Left-Wing Discussion Thread II: Behind 700,000 Bunkers

[The New Sea Territory]

I'm pretty sure the basis of utilitarianism is to maximize the present material standard of life, even if it's at the cost of a small group of people or at the cost of people's freedom.

The alternative is the opposite. Would you rather the opposite?

Moreso, I'm more afraid of a technocratic council or any utilitarian government simply degrading down into power lust.

Regardless of whether a utilitarian government would degrade into power lust, power lust runs contrary to utilitarian ethics - a desire for personal power gain conflicts with the interests of the majority.

Is this always true?

Dictators and coups can be pretty popular.

[Pandeeria]

I'm pretty sure the basis of utilitarianism is to maximize the present material standard of life, even if it's at the cost of a small group of people or at the cost of people's freedom.

The alternative is the opposite. Would you rather the opposite?

Moreso, I'm more afraid of a technocratic council or any utilitarian government simply degrading down into power lust.

Regardless of whether a utilitarian government would degrade into power lust, power lust runs contrary to utilitarian ethics - a desire for personal power gain conflicts with the interests of the majority.

I hate to say it, but the general swarming masses of the Proletariat do not always know what's best for themselves. See: the people vehemently standing with either Trump or Clinton.

[The New Sea Territory]

The alternative is the opposite. Would you rather the opposite?

Regardless of whether a utilitarian government would degrade into power lust, power lust runs contrary to utilitarian ethics - a desire for personal power gain conflicts with the interests of the majority.

I hate to say it, but the general swarming masses of the Proletariat do not always know what's best for themselves. See: the people vehemently standing with either Trump or Clinton.

Even self-interest can become a spook, when people start saying things like this, saying that "I know what is in your self-interest more than you do".

[Pandeeria]

I hate to say it, but the general swarming masses of the Proletariat do not always know what's best for themselves. See: the people vehemently standing with either Trump or Clinton.

Even self-interest can become a spook, when people start saying things like this, saying that "I know what is in your self-interest more than you do".

lol, you really think the standard radical Trump supporter, flying high the American flag while screaming to build the wall, really has their best self-interests?

[Conscentia]

The basis of utilitarianism is that each of us has a moral duty to increase the common joy and ease the common pain. Do you not think that socialism and freedom serve to do that? Or are you using a strange definition of "utilitarianism"?

...well, I don't support utilitarianism, and find justifying socialism with any moral system to be a potential danger.

I'm not a utilitarian either, but that's isn't because I consider it a threat to socialism. When I was a utilitarian, I justified socialism on ethical grounds.

The alternative is the opposite. Would you rather the opposite?

Regardless of whether a utilitarian government would degrade into power lust, power lust runs contrary to utilitarian ethics - a desire for personal power gain conflicts with the interests of the majority.

Is this always true?

Well not literally the opposite. It's possible to neither maximise nor minimise utility. However, the alternative to optimum utility is necessarily sub-optimum utility, with the costs being spread over a greater number than is strictly necessary. So more accurately, I should've asked "Would you rather a larger group than a small group?".

Dictators and coups can be pretty popular.

Not because they maximise the dictator's power.

[Conscentia]

The alternative is the opposite. Would you rather the opposite?

Regardless of whether a utilitarian government would degrade into power lust, power lust runs contrary to utilitarian ethics - a desire for personal power gain conflicts with the interests of the majority.

I hate to say it, but the general swarming masses of the Proletariat do not always know what's best for themselves. See: the people vehemently standing with either Trump or Clinton.

Utilitarianism isn't necessarily about giving people what they explicitly say they want. Anti-Vaxxers may want to ban vaccines, but this would not actually maximise utility so it would not be utilitarian to ban vaccines.

[Pandeeria]

I hate to say it, but the general swarming masses of the Proletariat do not always know what's best for themselves. See: the people vehemently standing with either Trump or Clinton.

Utilitarianism isn't necessarily about giving people what they explicitly say they want. Anti-Vaxxers may want to ban vaccines, but this would not actually maximise utility so it would not be utilitarian to ban vaccines.

Maybe what I want isn't necessarily most efficient. Maybe I want to smoke and eat junk food and not exercise. These things will surely be ruled against by a Technocracy.

[Mattopilos]

Even self-interest can become a spook, when people start saying things like this, saying that "I know what is in your self-interest more than you do".

lol, you really think the standard radical Trump supporter, flying high the American flag while screaming to build the wall, really has their best self-interests?

Of course they don't - but can you claim to know exactly what is in their best interest? You can make a suggestion and a point to what might be in their self-interest, but you can never be definite in that you know 100% what is best for them.

[Pandeeria]

lol, you really think the standard radical Trump supporter, flying high the American flag while screaming to build the wall, really has their best self-interests?

