Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:
-snip-
>

Huh? I don't follow.

Are you trying to say that you've been making your statements about the nonexistance of "white privilege" for the last 4 pages of this thread based on the fact that there's almost no more institutionalized racism in the US? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not the case, because it would take an impossibly stupid person to believe that Manchu & I have been promoting the idea that Jim Crow laws still exist today.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

 Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

So because you don't believe it that makes it so? Human civilization is based on helping each other.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So because you don't believe it that makes it so? Human civilization is based on helping each other.

That makes the iffy assumption that cooperation is the exact same thing as "helping someone in need," and that it is done purely for moral reasons rather than mutual benefit. No. Cooperation is great, but it's not a moral imperative.

 Seaward wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So because you don't believe it that makes it so? Human civilization is based on helping each other.

Cooperation is great, but it's not a moral imperative.

Is that why there are so many successful people that did everything by themself?

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Is that why we so many successful people that did everything by themself?

What?

Wow that came out seriously ugly lol.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

Consequentialistic ethics also suggests the obligation to help in all forms except for "Ethical Egoism" (Kovnik Obama can correct me if I'm mistaken of the title; I think that's what it's called... it translates to being a selfish prick that should be put to death in the best interests of society).

Pragmatic ethics would also suggest a moral oblication to help.

So yeah... you haven't really managed to justify anything yet; just imply a certain level of narcissism.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Consequentialistic ethics also suggests the obligation to help in all forms except for "Ethical Egoism" (Kovnik Obama can correct me if I'm mistaken of the title; I think that's what it's called... it translates to being a selfish prick that should be put to death in the best interests of society).

That's not at all what ethical egoism is, unless that's how it's taught up there in Canada. Which wouldn't surprise me.

Pragmatic ethics would also suggest a moral oblication to help.

Maybe, but who cares?

So yeah... you haven't really managed to justify anything yet; just imply a certain level of narcissism.

Did you really hit the bottom of the well on ethical systems already? That's it? Consequentialism and pragmatic ethics? C'mon. You can hit up Wikipedia all night and keep busy, man.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Consequentialistic ethics also suggests the obligation to help in all forms except for "Ethical Egoism" (Kovnik Obama can correct me if I'm mistaken of the title; I think that's what it's called... it translates to being a selfish prick that should be put to death in the best interests of society).

That's not at all what ethical egoism is, unless that's how it's taught up there in Canada. Which wouldn't surprise me.

Not really sure what the Canada comment is about...

As I said, I might have the title wrong... I think it's called "ethical egoism" wherein the agent acts only according their their own benefit, even when it will harm others. Hence, why it is in society's best interests to eliminate these people, as they can only ever inadvertantly help society during those times when society's interests coincide with that of the agent. However, in a world with so many zero-sum games, this is rarely the case and thus society will generally be better off without those agents.

Seaward wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:So yeah... you haven't really managed to justify anything yet; just imply a certain level of narcissism.

Did you really hit the bottom of the well on ethical systems already? That's it? Consequentialism and pragmatic ethics? C'mon. You can hit up Wikipedia all night and keep busy, man.

Uh, between consequentialist, deontological and pragmatic, I'm not so sure there's really any other types. Everything specific just falls into one of those categories.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

Consequentialistic ethics also suggests the obligation to help in all forms except for "Ethical Egoism" (Kovnik Obama can correct me if I'm mistaken of the title; I think that's what it's called... it translates to being a selfish prick that should be put to death in the best interests of society).

Pragmatic ethics would also suggest a moral oblication to help.

So yeah... you haven't really managed to justify anything yet; just imply a certain level of narcissism.

That's correct as far as the name. Generic utilitarianism doesn't really offer a constant and good incitation toward helping others, but some forms do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

As far as Seaward's claim to 'not buy into deontological ethics', it doesn't make him a consequentialist. He could be a ethical intuitionnalist, an amoralist, etc... But anyway, if he reduces the phonemena of altruism in humankind (and in a lot of other species) to deontological ethics, then he's already got a problem. Maybe the term 'obligation' and the 'legal coercion' aspect of ethics is to blame.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
As far as Seaward's claim to 'not buy into deontological ethics', it doesn't make him a consequentialist. He could be a ethical intuitionnalist, an amoralist, etc... But anyway, if he reduces the phonemena of altruism in humankind (and in a lot of other species) to deontological ethics, then he's already got a problem. Maybe the term 'obligation' and the 'legal coercion' aspect of ethics is to blame.

Fortunately I never said altruism was deontological, I said moral imperatives were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Not really sure what the Canada comment is about...

