The New Sea Territory wrote:Yoshida wrote:
However cliche it may sound, when you get rid of morality, you cease to be able to explain why certain actions should be avoided. If someone can commit a heinous crime and get away with it, having no emotional compunction against doing it, then you fail to explain why they should not.
It's not a cliche, its tautological. "Should" implies some sense of obligation; this does not objectively (read: mind-independent) exist, so all statements around what someone "should" do are false (unless a certain condition is supplied: "If you want X, then you should Y").
This still doesn't really answer criticisms of morality. It's more of just saying "without morality, you can't do all the things morality does".
You're really abusing the notion of mind-independence here.
Mind-independent notions are things that are true or false independent of anyone believing in them. This is to contrast subjective or mind-dependent notions like beauty (though people like Aristotle will fight tooth and nail on this). Something cannot be objectively beautiful, it's beautiful to me or you because we believe it to be.
Whereas the norms of logic and mathematics are mind independent. It doesn't matter whether you believe two and two equals four. As a construct of pure reason, it's true completely independent of belief, and it's true in all conceivable universes.
Without getting into evaluating the truth value of moral claims, it's erroneous to claim that they are mind-dependent. Obligation by its very nature implies mind-independence. Any moral system makes claims that it holds are true regardless of any individual's belief in them. It doesn't matter for Kant, for example, whether you believe in the categorical imperative or not. You are still to be judged for noncompliance, whether it is a conscious rejection or ignorance.
Pandeeria wrote:So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?
I focus mostly on personal artistic endeavors. Sometimes it's skewering a Nazi Furry/jibbering idiot's god awful self published novel. Other times it's writing fanfic or working on some short stories or trying to finish my novel about fully automated luxury queer space communists bashing the fash.
The New Sea Territory wrote:What I find interesting is how a socialist can criticize capitalism for its dependence on limitless growth because its never really unlimited, all the while defending industrialization's same faith in limitless growth.
Our most important post-revolution goal should be getting off this rock. A space civilization has access to easily available raw materials and energy resources that absolutely dwarf what's available on Earth, and is not dependent on a biosphere to sustain it. All the necessary technology already exists to make it viable. The only remaining hurdle is Earth's punishing gravity well.