You have to compare it to the alternatives. Do you think it’s more or less silly than the idea that there a God in the sky judging what’s right or wrong?
Marx basically had the idea that you don’t need God for an absolute moral system when you can pin it all on history with supposedly moves in a certain direction. You observe how history moves. Then you extrapolate. You look at the limit of that function and that limit is the perfect morality. It’s what someone who got a rough idea of calculus does, but who doesn’t fully understand the assumptions that go into the process.
In the US where Marx didn’t have much influence as in Europe there are still a bunch of people who believe in young earth creationism. On a scale of silliness that’s much worse.
Today the postmodernists rule liberal thought but there are still relicts of marxist ideas. Part of what being modern was about is having an absolute moral system. Whether or not those people are silly is also open for debate.
Sure. Let’s compare it to the alternative the morality is partially biologically hardwired and partially culturally determined. By comparison the idea that “history decides what’s morally right” is silly.
Marx basically had the idea that you don’t need God for an absolute moral system when you can pin it all on history
Yep, he had this idea. That doesn’t make it a right idea. Marx had lots of ideas which didn’t turn out well.
You observe how history moves. Then you extrapolate. You look at the limit of that function and that limit is the perfect morality.
Oh, so—keeping in mind we’re on LW—the universe tiled with paperclips might turn out to be the perfect morality? X-D
And remind me, how well does extrapolation of history work?
In the US where Marx didn’t have much influence as in Europe there are still a bunch of people who believe in young earth creationism.
Do you, by any chance, believe there is a causal connection between these two observations that you jammed into a single sentence?
Yep, he had this idea. That doesn’t make it a right idea.
We didn’t talk about right or wrong but silly.
Let’s compare it to the alternative the morality is partially biologically hardwired and partially culturally determined.
Let’s do what partially biologically hardwired and partially culturally determined is not exactly the battle cry under which you can unite people and get them to adopt a new moral framework. It also has the problem of not telling people who want to know what they should do what they should do.
Do you, by any chance, believe there is a causal connection between these two observations that you jammed into a single sentence?
Yes, I do think that Marxism and Socialism has a lot to do with spreading atheism in Europe. Socialist governments did make a greater effort to push back religion and make people atheists than democratic governments did.
If I hear Dawkins talk how it’s important that atheists self identify as being atheists to show the rest of America that one can be an atheist and still a morally good person, than that does indicate to me a problem of American culture that’s largely solved in Europe. Socialist activism has a lot to do with why that’s the case.
Thanks. The fact that I made that error is pretty interesting to me. Someone else used the Dawkings spelling a few days ago on LW. I felt that it was wrong and looked up the correct spelling to try to be sure.
Somehow my brain still updated in the background from Dawkins to Dawkings.
Oh yes, they certainly did. I take it, you approve of these efforts?
That question indicates being mindkilled.
I happen to be able to discuss issues like that without treating arguments as soldiers.
Discussing cause and effects is hard enough as it is without involving notions of approval or disapproval.
The implication that somehow socialism isn’t responsible for spreading atheism in Europe because socialist used some immoral technique is a conflation of moral beliefs with beliefs about reality.
It seems to me that you two are talking past each other. Here’s what I hear:
ChristianKI: “Socialist movements and governments did successfully promote atheism and materialism in the populations of Europe. This is why Europeans do not tend to believe, as Americans do, that atheists are incapable of being moral.” (This is a descriptive claim about history and public opinion.)
Lumifer: “We should not advocate socialism as a way of promoting atheism and materialism, because socialism is awful and Marxist ideas of historical progress are silly.” (This is a normative claim about advocacy.)
The implication that somehow socialism isn’t responsible for spreading atheism in Europe because socialist used some immoral technique is a conflation of moral beliefs with beliefs about reality.
I haven’t said anything about morals. In particular, I haven’t labeled any actions as immoral. I just inquired whether you approved of the efforts that the socialist governments have made in reality in the XX century to spread atheism.
Moreover, we are already past the question of whether the socialist governments made “a greater effort to push back religion and make people atheists”—we know they did—the issue now is the cost-benefit analysis of these efforts. You clearly like the outcome, so do you think the price was worth it? This is what I mean by the question about whether you approve.
I’m heavily opposed to what currently happens in France when it comes to fighting religion.
But I guess both claims won’t tell the average person here where much because the political background of European politics isn’t that clear in English speaking forum.
The question wasn’t which political system you approve.
The question was whether you think the outcome of more atheists in Europe was worth the cost incurred during the efforts of the socialist governments to suppress religion and promote atheism.
I’m living in a country in which the people who want socialism who had the most political power favor democratic socialism over communism.
In Germany you had a split in the left. One half thought that you need a revolution to achieve the goal of socialism and the other half thought that you can work within the democratic institutions to achieve the goal of socialism.