Socialists wouldn't really like ethical egoism, thus I'd expect it to be presented in the worst light possible.

As I said, I might have the title wrong... I think it's called "ethical egoism" wherein the agent acts only according their their own benefit, even when it will harm others.

And that's where you're tripping up. You're blending it with individualism, which it isn't.

In the interests of time, could you just state the ethical system to which you subscribe?

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Please enlighten me as to how you don't consider "helping those who need help" to be a moral obligation. I'm really eager to hear your justification.

Simple. I don't buy into deontological ethics in the first place, so have a very hard time granting the premise when it comes to a moral imperative, especially about something so small scale.

Consequentialistic ethics also suggests the obligation to help in all forms except for "Ethical Egoism" (Kovnik Obama can correct me if I'm mistaken of the title; I think that's what it's called... it translates to being a selfish prick that should be put to death in the best interests of society).

Pragmatic ethics would also suggest a moral oblication to help.

So yeah... you haven't really managed to justify anything yet; just imply a certain level of narcissism.

That's correct as far as the name. Generic utilitarianism doesn't really offer a constant and good incitation toward helping others, but some forms do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest).

As far as Seaward's claim to 'not buy into deontological ethics', it doesn't make him a consequentialist. He could be a ethical intuitionnalist, an amoralist, etc... But anyway, if he reduces the phonemena of altruism in humankind (and in a lot of other species) to deontological ethics, then he's already got a problem. Maybe the term 'obligation' and the 'legal coercion' aspect of ethics is to blame.

I disagree. Generic utilitarianism most definitely does offer a constant and good incitation toward helping others; it's just a question of what scale that 'good' is being judged on. The larger the scale, the stronger the sense of 'good' (see: social safety net). And depending on how you want to split hairs in ethical intuitionism, it's gonna be considered either deontological or else pragmatic.

In any case, the issue comes about from Seaward's claim that there is no moral obligation to help someone in need, and I still have yet to see a way to justify that choice.

 azazel the cat wrote:
In any case, the issue comes about from Seaward's claim that there is no moral obligation to help someone in need, and I still have yet to see a way to justify that choice.

Plenty of ethical systems justify that claim. Ethical individualism, act utilitarianism, etc.

You appear to be making the assumption that all ethics are basically the same in regards self vs. society, and that's just not the case.

Wow. I thought this would be yet another thread on racism and privilege. Instead it looks like one's man epic mission to claim that ethical theories let him act like an donkey-cave. Which is a much stupider topic, but at least its kind of novel.

 Seaward wrote:
Plenty of ethical systems justify that claim. Ethical individualism, act utilitarianism, etc.

That isn't what act utilitarianism argues at all, unless you want to make some completely screwball case that helping another person always hurts you more than it hurts them.

I mean fething crapballs man, that your utility is no more important than any other person's is the single biggest assumption of utilitarianism.

 Seaward wrote:

Fortunately I never said altruism was deontological, I said moral imperatives were.

That's tautological. The presence of a moral imperative in a theory of ethics is what makes it a deontological theory of ethics. How do you pretend to disprove moral imperatives? In what sense do you understand 'disprove', in this context? And why does disproving deontological ethics free you of having to help others?

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
In any case, the issue comes about from Seaward's claim that there is no moral obligation to help someone in need, and I still have yet to see a way to justify that choice.

Plenty of ethical systems justify that claim. Ethical individualism, act utilitarianism, etc.

You appear to be making the assumption that all ethics are basically the same in regards self vs. society, and that's just not the case.

You claim about act utilitarianism directly references the debate of self vs society; because the happiness calculation always has to take the other party's happiness into account in addition to your own, and thus unless helping them is of a greater harm to you than of benefit to them, you are acting immorally.

However, if you are basing your utility calculus only on yourself, then you're acting in the fashion of just the sort of ethical egoist douchlord that I described earlier. Ethical individualism is ethical egoism, and existentialism would also obligate you to help the other person unless you're a sadist and derive meaning from the suffering of others.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's tautological. The presence of a moral imperative in a theory of ethics is what makes it a deontological theory of ethics. How do you pretend to disprove moral imperatives? In what sense do you understand 'disprove', in this context? And why does disproving deontological ethics free you of having to help others?

I don't intend to disprove them. In fact, I'm sort of wondering who you're talking to, or if you'd be more comfortable in another language, as you appear to be deliberately misreading what's being said.

sebster wrote:Wow. I thought this would be yet another thread on racism and privilege. Instead it looks like one's man epic mission to claim that ethical theories let him act like an donkey-cave. Which is a much stupider topic, but at least its kind of novel.

