Whither the Collective?
There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective. There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between "individualism" and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class?
Stalin in conversation with Wells
I am terrible at collectivism, methodologically and in practice. Whether by nature or nurture I lack the necessary neural connections required to see the world as the activity of groups, nations, races, classes, or communities as Stalin did, so giving any priority to these over flesh-and-blood human beings is an impossible task for me.
To be fair, its probably impossible for everyone, even Stalin. The elemental physics and biology of it all doesnt much support a collectivist outlook. The existence of any collective can be seriously questioned, like the existence of universals. One cannot describe a collectives place or state or form well enough to find it, point to it, let alone to subordinate himself or others to its interests. What does it signify? To whom does it apply?
Could Stalin draw a line around what he values here to prove he values something other than his own mental furniture? The collectivethe nation, the class, the race, the communityis an abstraction at best, a hasty generalization at worse. Whatever purpose they serve, these ideas are invariably products of his own mind, somehow held in higher regard than the actual flesh-and-blood human beings whom they may or may not signify. Granted, its easier to disregard what distinguishes human beings from one another, and conceive of them only in terms of whatever superficial features they appear to share (perhaps mental convenience is why collectivism is suited to a man such as Stalin), but weve seen the effects of their application to the real world and it hardly turns out so well.
In other words, Stalin can only draw a circle on his forehead. He can only value himself and the products of his own mind. In the sense that collectivism is concerned with abstractions, and suggesting that each and every person should be subordinate to them, might collectivism turn out to be a pernicious form of egoism?
At any rate, and in effect, it always turns out that the interests of the collective are only the interests of a portion of the collective, usually those individuals with the power and prestige to act as the mind and mouth of the people they feign to speak for. Other portions, those not of the ruling portion, are subordinate to them. Other portions still, those who dissent or fall into an enemy class, are imprisoned, enslaved, or worse. So much for the collective.
Comments (103)
Im not sure why someone would defend Stalin. Its difficult to find a favorable quote about collectivism, Im afraid.
A mature society is thus a competition of interest groups or social institutions. As an individual, you will sense the balance change as you move between spheres of influence. In your own home, you have the most freedom. At the most abstract levels of social institution - in court, in parliament, in church - they are places where you then feel the most constrained by the "collective will".
It is just nature doing it things. Evolving a rational hierarchical order. Except that now it is humans having a hand in the design of the general political/economic system. And that is where it all starts to go off the road when folk pretend that a hierarchically organised system of competition~cooperation doesn't need to apply to them. Or their family. Or their otherwise defined in-group.
Quoting NOS4A2
So in fact the elemental physics and biology does say nature has its particular evolutionary order. It is not a secret to anyone familiar with social science.
Communism was a failed dream as it didn't implement the right model. It failed to appreciate the importance of free institution building at every level of society. A democracy constituted of interest groups is just a more robust way of developing an intelligent balance of competition and cooperation in a society.
Of course democracies are running into their own inverse problem of fetishising the atomistic individual.
Look for states that are proud of being social democracies. They get the "collective of interest groups" balance that is the Hegelian ideal.
A pro tip: Any ideology that fails to take into account human (evolutionary) psychology & biology is going end up a magnificent failure!
I had some fun with Stirner once too, but the whole thing comes apart in the end, with the self just as much of a spook as 'the collective' (or, better, we recognize the interdependence of the concepts of self and community.)
:up:
Well said. I grow tired. I think this troll is broken.
Attempting to turn people into worshippers of an ideology, which is what every ideology-based society tries to do, is a flawed endeavor to begin with. People and their ideas are flawed, and that goes double (nay triple) for governments.
The least flawed societies we have come up with are those that attempt to make these flawed people able to do the least amount of damage to each other, including and especially those who run the government.
[quote=Socrates (the father of Western philosophy)]I neither know, nor think I know.[/quote]
[quote=Oracle of Delphi]No one is wiser than Socrates.[/quote]
Our struggle...with darkness...has been a long and hard one.
She was right.
Your eloquence is a sign that the struggle has not been in vain. The light remains resilient.
