ProZachJ Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 I work in the field of application security and through friends and industry conferences I've come in contact with a number of people who play for the other team. Many of them have similar life experience and opinions about the world around them as me and frankly are fun and interesting people to have a beer with. All of them have engaged readily in philosophical discussion about what they do and why. The commonalty of their argument struck me, and basically boiled down to: "Look man, let's be honest, all that stuff about free markets, win/win, ethics, it is all fantasy. We live in a state of nature. The strong survive and the weak perish. Our world, bad technology, and my skill means that I am strong. I'm just surviving and frankly your belief in that stuff just serves the purpose of stronger people who want to dominate you." I had fun trying to tear this down in each case. How would you approach it?
Wuzzums Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 I heard that argument several times, and yet the people that made it in other instances have expressed great moral outrage over some thing or another. This makes them hypocrites, and arguing with hypocrites is like learning dance choreography from one of those gas station airdancer things. If their philosophy of life is "might makes right" then they should feel no outrage at being sucker punched in the gut and have their wallet stolen. If you're stronger than them, simply point this out and have them agree with everything you say. They cannot make a counter argument because you're stronger, you see, and might makes right. 3
Donnadogsoth Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 Or, their philosophy is simply no-philosophy, and all your words collapse at the feet of the fact that strong, smart, powerful men conspire to become stronger, smarter, and more powerful.
labmath2 Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 I think there are two interpretations of might makes right. The first is the sirvival of the fittest. In this case might means your biological success, regardless of how you attained it. The second is social and political and economical. In this case might is really influence. Those with great powers of persuation or lots of money or position of authority are the powerful. I think this is closer how the world currently operate.
MrNlul77 Posted August 2, 2015 Posted August 2, 2015 These people are unfortunately the norm in society. Have the courage to tell them the truth!. Due to people with their beliefs/opinions, the world is in the state it is, they lack morals and integrity. As a result of their ignorance they support and add to the evil in the world. How have they come to their conclusion that their beliefs/opinions are facts. Are they just regurgitating other people's beliefs/opinions that have been given to them through indoctrination and culture?. Are they just assuming that that is they way it's always been, and that is how it will always be?. The things you talk about which they call "fantasy", ask them if they agree, that if your so called "fantasy" was the norm, Society would be better and that If we always do the same things will never change. Also the fact that, If people woke up to reality and stopped relying on other people to change the world for them, took it upon themselves to make a difference and live a moral life, then we can effect change. The argument from Morality, UPB. The bomb in the brain. How scientist were murdered for going against false beliefs in search of the truth and how today we enjoy the fruits of their courage. It's sad that people like that are just surviving, I my self am living, due to the fact that I can see the truth and choose to live a moral life. At some point give up on them, theyre a waste of your time, which could be better spent living and talking with those who are open to the truth. Show confidence, Oh and try not to come across as a looney or preacher Not sure if that was any help to you, Its just some of my thoughts about things I've found useful in dealing with these sort of people.
Donnadogsoth Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 I think there are two interpretations of might makes right. The first is the sirvival of the fittest. In this case might means your biological success, regardless of how you attained it. The second is social and political and economical. In this case might is really influence. Those with great powers of persuation or lots of money or position of authority are the powerful. I think this is closer how the world currently operate. Persuasion implies the existence of a set of motivating ideas that can be exploited. Without motivating ideas, all that's left is the biologic fitness. This speaks to what Stef talks about, the sorcery of words--but this, again depends on those spelled words, those cast spells, being backed by concepts and emotions that exist in the minds of the ensorcelled. As Stephen King wrote, "They use our love against us."
Carl Green Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 "Look man, let's be honest, all that stuff about free markets, win/win, ethics, it is all fantasy. We live in a state of nature. The strong survive...." Isn't a person with friends 'stronger' than a person alone? Win/win creates stable friendships & relationships which end up being stronger than any Win/lose.
Donnadogsoth Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Isn't a person with friends 'stronger' than a person alone? Win/win creates stable friendships & relationships which end up being stronger than any Win/lose. Evil men can make common cause with each other. The fact they have no loyalty outside their group gives them flexibility. 1
Mister Mister Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 "Look man, let's be honest, all that stuff about free markets, win/win, ethics, it is all fantasy. We live in a state of nature. The strong survive and the weak perish. Our world, bad technology, and my skill means that I am strong. I'm just surviving and frankly your belief in that stuff just serves the purpose of stronger people who want to dominate you." I had fun trying to tear this down in each case. How would you approach it? 99% of the time, in my opinion, when people talk about human nature, especially, when they make such volatile statements as this, it is not that they have come to these conclusions because of reason and evidence, but that it serves some kind of emotional need for them. I find the part "your belief in that stuff just serves the purpose of stronger people who want to dominate you", particularly fascinating, though very sad as well. They are telling you about their history here, that morality was used to dominate them, by people with power over them - parents, teachers, priests, and so on. So when you talk about ethics they are terrified of it because it makes them feel vulnerable as they were when they were a kid. Also "I'm just trying to survive" may indicate that they feel they have done things which were unethical, in order to survive. I might ask them - "are you trying to dominate me now? do you think I'm trying to dominate you?" or if you are feeling very brave, you can ask about their history. tread very carefully, you are wading in shark-infested waters here.
