Propaganda and Political Voting

[dsayers]

because the voters are not literally in direct control of the outcome of an election or the decisions and/or actions of the politicians they are not responsible?

That is my argument, yes. I think it's reprehensible to try and pretend to enslave others. Particularly so for those who accept property rights and recognize the immorality of behaviors carried out in the name of the State. Because it only serves to signal to others that the mass delusion is righteous. It's not immoral.

 

Certainly A and B are responsible for their own stabbing action, but who is responsible for the death of C?

Good question! I can't help but wonder if it matters though. ANY assault has the potentiality of death. With stabbing having a high incidence of as much. In a free society, would you feel any safer around somebody who has willfully stabbed another human being that happened to survive than you would around a murderer? A reasonable person would expect that a stab victim could die. It is attempted murder. Morality is digital, so there's no difference there. However, in terms of damages, I don't think they should be weighted differently. The only real difference is that restitution would be owed the survivor rather than their estate/kin/support network.

 

In the case of the murderous society, I mixed a couple concepts, the first being does responsibility exist here at all?  What capacity for choice and therefore responsibility does someone have if he has grown up in the type of society that condones murder based on unanimity? We recognize that traumatized children are responsible as adults today because they would have to actively avoid information that would grant them moral agency, but to what degree would this information be available in this kind of fictional society?

I think I see what you're asking. It's hard to know. My thought process is thus: Alison Gopnik's work demonstrates that humans are naturally empathetic. This makes sense when you consider ideas like we are a social species, the value of division of labor, etc. I've always wondered if this is a feature of human beings today, or is this something that has been with us from "the beginning," which allowed for us to flourish as we have. I remember once positing on FDR that we were once savage and as technology advanced, we were given the tools with which to cooperate to achieve goals larger than we could on our own. Somebody offered a very convincing case as to why it made sense that empathy would've been with us throughout. I have no recollection of who it was, what that case was, or what verbiage we could use to search for it (if it hasn't been archived).

 

The question is important though. We have mirror neurons. We have empathy. Present day, it's very clear that a level of dissociation must occur in order to be able to assault at all (barring psychopathy et al). Would this be present in the fictional society you describe? I do not know.

 

What I do know is that self-ownership stems from our capacity for reason. Our ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. So I think regardless of all of the above (and I apologize if it is frustrating that I had included all of the above anyways; I've been thanked for my mind dumps, so I'm just rolling with it), the answer would be that responsibility is going to be based on the degree to which the person committing the act was capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. If a person understands self, the other, and that a consequence of a voluntary action of theirs could be the death of the other, they are responsible for that killing.

 

Second, if we do ascribe them moral agency, then who is to blame for the murder? The responsibility of the action is certainly the murderer's alone because he is the only one that controls his body, but the society plays a salient role in the resulting murder.  An interesting thought experiment that just occurred to me is to place yourself in the shoes of the victim, would you rather remove the murderer, or the society demanding the murder?  

I think this is easier than it might seem. I think this is a false dichotomy and I think this is not a hypothetical. As given the widespread acceptance of the State worldwide, this is sort of where we are now. My answer would be I would want to remove the acceptance of murder in the society. This not only heals the society, but the society would in turn ostracize the murderers. So you get all of the above by choosing none of the above. Just about everything I've done since I've found FDR has been to the goal of removing acceptance of immorality, and I've become exceedingly efficient at it (yay Matrix quote opportunity!).

 

Yes, I remember that!  Thank you for reminding me. I couldn't agree more.  Also, I quite enjoy the mental workout so thank you for being a challenging and enjoyable interlocutor.

You as well. I think this place is far more interesting and challenging with you in it. I enjoy you sticking with this and providing me with the opportunity to mentally exercise in ways I'm not accustomed to. THIS is why I wish the bright people of integrity would get off of politics; So we can start applying those resources to meaningful conversations instead of drawing lines in the sand between one another at the expense of our collective values. We should be immune to such divide and conquer given our elevated capability of vision.

[ELD]

Nope. In a state of nature under coercion, there is absolutely nothing immoral about "voting" with the hope of better conditions. I'm not holding the gun.

