ie if your philosophy only recognizes the legitimacy of individual agency in personal life, then collective failures are obviously the fault of collectivists.
Conversation
Usually, this wonderful leap of logic involves attributing god-like correct functioning and infallibility to an emergent mechanism at the higher levels which would work great if only humans would cede all agency to the Higher Power at that level. Markets, gods, take your pick.
1
7
I'm blameless and doing everything right wherever I'm responsible for my actions.
There exists a higher power that *would* do everything right if only we'd let it.
Some evil people don't let it. They're to blame for everything wrong at other levels.
1
4
Thinking about how to get past this condition. I have no good ideas at present, but I'm thinking a first design commitment is to take agency abdicators at their word. If they want animal levels of non-culpability, even if it sounds insulting to me, let them claim it. Move on.
2
4
The implication is that I wouldn't attempt to argue with them anymore than I would attempt to argue with my cat. My cat does his cat-tricks to try to manipulate me, I do my human-tricks to prevail. Hard to say this in non-pejorative way... but I'm very nice to animals.
3
5
Pseudospeciation is an ugly tribalist move to dehumanize the outgroup. But what do you do when individuals and groups start doing it to themselves to reap the benefits of animal non-culpability? Call it auto-pseudospeciation?
1
2
9
Not sure what the reasonable test for acting human is. I think it means owning your actions and all consequences, right up to boundary of where others freedom of action begins. Nobody "makes" anybody else do anything past age 5. But if you insist I made you do something, so be it
1
1
1
I'm trying to reduce this thread to a single paradox contradiction. I think it's something like: what do you do when you want to attribute more moral agency to someone than they'll acknowledge having themselves?
1
2
12
I'm reminded of the oddest conversation about vegetarianism I've had, with an Egyptian. Most meat eaters accept moral agency/culpability that might be involved in choosing to eat meat. But this guy's response was "but the Koran tells us to eat everything!"
Cracked me up.
2
4
I'm vegetarian leaning vegan where/when I can, but not evangelical about it, and don't try to convert others. Meat eaters who raise the topic with me accept their agency in choosing to eat meat 99% of the time.
Denying such agency via appeal to religious duty is...odd
1
8
Replying to
The Internet of Beefs, IoB, is people who can’t be surprised either by themselves or by others. Tell: if you can mock somebody you’re predicting them. If you’re still mad at them it’s because they’re not accepting culpability where you want them to.
2
1
5
This means even where you and I agree that something has gone wrong rather than as designed by somebody, nobody is accepting responsibility. It’s a “who owns this externality” argument.
1
3
If the only consequences of your actions that you own are predictable ones, and all externalities are attributable to other people’s (predictable and mockable) misguided actions, are you really acknowledging any agency at all?
1
4
Real agency results in 2 kinds of surprise
1. Unexpected material consequences
2. Unexpected responses from others with agency
You’re not accepting your own humanity and attendant material and moral agency if you don’t act in ways that generate BOTH kinds of surprise.
1
2
6
If no unintended consequences are ever the result of what you chose to do, you are viewing your agency like an animal’s.
If people never respond to you in surprising ways it means something a bit more complex.
1
1
4
It is some combination of:
a) you’re only pushing their animal buttons
b) they’re like you, and only have animal buttons
c) you’ve blinded yourself to their surprising responses
IoB is b vs b.
2