I haven’t meet any young earth creationists in Berlin or for that matter people who doubt the theory of evolution so I’m completely happen with the state of affairs where I live. No catholics bombing protestants either.
On the other hand I don’t approve of the kind of policies that exist in France or Soviet Russia.
I’m not familiar enough with Swedish policies to tell you whether I approve of them.
This is a bit of a sideline, but if you’re talking about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I think modeling it as a religious conflict is the wrong way to go. The impression I get is more of religion as a shibboleth for cultural and political ties than the other way around.
There advocated way of getting there wasn’t the “way through the institutions” but “revolution”. There are Marxist arguments that revolution is the only way and that it’s not possible to change the system from the inside.
According to our university constitution students are supposed to vote in an election for a 5 person group to represent the body of students of a university department. At our university the students of the political science department don’t like this.
The elected 5-person body doesn’t constitute itself and the decisions are rather supposed to make by a self governed open body in which everyone who wants can speak and that makes decisions via “consensus”.
I don’t see myself in that tradition or have any loyalty to that fraction. As far as current affairs go, I would want liquid democracy for those student institutions with some elected persons taken representative roles and not “consensus” style democracy.
If I hear Dawkings talk how it’s important that atheists self identify as being atheists to show the rest of America that one can be an atheist and still a morally good person, than that does indicate to me a problem of American culture that’s largely solved in Europe. Socialist activism has a lot to do with why that’s the case.
Because Socialists are so well-known for their morality. Seriously, in the US Socialists and Marxists are the standard examples of how atheism causes people to lose their morals.
I cannot interpret that comment, because I cannot understand how you are using “socialism” or “morality.
Or how ironic you’re being.
Where I come from, the term “Christian Socialist” can be taken with a straight face.
Do you think it’s more or less silly than the idea that there a God in the sky judging what’s right or wrong?
I think they’re both quite silly. Also, the fact that many people believe in God as a source of morality, is itself a reason why history (i.e. the actions of those people) is a bad moral guide.
Part of what being modern was about is having an absolute moral system.
Surely most pre-modern philosophers also had absolute moral systems?
Surely most pre-modern philosophers also had absolute moral systems?
Beforehand there was the idea that God’s simply beyond human comprehension. One day he tells the Israelis to love their neighbors and the next he orders the Israelis to commit genocide.
You were supposed to follow a bunch of principles because those came from authoritative sources and not because you could derive them yourself.
If you read Machiavelli, he’s using God as a word at times when we might simply use luck today. Machiavelli very much criticizes that approach of simply thinking that God works in mysterious ways.
Greeks and Romans had many different Gods and not one single source of morality.
Of course absolute morality is not all the modernism is about.
Beforehand there was the idea that God’s simply beyond human comprehension. One day he tells the Israelis to love their neighbors and the next he orders the Israelis to commit genocide.
I was thinking about classic and medieval Christian philosophy, which tied morality to an unchanging (and so absolute) God.
As an aside, when the Israelis were ordered to love their neighbors, the reference was to the neighboring Israelis and peaceful co-inhabitants of other tribes. Jews were never told by God to love everyone or not to have enemies; that is a later, Christian or Christian-era idea.
I was thinking about classic and medieval Christian philosophy, which tied morality to an unchanging (and so absolute) God.
But still a mysterious God who’s so complicated that humans can’t fully understand him so the should simply follow what the priest who has a more direct contact to God says.
Furthermore you should follow the authority of your local king because of the divine right of kings that your local king inherited.
The idea that you can use reason to find out what God wants and then do that is a more modern idea.
Things switched from saying that if the telescope doesn’t show that planets move the way the ancestors said they are supposed to move, then the telescope is wrong to the idea that maybe the ancestors are wrong about the way the planets move.
The dark ages ended and you have modernity.
I don’t have much to say about the actual point you’re making, but you’ve been setting off alarm bells with stuff like this:
Marx replaced what Hegel called God with history.
...You look at the limit of that function and that limit is the perfect morality...
Beforehand there was the idea that God’s simply beyond human comprehension.
What’s your background on the history of this period? And on the philosophy of Marx and Hegel? The things you are saying seem to me to be false, and I want to check if the problem isn’t on my end.
What’s your background on the history of this period?
What do you mean with this period?
I don’t think that modernity started with Hegel but with people like Machiavelli with is around ~1500. Hegel and Marx on the other hand did their work in the 19th century. I did read Machiavelli’s The Prince cover to cover.
In the case of Marx and Hegel I’m a German and in this case speaking about German philosophers. That means I have been educated in school with a German notion of what history happens to be. I don’t see political history in the Anglosaxon frame of Whig vs Tory.
