quantifying moral responsibility

[C0ckney]

there's a lot that i disagree with in your post (most of the assumptions and premisses), but i'd like to tackle this point first.

In other words, its a dream that couldn't ever come to reality because it'd require people to act in a way that runs completely contrary to their natures. As much as you'd like to think otherwise, the vast majority of people do not care about building some great utopian community, they just want to do their jobs, look after their families and have a few laughs.

i wonder what you mean by our natures. from the rest of your post it appears that you mean the capitalist view of resource distribution, and the representative form of organising society; yet these are fairly recent innovations. there are diverse forms of society across the world, where people act in different ways; even a few hundred years ago, the society our ancestors lived in was organised in a very different way.

let us take one statement "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", a statement which is often ridiculed as being utopian, or even contrary to human nature, and the capitalist logic of marginal value hailed as the natural state of affairs; yet a cursory glance at human history reveals a much wider application of this maxim than the capitalist logic we see today. and it's something that we've not forgotten nor that we ever quite forget, despite the constant barrage of capitalist and more specifically consumerist propaganda that we're subjected to. if you look at families, the most basic form of social organisation, you will find that they are almost always organised on this basis, rather than each member's marginal value or some such.

As for direct democracy being involves in every aspect of life, that's exactly what I was arguing against above. Some of the most pivotal decisions taken nationally involve extremely dense and boring subjects, yet have the greatest impact on peoples actual lives. How do you suggest getting your average voter to spend the months or years it would require to study each of the topics to a level that would allow them to actually be able to make an informed vote?

leaving aside the rather strange logic of saying that people cannot inform themselves well, and so should leave decision making to others whom you admit are themselves not well informed, i would like to ask if you have a list of decisions that affect your life that you feel are better taken by others? (i know it may sound as if i'm being flippant here, but this is a genuine question.)

and i think you've missed the point here. people organising themselves at a local level (in their communities, workplaces etc.) would take the decisions that affect their communities, workplaces etc. i.e. those that affect their real lives. i would be involved in a decision which involved my street, but not one which involved only the next street - why would i be, it's none of my business and it doesn't affect me. you can apply the same to neighbourhood, district and city.

[N35t0r]

I do like Ben's non-sequitur.

I know I'm more sensible and rational than the average joe. I'm not convinced on any particular ideology/whatever being the 'right' way to do things.

[Lorizael]

...i would like to ask if you have a list of decisions that affect your life that you feel are better taken by others?

I'd much rather if decisions about how to stop the spread of virulent diseases were made by epidemiologists than me.

[C0ckney]

I am not arguing that I am more rational than other humans. (Take a look at my depression thread if you think I think I make good decisions.) I'm arguing that humans in general are irrational and that large groups of humans can act severely irrationally with the right stimulus. This isn't me being egotistical--it's just me reporting the results of psychological research done over the past century. Humans will make objectively bad decisions, not just for themselves, but for others. We can just hope that people will decide to make the right decisions, or we can institute some check on the power of people that prevents them from making egregiously bad decisions.

i don't disagree with that, but the if we look at the results of these state imposed 'checks and balances' we see a litany of violence, conquest, murder and genocide. with these checks and balances there was a campaign of displacement, theft, and outright extermination against the native americans, slavery, a brutal civil war over ending the same, the grinding down of the working classes and that's before we even get started on foreign affairs. if you look at the history of almost any state you can find similar examples. now if you want to say that things would somehow have been worse without these checks and balances, then ok, i suppose. however, looking at what actually happened is a pretty strong argument against the state preventing people from making horrible decisions.

[N35t0r]

there's a lot that i disagree with in your post (most of the assumptions and premisses), but i'd like to tackle this point first.

i wonder what you mean by our natures. from the rest of your post it appears that you mean the capitalist view of resource distribution, and the representative form of organising society;

Um, he means the fact that people are selfish and most of the time look to gain things for them and their families?

yet these are fairly recent innovations. there are diverse forms of society across the world, where people act in different ways; even a few hundred years ago, the society our ancestors lived in was organised in a very different way.

Yeah. Killing neighbouring tribes

let us take one statement "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", a statement which is often ridiculed as being utopian, or even contrary to human nature, and the capitalist logic of marginal value hailed as the natural state of affairs; yet a cursory glance at human history reveals a much wider application of this maxim than the capitalist logic we see today. and it's something that we've not forgotten nor that we ever quite forget, despite the constant barrage of capitalist and more specifically consumerist propaganda that we're subjected to. if you look at families, the most basic form of social organisation, you will find that they are almost always organised on this basis, rather than each member's marginal value or some such.

Sometimes. Other times, parents abuse of their kids and/or each other, and send their kids to work/steal and then drink the money away.

leaving aside the rather strange logic of saying that people cannot inform themselves well,

If you think this is strange, then go out and talk to people. A lot of them will prefer 'news' that confirms their biases rather than actual information.

and so should leave decision making to others whom you admit are themselves not well informed, i would like to ask if you have a list of decisions that affect your life that you feel are better taken by others? (i know it may sound as if i'm being flippant here, but this is a genuine question.)