 Seaward wrote:
Plenty of ethical systems justify that claim. Ethical individualism, act utilitarianism, etc.

That isn't what act utilitarianism argues at all, unless you want to make some completely screwball case that helping another person always hurts you more than it hurts them.

I mean fething crapballs man, that your utility is no more important than any other person's is the single biggest assumption of utilitarianism.

Okay, that actually made me laugh, and I really needed some levity here.

Take an exalt.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You claim about act utilitarianism directly references the debate of self vs society; because the happiness calculation always has to take the other party's happiness into account in addition to your own, and thus unless helping them is of a greater harm to you than of benefit to them, you are acting immorally.

Actually, it would have to take all involved parties' happiness into account. When we're talking about 'those in need,' we're talking about a vast segment of society, just as we are with 'those in a position to help.'

However, if you are basing your utility calculus only on yourself, then you're acting in the fashion of just the sort of ethical egoist douchlord that I described earlier. Ethical individualism is ethical egoism, and existentialism would also obligate you to help the other person unless you're a sadist and derive meaning from the suffering of others.

"Ethical egoist douchlords" fortunately manage to avoid a lot of the logical death spirals of other systems and do not, in fact, function on sadism.

 Seaward wrote:
I don't intend to disprove them.

So if not on the basis of argument then on what basis do you reject them?

In terms of white privilige... I don't have a lot of experience to speak on. Almost the entirety of my life has been involved with the US Military. I was born a military brat, and went active duty when I was 17. 28 years of my life, I've lived on a military base for all but 4 of it. So I've grown up in a society where everyone is equal. There is no privilidge.

Those 4 years where I didn't? I lived in a predominantly white county in N. W. MIchigan. My class was about 120 people, and we had 1 hispanic make up our "minorities". Benzie County is a small poor county. It's entire budget is a little over 5 million dollars.

Detroit on the other hand, whites only make up 10.6% of the population, yet if you take Detroits public school budget, and divide it by the number of schools that they have, you come to around 9.2 million dollars. That's almost twice the budget of the entirety of Benzie County.

It seems to me like there was some who were a lot more privilidged then us.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's tautological. The presence of a moral imperative in a theory of ethics is what makes it a deontological theory of ethics. How do you pretend to disprove moral imperatives? In what sense do you understand 'disprove', in this context? And why does disproving deontological ethics free you of having to help others?

I don't intend to disprove them. In fact, I'm sort of wondering who you're talking to, or if you'd be more comfortable in another language, as you appear to be deliberately misreading what's being said.

I understand perfectly well your meaning ; you claimed that 'not buying in with deontological ethics', whatever that means, meant that you did not accept moral imperatives as a premisse to justify the obligation of helping others, which Azazel expressed in the form of a maxim : 'you should help those in needs'. If, as you say in this post, you are not prepared to explain why you don't 'buy in deontological ethics' or don't accept the existence of moral imperatives, then there's nothing more to discuss ; you are simply making an argument without laying it's foundations. If you were to offer some elaborate explanation as to why you disagree with deontological ethics and moral imperatives, one could still say that you are reading too narrowly the meaning of Azazel's question, using the pre-existant notions of ethical individualism to disprove only the ethical interpretation of his meaning. Beyond the question of the form that takes the moral phenomena remains the fact that there is a moral phenomena. You brushed on it when you reduced the question to cooperation, moral reasons and mutual benefits.

djones520 wrote:In terms of white privilige... I don't have a lot of experience to speak on. Almost the entirety of my life has been involved with the US Military. I was born a military brat, and went active duty when I was 17. 28 years of my life, I've lived on a military base for all but 4 of it. So I've grown up in a society where everyone is equal. There is no privilidge.

Those 4 years where I didn't? I lived in a predominantly white county in N. W. MIchigan. My class was about 120 people, and we had 1 hispanic make up our "minorities". Benzie County is a small poor county. It's entire budget is a little over 5 million dollars.

Detroit on the other hand, whites only make up 10.6% of the population, yet if you take Detroits public school budget, and divide it by the number of schools that they have, you come to around 9.2 million dollars. That's almost twice the budget of the entirety of Benzie County.

It seems to me like there was some who were a lot more privilidged then us.

Now divide that 9.2 million dollars by the number of students in Detroit, and compare that to your school's budget divided by about 120, as you said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That's tautological. The presence of a moral imperative in a theory of ethics is what makes it a deontological theory of ethics. How do you pretend to disprove moral imperatives? In what sense do you understand 'disprove', in this context? And why does disproving deontological ethics free you of having to help others?