I did spent a bunch of time in the JUSOS with is the youth organisation of the German SPD and the abbreviation roughly translates into Young Socialists in the SPD. I therefore did follow debates about whether socialism as end goal should be kicked out of the party program of the SPD or be left in.
Lastly I did a lot of reading in political philosophy both primary and secondary sources. Most of it a while ago.
But one sentence summaries of complex political thoughts are by their nature vague. Of course Hegel already had the notion of history and me saying replaced might give the impression that he didn’t. But Hegel did have God and Marx did not.
It’s still in there but more for symbolic reasons. Party leadership didn’t really want it but the party base did. The relevant phrase also happens to be democratic socialism. Meaning that the goal is economic equality but representative democracy and not a bunch of soviets and “consensus” decision making.
In practice the party policies under Schroeder were more “third way” and as a result they wanted to “update” the party program to reflect that policy change.
What do you mean by “economic equality”? Do you mean that everyone should have the same amount of money/resources? (This is not a stable state of affairs if people then proceed to engage in commerce).
If you have a government which constantly redistributes money you could hold it constant if you wanted to do so. But the people with whom I spoke usually don’t go that far. Concerns are rather that everyone has access to a “living wage”.
Defining how exactly the end state will look like isn’t that much of a concern if you can decide whether or not you move in the right direction. There the feeling that third way policies of cutting government pensions don’t go in that direction.
What is a living wage changes with changes in society, and that isn’t obviously a problem. If society becomes richer, people expect higher wages, and if society becomes richer, it can afford them. Depending on the quantities.
Amazingly enough, freedom supporting policies can negatively impact equality. To put it another way, if there were no conflicts between values, there would be no politics. To put it a third way, you keep writingas though you are the Tablet, and have the One True Set of Values inscribed in your brain.
Christian mentioned having the government constantly redistributing money as a possibly desirable end state. I was pointing out one of the implications of said end state.
Also I’m getting increasingly frustrated at people, yourself included, who keep trying to pass off their false beliefs about the nature of the world as different preferences.
In particular, to use the economic equality example, if you constantly redistributed money to keep everyone equal, as I mentioned it would destroy anything resembling freedom. But suppose you claim to have a utility function that puts no value on freedom. Well, another consequence is that it would destroy the motivation for people to engage in productive work (if the benefits would just get redistributed) so you’d wind up with a bunch of equally starving people. Assuming, that is, that this redistribution was somehow magically enforced, more realistically you’d wind up with everything in the hands of the redistributors.
Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” begins with the words:
MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.
I don’t think that any modern person on the left is as direct as that when it comes to freedom, but in European political thought the idea of the Social Contract is quite central.
Well, another consequence is that it would destroy the motivation for people to engage in productive work (if the benefits would just get redistributed) so you’d wind up with a bunch of equally starving people.
The idea is that in the end state people would be motivated to work as a way of self actualization and don’t need financial incentives to do work. Star Trek has characters who work without getting payed to do so.
The observation that today many people need money to be motivated to work doesn’t mean that will always be true in the future and that we shouldn’t work on moving society in that direction.
The idea of an end state doesn’t mean something that can be reached in 10 years a state that can take quite a while to reach.
MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.
Could you taboo what Rousseau means by “master” and “slave” in that quote. As is, to me it sounds like deep wisdom attempting to use said words in some metaphorical way that’s not at all well-defined. Also I don’t see what this has to do with the subject.
The idea is that in the end state people would be motivated to work as a way of self actualization and don’t need financial incentives to do work.
The problem is that the work that’s self-actualizing is not necessarily the same as the work that’s needed to keep society running. In other words, attempting to run society like this you’d wind up with a bunch of (mediocre) artists starving and suffering from dysentery because not enough people derive self-actualization from farming or maintaining the sewer system. Historically, many attempts by intellectuals to create planned communities fell into this problem.
Star Trek has characters who work without getting payed to do so.
Rousseau writes his central work to justify that men is everywhere in chains. Rousseau attempts to legitimize the Social Contract that takes away men’s natural freedom.
Rousseau later argues that man get’s new freedoms in the process, but he’s not shy in admitting that men loses his natural freedoms by being bound in the Social Contract.
MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.
Could you taboo what Rousseau means by “master” and “slave” in that quote.
The full text is readily available online. A “master” is someone with the power to tell others what to do and be obeyed; yet these masters themselves obey something above themselves (laws written and unwritten). Rousseau’s answer (SPOILER WARNING!!) is the title of his work. (To which the standard counter-argument is “show me my signature on this supposed contract”.)
A few more Rousseau quotes:
The social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights.
...
All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor?
...
To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties. For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible. Such a renunciation is incompatible with man’s nature; to remove all liberty from his will is to remove all morality from his acts.