Just as an example, I'd leave the allocation of this years public health budget to people who have a greater knowledge about these things.

and i think you've missed the point here. people organising themselves at a local level (in their communities, workplaces etc.) would take the decisions that affect their communities, workplaces etc. i.e. those that affect their real lives. i would be involved in a decision which involved my street, but not one which involved only the next street - why would i be, it's none of my business and it doesn't affect me. you can apply the same to neighbourhood, district and city.

What if the next street was unhappy by the amount of rainwater that ran through their street, and so made a series of works that made them dry during even the most fierce storm, but flooded everyone 5 blocks around? Their excuse being that they deserve to be dry, and that you are all free to make works of your own to solve your own problems.

What if a group of paramilitary was invading a faraway place? Would you do anything to help them, if there was only a remote chance they could spread to your area? What if the paramilitaries were enslaving and killing poeple? What if most of your neighbours didn't want to do anything?

[N35t0r]

i don't disagree with that, but the if we look at the results of these state imposed 'checks and balances' we see a litany of violence, conquest, murder and genocide. with these checks and balances there was a campaign of displacement, theft, and outright extermination against the native americans, slavery, a brutal civil war over ending the same, the grinding down of the working classes and that's before we even get started on foreign affairs. if you look at the history of almost any state you can find similar examples. now if you want to say that things would somehow have been worse without these checks and balances, then ok, i suppose. however, looking at what actually happened is a pretty strong argument against the state preventing people from making horrible decisions.

There was a thread around here in which someone (Elok? Lori?) menioned that the death rate during the 20th century due to wars, etc. was lower than during ancient times. If you think about it, this is pretty remarkable, especially since we're living in increasingly cramped (cmparativley) conditions. All things considered, it seems like for all their faults, states seem to be having a good effect on humanity. Of course they have a lot of way to go yet, but dissing the whole shebang because they're not perfect seems not to be very constructive.

[Lorizael]

That was Elok. He was referencing Diamond's The World Until Yesterday, which seemed to mirror some of the points made by Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature.

[N35t0r]

It's been a while since I read anything about Diamond. I'll try to get a hold of that book.

[C0ckney]

nestor, well leaving aside the nonsense (i liked the way you cut off half of what i said, thus missing the point entirely in your fourth response )

Just as an example, I'd leave the allocation of this years public health budget to people who have a greater knowledge about these things.

this is an example of exactly the sort of decision that should be taken locally, people (i.e. those who are actually going to use the service) would give views on what the needs are and how much should be allocated to meet them, then discuss how to do that.

What if the next street was unhappy by the amount of rainwater that ran through their street, and so made a series of works that made them dry during even the most fierce storm, but flooded everyone 5 blocks around? Their excuse being that they deserve to be dry, and that you are all free to make works of your own to solve your own problems.

at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, such a move would also affect the surrounding blocks and so be a decision for them too. in such a situation the most sensible solution would be works to ensure that no one got flooded and so i suppose that people would come together to achieve that.

What if a group of paramilitary was invading a faraway place? Would you do anything to help them, if there was only a remote chance they could spread to your area? What if the paramilitaries were enslaving and killing poeple? What if most of your neighbours didn't want to do anything?

i have no idea, depends on the situation? i suppose we'd discuss what to do, if anything.

[C0ckney]

There was a thread around here in which someone (Elok? Lori?) menioned that the death rate during the 20th century due to wars, etc. was lower than during ancient times. If you think about it, this is pretty remarkable, especially since we're living in increasingly cramped (cmparativley) conditions. All things considered, it seems like for all their faults, states seem to be having a good effect on humanity. Of course they have a lot of way to go yet, but dissing the whole shebang because they're not perfect seems not to be very constructive.

yes, and if you recall an even older thread on the subject, i in fact made this very point (referencing pinker) in a discussion with elok. the point that i'm making is not that society is becoming more violent, and it's true that states did reduce violence (after the founding of the initial states violent deaths go down from 15% to about 3%), or perhaps more accurately, the sedentary lifestyle and the new forms of social organisation it allowed, through surpluses, trade etc. reduced violence. in any case, no one is arguing for a return to a tribal society as you implied in your other responses, it's the same level of argument as when one questions private property and someone pipes up with 'well i suppose you'll be wanting a gulag next'...

the point is that states do commit, or rather cause us to commit, terrible violence to each other, as we can see from the 20th century. the argument that states in previous centuries were even more violent is not a convincing counter.

[N35t0r]

nestor, well leaving aside the nonsense (i liked the way you cut off half of what i said, thus missing the point entirely in your fourth response )

When I cut stuff out, it's because I was answering stuff in particular. This is especially true of my fourth response, where I replied to the two points you made separately. On one hand, you finding it strange that people generally don't inform themselves logically; and on the other hand, what decisions which affected me I'd rather have someone else make.

this is an example of exactly the sort of decision that should be taken locally, people (i.e. those who are actually going to use the service) would give views on what the needs are and how much should be allocated to meet them, then discuss how to do that.