Of course they don't - but can you claim to know exactly what is in their best interest? You can make a suggestion and a point to what might be in their self-interest, but you can never be definite in that you know 100% what is best for them.

True, which only further discredits Utilitarianism.

[The New Sea Territory]

Even self-interest can become a spook, when people start saying things like this, saying that "I know what is in your self-interest more than you do".

lol, you really think the standard radical Trump supporter, flying high the American flag while screaming to build the wall, really has their best self-interests?

No.

I do think telling other people what is in their self-interest effectively turns it into a spook no different from Randian ethical egoism or any other moralism. This line of attack is not only contrary to our (or, at least my) aims (as it reinforces hierarchical relations), but it is unlikely to convince anyone.

---

I'm not a utilitarian either, but that's isn't because I consider it a threat to socialism. When I was a utilitarian, I justified socialism on ethical grounds.

The maximum happiness of any collective is yet another deity-like abstract ground for morality. It's not much different from the relationship between the stalinist Party and "the People" Zizek describes: the measurement of utility is always dependent on the measurer. Anyone's happiness who contradicts the measurer's conclusion can be excluded from the "common will" or whatever you want to call it. In the same way, "the People" always supports the Party, because anyone who opposes the Party exlcudes themselves from "the People"; they are an "Enemy of the People". It's self-fulfilling.

For this reason, it could potentially threaten an anti-authoritarian movement.

[Conscentia]

Of course they don't - but can you claim to know exactly what is in their best interest? You can make a suggestion and a point to what might be in their self-interest, but you can never be definite in that you know 100% what is best for them.

True, which only further discredits Utilitarianism.

Not really. Does it discredit Physics that physicists can't know for certain whether their theories are true? No. So why would it discredit utilitarianism that utilitarians cannot know for certain whether a particular action or policy will maximise utility?

[The New Sea Territory]

True, which only further discredits Utilitarianism.

Not really. Does it discredit Physics that physicists can't know for certain whether their theories are true? No. So why would it discredit utilitarianism that utilitarians cannot know for certain whether a particular action or policy will maximise utility?

Physics is a hard science, with ethical theories are (at best) philosophy. Being wrong in a scientific theory can be corrected through its own methodology; the scientific method can replace this theory. Being wrong with an ethical theory means getting rid of that ethical theory entirely, typically to replace it with a new ethical theory with new methods of judging right and wrong.

Physics and Ethics are very different.

[Conscentia]

I'm not a utilitarian either, but that's isn't because I consider it a threat to socialism. When I was a utilitarian, I justified socialism on ethical grounds.

The maximum happiness of any collective is yet another deity-like abstract ground for morality. It's not much different from the relationship between the stalinist Party and "the People" Zizek describes: the measurement of utility is always dependent on the measurer. Anyone's happiness who contradicts the measurer's conclusion can be excluded from the "common will" or whatever you want to call it. In the same way, "the People" always supports the Party, because anyone who opposes the Party exlcudes themselves from "the People"; they are an "Enemy of the People". It's self-fulfilling.

For this reason, it could potentially threaten an anti-authoritarian movement.

It would cease to be utilitarianism if it did not sincerely intend to maximise actual utility. What you're saying here is that utilitarianism would be problem if it stopped being utilitarianism.

[Pandeeria]

lol, you really think the standard radical Trump supporter, flying high the American flag while screaming to build the wall, really has their best self-interests?

No.

I do think telling other people what is in their self-interest effectively turns it into a spook no different from Randian ethical egoism or any other moralism. This line of attack is not only contrary to our (or, at least my) aims (as it reinforces hierarchical relations), but it is unlikely to convince anyone.

Ok, yeah you're right. I'll just completely shut up about Socialism and Communism, and never try to debate anyone or to criticize the current status quo. After that, that itself is an act of telling people what is better for them.

True, which only further discredits Utilitarianism.

Not really. Does it discredit Physics that physicists can't know for certain whether their theories are true? No. So why would it discredit utilitarianism that utilitarians cannot know for certain whether a particular action or policy will maximise utility?

Science relies on objectivity. When a physicist doesn't know something, the key is to keep searching for evidence that could lead to a possible explanation. For ideology, not knowing is just a hole in said ideology.

[Mattopilos]

No.

I do think telling other people what is in their self-interest effectively turns it into a spook no different from Randian ethical egoism or any other moralism. This line of attack is not only contrary to our (or, at least my) aims (as it reinforces hierarchical relations), but it is unlikely to convince anyone.

Ok, yeah you're right. I'll just completely shut up about Socialism and Communism, and never try to debate anyone or to criticize the current status quo. After that, that itself is an act of telling people what is better for them.

