create new account | forgot password


posted by jenni on December 23rd, 2014 at 12:06PM

The NAP could be seen as yet another unconditional 'guidebook' (ie: the bible, the rule of law, etc) for how to live one's life, as opposed to just being able to be and be a decent human being.

The intentions behind an evil act can't be seen as irrelevant or as black and white as saying killing someone is bad regardless of intention, or the ignorance of perpetrating evil deeds under the guise of goodwill will never dissipate, imo. How to get that to dissipate is a whole other conversation...
Selfishness is a smeared word. Dismissing the self for the good of the collective/extrinsic thing may still be present in this young jedi :) (Don't tell anyone:)


Cheese. So much to say about cheese. It can be had without cruelty so why is that not the case? Why are people ok with behaving as they do in this video? Bad parenting? Bad social norms?

Cats are murdering cute little mice and birds but it is out of their control. They are ignorant to the fact that they are killing other creatures. Animals are like falling rocks. One could say the same for the ignorant people but animals don't have the capacity to reason and enlighten themselves. Or perhaps animals do have this capacity and they just don't care and they are laughing at humans who think that their species is the only one capable of cognition.
Link | Parent


 
 

posted by dennisn on December 23rd, 2014 at 7:54PM

What do you mean "as opposed to just being able to be"? Also, when you say it's "yet/just another" framework, it implies that they're all equally valid, and we simply need to choose which framework we want. (I recently had a conversation with a co-worker, and he too made it sound like Voluntaryism can be "just another" option on a ballot, beside "State-Communism" or "Fascism", etc.) However, they're not all valid -- if a framework is not internally/logically consistent (as religion and Statism aren't), it's invalid.

I didn't understand your second paragraph either -- especially the bits about "dissipation". Please rephrase or clarify. How do you figure that the intentions behind an evil act ARE relevant? For example, if I kill an innocent person, does that make this act of killing any more or less evil if I had allegedly "good" intentions? (Maybe killing that person would save millions, or maybe I wanted him to meet my wonderful God in the afterlife, etc.)

"Dismissing the self for the collective" is an absurd concept, on so many levels. Not only do you benefit (you get pleasure chemicals knowing that you helped someone, you probably get a better reputation, etc), not only is there no such thing as "the collective", but also, whichever *individuals* that you end up helping will necessarily be in violation of this so-called virtue (because they will be taking/exploiting-you instead of "selflessly" giving).

Regarding treating animals nicer, the main surface reason is it's cheaper. People are very separated from the sources of their food these days -- most have no idea how their meats and meat products are gotten. But yea, underneath that is bad parenting.

Regarding your bit about murderous cats -- that's my point -- because they can't reason (and are killing other innocent vegetarian species), they can't have rights. "Falling rocks" don't have rights.

posted by jenni on December 25th, 2014 at 12:05PM

Would it be possible for people to live without a framework, valid or invalid? That's what I mean by being able to just be. How does saying 'yet another framework' imply that they are all equally valid?

(more in a bit)

posted by dennisn on December 25th, 2014 at 2:02PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "possible". Rationality and logical consistency are not as necessary as food and water, for example, but they certainly help. (Eg. you'll live longer if you accept objective reality and gravity, rather than rejecting these things and believing you can fly off a tall building.)

To answer your second question, you wrote that "the NAP" is "yet another framework/guidebook". This implies that there exists another one. I don't know of any others. More precisely, I don't know of any VALID other ones (ethical frameworks). And the thing has to be valid (logically consistent), otherwise it's just nonsense. If a proposed thing is illogical/nonsensical, that is basically the definition of "not-existing".