• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • There is no careful use of language that can stop people from preferring hatred. Humans are machines for making the world worse, and they will continue to do so, and while they do it they will rationalise doing it, and while people get hurt (including themselves) they will blame the victims.

    “It’s not fascism!” they complain as minorities are scapegoated and children die. Just get used to the fact that anything that is pointed entirely towards harming people for fun and profit is going to attract a range of derogatory words, and maybe think about how to stop humans from hurting humans instead.





  • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlWho needs Skynet
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You have failed to show that it is an ideology. You have explained that you disagree with it, but that’s not the same thing.

    It’s an empirical fact that living beings don’t like being hurt. Therefore, it avoiding hurt is good. That’s not an ideology, it’s reasoning based on observable facts. An ideological position would be “we need to hurt living beings to further our interests”. The ideological position involves those interests.

    Seeing all living beings as equal (e.g. in terms of prioritising not harming them, just as I would prefer not to be harmed or to harm myself) is about not having an interest, and therefore is clearly not ideological. It’s also objectively true, because in terms of cosmological time, the consequences of all living beings become equal.


  • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlWho needs Skynet
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Will me being infantile stop humans from hurting each other? If not, why would I be motivated to change?

    Will me growing up (to stop being infantile) get in the way of my refraining from hurting others? If yes, why would I be motivated to change?

    In my infantile state, I can clearly see that - even in a complex world - harming other living beings is wrong. I don’t like being harmed, so why would they like being harmed?

     

    Maybe you need ideology to simplify the world. But that doesn’t mean that I require it. That’s part of the complex world you assert we live in, yes?


  • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zonetoMemes@lemmy.mlWho needs Skynet
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It is an objective fact that a harmful act harms someone. That one observer likes that outcome does not alter the objective moral weight of the act. Harmful acts are objectively wrong, regardless of preference.

    From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning. In this way, ideology can be avoided.











  • Me: I don’t want to see children and civilians dying over this war.

    “What about children and civilians in Israel?”

    I said ‘children and civilans’. I don’t want to see any such people die. I did not qualify with a nationality.

    “Yeah, but you didn’t say ‘Israel’.”

    I don’t need to. I don’t care where a person is born, or what’s on their passport. I just don’t want them being killed. I want to stop seeing innocent people killed.

    “You think people who support Hamas are innocent?”

     

    There’s no winning, I’m afraid.