Not really. Does it discredit Physics that physicists can't know for certain whether their theories are true? No. So why would it discredit utilitarianism that utilitarians cannot know for certain whether a particular action or policy will maximise utility?

Science relies on objectivity. When a physicist doesn't know something, the key is to keep searching for evidence that could lead to a possible explanation. For ideology, not knowing is just a hole in said ideology.

Technically science looks to falsify a claim rather than prove it right... so it is more an exclusionary method of defining truth, that is more rigid than claiming it is true because it happened, which is more likely to be false than simply removing a possibility.

[Conscentia]

Not really. Does it discredit Physics that physicists can't know for certain whether their theories are true? No. So why would it discredit utilitarianism that utilitarians cannot know for certain whether a particular action or policy will maximise utility?

Physics is a hard science, with ethical theories are (at best) philosophy. Being wrong in a scientific theory can be corrected through its own methodology; the scientific method can replace this theory. Being wrong with an ethical theory means getting rid of that ethical theory entirely, typically to replace it with a new ethical theory with new methods of judging right and wrong.

Physics and Ethics are very different.

I didn't say or intend to imply anything to the contrary. My point was only that the possibility that one might be wrong about what maximises utility does not discredit utilitarianism itself. It may cast doubt on one's methods for predicting how an action or policy may affect utility, but does not discredit utilitarianism itself.

[Conscentia]

Not really. Does it discredit Physics that physicists can't know for certain whether their theories are true? No. So why would it discredit utilitarianism that utilitarians cannot know for certain whether a particular action or policy will maximise utility?

Science relies on objectivity. When a physicist doesn't know something, the key is to keep searching for evidence that could lead to a possible explanation. For ideology, not knowing is just a hole in said ideology.

A utilitarian can similarly search for evidence to suggest what may increase utility, and thus refine their prescriptions.

[Mattopilos]

Science relies on objectivity. When a physicist doesn't know something, the key is to keep searching for evidence that could lead to a possible explanation. For ideology, not knowing is just a hole in said ideology.

A utilitarian can similarly search for evidence to suggest what may increase utility, and thus refine their prescriptions.

I still find the idea of 'what is best for us' mostly subjective in terms of us, given how diverse humans are. I mean, there are a few base things that are ultimately best for us, but others are not as clear-cut.

[Pandeeria]

Science relies on objectivity. When a physicist doesn't know something, the key is to keep searching for evidence that could lead to a possible explanation. For ideology, not knowing is just a hole in said ideology.

A utilitarian can similarly search for evidence to suggest what may increase utility, and thus refine their prescriptions.

What is ethically utilitarian is subjective. What is utilitarian in the absolute would be a dystopian drone society.

[Pandeeria]

So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?

[Mattopilos]

So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?

How I usually do - alcohol and video games :^)

[MERIZoC]

So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?

The knowledge that communism is inevitable.

and memes

[Pandeeria]

So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?

How I usually do - alcohol and video games :^)

Maybe I should try the alcohol part. I'm already playing video games.

So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?

The knowledge that communism is inevitable.

and memes

Eh, I'm honestly not sure if Communism is inevitable. I do agree with Marx's idea (or was it Engels?) that society would naturally move through stages of development (hunter-gatherer -> ancient farm/slave societies -> Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Communism) but surely the ruling class of whatever stage of development can try to prevent things from moving onward? I mean, they historically did try. However unlike the past, the ruling class of today has mass media and a militarized police force and tanks and fully automatic weapons and drones that can bomb you to hell before you even knew what hit you and they ships and planes and helicopters. They now have the capacity to spy on you unlike any other ruling class from any previous epoch.

Thing's don't seem to be looking good.

[Conscentia]

So, Communists of LWDT, how are you managing to cope today with our absolutely hopeless and depressing situation?

Apathy.

[Mattopilos]

Eh, I'm honestly not sure if Communism is inevitable. I do agree with Marx's idea (or was it Engels?) that society would naturally move through stages of development (hunter-gatherer -> ancient farm/slave societies -> Feudalism -> Capitalism -> Communism)but surely the ruling class of whatever stage of development can try to prevent things from moving onward? I mean, they historically did try. However unlike the past, the ruling class of today has mass media and a militarized police force and tanks and fully automatic weapons and drones that can bomb you to hell before you even knew what hit you and they ships and planes and helicopters. They now have the capacity to spy on you unlike any other ruling class from any previous epoch.

Thing's don't seem to be looking good.

That's because reform is a joke, and the system will inevitably push away ideas they don't agree with, if they see it harming the structure of the state as it is.
And yeah, that is the reason Guerilla warfare is a must in modern times - we need to keep up and avoid direct action against a well-armed state.