I don't intend to disprove them. In fact, I'm sort of wondering who you're talking to, or if you'd be more comfortable in another language, as you appear to be deliberately misreading what's being said.

I understand perfectly well your meaning ; you claimed that 'not buying in with deontological ethics', whatever that means, meant that you did not accept moral imperatives as a premisse to justify the obligation of helping others, which Azazel expressed in the form of a maxim : 'you should help those in needs'. If, as you say in this post, you are not prepared to explain why you don't 'buy in deontological ethics' or don't accept the existence of moral imperatives, then there's nothing more to discuss ; you are simply making an argument without laying it's foundations. If you were to offer some elaborate explanation as to why you disagree with deontological ethics and moral imperatives, one could still say that you are reading too narrowly the meaning of Azazel's question, using the pre-existant notions of ethical individualism to disprove only the ethical interpretation of his meaning. Beyond the question of the form that takes the moral phenomena remains the fact that there is a moral phenomena. You brushed on it when you reduced the question to cooperation, moral reasons and mutual benefits.

Christ, I'm tired. That was even hard to read, nevermind type out myself. Thank you for so eloquently ninja-ing me; my own attempt at that would have come out something akin to "blargh! garble bugga pbbbbsh". But rest assured, the meaning behind it would have been essentially what you have expressed.

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:In terms of white privilige... I don't have a lot of experience to speak on. Almost the entirety of my life has been involved with the US Military. I was born a military brat, and went active duty when I was 17. 28 years of my life, I've lived on a military base for all but 4 of it. So I've grown up in a society where everyone is equal. There is no privilidge.

Those 4 years where I didn't? I lived in a predominantly white county in N. W. MIchigan. My class was about 120 people, and we had 1 hispanic make up our "minorities". Benzie County is a small poor county. It's entire budget is a little over 5 million dollars.

Detroit on the other hand, whites only make up 10.6% of the population, yet if you take Detroits public school budget, and divide it by the number of schools that they have, you come to around 9.2 million dollars. That's almost twice the budget of the entirety of Benzie County.

It seems to me like there was some who were a lot more privilidged then us.

Now divide that 9.2 million dollars by the number of students in Detroit, and compare that to your school's budget divided by about 120, as you said.

My class was about 120. 134 schools in Detriot, 66,000 students. 492 kids per school. Benzie County averaged out around 500 (can't find an exact number) per school.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
I understand perfectly well your meaning ; you claimed that 'not buying in with deontological ethics', whatever that means, meant that you did not accept moral imperatives as a premisse to justify the obligation of helping others, which Azazel expressed in the form of a maxim : 'you should help those in needs'. If, as you say in this post, you are not prepared to explain why you don't 'buy in deontological ethics' or don't accept the existence of moral imperatives, then there's nothing more to discuss ; you are simply making an argument without laying it's foundations. If you were to offer some elaborate explanation as to why you disagree with deontological ethics and moral imperatives, one could still say that you are reading too narrowly the meaning of Azazel's question, using the pre-existant notions of ethical individualism to disprove only the ethical interpretation of his meaning. Beyond the question of the form that takes the moral phenomena remains the fact that there is a moral phenomena. You brushed on it when you reduced the question to cooperation, moral reasons and mutual benefits.

We can reduce this down to, "Either you have reasons for not subscribing to categorical imperative ethics or you do not. In either case, you are wrong." As a guy who, I'm assuming, did a philosophy degree, you're surely aware that there are plenty of ethical systems that do not make use of moral imperatives, and the existing body of criticism of the moral imperative regardless.

Benzie County's population is about 2% of Detroit's. But go on, keep explaining how Detroit proves there is no such thing as white privilege.

djones520 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

djones520 wrote:
It seems to me like there was some who were a lot more privilidged then us.

Now divide that 9.2 million dollars by the number of students in Detroit, and compare that to your school's budget divided by about 120, as you said.

My class was about 120. 134 schools in Detriot, 66,000 students. 492 kids per school. Benzie County averaged out around 500 (can't find an exact number) per school.

Something is wrong with those numbers... I'm calling shenanigans on the idea that an urban school district averages 492 kids per school. I live in Vancouver, Canada and most of the suburban high schools here have 2000+ students.

 Manchu wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I don't intend to disprove them.

So if not on the basis of argument then on what basis do you reject them?

"I don't have to and you can't make me"