He is arguing here against theories whereby sovereignty must consist of absolute power held by a single individual beyond any legitimate challenge, his subjects having no rights against him. For Rousseau, sovereignty is the coherent extrapolated volition of humanity—or in Rousseau’s words, “the exercise of the general will”. Rousseau’s sovereignty is still absolute and indivisible, but is not located in any individual.
One can cherry-pick Rousseau to multiple ends. Here’s something for HBDers:
Liberty, not being a fruit of all climates, is not within the reach of all peoples.
Libertarians may find something to agree with in this:
It is wrong therefore to wish to make political institutions so strong as to render it impossible to suspend their operation.
But to know what Rousseau thought, it is better to read his work.
He is arguing here against theories whereby sovereignty must consist of absolute power held by a single individual beyond any legitimate challenge, his subjects having no rights against him. For Rousseau, sovereignty is the coherent extrapolated volition of humanity—or in Rousseau’s words, “the exercise of the general will”. Rousseau’s sovereignty is still absolute and indivisible, but is not located in any individual.
Here is a decent debunking of the notion that modern society is based on a social contract. The basic argument is that if one attempts to explicitly right down the kind of contract these theories require, one winds up with a contract that no court would enforce between private parties.
More generally, Nick Szabo argues that the concept of sovereignty is itself totalitarian.
Here is a decent debunking of the notion that modern society is based on a social contract.
I agree with that.
More generally, Nick Szabo argues that the concept of sovereignty is itself totalitarian.
It certainly is. Where does that leave FAI? A superintelligent FAI, as envisaged by those who think it a desirable goal, will be a totalitarian absolute ruler imposing the CEVoH and will, to borrow Rousseau’s words, be “so strong as to render it impossible to suspend [its] operation.” Rather like the Super Happies’ plan for humanity. The only alternative to a superintelligent FAI is supposed to be a superintelligent UFAI.
I didn’t want to give an example of work done as a volunteer but an example of a futuristic society where people don’t work for money.
People in Star Trek work sometimes for patriotism, sometimes for gold-pressed latinum, but mostly toward whatever the plot says they need to be doing. I foresee problems with using narrative tension as a medium of exchange.
I actually agree that running for 100% equality would likely result in 0% freedom.
For my money that is an extreme illustration of “you can’t satisfy all values simultaneously” , not of “left bad”.
Christians absolute egalitarianism is view I have never heard articulated before. It seems to be the mirror image of anarcho-capitalism, the philosophy that guns for 100% freedom.
To me, it’s symmetric.
To you there is apparently a “side” that is in contact with reality, and a side that isn’t.
Yes, there are a lot of things that would go wrong, to the average utility function, with absolute egalitarianism . Ditto for absolute libertarianism. But you never mention that.
It’s an open question whether a given extremist, of any stripe, is someone who has (1) a one-sided utility function, (2) who wrongly thinks that an average, mixed UF can be satisfied by extreme policies.
As such, you don’t get to assume that (2) is true of anyone in this discussion.
I actually agree that running for 100% equality would likely result in 0% freedom.
It wouldn’t result in much equality either. (Unless you mean equality in the sense that everyone is equally dead, which is a possible if extreme outcome.)
Ditto for absolute libertarianism. But you never mention that.
I also never called absolute anarcho-capitalism (I assume that’s what you mean by “absolute libertarianism”) as a desirable end-state.
It’s an open question whether a given extremist, of any stripe, is someone who has (1) a one-sided utility function, (2) who wrongly thinks that an average, mixed UF can be satisfied by extreme policies.
The problem is that as I pointed out the way these people pursue their one-sided goal won’t even maximize the one-sided utility function.
Edit: Speaking of freedom and equality don’t you also want a term for prosperity in there somewhere?
Christians absolute egalitarianism is view I have never heard articulated before. It seems to be the mirror image of anarcho-capitalism, the philosophy that guns for 100% freedom.
If you want to have it articulated in a bit more detail Zeitgeist Appendum can give you an impression. With 5 million youtube it there are quite a few people on the internet who profess to follow that ideology.
According to it we need a central computer who tells everyone what work to do. People will do what the computer tells them because their education teaches them the value of following what the computer tells them, so perfectly that everybody just does what’s in the “public interest” and follows the directions of the central scientific computer program.
Because there won’t be money anymore, nothing will stop the digging of intercontinental tunnels for transportation needs so that you don’t need airplanes.
I have meet multiple people who believe that framework. Fortunately people outside of the political process where they won’t do much harm. Unfortunately a bunch of them are smart, so intelligence doesn’t seem to protect against it. One of them ranks quite well in debating tournaments.
Wow, there so many things wrong with this proposal that I’ll just mention the one that disgusts me on a visceral level. One effect of this scheme (if it could somehow be made to work) is that there is a certain organ that consumes nearly one quarter of the body’s energy that is now completely vestigial.