Quoting Benkei
& D. Schweickart, R. Dahl, M. Bookchin ...
Not just "ignorance" (inexperienced? uneducated? the illusion of knowledge?) ...
Quoting 180 Proof
Perhaps:
[quote=Rawls, A Theory of Justice]Thus I shall always use the difference principle in the simpler form, and so the outcome of the last several sections is that the second principle reads as follows:
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest expected benefit of the least advantaged and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.
...
The difference principle represents, in effect, an agreement to regard the distribution of natural talents as in some respects a common asset and to share in the greater social and economic benefits made possible by the complementarities of this distribution. Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who have lost out. The naturally advantaged are not to gain merely because they are more gifted, but only to cover the costs of training and education and for using their endowments in ways that help the less fortunate as well. No one deserves his greater natural capacity nor merits a more favorable starting place in society. But, of course, this is no reason to ignore, much less to eliminate these distinctions. Instead, the basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate. Thus we are led to the difference principle if we wish to set up the social system so that no one gains or loses from his arbitrary place in the distribution of natural assets or his initial position in society without giving or receiving compensating advantages in return.[/quote]
:fire:
The problem with collectivism is simple. It is the outright subjugation of the individual to the ideology of the state, and amounts to nothing less than slavery. And before anyone goes there, a slave who wears a fancy suit and is given priviledges by his slave owner is still a slave.
Every collectivist state pursues totalitarianism (whether explicitly, or by ignorance), and vilifies those who do not go along with their ideology. For the Third Reich it was the Jews that needed to be socialized. The USSR needed to sociailze the bourgoeisie.
Today it is man who the collectivists need socialized.
Man, with all his unfortunate ideas of individual freedom and rights.
Man, who by his unfortunate free will fails to fall into lockstep with the ideals of the state.
And their eagerness to forcefully subjugate those whom their arguments fail to persuade is evident. It took the western nations and institutions that are now openly flirting with tyranny hardly a year to turn from the world's leading proponents of individual liberty and justice, to states who took steps towards lawlessly socializing those who opposed them. Every excuse was grasped, every legislative loophole exploited, every repressive tool in the governmental toolkit utilized towards this end.
However, these aspiring Hitlerites also failed to see that their malpractices went unnoticed in the past precisely because they did not overtly display their power. The reason modern day tyranny may exist at all,(and precisely why it is so dangerous) is because it has become increasingly well adapted at hiding itself in the shadows. Deep inside institutions, lobby groups, academia and extrajudicial bodies.
Now the ugly beast has crawled out of its cave and showed the world its true face (not in the least because its rotten societal fruits could no longer be ignored either). And like all things vile and despicable, it does not withstand the light very well.
The greatest trick the collective ever pulled was making you think its not you
McStalin
Biology > Hey, my body is different to yours (yay!/we're all individual an shit)
Society > But other peoples bodies control my body (scary collective voodoo!/my hormones have a mind of their own!)
Language > And wait a second, whered I get these words from? (scary collective voodoo!/my thoughts have a mind of their own!)
Biology/Society/Language = Your shit sandwich, aka Individual sans scare quotes aka subject.
Biology = e.g. Fruit Flies (true individuals (yay!))
Biology/Society = e.g. Ants (no, no, commooooonism!!!!)
Biology/Society/Language = People (individual expressions of the collective that can consider themselves individuals)
Political aspirations to a fruit fly state of being are belied by the sociolinguistic construction of the subject from those lumps of squealing flesh we call babies to those lumps of conflicted flesh we call persons.
You cant even want to be free unless the "collective" allows you to so want. And when freedom becomes an ideology that puts itself in conflict with forms of social organisation that work well on the basis that they're not individual enough then the collective's got you and your buddies by the balls and youre collectively singin its tune.
But yeah, @apokrisis is right.
We all gotta play three roles. Leader of our self, follower, and leader of others.
First rule is you gotta be the leader of yourself. Otherwise you cant be a good follower/student or leader/teacher of others
If you aren't leading yourself, then when you follow it will be blind obedience, and so you won't learn or grow, and may end up following the wrong kind of person or philosophy.
