Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

outlookzen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#111

Post by aidenn0 »

calibas wrote: post #110
aidenn0 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases. Actually I completely agree with this. The fact that I have biases and you have biases will cause us to both be wrong. It doesn'…

>That's a moral absolutist position. It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism.

>> That's a moral absolutist position.

> It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow.

> I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism.

So is "moral absolutism is bad" the only universal moral truth?

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#112

Post by calibas »

aidenn0 wrote: post #111
calibas wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's a moral absolutist position. It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism.

>> That's a moral absolutist position. > It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. > I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism. So is "moral absolutism is bad" the only universal moral truth?

Yes, you clever person, you caught me! I'm just a hypocrite who believes moral absolutism is objectively evil, in complete opposition to what I've been saying so far!

Or maybe I believe it's dangerous because of what I've seen and experienced, but I don't believe it's objectively bad because that would be extremely silly. No, it's not bad and you're not bad, I just don't agree, I just don't see things the same way.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#113

Post by aidenn0 »

calibas wrote: post #112
aidenn0 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> That's a moral absolutist position. > It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow. > I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism. So is "moral absolutism is bad" the only universal moral truth?

Yes, you clever person, you caught me! I'm just a hypocrite who believes moral absolutism is objectively evil, in complete opposition to what I've been saying so far! Or maybe I believe it's dangerous because of what I've seen and experienced, but I don't believe it's objectively bad because that would be extremely silly. No, it's not bad and you're not bad, I just don't agree, I just don't see things the same way.

Perhaps we are just using different terminologies, but I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad.

Like "I believe it's dangerous to launch nuclear warheads at people, but it's not objectively bad and I can't say you're a bad person for doing it?"

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#114

Post by spacekitcat »

futurehero wrote: post #95
spacekitcat wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listen, I know what I’ve experienced. Edit: No actually, I can't understand what this is? You are trying to convince me my experiences are wrong. You don't seem to actually want to understand my point of view, so what is this? Why are you wasting both of our time like this?

This is why you've been pushed towards front end work and denied the credit for tasks that might put you on a path to power. Those above you can sense what you'd do with it. You'd say: "My experience has been this, and none of you can argue with that, so here is what we're going to do to make up for the injustices I experienced. Deal with it". The equality of outcome you so desire would be you and everyone underneath…

Big brain comment here.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#115

Post by calibas »

aidenn0 wrote: post #113
calibas wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you clever person, you caught me! I'm just a hypocrite who believes moral absolutism is objectively evil, in complete opposition to what I've been saying so far! Or maybe I believe it's dangerous because of what I've seen and experienced, but I don't believe it's objectively bad because that would be extremely silly. No, it's not bad and you're not bad, I just don't agree, I just don't see things the same way.

Perhaps we are just using different terminologies, but I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Like "I believe it's dangerous to launch nuclear warheads at people, but it's not objectively bad and I can't say you're a bad person for doing it?"

>I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad.

Driving a car is inherently dangerous, yet I certainly wouldn't call it objectively bad. There's aspects of driving that are "good" and aspects that are "bad" but it's really a mix.

Concrete philosophical definitions of "good" and "bad" don't really apply to real life. Even the "number one" moral law, don't kill other people, quickly breaks down and society has added a very long list of conditions.

Understanding that my morals are relative doesn't mean I have no concept of "good" and "bad". It means I have my own concepts while understanding that yours may be different.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#116

Post by aidenn0 »

calibas wrote: post #115
aidenn0 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we are just using different terminologies, but I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Like "I believe it's dangerous to launch nuclear warheads at people, but it's not objectively bad and I can't say you're a bad person for doing it?"

>I don't see how something can be dangerous and yet not objectively bad. Driving a car is inherently dangerous, yet I certainly wouldn't call it objectively bad. There's aspects of driving that are "good" and aspects that are "bad" but it's really a mix. Concrete philosophical definitions of "good" and "bad" don't really apply to real life. Even the "number one" moral law, don't kill other people, quickly breaks down…

> Understanding that my morals are relative doesn't mean I have no concept of "good" and "bad". It means I have my own concepts while understanding that yours may be different.

Similarly my belief that "good" and "bad" are absolute rather than relative doesn't mean that I think I can flawlessly categorize actions correctly, and where reasonable people disagree with me, it's a signal I should reflect on my reasons for why I differ and if I'm wrong.

I think we share a similar distaste (for lack of a better word) for anyone who thinks they are 100% right.

Unless you disagree, I think we've mined all we can from the medium of HN comments. Thanks for the discussion, I've not ever had the chance to discuss these points with someone who ascribes to any firm form of moral relativism before.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#117

Post by px43 »

umvi wrote: post #91
px43 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the single mom working 2 jobs and didn't graduate high school herself This isn't a quick fix strategy, it's a long term fix strategy that takes generations. The "access to education" is exactly for the benefit of people like the mother. Also the UBI means that she no longer has to work two jobs to pay for basic services for her kids. UBI is the ultimate safety net that catches almost everyone who the current system…

Maybe, but I'm not convinced. People don't just magically bootstrap themselves into incremental self-improvement just because their immediate needs are being met. My next door neighbors here in Maryland are impoverished african americans receiving SNAP and HOC from the state (basically free rent and food), and the kids are consistently truant and on track to drop out of middle school. There needs to be an element of…

Part of "access to decent education" is a school with well paid, highly motivated, and properly resourced teachers that can develop those relationships with kids who need extra help.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#118

Post by px43 »

alexpc201 wrote: post #85
px43 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure most of those people were born into homes with plenty of access to good food and education. Elon had a nice computer from an early age in the early 80s, and went to a fancy prep school. Gates had parents who were successful lawyers, and who got him into Harvard. Bezos went to Princeon. Woz's dad was a well paid enigeer at Lockheed and went to UC Berkeley. Lots of mobility for sure, but it really does…

Wow.. they built an empire from their own garages and you say “yeah, but they had a nice computer in the 80’s”. I sense the resentment.

No resentment towards Musk etc. They all did some awesome work, and many of them continue to do so.

My resentment is towards hacker news commenters who think someone is "poor" because their parents didn't buy them enough Nintendo games when they were a kid. Even in the US something like 1 in 9 households struggle to feed their children, and globally the numbers are much worse.

Calling the upper middle-class families that these billionaires came from "poor" just trivializes the very real problems with economic mobility in the US today.

Post reply on HN