such as cataclysms, threats, oppressive social, political and work environments, political instability, etc. - a decent amount of recognition in work or private life (one of them suff…
And here I am, a single-by-choice hermit, with enough money to get by from a below-average-salary-for-my-position job, and no real achievements to be recognized for (which doesn't bother me, since I don't care what others think of me), and no real worries until I have something to worry about and deal with it then. And yet I feel perfectly content with my life in general, and happy 99% of the time.
Re: What Is a Minimally Good Life?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds suspiciously like incel ideology. Whatever cognitive path you're on that's led you to conclude this, I advise you to swiftly veer away from it. Blaming all the women isn't going to help with anything. People will just think, oh there's that weird sexist guy ranting on again. That's not going to get you anywhere useful.
If his point is so easy to refute logically, you would have done so. Your entire comment is an ad hominem.
Well exactly, he didn't have a logical point to make. Just an unfounded assumption that women are ruining things for everyone.