There's always consequences of all choices that may require going for people who made different choices. It's their choice then whether to give it, and under what conditions. Taxation aggregates and socializes this so that we all get some slack for our decisions.
Conversation
If you, for eg. have a bias towards self-reliance, your choices may be robust to some consequences, but you may create harder choices for others (including chickens if you grant them personhood). That's the definition of a negative externality.
1
Power is not having to deal with the negative externalities of your own choices. It's okay to seek power, but it shouldn't be confused with virtue. You may act in ways that never require you to ask for help, but you might still act in ways that force others to. Moral hazard.
1
This is my basic problem with libertarian virtue ethics focused on 'sovereign individual' type thinking. It often conflates power and virtue, and using power to force harder choices on others for personal responsibility. I'm fine with darwinist competition so long as you own it.
1
"that may require going for people who made different choices" --> "that may require going for help to people who made different choices
1
Replying to
Everything you say is reasonable. The point of the thread your post prompted is to point out that there are two deeply conflicting worldviews underneath. I think "the everything is interconnected and may be meaningless so let's just be kind" perspective is getting too much play.
2
I think it actively devalues development of basic skills and sense of responsibility. And it is responsible for frequent misjudging of what should be choices between good and good.
1
Replying to
Skills are different from responsibility. I think the world has become rather full of people with lots of skills but almost no sense of responsibility. Moral hazard actors. And they get away with murder by acting like impossibly high skill demands on others is fine.
2
Replying to
Yes. The world is also full of people who don't aspire to either skill or responsibility.
If you look at classical goals of education, it has been to combine skill development with outward focus. You can't do this without individual responsibility.
2
We've actively disassembled every method that is used to instill these qualities together. Didactic writing is bad. Selling yourself is good. Utilitarianism and pragmatism rule. Individual feelings and happiness are paramount (or individual success is paramount.) etc.
2
Replying to
You have a great deal more faith in what traditional education actually does :D
Replying to
For all the ways aspirational goals are abused, getting rid of them leads to where we are now.
1
Replying to
I think where you and I might agree is that any skill and real earned agency is valuable and any kind of learned helplessness is bad. So long as you are adequately mindful about the value/meaning you ascribe to your agency.
2
Show replies