I’m trying to figure out what Christian, and more generally the typical German, mean by “socialism” these days. Does it have a more moderate end goal then the older socialists, or do they have the same end goal and have simply decided to approach it more slowly.
Also, the fact that many people believe in God as a source of morality, is itself a reason why history (i.e. the actions of those people) is a bad moral guide.
For Hegel and Marx history is the process of change.
Both the amounts of Gods per person and the percentage of people who believe went down over time. Thus history favors atheism.
I don’t see why the ‘amount of Gods per person’ is a valid metric for anything. Progression from poly- to monotheism doesn’t imply a future progression to atheism.
The actual percent of atheists in society has indeed increased over time, but it’s never been significantly above 10% worldwide and it’s not clear that’s it’s rising right now (Wikipedia source). It’s hardly strong enough evidence to conclude that a majority of humanity will be atheistic one day. Other religions surely exhibit or previously exhibited rising trends at least as strong.
You have to compare it to the alternatives. Do you think it’s more or less silly than the idea that there a God in the sky judging what’s right or wrong?
Marx basically had the idea that you don’t need God for an absolute moral system when you can pin it all on history with supposedly moves in a certain direction. You observe how history moves. Then you extrapolate. You look at the limit of that function and that limit is the perfect morality. It’s what someone who got a rough idea of calculus does, but who doesn’t fully understand the assumptions that go into the process.
In the US where Marx didn’t have much influence as in Europe there are still a bunch of people who believe in young earth creationism. On a scale of silliness that’s much worse.
Today the postmodernists rule liberal thought but there are still relicts of marxist ideas. Part of what being modern was about is having an absolute moral system. Whether or not those people are silly is also open for debate.
Sure. Let’s compare it to the alternative the morality is partially biologically hardwired and partially culturally determined. By comparison the idea that “history decides what’s morally right” is silly.
Yep, he had this idea. That doesn’t make it a right idea. Marx had lots of ideas which didn’t turn out well.
Oh, so—keeping in mind we’re on LW—the universe tiled with paperclips might turn out to be the perfect morality? X-D
And remind me, how well does extrapolation of history work?
Do you, by any chance, believe there is a causal connection between these two observations that you jammed into a single sentence?
Since culture evolves with history there is a lot of overlap between culture determining moralty and history determining morality.
What’s the overlap between two empty sets?
There’s no culture and no history?
Oh yes, there is culture, and there is history, and there is an overlap.
Now work out what two sets I am implying are empty.
OK. You’re one if the people who think that morality is arbitrary because your training did not equip you to think about it as non arbitrary.
We didn’t talk about right or wrong but silly.
Let’s do what partially biologically hardwired and partially culturally determined is not exactly the battle cry under which you can unite people and get them to adopt a new moral framework. It also has the problem of not telling people who want to know what they should do what they should do.
Yes, I do think that Marxism and Socialism has a lot to do with spreading atheism in Europe. Socialist governments did make a greater effort to push back religion and make people atheists than democratic governments did.
If I hear Dawkins talk how it’s important that atheists self identify as being atheists to show the rest of America that one can be an atheist and still a morally good person, than that does indicate to me a problem of American culture that’s largely solved in Europe. Socialist activism has a lot to do with why that’s the case.
Dawkings → Dawkins
Thanks. The fact that I made that error is pretty interesting to me. Someone else used the Dawkings spelling a few days ago on LW. I felt that it was wrong and looked up the correct spelling to try to be sure.
Somehow my brain still updated in the background from Dawkins to Dawkings.
Promoting a century-and-a-half-old wrong idea looks pretty silly to me. You want to revive phlogiston, too, maybe?
That’s a good thing. I am highly suspicious of ideologies which want people to adopt new moral frameworks, especially if it involves battle cries.
That’s a feature, not a bug.
Oh yes, they certainly did. I take it, you approve of these efforts?
That question indicates being mindkilled. I happen to be able to discuss issues like that without treating arguments as soldiers.
Discussing cause and effects is hard enough as it is without involving notions of approval or disapproval.
The implication that somehow socialism isn’t responsible for spreading atheism in Europe because socialist used some immoral technique is a conflation of moral beliefs with beliefs about reality.
It seems to me that you two are talking past each other. Here’s what I hear:
ChristianKI: “Socialist movements and governments did successfully promote atheism and materialism in the populations of Europe. This is why Europeans do not tend to believe, as Americans do, that atheists are incapable of being moral.” (This is a descriptive claim about history and public opinion.)
Lumifer: “We should not advocate socialism as a way of promoting atheism and materialism, because socialism is awful and Marxist ideas of historical progress are silly.” (This is a normative claim about advocacy.)
You’re using “socialism” vaguely. Iron curtain socialism was awful. North-western European social democracy is not.
What do we get if we Taboo socialism?