And when you lead it will be tyranny, or the blind leading the blind. (People who lack personal power seek power over others)
Lastly, in my opinion, the golden rule of leadership: (In this case I mean being a leader of a mass of people, rather than say, for example, being head of your household)...and I mean, the golden rule of how to spot a good aspiring leader from a bad one:
Only a reluctant leader ever makes a decent leader.
With leadership comes great responsibility. Heavy is the head that wears the crown. Nobody would want to be a leader for personal reasons, unless those reasons are self-glorification and lust for power and privilege. The only valid reason to become a leader is the recognition that there is nobody better to fit the need. A good leader is always doing it as a sacrifice.
- Ayn Rand
Yeah, this individualist thinking never really appealed to me. Not in my genes. I just cant view people as primitive savages. I guess it appeals to some.
No, that would be capitalism. Brutal, inhumane, and reducing everyone and every thing to capital.
If we go beyond Fox News talking points about Stalin, Mao, and Castro, the reality isnt so simple.
Quoting Tzeentch
You can have a collective without a state.
Sure, capitalism is far from perfect, but at least a successful capitalist has to produce something others want to buy, which is why its many evils also went along with many goods - history's collectivist projects cannot say the same.
Quoting Xtrix
Two people can form a collective, technically. Though I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies (and in recent times also supranational organisations), and collectivist states to be states that act with collectivism as their goal.
But if one wishes to practice collectivism in a sort of hippie commune where everybody engages with each other on voluntary grounds, then who am I to oppose that?
Socrates' response:
a) He tells a story of how he set out to refute the oracle (21c)
b) He changes what the oracle said from no one is wiser than Socrates to "... you declared that I was the wisest ."(21c)
The oracle did not declate that he was the wisest.
Nonsense. In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed.
Quoting Tzeentch
They cant? China seems to be doing just fine. The Soviets deceased poverty and starvation.
Sure, if we start with the assumption that collectivism (whatever that means) only produces evil, thats what youll see. Or youll assign all evils to it as many do with governments.
Quoting Tzeentch
A strange definition of collectivism, but OK.
Ah, one styles themselves the arbiter of who needs what. Spoken like a true 'collectivist'.
Quoting Xtrix
China is an autocratic dictatorship. A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc.
Please don't use China as an example for successful collectivism. It's a powerful state. So were Nazi-Germany and the USSR. Were they successful collectivists by your standards?
Quoting Xtrix
That was not a definition, obviously. :roll:
You said...
Quoting Tzeentch
So you're either suggesting that it is impossible to persuade people to buy stuff they don't want, or you are being no less an arbiter by suggesting that all the stuff capitalists sell actually is what people want.
If the former, on what grounds?
:up:
Lol. Food, water, shelter, family, community. I view these as needs, or at least different than a new gadget every 2 years.
I guess Im part of a communist conspiracy. Mea culpa.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, the United States has its problems but we should evaluate as balanced a way as we can.
Quoting Tzeentch
Oh oops. :wink:
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree I dont think China is an example of communism at all, as I understand it. But Im using your meaning, not mine.
Those darned advertisers convincing people they need pointless luxuries!
Wouldn't it be nice if we could take all of that money and instead use it for useful things?
Quoting Xtrix
Unlikely, but your characterization of advertising as a means to sell people things they don't need suggests you both consider people too stupid to make such choices for themselves and yourself an expert on determining what is best for others.
You may be a closet authoritarian, I'm afraid. Something which is not at all uncommon among those who harbor collectivist fantasies.
If you're the hippie commune type I take all of that back, but something tells me you're not.
Quoting Xtrix
Collectivism isn't the same as communism, and China isn't communist (anymore). However it is collectivist, since the individual has been completely subjugated to the whims of the CCP.
Quoting Xtrix
You're using it poorly.
Quoting Xtrix
If you think I'm a fan of the United States then you are sadly mistaken. But if you want to compare the domestic policies of the US with China and suggest they're similar then that is laughable.
