I don’t think I’m culpable for everything society does, so I will automatically assume anyone who says I am is prone to making obviously false statements about that sort of thing; that doesn’t sound like they are using good tactics either. Also, it is not the case that the only alternative to “everyone should be guilty” is “this singled-out subset here should go on a guilt trip”.
Some of this is a disguised argument about the word “culpable.” For basically everyone, there’s always something more one could do to solve problem X. I don’t claim that is a particularly insightful or compelling statement.
I think guilt trips are often (basically always) a tactical mistake. But this is particularly true when one’s selection criteria for who to shame suggests that one is being disingenuous. Or that one picked the target first and the complaint second.
I honestly think that I want transformations just as radical as eridu in the area of social norms and gender. It turns out that I just have different terminal values. For the benefit of bystanders (such as yourself), I’m trying to make it clear that the degree of desired transformation is not determinative of the intended destination.
I think this whole guilt business is useless. Heroic responsibility seems the correct way to deal with things.
“What are you going to do about it? That’s the only question you get to answer.”
If I look upon the world and see oppression and see that it is bad, I should see what I can do to make that situation better, see if it’s an easier line of utility-creating than other plans, and then go about doing it.
Along the way I might consider the strategy of allocating guilt between myself and other people, but doing that, I really ought to understand that guilt is being used instrumentally to get people to do things, and is otherwise not interesting.
(this is more directed at the whole guilt discussion than specifically your comment)
I don’t think I’m culpable for everything society does, so I will automatically assume anyone who says I am is prone to making obviously false statements about that sort of thing; that doesn’t sound like they are using good tactics either. Also, it is not the case that the only alternative to “everyone should be guilty” is “this singled-out subset here should go on a guilt trip”.
Some of this is a disguised argument about the word “culpable.” For basically everyone, there’s always something more one could do to solve problem X. I don’t claim that is a particularly insightful or compelling statement.
I think guilt trips are often (basically always) a tactical mistake. But this is particularly true when one’s selection criteria for who to shame suggests that one is being disingenuous. Or that one picked the target first and the complaint second.
I honestly think that I want transformations just as radical as eridu in the area of social norms and gender. It turns out that I just have different terminal values. For the benefit of bystanders (such as yourself), I’m trying to make it clear that the degree of desired transformation is not determinative of the intended destination.
I think this whole guilt business is useless. Heroic responsibility seems the correct way to deal with things.
“What are you going to do about it? That’s the only question you get to answer.”
If I look upon the world and see oppression and see that it is bad, I should see what I can do to make that situation better, see if it’s an easier line of utility-creating than other plans, and then go about doing it.
Along the way I might consider the strategy of allocating guilt between myself and other people, but doing that, I really ought to understand that guilt is being used instrumentally to get people to do things, and is otherwise not interesting.
(this is more directed at the whole guilt discussion than specifically your comment)