But how locally would you break it up? Because for some things which tend to be expensive/specific it makes more sense to only have a few, well equipped places, whereas for other well-demanded services (such as GPs) it is better to be decentralised. But what if, despite this, the people decide to have more poorly equipped centers for every specific stuff rather than having to depend on neighbours? You'd be seriously OK with worse outcomes because that's what you neighbours prefer?

at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, such a move would also affect the surrounding blocks and so be a decision for them too. in such a situation the most sensible solution would be works to ensure that no one got flooded and so i suppose that people would come together to achieve that.

So, basically, you'd have something on the same scale as most modern states? And you'd all get together to decide on watershed management issues, and respect the opinion of the majority over that of people who have studied watershed management?

i have no idea, depends on the situation? i suppose we'd discuss what to do, if anything.

A system like this is just as prone to let atrocities like the ones you diss modern states happen.



Bottom line is, you're being generally vague on a lot of issues, not least on how you're going to force people to cooperate (you mention families, but societies have never behaved like this towards total strangers), and go against their nature (people are selfish). Dismissing most of my post as nonsense (and then complaining i cut off half of what you said ) doesn't help either.

[C0ckney]

I'd much rather if decisions about how to stop the spread of virulent diseases were made by epidemiologists than me.

and i suspect that most people would agree, so they'd probably ask the epidemiologists what they thought...

the more general point here is that a rejection of state authority (and indeed authority in general) does not imply that everyone's opinion on every subject is of equal worth.

[N35t0r]

yes, and if you recall an even older thread on the subject, i in fact made this very point (referencing pinker) in a discussion with elok. the point that i'm making is not that society is becoming more violent, and it's true that states did reduce violence (after the founding of the initial states violent deaths go down from 15% to about 3%), or perhaps more accurately, the sedentary lifestyle and the new forms of social organisation it allowed, through surpluses, trade etc. reduced violence. in any case, no one is arguing for a return to a tribal society as you implied in your other responses, it's the same level of argument as when one questions private property and someone pipes up with 'well i suppose you'll be wanting a gulag next'...

the point is that states do commit, or rather cause us to commit, terrible violence to each other, as we can see from the 20th century. the argument that states in previous centuries were even more violent is not a convincing counter.

I'm not implying you advocate a return to a tribal society. You just used them as examples of alternative ways of organizing. I was just pointing out that these alternative ways, while 'nice' when viewed from inside, were anything but. I'm seriously at a loss as to what you espouse, other than 'decisions should be made by those that affect them', which is a wonderful idea but totally useless unless it's followed by a way to achieve this.

[N35t0r]

and i suspect that most people would agree, so they'd probably ask the epidemiologists what they thought...

the more general point here is that a rejection of state authority (and indeed authority in general) does not imply that everyone's opinion on every subject is of equal worth.

But everyone's opinion on every subject should be of equal worth! Otherwise, there has to be some system to decide on whose is of greater worth.

Assuming that most people will bow down to the opinion of those with more knowledge might be a safe thing to bet for epidemology, but there are a lot of fields in which this doesn't happen. Especially when there are religions and cultural traditions in the way.

[C0ckney]

When I cut stuff out, it's because I was answering stuff in particular. This is especially true of my fourth response, where I replied to the two points you made separately. On one hand, you finding it strange that people generally don't inform themselves logically; and on the other hand, what decisions which affected me I'd rather have someone else make.

ah then you simply misread my post. the disconnect was between these.

leaving aside the rather strange logic of saying that people cannot inform themselves well, and so should leave decision making to others whom you admit are themselves not well informed,

But how locally would you break it up? Because for some things which tend to be expensive/specific it makes more sense to only have a few, well equipped places, whereas for other well-demanded services (such as GPs) it is better to be decentralised. But what if, despite this, the people decide to have more poorly equipped centers for every specific stuff rather than having to depend on neighbours? You'd be seriously OK with worse outcomes because that's what you neighbours prefer?

well i wouldn't break anything up. it would be up to the people affected to decide how to do that. now you're no doubt going to ask well how do they decide that? and i will say that they will get together and talk about it and come up with a solution. this sounds vague, and it is (and this also an answer to your last point), because the idea is not for i, cockney to set out you my vision of society (though naturally i have one and it's brilliant ) and impose it on others, but rather to encourage people to demand and seize the power to take decisions for themselves. to put it another way, i can't tell you what anarchy will look like.

So, basically, you'd have something on the same scale as most modern states? And you'd all get together to decide on watershed management issues, and respect the opinion of the majority over that of people who have studied watershed management?

most modern states are 6 blocks in size? i really don't see your point here.

you also seem to assume that our current management of natural resources is desirable or even competent. if want to see how well we're doing, look at the water situation in são paulo.

A system like this is just as prone to let atrocities like the ones you diss modern states happen.

i do not say that a state passively allows violence to happen, but rather that it, and the capitalist system it protects are the cause and perpetrator of that violence.

Bottom line is, you're being generally vague on a lot of issues, not least on how you're going to force people to cooperate (you mention families, but societies have never behaved like this towards total strangers), and go against their nature (people are selfish).

i find it curious that you believe that people need to be forced to co-operate, and find your views on human nature a little bizarre; human nature of course being shaped by the society and environment around the humans concerned.