Yes?
Quoting Tzeentch
No.
Quoting Tzeentch
Its like arguing people are too stupid to choose between republicans and democrats. Thats really not the point.
Choices are simply not given. Thats not the fault of the people.
In terms of creating desires for useless stuff fashionable consumption, etc. this has a long history, has been studied, documented; not a controversial remark. They admit to it outright.
The fact that you resist something so obvious has already shown you have no real leg up stand on.
Quoting Tzeentch
Whatever you like. Your feelings are irrelevant.
Quoting Tzeentch
Youre free to ask me what I believe directly this way you dont have to guess. But you do you. Create whatever fantasy you want.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not the same, but an example.
And yes, China is communist.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
No bias there
Useless by what measure? Obviously they must find some use for it - entertainment or otherwise. Why else would people spend money on it?
Quoting Xtrix
What do you believe?
Quoting Xtrix
It's definitely not. Communism explicitly aims to socialize the bourgeoisie, that is to say, repress and steal from the upper middle and rich classes and (supposedly) give to the poor working class.
There's nothing communist about China anymore. Like Russia, China has more in common with a classic dictatorship.
You realise that what you're saying here is that it's impossible for people to be wrong about their strategies.
If plan to be more sporty, an advertiser suggests that buying a pair of their trainers will help, I am convinced and so I buy a pair - you're saying it's impossible that I'm wrong. If I think a pair of trainers will help me become more sporty then I've somehow changed reality such that this will be the case?
That has little to do with communism, in my view. So here it really is a matter of meaning.
Quoting Tzeentch
I believe power should be legitimate. More specifically, at least in the shorter term, Im in favor of democracy including democracy at the workplace, where workers have a role in determining whats produced, how it's produced, where it's produced, and where the profits go.
As it stands, we're in the Sociopathic Capitalism era where corporate governance has adopted the Friedman doctrine and wealth inequality has soared to heights not seen since the pyramids. That's 40 years of neoliberalism. We see the effects all around us. I'm against that.
Good and sober points.
There is a lot to be said about it, but one thing is for certain in my mind: the existence of a collective can be seriously questioned. Its abstract, amorphous, mind-dependant, something like a natural kinda political kind. Utilizing it as a subject of evaluation focuses value inwards rather than in a direction that would benefit actual flesh-and-blood people. When it comes to the question what is more natural, valuing others above our own ideas seems to me more natural
Not unlike the ego...
I'm sure you're not disputing the existence of groups, so I gather you are disputing the existence of an internal or organic solidarity versus an external unity?
However, the larger the scope becomes, the more abstract these supposed ties become, the more imaginary (that is to say, non-existent) the group, the more it must rely on coercion and generally the more problematic the results become.
At a certain point it seems that collectivism no longer cares about its (supposed) members, and it becomes an exercise in what is essentially slavery - the subjugation of its (supposed) members to the group ideal, regardless of their individual wishes.
Suppose I find myself in my local recruiter's office, and he intends to draft me for the Vietnam War.
I look at the Vietnam War and conclude that based on what I see, there's no way I have anything in common with the nation that conducts it - I am not an American.
How does the recruiter solve this? What tangible link can the recruiter point to that would save his case, that I am indeed an American and have a duty to go to Vietnam and fight there?
So the problem may only be that people lose sight of what is in their common best interest when group size exceeds Dunbar's number. If there can be an organic solidarity in smaller groups then perhaps better education is the key to establishing a more enlightened kind of organic solidarity in larger. Arguably the ruling class presents a unified front under the powerful motivation of maintaining advantage. Whereas the proletariat is united by exploitation, which is more of an external force than an internal motivation. Which helps to explain why mobilization of the working class is more difficult: its members fail to recognize their own solidarity.
We see this in unionization efforts. But its fairly easy to overcome: just listen to people. Theyll be much more in common than not.
As for large numbers thats a problem in anyway system. Thats why we subdivide between regions, states, districts, cities and towns.