TheRobin Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 Evil men can make common cause with each other. The fact they have no loyalty outside their group gives them flexibility. It might seem that way in the short term, but all that means is that even among alliances no one really trusts each other and has to spend recources planning for that eventuality.
shirgall Posted August 3, 2015 Posted August 3, 2015 It might seem that way in the short term, but all that means is that even among alliances no one really trusts each other and has to spend recources planning for that eventuality. Time for there to be a FDR meetup to play Diplomacy! http://www.amazon.com/Avalon-Hill-221930000AVH-Diplomacy/dp/B0015MN6JE http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/diplomacy 1
Donnadogsoth Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 It might seem that way in the short term, but all that means is that even among alliances no one really trusts each other and has to spend recources planning for that eventuality. And yet evil men rule the world.
utopian Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Survival of the fittest seems invalid only because technological and intellectual advances have made resources relatively abundant for a couple centuries. Our modern politically correct society is built upon this. Much of the world survives only because the strongest, the most intelligent, are capable of providing for the rest of us. Take away the work of the intelligents, take away the resources, and see how valid the philosophy of survival of the fittest truly is. Transgenderism, confederate flags, lion killings... it all becomes painfully unimportant when the illusion of society collapses and you can't find your next loaf of bread. A prominent figure comes to mind, by the name of Genghis Khan. The man would kill men in front of their wives before he had his way with them. Was he a monster? Of course. He still has his genes in 5% of the earth's current population. The validity of survival of the fittest confirmed. 1
TheRobin Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Time for there to be a FDR meetup to play Diplomacy! http://www.amazon.com/Avalon-Hill-221930000AVH-Diplomacy/dp/B0015MN6JE http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/prod/diplomacy Ha, as a regular boardgame player that was pretty much exactly what I was thinking of And yet evil men rule the world. Yes, so? Are you suggesting that the only or main reason for that is the fact that they are flexible and make alliances among themselves sometimes?
green banana Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 He still has his genes in 5% of the earth's current population. The validity of survival of the fittest confirmed. Somebody who lived 21 generations ago and whose children always had at least two children that survived and procreated has parts of his genome in about one billion people.
Donnadogsoth Posted August 4, 2015 Posted August 4, 2015 Yes, so? Are you suggesting that the only or main reason for that is the fact that they are flexible and make alliances among themselves sometimes? No. The main reason is man's fallen nature. The flexibility and common interest amplify this and create a scenario where good has an uphill battle.
Carl Green Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 .... I had fun trying to tear this down in each case. How would you approach it?
utopian Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Ya know, this is one of my favorite philosophical subjects. On one hand, the non aggression principle, rational self interest, peaceful parenting and many other subjects discussed by Stephan and we on the forum, seem to me the pinnacle of what it means to be human. On the other hand, the validity of the philosophy of survival of the fittest is unassailable, as anyone capable of attempting to argue against it is only alive because of the validity of it. Human beings survive because we are the fittest of any creature that has ever lived, in the form of the strength of intelligence. Plain and simple. So strong is our intelligence, that we are capable of destroying the earth in its entirety, if we so chose. All other creatures, and all life in the universe as far as we know, is subject to our whims. We could remove all other creatures from the planet if they inconvenience us, and pollute the earth without regard to the welfare of the planet, or even each other. Arguably, we are doing so. And yet, because of our humanity, because of our advanced development, we strive to prevent such things from happening, for the welfare of lesser creatures, and each other. But you see, therein lies the conundrum. Our superiority developed only because of the validity of survival of the fittest. But also, we are superior only because of and as long as we avoid the principles of survival of the fittest, supposedly because as superior beings we are capable of rising above the philosophy that created us.
Donnadogsoth Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Ya know, this is one of my favorite philosophical subjects. On one hand, the non aggression principle, rational self interest, peaceful parenting and many other subjects discussed by Stephan and we on the forum, seem to me the pinnacle of what it means to be human. On the other hand, the validity of the philosophy of survival of the fittest is unassailable, as anyone capable of attempting to argue against it is only alive because of the validity of it. Human beings survive because we are the fittest of any creature that has ever lived, in the form of the strength of intelligence. Plain and simple. So strong is our intelligence, that we are capable of destroying the earth in its entirety, if we so chose. All other creatures, and all life in the universe as far as we know, is subject to our whims. We could remove all other creatures from the planet if they inconvenience us, and pollute the earth without regard to the welfare of the planet, or even each other. Arguably, we are doing so. And yet, because of our humanity, because of our advanced development, we strive to prevent such things from happening, for the welfare of lesser creatures, and each other. But you see, therein lies the conundrum. Our superiority developed only because of the validity of survival of the fittest. But also, we are superior only because of and as long as we avoid the principles of survival of the fittest, supposedly because as superior beings we are capable of rising above the philosophy that created us. Human survival mandates we understand our nature in order to advance it. Our nature as a species is not the eagle-like survival of the fittest, as such, it is man as a colony organism like coral or the ants. That this appears to contradict our urge towards individual happiness is a paradox that must be solved if a sound futuristic civilisation is to be established. We must have a predominance of cooperation so that our species-level goals can be achieved (Mars colonisation, asteroid mining, lunar helium-3 mining, fusion power, planetary engineering), but we must also be aware that industry, commerce, and culture can deaden and crush the individual, begging the question of what all this species-survival is really for.
