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.
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)
|