You present a false dichotomy. We are already put-upon by being born itself. You have to survive. You didn't choose this. You can comply with the dictates necessary for survival or die. This itself is the primordial conflict.
It is a fact that we need to work to survive in some socio-economic context. YOU are a worker in that context. There is the illusion that because in some societies there are limited market transactions to sell your labor, that this must be just. But the injustice is needing a job in the first place.
Look at it this way.. If your only retort is, "If you don't like it, you can always kill yourself" then your supposed doctrine of "freedom" has a flaw from it right from the start. The problem with political philosophy is its narrow-mindedness to the defaults of our human condition, as if it can be cut off into something like "free markets vs. collectivist" debates. Politics starts at being born at all.
Apparently, Stalin saw only the forest, and not the trees. Which is why he could view individuals as expendable for the higher purposes of the collective. I suspect that Kings, Dictators, and Potentates-in-general share that view from on high. So, they have different "priorities" from those of us in the "huddled masses".
But, philosophers are supposed to be able to see the whole picture, including both general and particular, both classes and instances. So, it's strange that many utopian philosophers, such as Plato, believed that the masses should be governed by philosopher-kings. In practice, such unlimited power corrupts, so it's hard to avoid becoming absolute autocrats. Fortunately, for us in the "democratic" world, some of our political thinkers saw the need to limit the powers of forest-over-seers, with input from the limited perspectives of the single-tree-seers. :smile:
Yet you use the English language, you are gainfully employed, you participate at this forum. All of these require communal/collectivist/social reasoning.
Possibly, you don't lack "the necessary neural connections required to see the world as the activity of groups etc.", but, rather, have so internalized communal/collectivist/social reasoning that you don't even realize you have it.
Solidarity is sometimes counterproductive. The weak and the poor being solidary with one another only keeps them weak and poor.
Such is the power of self-actualization.
All of which I learned from individuals. I have never met the collective, let alone learned anything from it.
I like working. Like you said, without it I die. I can use my myself to sustain myself. Its amazing when I think of it.
Some people like state sponsored healthcare. So?Do you see that there is no substantial difference. You arbitrarily start after the forced decision
Also some people have a disability and no families.
We're not allowed to call the modern for profit corporation an example of collectivist enterprise? A group of individuals come together and are constrained in their freedoms to work for stakeholders/shareholders as a group. Every employee is to some extent a stakeholder insofar as they rely on the company for their own individual well being (they rely on some collective for their well being). These companies concentrate the power to influence state policies and to influence the greater collective.
Wherever the individual goes he/she is embedded in collective enterprises, ideologies that bind men and women in common values, causes. There is always, always, always the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of life's lottery (the caste/condition of one's individuality). There will never be a kind of state in which these tyrannies disappear entirely.
No one forces me to work, though, except the state. Some of my time and effort is stolen from me. Im not sure that is the case with what youre talking about.
I didnt say that. Rather the situation of comply (work/survive in X way) or die was forced upon you. That wasnt the state. And if you retort that you dont mind this, other people dont mind state sponsored healthcare and other collectivist ideas.
Your bitter fantasy is getting the better of your grammar again.
The situation is a necessary part of being you, it wasn't forced upon you. There is no 'you' without that requirement. It's like saying "being made of cells" is forced upon you. There is no you without the cells which constitute you.
No such situation was forced upon me. I dont think remaining in the womb is a preferable existence.
The alternative is no you at all. Its called states of affairs. I can talk about those as conditionals and counterfactuals. A child could be born (forced) or not (not forced). Oh dear how I broke all time, logic, and proportion, oh my!
For NOS, if it was okay to be born, and have the conditions of life foisted on you, then some people want healthcare foisted on others. If a majority vote it in a democracy, foisting can become legitimate governance. Then its about at what level is healthcare programs appropriate. Is it violating a right? So is any governance some would say. Wheres the line?
I would boast about it, but if you're impressed...
I dont want this condition..is not breaking any grammar rules. The condition being necessary makes it all the more pertinent to the argument. You do X then Y will always happen. It is a state of affairs.