 

The Truth About Voting wasn't a moral argument -  but a plea to get off your knees and stop begging bought and paid for schmucks for scraps. Doesn't apply to Trump.

 

BTW: I'm not responding to your post for you, I'm responding for the other people who will read it.

This thinking can be use to justify just about any behavior. Do you agree that a police officer can use this line to justify doing his job?

[Tyler H]

Good question! I can't help but wonder if it matters though. ANY assault has the potentiality of death. With stabbing having a high incidence of as much. In a free society, would you feel any safer around somebody who has willfully stabbed another human being that happened to survive than you would around a murderer? A reasonable person would expect that a stab victim could die. It is attempted murder. Morality is digital, so there's no difference there. However, in terms of damages, I don't think they should be weighted differently. The only real difference is that restitution would be owed the survivor rather than their estate/kin/support network.

I think you're right, it doesn't matter whether A or B committed the single stabbing action without which the victim would have survived.  Both A and B are responsible, as far as society is concerned, for the death of C and therefore subject to the consequences that society will impose.  This is my meaning of shared responsibility, not for actions but for results and consequences.

 

 

I think I see what you're asking. It's hard to know. My thought process is thus: Alison Gopnik's work demonstrates that humans are naturally empathetic. This makes sense when you consider ideas like we are a social species, the value of division of labor, etc. I've always wondered if this is a feature of human beings today, or is this something that has been with us from "the beginning," which allowed for us to flourish as we have. I remember once positing on FDR that we were once savage and as technology advanced, we were given the tools with which to cooperate to achieve goals larger than we could on our own. Somebody offered a very convincing case as to why it made sense that empathy would've been with us throughout. I have no recollection of who it was, what that case was, or what verbiage we could use to search for it (if it hasn't been archived).

 

The question is important though. We have mirror neurons. We have empathy. Present day, it's very clear that a level of dissociation must occur in order to be able to assault at all (barring psychopathy et al). Would this be present in the fictional society you describe? I do not know.

 

What I do know is that self-ownership stems from our capacity for reason. Our ability to conceptualize self, the other, formulate ideals, compare behaviors to those ideals, and calculate consequences. So I think regardless of all of the above (and I apologize if it is frustrating that I had included all of the above anyways; I've been thanked for my mind dumps, so I'm just rolling with it), the answer would be that responsibility is going to be based on the degree to which the person committing the act was capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. If a person understands self, the other, and that a consequence of a voluntary action of theirs could be the death of the other, they are responsible for that killing.

 

No need to apologize, I find it all relevant and interesting - although now I've developed a curiosity for that conversation I'm afraid will never be sated, so never mind I'll accept the apology, lol just kidding.  Perhaps someone will see this and know what thread or argument you were referencing.  Anyways, I think I agree with the statements herein.

 

 

I think this is easier than it might seem. I think this is a false dichotomy and I think this is not a hypothetical. As given the widespread acceptance of the State worldwide, this is sort of where we are now. My answer would be I would want to remove the acceptance of murder in the society. This not only heals the society, but the society would in turn ostracize the murderers. So you get all of the above by choosing none of the above. Just about everything I've done since I've found FDR has been to the goal of removing acceptance of immorality, and I've become exceedingly efficient at it (yay Matrix quote opportunity!).

 

Right, I think we agree here as well.  I should refine the thought experiment to specify the conceptualization of that society being removed, I didn't mean implicate the removal of all the people.  But as far as assigning blame and consequences for an immoral act I still think the idea is useful.  

 

 

You as well. I think this place is far more interesting and challenging with you in it. I enjoy you sticking with this and providing me with the opportunity to mentally exercise in ways I'm not accustomed to. 

 

Thank you very much for the kind words!  

 

 

THIS is why I wish the bright people of integrity would get off of politics; So we can start applying those resources to meaningful conversations instead of drawing lines in the sand between one another at the expense of our collective values. We should be immune to such divide and conquer given our elevated capability of vision.

 

Yes, once again I agree.