I believe that such people probably thought that their opposition to the regime would be of no benefit to anyone (or indeed that they didn't actually oppose the regime) but the idea that it wouldn't serves as a great excuse for not having done so either way. I also think that it is hilarious to choose a moral system based on how it seems to work assuming everyone involved has perfect information and limitless computational ability instead of the reality of imperfect information, limited ability, and interests and priorities that can be contrary both to utility itself and the various rules based on it. Calculating each action based on one grand, abstract, and vague principle may be a kind of moral system, but it is not a good one. And widespread adoption of it and the repudiation of secondary principles (honesty, fairness, and so on) is not good for society. We're not great at calculation. We know we're not great at calculation. And consequently, we know we can't blame people too much for making mistakes at calculation. And yet, we also cannot allow that to be too easy an excuse for making 'errors' in one's own favor. And so, we have rules that are more specific and therefore more actionable. It is simply better that we do so from a utilitarian perspective in the long term and often enough in the short term. It is not impossible for an act utilitarian argument to be so compelling that it can justify breaking a well-established rule-- and indeed, we often have rules in place to support such determinations; whistleblower protections, for example. It's good for a system of rules to be dynamic. But not so dynamic it becomes whimsical nor so vague as it can be used to justify anything. The idea of what is good has to not only be defined but specified in order to be useful.
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Nobody is making such assumptions. I pointed out the difference made by incomplete information to begin with, saying that the decision to revolt is moral precisely because it could succeed or have some benefit. It was my entire point.
You are the one who then decided to argue that the knowledge of success/failure makes no difference. You are the one who opined that the revolt could be moral even if there was certainty of zero benefit.
It is indeed hilarious, I agree. One wonders why you went in that direction to begin with.
Your first description here, of how vague grand principles and the repudiation of secondary characteristics are dangerous, is a description more applicable to rule utilitarianism than anything I've put forward.
Act utilitarians can still operate under guiding principles. Almost every moral system does. The consideration of situations on their own merits and circumstances in no way requires guiding principles to be abandoned.
but you don't know what it is or why. so you're not making any kind of calculation.
From the perspective that there are only two parties and no likelihood of a credible third on the horizon, there's a pragmatic rationale to work within one. Sitting as a Democrat with an elected seat provides a form of voice that being an outsider does not.
It is possible to take a party over from the inside: after all, that's effectively what Trump did. Precursor astroturf movements might have portrayed themselves as independent, but in truth they were fundamentally a wing of the Republican party appealing to Republican voters.
The question perhaps is whether the Democrats see more electability in reinventing themselves from the party of the establishment centre to a party of the working class. The irony of all the business classes cosying up to Trump (if for no other reason than because he won) is that it then becomes much easier for the Democrats to shed dependence on them.
!?! You think that certainty of outcome is necessary to make an act calculation? Why on earth? Have you heard of likelihood, probability, and risk?
It's not single handily, don't let the GOP get away with this, they're the one who bow down to him for some reason.
In reality, probably none - if for no other reason than they'd rather be wearing those hats themselves.
But whilst political media is more reality TV than the actual business of running a country, they may as well make crass, short-term appeals to whichever flavours of the month get the viewing figures. And if they ever want to duck out of politics, a billionaire mate they've buttered up who can hand over an extremely well-paid post is a good option.
- Feb 13, 2009
- 172
- 36
- 33
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Does it really matter?
Can Musk even be Speaker given that it behind the Vice-President in the Presidential succession?
Not just theoretically: he's ineligible for the presidency and that's the end of that.
Although I suppose if the country were in sufficient crisis and it all came down to what key powerbrokers thought should happen, anything would be possible. Constitutions only matter as far as anyone wants to enforce them, just like laws.
And they matter significantly less with a leader of the executive who's explicitly said he might suspend it, and who has a vice grip on both other branches of government.
I (obviously erroneously) assumed the Speaker of the House had to be an elected member of the House of Representatives. So sure Musk can be appointed head of a department of government because that’s a role filled at presidential discretion. But can he run a department and be speaker at the same time?
The biggest mistake of the 2020 election was pretending that Trump was an outsider, not really part of the GOP and we could just go back to normal if we voted in Biden
These lies brought us to today
I just gotta say, as a person who lives in a country with multiple parties... this is normal. A major party will expect a minor to kowtow to their whims if they want to join a coalition. Sure, the minor parties might be able to get something minor through... but it's only allowed by major parties and the major parties tend to go back on their word.
If you don't do any kowtowing, you will literally get nothing. For you and your people. You, as a representative, only represent YOUR area. It's not the whole country. Every other area gets their vote too, and if you piss them off too much, you are excluded. Of course, AOC is doing this. Because AOC lives in reality, not some fantasy land where everyone thinks like AOC. If she doesn't, there is no possibility of change
And you want to be careful when you don't back your major coalition partner. The Greens in Australia ALWAYS wants more than their major coalition partner is willing to give. They continually demand changes to bills/policies (many I agree with) that Labour says no to. So the Greens join the conservative Liberals to shoot the bill. Which means absolutely no progress is ever made. It's always knocking down good bills because they want better and all society gets is shit
Nobody cares if you want that better thing if you keep dunking society into the shit. Sure, you can blame Labour for not creating a good enough bill. But that doesn't excuse you from your discussion that also hurts society.
Banning does not equal loss of privacy
Loss of privacy is when you have various institutions, the general public and law enforcement searching through all your phone data, tracking your movements, and searching through your garbage to prove that you are pregnant so they can gain a bounty. They even charge you when its not their jurisdiction
Your example still allowed them to go to different places and not get charged. You admitted in your own words. It doesn't require the general public to keep tabs on you, no one was tracking them and the patients let out the info on their own accord. There is no bounty if you provide evidence of someone trying to administer the procedure, like they do for abortions. There is no phone hacking to prove they went overseas like they have with abortions. There was no tracking on social media, or mail or anything else
All that happened is that the doctors were banned from doing the procedure in the US and they had to go elsewhere. That's only a small part of the problem with anti-abortion laws. Nor will they get fired or ostracised. The latter WLL happen if a pro-Lifer finds out you had an abortion, the former is probably
You pretended what I said. Then made a stupid metaphor that everyone can easily see was nowhere? near the same. And then got cranky because I didn't respond to your blatant absurd take. And now you are wasting my time on your literal nonsense
When you have an idea, maybe go back and check if it's actually real, instead of made up. It would save me, and a lot of other people's time. Because the amount of stuff that you make up is insane and not based on reality