No. You can whinge about it all you like. Saying it was forced upon you, is nonsense. There's no 'you' without it. The trouble with all your arguments is that you just can't let go of the drive to blame someone. someone did this to you. But no-one did this to you other than you. There was no you, then there was, and one of the conditions of being you is that you must either do what it takes to survive or else die. Since there was no you before then (nor could there even possibly be) no-one 'did' anything to you.
So baby born into lava pit. No one did anything. Lava pit is a condition.
And your problem with all your arguments is you dont recognize de facto conditions as still forced conditions.
Yeah. Lava pits are dangerous and babies need not be born into them. Someone did that to the baby the moment that baby was born (or conceived even). It's not a necessary part of being them that they drop into a lava pit. It is a necessary part of being you that you either do what it takes to survive or you die.
Glad we are on the same page there.
Quoting Isaac
Thats also applied to any necessary condition of life.
Quoting Isaac
And a conditions necessity doesnt make it any different than the lava pit scenario, when it comes to impositions.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm quite happy to admit they're forced too. But not on you. There's no 'you' without them.
It's the difference between a fireman complaining about long working hours and a fireman complaining about fighting fires. A fireman need not work long hours, but a fireman just ceases to be a fireman unless they fight fires.
Nor has anyone else. But the things you've learned from those individuals can only work because there is the assumption that those things work interpersonally, within a social group, as opposed to idiosyncratically, as things that would work only between yourself and the person you learned it from.
I don't see the distinction as valuable. If you had to fight fires for the rest of your life and could not escape unless you killed yourself, you can complain legitimately, even if that means there wouldn't be a "you" without fighting fires. If someone says.. "Boy, I hate this feature that life is about that I find myself having to encounter".. That is a legitimate complaint (e.g. people inevitably get sick, die, encounter negative things, etc.).
Your complaint isn't the illegitimate part. Your blame is.
No one did this to you.
Being you requires that you survive or die. So it's impossible for someone to impose that situation on you. It what being you consists of.
You can whinge like a five year old about it. Fucking annoying, but not incoherent.
Saying someone did it to you is equally annoying, but additionally incoherent.
Procreation is not an event? Being born is not a state of affairs caused by an act previously? Interesting. Didn't know that.
Quoting Isaac
But this is the canard of those who impose. I can call anything you say, do, and believe annoying as fuck and even throw in a lot of :roll: :roll: :roll: , so? These kind of not-so-subtle ad homs don't do much and are annoying as fuck.. Not unpredictable though.
Quoting Isaac
So like anything nuanced, it's not really that kind of complaint, how you phrase it. Rather the project of procreation itself is being impugned, and not trying to "pin" the practice on this or that set of people for not sufficiently understanding the philosophy or embracing it. I am not here to condemn the people, just question the practice and philosophy that is seemingly "unquestionable" for many folks and who get riled up in any philosophical attempt to engage it because they can't cope with differences, which is real fucking annoying sometimes.
Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A claim which is performatively contradicted by your grammar...which was the point of my comment.
As to the general philosophy, I've already presented counterarguments on several occasions. I've no intention of repeating them to the disinterested.
And I've argued and counterargued back, so? These are the kind of statements that can be said on both sides against the opposing view.
Quoting Isaac
What? Procreation takes the will and act of others...The state of affairs of being procreated is a state of affairs of X condition. You can mince words all you like, that is all I need to make the case. Everything else is rhetorical nonsense you are trying to make a case OUT OF but for which none exists.
Exactly.
We'd have to venture into a more "exotic cosmogony" in order to be able to coherently claim that the injustice of birth is done _to_ someone.
An "exotic cosmogony" like the one where living beings happily exist as "disembodied souls", but who can be embodied against their will by the act of someone else.
Twisting of how language works...
Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.
Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.
Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.
Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).
Yeah. The interesting question then is whether (and why) those 'disembodied souls' have any criteria necessary to their existence. I mean, it seems pretty implausible to me that even 'disembodied souls' could exist without any necessary properties.