Detail
I haven’t said anything about morals. In particular, I haven’t labeled any actions as immoral. I just inquired whether you approved of the efforts that the socialist governments have made in reality in the XX century to spread atheism.
Moreover, we are already past the question of whether the socialist governments made “a greater effort to push back religion and make people atheists”—we know they did—the issue now is the cost-benefit analysis of these efforts. You clearly like the outcome, so do you think the price was worth it? This is what I mean by the question about whether you approve.
I do approve of democratic socialism.
I’m heavily opposed to what currently happens in France when it comes to fighting religion.
But I guess both claims won’t tell the average person here where much because the political background of European politics isn’t that clear in English speaking forum.
The question wasn’t which political system you approve.
The question was whether you think the outcome of more atheists in Europe was worth the cost incurred during the efforts of the socialist governments to suppress religion and promote atheism.
I’m living in a country in which the people who want socialism who had the most political power favor democratic socialism over communism.
In Germany you had a split in the left. One half thought that you need a revolution to achieve the goal of socialism and the other half thought that you can work within the democratic institutions to achieve the goal of socialism.
I haven’t meet any young earth creationists in Berlin or for that matter people who doubt the theory of evolution so I’m completely happen with the state of affairs where I live. No catholics bombing protestants either.
On the other hand I don’t approve of the kind of policies that exist in France or Soviet Russia. I’m not familiar enough with Swedish policies to tell you whether I approve of them.
This is a bit of a sideline, but if you’re talking about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I think modeling it as a religious conflict is the wrong way to go. The impression I get is more of religion as a shibboleth for cultural and political ties than the other way around.
Lucky you X-D
Right. Instead you had the Baader-Meinhof gang. They wanted socialism, too, didn’t they?
There advocated way of getting there wasn’t the “way through the institutions” but “revolution”. There are Marxist arguments that revolution is the only way and that it’s not possible to change the system from the inside.
According to our university constitution students are supposed to vote in an election for a 5 person group to represent the body of students of a university department. At our university the students of the political science department don’t like this.
The elected 5-person body doesn’t constitute itself and the decisions are rather supposed to make by a self governed open body in which everyone who wants can speak and that makes decisions via “consensus”.
I don’t see myself in that tradition or have any loyalty to that fraction. As far as current affairs go, I would want liquid democracy for those student institutions with some elected persons taken representative roles and not “consensus” style democracy.
Because Socialists are so well-known for their morality. Seriously, in the US Socialists and Marxists are the standard examples of how atheism causes people to lose their morals.
I cannot interpret that comment, because I cannot understand how you are using “socialism” or “morality. Or how ironic you’re being. Where I come from, the term “Christian Socialist” can be taken with a straight face.
I think they’re both quite silly. Also, the fact that many people believe in God as a source of morality, is itself a reason why history (i.e. the actions of those people) is a bad moral guide.
Surely most pre-modern philosophers also had absolute moral systems?
Beforehand there was the idea that God’s simply beyond human comprehension. One day he tells the Israelis to love their neighbors and the next he orders the Israelis to commit genocide.
You were supposed to follow a bunch of principles because those came from authoritative sources and not because you could derive them yourself.
If you read Machiavelli, he’s using God as a word at times when we might simply use luck today. Machiavelli very much criticizes that approach of simply thinking that God works in mysterious ways.
Greeks and Romans had many different Gods and not one single source of morality.
Of course absolute morality is not all the modernism is about.
I was thinking about classic and medieval Christian philosophy, which tied morality to an unchanging (and so absolute) God.
As an aside, when the Israelis were ordered to love their neighbors, the reference was to the neighboring Israelis and peaceful co-inhabitants of other tribes. Jews were never told by God to love everyone or not to have enemies; that is a later, Christian or Christian-era idea.
But still a mysterious God who’s so complicated that humans can’t fully understand him so the should simply follow what the priest who has a more direct contact to God says. Furthermore you should follow the authority of your local king because of the divine right of kings that your local king inherited.
The idea that you can use reason to find out what God wants and then do that is a more modern idea.
Things switched from saying that if the telescope doesn’t show that planets move the way the ancestors said they are supposed to move, then the telescope is wrong to the idea that maybe the ancestors are wrong about the way the planets move. The dark ages ended and you have modernity.
I don’t have much to say about the actual point you’re making, but you’ve been setting off alarm bells with stuff like this:
What’s your background on the history of this period? And on the philosophy of Marx and Hegel? The things you are saying seem to me to be false, and I want to check if the problem isn’t on my end.
What do you mean with this period?
I don’t think that modernity started with Hegel but with people like Machiavelli with is around ~1500. Hegel and Marx on the other hand did their work in the 19th century. I did read Machiavelli’s The Prince cover to cover.
In the case of Marx and Hegel I’m a German and in this case speaking about German philosophers. That means I have been educated in school with a German notion of what history happens to be. I don’t see political history in the Anglosaxon frame of Whig vs Tory.
