And every armed conflict in the world would end if everyone put down their guns right this instant.
We’re talking about structures that reach across the globe, with a momentum that existed before either of us were born, and with a trajectory that will be traced long after we are dead. You don’t shift that trajectory by Wishing Upon a Star that everyone Becomes Better overnight. That’s not a practical approach.
And every armed conflict in the world would end if everyone put down their guns right this instant.
This is actually true. There’s an important lesson about human nature hidden somewhere in this sarcastic sentence.
The reason we need to get rid of capitalism is that it empowers people’s most horrible greedy impulses. However, that’s precisely because people are horrible and greedy. If people were saints, then capitalism wouldn’t matter because nobody would do dumb shit like buy pickup trucks or eat meat.
Again, long before the advent of any abstract “structures” and economic theories, before Hollywood and global communication networks, when humans were still living on random islands, they behaved like total and utter morons. They were not rational. Because 90% of humans are — and again, this is an empirical fact — incapable of moral deliberation.
That’s why we had slavery for 10,000 years. That’s why people torture billions of sentient animals to death in abattoirs every year to eat their carcasses. That’s why Donald Trump won the last election.
Yes. Of course. But I get the sense that you guys are in this weird ideological-purity-testing mode right now. If you actually seriously want to engage with this fascinating research topic in good faith, feel free to message me.
Oh, but since you brought up good faith. In response to simply asking for a source, you attacked my character, tried to gaslight me into thinking I’m in the wrong, and then tried to move the topic into private DMs so nobody else can see it and so you can look like the adult here. This wasn’t even a real offer though, because nobody is going to politely DM you after getting their character attacked out of nowhere like that.
The fact that you’re not willing to publicly show your source about the things you’re claiming in bold are empirical facts tells me that you don’t actually have a source, and are in fact the one not engaging in good faith.
Hello, I am not this entire thread. I am only two, now three, comments in this thread. Do not blame me for the things other people have said.
Literally all I did was ask you for a single source to your claim which sounded very exaggerated to me, and you have since called me uneducated, unreasonable, irrational, maga, and an animal. Meanwhile I haven’t attacked you a single time.
Who’s the one arguing in bad faith again? Be serious.
And you expect me to what, educate you on basic neuroscience?
No, I expected you to give me literally a single source, which you said you have. That’s it. Shouldn’t be hard.
You took issue with the claim that 90% of people are bad at moral reasoning.
Ask yourself if your reaction would be the same if I had claimed that 90% of people are bad at mathematical reasoning.
I hope not, since that’s uncontroversial, despite the fact that the average person studies math for 12+ years (not counting college).
Now why on earth would we expect moral reasoning to be any different? We don’t. In fact, it’s much much worse. In mathematics, we get to operate within painstakingly established formal systems, such as number theory. By contrast, most people never even learn how to syllogize an ethical argument.
We don’t have ethics or moral reasoning coursework in middle school (and if we do it’s usually some sort of religious pseudo-bigotry) and most students never get to study basics like first-order logic. They get their morals from McDonalds commercials and Disney and parents and whatever random scraps of cultural information they encounter in the gutters of our society.
People are MUCH worse at moral reasoning than at mathematics, and 90% was an absurd understatement on my part.
funny you keep coming back to slavery when so much of it was justified by claiming huge chunks of people were, empirically factually, incapable of being fully human
standing in the middle of a system that incentivizes, necessitates even, that people act against our collective shared interest; a system that, half through deliberate intention and half through the selective pressure of market forces, makes sure they have just enough education to be profitable workers – and to say, “We’ve always been this stupid. Just innate, innit?”, well you’re either missing the forest for the trees or for whatever reason you’d rather believe some people can just be written off altogether.
And every armed conflict in the world would end if everyone put down their guns right this instant.
We’re talking about structures that reach across the globe, with a momentum that existed before either of us were born, and with a trajectory that will be traced long after we are dead. You don’t shift that trajectory by Wishing Upon a Star that everyone Becomes Better overnight. That’s not a practical approach.
This is actually true. There’s an important lesson about human nature hidden somewhere in this sarcastic sentence.
The reason we need to get rid of capitalism is that it empowers people’s most horrible greedy impulses. However, that’s precisely because people are horrible and greedy. If people were saints, then capitalism wouldn’t matter because nobody would do dumb shit like buy pickup trucks or eat meat.
Again, long before the advent of any abstract “structures” and economic theories, before Hollywood and global communication networks, when humans were still living on random islands, they behaved like total and utter morons. They were not rational. Because 90% of humans are — and again, this is an empirical fact — incapable of moral deliberation.
That’s why we had slavery for 10,000 years. That’s why people torture billions of sentient animals to death in abattoirs every year to eat their carcasses. That’s why Donald Trump won the last election.
90% of humans. Really. Do you have a source for this claim?
Yes. Of course. But I get the sense that you guys are in this weird ideological-purity-testing mode right now. If you actually seriously want to engage with this fascinating research topic in good faith, feel free to message me.
I’ll have you know I despise trump.
Oh, but since you brought up good faith. In response to simply asking for a source, you attacked my character, tried to gaslight me into thinking I’m in the wrong, and then tried to move the topic into private DMs so nobody else can see it and so you can look like the adult here. This wasn’t even a real offer though, because nobody is going to politely DM you after getting their character attacked out of nowhere like that.
The fact that you’re not willing to publicly show your source about the things you’re claiming in bold are empirical facts tells me that you don’t actually have a source, and are in fact the one not engaging in good faith.
This thread is so bad faith it’s not even funny. And you expect me to what, educate you on basic neuroscience and sociology? No.
Hello, I am not this entire thread. I am only two, now three, comments in this thread. Do not blame me for the things other people have said.
Literally all I did was ask you for a single source to your claim which sounded very exaggerated to me, and you have since called me uneducated, unreasonable, irrational, maga, and an animal. Meanwhile I haven’t attacked you a single time.
Who’s the one arguing in bad faith again? Be serious.
No, I expected you to give me literally a single source, which you said you have. That’s it. Shouldn’t be hard.
You took issue with the claim that 90% of people are bad at moral reasoning.
Ask yourself if your reaction would be the same if I had claimed that 90% of people are bad at mathematical reasoning.
I hope not, since that’s uncontroversial, despite the fact that the average person studies math for 12+ years (not counting college).
Now why on earth would we expect moral reasoning to be any different? We don’t. In fact, it’s much much worse. In mathematics, we get to operate within painstakingly established formal systems, such as number theory. By contrast, most people never even learn how to syllogize an ethical argument.
We don’t have ethics or moral reasoning coursework in middle school (and if we do it’s usually some sort of religious pseudo-bigotry) and most students never get to study basics like first-order logic. They get their morals from McDonalds commercials and Disney and parents and whatever random scraps of cultural information they encounter in the gutters of our society.
People are MUCH worse at moral reasoning than at mathematics, and 90% was an absurd understatement on my part.
funny you keep coming back to slavery when so much of it was justified by claiming huge chunks of people were, empirically factually, incapable of being fully human
standing in the middle of a system that incentivizes, necessitates even, that people act against our collective shared interest; a system that, half through deliberate intention and half through the selective pressure of market forces, makes sure they have just enough education to be profitable workers – and to say, “We’ve always been this stupid. Just innate, innit?”, well you’re either missing the forest for the trees or for whatever reason you’d rather believe some people can just be written off altogether.