I fear even if such entities existed, then @schopenhauer1 would still be whining to the other 'disembodied souls' about being 'forced' to maintain those properties.
Any system at all requires that it works against entropy to exist. So disembodied souls would be subject to no less a requirement.
None of that makes sense. The state of affairs you're talking about are a necessity for the 'someone else'. So your second statement is absolutely, unarguably false.
Quoting schopenhauer1
One doesn't 'come into existence' at all. It's not a thing that 'one' can do because 'one' has to exist first. Before.
Maybe you are misunderstanding it? It is meant that there is a counterfactual that COULD have happened (Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X).
Quoting Isaac
Weird metaphysics. A "person" at some point X becomes a person (though this is often debated as "when"). You disagree?
It couldn't have happened. It's impossible.
One could (or could not) have created a person.
One could not do (or not do) anything to a person or on behalf of a person at all because there was no person to act upon until the act of creation was over. Ergo, the act of creation cannot be done to, or for, the person thereby created. It breaks normal causality.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. Obviously. A person cannot become a person. They already are one. An embryo becomes a person, or a gamete does, or a 'disembodied soul' does, depending on your beliefs.
But...this is the important bit...no one imposes the necessary conditions of existence even on those. An embryo has necessary conditions of existence. A gamete cell has necessary conditions of existence. A disembodied soul has necessary conditions of existence.
For anything which exists it is necessary that it resist entropic decay otherwise it will cease to exist.
This is a necessary condition even of computer code, galaxies, sandcastles...
No one imposes this.
This is ridiculous. Now you are going to deny the idea of conditionals (things that COULD very well happen if you acted upon it?). Odd thing to deny. For example, you COULD be making a better argument, but you are making this one. If a baby is born into a lava pit, what is it that is born into a lava pit.. Wait. for. it. A PERSON! THAT is the entity that should not be thrown into a lava pit. But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? Rubbish.
Quoting Isaac
Yep and do not make those X (gametes, embryo, disembodied soul) a person. What's your point?
Quoting Isaac
You notice, I don't care much what happens to rocks, galaxies, and other non-sentient things. I wonder why that is?
I haven't even mentioned well-being.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That they'd still have necessary conditions of existence.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You don't care much about babies born on the other side of the world either. I don't see what the size of your circle of compassion has to do with causality.
If what you're saying is that human care about their necessary conditions of existence (whereas rocks don't), then I agree, but that doesn't constitute an argument against procreation. Most humans find those conditions acceptable costs and so it's a reasonable gamble to take for the benefit to society.
Having lost that argument, you now want to make the problem one of unjust imposition, but you can't because the necessary conditions of existence are not imposed by anyone, they are a fact of the world. No one forced that on me, so no injustice has taken place. All that procreation has done is change the necessary conditions of existence from those of a gamete, to those of an embryo, to those of person. At no point has the mere fact that entities must resist entropic decay been imposed.
Red-herring.. I am talking about the considerations of someone in the future that isn't born yet. Lava pit baby and humans being born in general are all "real considerations". The actual person doesn't have to be born for these considerations to be "about" what could be an actual person born. This is common sense, but you are twisting it with word games.. Odd, based on some of your other positions I've seen in discussions you've had about language and Wittgenstein..
Quoting Isaac
That is my point too, so I'll move to your next statement...
Quoting Isaac
And this is exactly what I am refuting.. First off, gambling with other people's lives, even if say, 90% of the time got it right, is still wrong. But besides the obvious gambling argument, beyond that, imposing one's will on another and burdening them with impositions is wrong 100% of the time. Significantly making decisions that affect others so greatly is never something we would normally do de novo, without cause other than "We would feel sad if we didn't". Rather, it is only ameliorating a greater for a lesser harm that this would matter. And since no person exists yet to be ameliorated, that isn't the case here. And no, ethics doesn't work like thus: "I feel sad for not being able to harm X person..therefore X person gets to get harmed.. because there MIGHT be good for that person along with the harms".. The "good" doesn't justify doing the harm to that person.. and certainly not because you or others would have negative feelings for not affecting that person so.. Again, only in people like children or mentally handicapped does that make sense because they presumably don't have the decision-making skills (NOW THAT THEY ARE MADE TO BE IN THIS POSITION OF CARE), that it would matter.