I did spent a bunch of time in the JUSOS with is the youth organisation of the German SPD and the abbreviation roughly translates into Young Socialists in the SPD. I therefore did follow debates about whether socialism as end goal should be kicked out of the party program of the SPD or be left in.
Lastly I did a lot of reading in political philosophy both primary and secondary sources. Most of it a while ago.
But one sentence summaries of complex political thoughts are by their nature vague. Of course Hegel already had the notion of history and me saying replaced might give the impression that he didn’t. But Hegel did have God and Marx did not.
Just out of curiosity, what was the result of those debates?
It’s still in there but more for symbolic reasons. Party leadership didn’t really want it but the party base did. The relevant phrase also happens to be democratic socialism. Meaning that the goal is economic equality but representative democracy and not a bunch of soviets and “consensus” decision making.
In practice the party policies under Schroeder were more “third way” and as a result they wanted to “update” the party program to reflect that policy change.
What do you mean by “economic equality”? Do you mean that everyone should have the same amount of money/resources? (This is not a stable state of affairs if people then proceed to engage in commerce).
If you have a government which constantly redistributes money you could hold it constant if you wanted to do so. But the people with whom I spoke usually don’t go that far. Concerns are rather that everyone has access to a “living wage”.
Defining how exactly the end state will look like isn’t that much of a concern if you can decide whether or not you move in the right direction. There the feeling that third way policies of cutting government pensions don’t go in that direction.
Yes, but that’s not exactly compatible with anything resembling freedom.
The problem is what’s considered a “living wage” changes with changes in society.
It is a concern if you want to evaluate whether you should even be trying to move in that direction.
What is a living wage changes with changes in society, and that isn’t obviously a problem. If society becomes richer, people expect higher wages, and if society becomes richer, it can afford them. Depending on the quantities.
Amazingly enough, freedom supporting policies can negatively impact equality. To put it another way, if there were no conflicts between values, there would be no politics. To put it a third way, you keep writingas though you are the Tablet, and have the One True Set of Values inscribed in your brain.
Christian mentioned having the government constantly redistributing money as a possibly desirable end state. I was pointing out one of the implications of said end state.
Also I’m getting increasingly frustrated at people, yourself included, who keep trying to pass off their false beliefs about the nature of the world as different preferences.
In particular, to use the economic equality example, if you constantly redistributed money to keep everyone equal, as I mentioned it would destroy anything resembling freedom. But suppose you claim to have a utility function that puts no value on freedom. Well, another consequence is that it would destroy the motivation for people to engage in productive work (if the benefits would just get redistributed) so you’d wind up with a bunch of equally starving people. Assuming, that is, that this redistribution was somehow magically enforced, more realistically you’d wind up with everything in the hands of the redistributors.
Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” begins with the words:
I don’t think that any modern person on the left is as direct as that when it comes to freedom, but in European political thought the idea of the Social Contract is quite central.
The idea is that in the end state people would be motivated to work as a way of self actualization and don’t need financial incentives to do work. Star Trek has characters who work without getting payed to do so.
The observation that today many people need money to be motivated to work doesn’t mean that will always be true in the future and that we shouldn’t work on moving society in that direction.
The idea of an end state doesn’t mean something that can be reached in 10 years a state that can take quite a while to reach.
Could you taboo what Rousseau means by “master” and “slave” in that quote. As is, to me it sounds like deep wisdom attempting to use said words in some metaphorical way that’s not at all well-defined. Also I don’t see what this has to do with the subject.
The problem is that the work that’s self-actualizing is not necessarily the same as the work that’s needed to keep society running. In other words, attempting to run society like this you’d wind up with a bunch of (mediocre) artists starving and suffering from dysentery because not enough people derive self-actualization from farming or maintaining the sewer system. Historically, many attempts by intellectuals to create planned communities fell into this problem.
Fictional evidence.
Rousseau writes his central work to justify that men is everywhere in chains. Rousseau attempts to legitimize the Social Contract that takes away men’s natural freedom.
Rousseau later argues that man get’s new freedoms in the process, but he’s not shy in admitting that men loses his natural freedoms by being bound in the Social Contract.
The full text is readily available online. A “master” is someone with the power to tell others what to do and be obeyed; yet these masters themselves obey something above themselves (laws written and unwritten). Rousseau’s answer (SPOILER WARNING!!) is the title of his work. (To which the standard counter-argument is “show me my signature on this supposed contract”.)
A few more Rousseau quotes:
...
...
He is arguing here against theories whereby sovereignty must consist of absolute power held by a single individual beyond any legitimate challenge, his subjects having no rights against him. For Rousseau, sovereignty is the coherent extrapolated volition of humanity—or in Rousseau’s words, “the exercise of the general will”. Rousseau’s sovereignty is still absolute and indivisible, but is not located in any individual.