shirgall Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Human survival mandates we understand our nature in order to advance it. Not really, we got to being human from a lot of other forms that didn't necessarily understand anything. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Survival right now, as humans demands understanding. Survival as apes requires nothing but an indifference to the reduction of hominid population to less than ten millions.
shirgall Posted August 7, 2015 Posted August 7, 2015 Survival right now, as humans demands understanding. Survival as apes requires nothing but an indifference to the reduction of hominid population to less than ten millions. I see evidence all the time that humans don't really have to understand much to live long enough to breed. It's not a given. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted August 8, 2015 Posted August 8, 2015 I see evidence all the time that humans don't really have to understand much to live long enough to breed. It's not a given. That's survival as apes, shirgall, which I already touched on. To survive as a species beyond the level of the apes, to survive as a civilisation, is another matter, which requires understanding.
ProZachJ Posted August 14, 2015 Author Posted August 14, 2015 I might ask them - "are you trying to dominate me now? do you think I'm trying to dominate you?" I actually did ask this in one case and got only a smirk as an answer.
ProZachJ Posted August 14, 2015 Author Posted August 14, 2015 I heard that argument several times, and yet the people that made it in other instances have expressed great moral outrage over some thing or another. This makes them hypocrites, and arguing with hypocrites is like learning dance choreography from one of those gas station airdancer things. If their philosophy of life is "might makes right" then they should feel no outrage at being sucker punched in the gut and have their wallet stolen. If you're stronger than them, simply point this out and have them agree with everything you say. They cannot make a counter argument because you're stronger, you see, and might makes right.I nailed one on this line of reasoning because the person had already expressed moral outrage for the surveillance state and moral support for privacy technologies such as TORI might ask them - "are you trying to dominate me now? do you think I'm trying to dominate you?" or if you are feeling very brave, you can ask about their history. tread very carefully, you are wading in shark-infested waters here.I asked this of one of them and only got a smirk in return I found though that I got further by switching off the argument from morality. I pointed out that perhaps they are correct that we are in a state of nature but as I see it they are simply miscalculating their risk/reward ratio for a number of reasons: 1. They are overestimating their own power if they are not willing to commit physical violence in maintenance of that power. 2. They are under estimating the power of others to act against their efforts. 3. If their measure of success is monetary they aren't doing THAT much better than I for basically the same job and I have a lot lower risk of complete asset seizure in the future. I also will point out to them that they are just being intellectually lazy. Defending something is exponentially harder than attacking it. I also like to bring up the topic of Nash vs Smith with them to point out that their activities are encouraging natural competitors to cooperate in defeating their efforts. It's usually not a good long term survival strategy to incentivize your enemies (and they do think of their targets as enemies mostly from a somewhat left "evil corporate overlords" type mentality) to adopt strategies that will make them stronger. I also discuss my "preference" for ethical behavior in terms of fostering opportunities for coopetition that will increase my power in the world with a lower risk/reward ratio then their approach. The things you talk about which they call "fantasy", ask them if they agree, that if your so called "fantasy" was the norm, Society would be better I've tried this line of reasoning but it's difficult to succeed with if they stand particularly firm on the concept of "the only good is my good right now". Which I think is why I've found that their particular brand of minor sociopathy is better attacked by questioning their premise that their actions are actually serving their best interest.
fractional slacker Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 "Look man, let's be honest, all that stuff about free markets, win/win, ethics, it is all fantasy. We live in a state of nature. The strong survive and the weak perish. Our world, bad technology, and my skill means that I am strong. I'm just surviving and frankly your belief in that stuff just serves the purpose of stronger people who want to dominate you." Sophistry from start to finish. It's a moral argument attempting to justify amoral behavior. "I'm just surviving..." Is that true? Would they die if they didn't do X?
Donnadogsoth Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Sophistry from start to finish. It's a moral argument attempting to justify amoral behavior. "I'm just surviving..." Is that true? Would they die if they didn't do X? Even if so, what argument can you make to a witting amoralist to stop being amoral?
AccuTron Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 It might seem that way in the short term, but all that means is that even among alliances no one really trusts each other and has to spend recources planning for that eventuality. Unfortunately, their resources are gigantic, so it works.
Recommended Posts