Now your natural tendency to then revert BACK to the "but there is no person.. not EVEN a child that is there".. Doesn't make a difference because a person WILL be affected (like the lava pit baby) by your actions and it is THESE very actions that are the ethical issue (causing negatives/ deciding what are the conditions another person should endure) that are in question as to whether it's ethical to decide for someone else. It's not, is the answer.. Never was, never is, never will be. And equivocating governmental actions with ethical actions (like government gets to tax you.. see greater good..) is simply making a category mistake. Your interpersonal actions are not equivalent to how law operates. Not helping the grandma cross the street, whilst possibly unethical, is not necessarily illegal.
Quoting Isaac
Haha, what are you taking a page from Trump's playbook? Declare victory even if you haven't won? Nice try though.
Quoting Isaac
The mere fact of entropic decay matters not for the previous state of affairs. Once a person, it now "matters" in the way that suffering/negative experiences/values matters to a sentient and self-aware being.
It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point.
No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious.
It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in?
Absolutely, I was thinking the same thing.
Quoting Tzeentch
Agreed.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, I think you got at whats going on here. And I understand your frustration. It does seem like rhetorical ploys to stall the argument. Most of these arguments are of the sort that are totally against what we usually believe..examples like:
Oh, we cant talk about impositions since there is not a person existing presently
Oh well you can impose on others because youd be sad not to.
Oh you cant complain about the conditions of life because they are necessary to living/existing (But why? Thats the very point being made..these conditions are necessary and perhaps not just to impose. They cannot be escaped once set in motion for another without significant harm).
This last point is the one I want to get to but a lot of stalling happens on the first two points.
Yep I agree. I'm quite happy with your claims that one can take into consideration the well-being of a future person and act accordingly. That has no bearing on the fact that one is limited by the laws of physics in that an entity must resist entropy to exist.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is no other. Caring for the well-being of future people makes sense. talking about 'imposing' burdens on them makes sense (where those burdens are not necessary). We agree on all that so there's no need to review it.
Talking about imposing the necessary conditions of existence is absolute nonsense on stilts. One cannot impose that which is a necessary condition.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It may matter. That's not the same as imposition. You keep arguing that future people care about their situation and we ought care about their feeling prior to their birth and act accordingly. I agree. None of this has any bearing on the notion of the imposition of necessary conditions.
That seems like such an obvious statement of fact that I'm struggling to understand why this is still under debate.
Nonsense. There's no 'you' to be forced until you already live.
Depends on your belief about when life starts. It doesn't matter. Whatever point one becomes a person, that event cannot happen to a person as there's no person until the event is complete.
Quoting Tzeentch
No it didn't. there's no one to force. You could claim that the parents forced a gamete to become a person. I'd accept that (sort of weird use of the word 'force' but let's not be pedantic). But what does it matter if someone forces a gamete to become something. Gametes don't have any moral status.
The parents willfully initiated a process which they knew would result in a person being born and thus forced to live.
An act of force.
Note that your argument is about causal chains, and that, apparently, one can only be responsible for the first step.
I only pulled a trigger, I never shot the gun. It's the bullet that killed him, but I am innocent!
Nope, still wrong. The person being born was not forced to live. they cannot have been because they didn't exist until after that event. A gamete was forced to live.
Quoting Tzeentch
If I recall, that's your argument. Your the one who wants to avoid all responsibility for anything you didn't directly cause.
I hadn't even noticed what thread this was, just responding to 'mentions'. My apologies.
This is actually profoundly wrong. For the vast majority of history, sapiens lived as hunter-gatherers, collectivist groups based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership.
Collectivist groups? Im not so sure about that. Band societies, maybe, most of them kin.
If what is my point?
Collectivist in ways that matter, such as, again, being based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership. Not based on, for instance, a twisted sense of human nature where were continually bent on competition for resources and social status.