One can cherry-pick Rousseau to multiple ends. Here’s something for HBDers:
Libertarians may find something to agree with in this:
But to know what Rousseau thought, it is better to read his work.
Here is a decent debunking of the notion that modern society is based on a social contract. The basic argument is that if one attempts to explicitly right down the kind of contract these theories require, one winds up with a contract that no court would enforce between private parties.
More generally, Nick Szabo argues that the concept of sovereignty is itself totalitarian.
I agree with that.
It certainly is. Where does that leave FAI? A superintelligent FAI, as envisaged by those who think it a desirable goal, will be a totalitarian absolute ruler imposing the CEVoH and will, to borrow Rousseau’s words, be “so strong as to render it impossible to suspend [its] operation.” Rather like the Super Happies’ plan for humanity. The only alternative to a superintelligent FAI is supposed to be a superintelligent UFAI.
The open source movement is a better example of voluntary word than star trek.
In this case I don’t think so.
I didn’t want to give an example of work done as a volunteer but an example of a futuristic society where people don’t work for money.
The Open Source movement also also a bunch of different people doing things for various reasons and incentives.
People in Star Trek work sometimes for patriotism, sometimes for gold-pressed latinum, but mostly toward whatever the plot says they need to be doing. I foresee problems with using narrative tension as a medium of exchange.
I actually agree that running for 100% equality would likely result in 0% freedom.
For my money that is an extreme illustration of “you can’t satisfy all values simultaneously” , not of “left bad”.
Christians absolute egalitarianism is view I have never heard articulated before. It seems to be the mirror image of anarcho-capitalism, the philosophy that guns for 100% freedom.
To me, it’s symmetric.
To you there is apparently a “side” that is in contact with reality, and a side that isn’t.
Yes, there are a lot of things that would go wrong, to the average utility function, with absolute egalitarianism . Ditto for absolute libertarianism. But you never mention that.
It’s an open question whether a given extremist, of any stripe, is someone who has (1) a one-sided utility function, (2) who wrongly thinks that an average, mixed UF can be satisfied by extreme policies.
As such, you don’t get to assume that (2) is true of anyone in this discussion.
It wouldn’t result in much equality either. (Unless you mean equality in the sense that everyone is equally dead, which is a possible if extreme outcome.)
I also never called absolute anarcho-capitalism (I assume that’s what you mean by “absolute libertarianism”) as a desirable end-state.
The problem is that as I pointed out the way these people pursue their one-sided goal won’t even maximize the one-sided utility function.
Edit: Speaking of freedom and equality don’t you also want a term for prosperity in there somewhere?
Or wellbeing, since dollars aren’t utilons.
I don’t define prosperity in terms of dollars.
If you want to have it articulated in a bit more detail Zeitgeist Appendum can give you an impression. With 5 million youtube it there are quite a few people on the internet who profess to follow that ideology.
According to it we need a central computer who tells everyone what work to do. People will do what the computer tells them because their education teaches them the value of following what the computer tells them, so perfectly that everybody just does what’s in the “public interest” and follows the directions of the central scientific computer program.
Because there won’t be money anymore, nothing will stop the digging of intercontinental tunnels for transportation needs so that you don’t need airplanes.
I have meet multiple people who believe that framework. Fortunately people outside of the political process where they won’t do much harm. Unfortunately a bunch of them are smart, so intelligence doesn’t seem to protect against it. One of them ranks quite well in debating tournaments.
Wow, there so many things wrong with this proposal that I’ll just mention the one that disgusts me on a visceral level. One effect of this scheme (if it could somehow be made to work) is that there is a certain organ that consumes nearly one quarter of the body’s energy that is now completely vestigial.
I can describe ideas without them being mine. In this case we are speaking about ideas in the party program of the SPD.
Is this line of conversation still “just curiosity” about the results of SPD debates, or are you trying to bait an argument?
I’m trying to figure out what Christian, and more generally the typical German, mean by “socialism” these days. Does it have a more moderate end goal then the older socialists, or do they have the same end goal and have simply decided to approach it more slowly.
Thanks, that’s helpful.
For Hegel and Marx history is the process of change.
Both the amounts of Gods per person and the percentage of people who believe went down over time. Thus history favors atheism.
I don’t see why the ‘amount of Gods per person’ is a valid metric for anything. Progression from poly- to monotheism doesn’t imply a future progression to atheism.
The actual percent of atheists in society has indeed increased over time, but it’s never been significantly above 10% worldwide and it’s not clear that’s it’s rising right now (Wikipedia source). It’s hardly strong enough evidence to conclude that a majority of humanity will be atheistic one day. Other religions surely exhibit or previously exhibited rising trends at least as strong.