United States Politics Thread 47

[Raphael]

If you are motivated by ideals, then you wouldn't be able to recalculate when the situation changes.

Huh? Why not?

By your definition, I am an idealist. That's not Snyder's definition.

What are we arguing about, then?

Nope. That's one possible method for promoting one type of morality. I don't see you provide any good reason to assume that it's the only possible method.

Philosophers like Peter Singer have a long argument that most people don't have morals.

What's your method?

I don't really know that well, but then again, I don't really think anyone else does.

I suspect that most people have immoral sides and sides that want to be the one or other kind of moral. My guess would be that with people like that, the best method might be to expose them to the best possible influences.

Then there are people who really have no morality, and, inwardly, see no need for one. In such cases, I'm very pessimistic: the best we can do is to become as good as possible at recognizing them for who they are, to be very careful and cautious in our dealings with them, to warn each other about them, and as last resorts, to imprison them or, in immediately dangerous situations, to kill them.

Besides, if you're so much against ideals, what's your reason for criticizing inhumane results?

They harm me.

OK, let me rephrase that: On which grounds do you criticize inhumane results? What is your argument for why other people, whose self-interest might not be the same as yours, should oppose things that lead to inhumane results?

Well, what is people's self-interest in the first place?

Developing the environment they live in. Other people and the (edit: natural) environment are critical to this enterprise.

Well, that's what you say. Why should anyone agree with that?

I don't see why convincing people that their "true" self-interest is whatever rotting-bones-ism says it is would be less difficult than convincing people to have and act on the right kind of ideals.

Most marginalized groups can't comply with existing conditions. For the minority which tries, it routinely backfires.

Not only that, the existing inegalitarianism even backfires on groups that are otherwise dominant. Members of these groups who value long-term security and growth should side with the marginalized.

I could expand on this, but it's a traditional leftist argument. I'm sure you can imagine what I'm going to say. Patriarchy hurts men too, etc.

Some truth in that, but then again, the historical track record of hoping for a revolution that serves one's self-interest is not that great, either. The revolution might either not happen, or it might not actually improve your situation.

So yes, the chances of succeeding by complying with existing power structures might be slim for most people, but the chances of succeeding through a revolution might well be slimmer.

Let me put it into perspective with a movie quote:

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... OfDynamite

I know what I am talking about when I am talking about the revolutions. The people who read the books go to the people who can't read the books, the poor people, and say, "We have to have a change." So, the poor people make the change, ah? And then, the people who read the books, they all sit around the big polished tables, and they talk and talk and talk and eat and eat and eat, eh? But what has happened to the poor people? They're dead! That's your revolution. Shhh... So, please, don't tell me about revolutions! And what happens afterwards? The same fucking thing starts all over again!

[rotting bones]

If you are motivated by ideals, then you wouldn't be able to recalculate when the situation changes.

Huh? Why not?

Having an ideal means holding on to a value and refusing to change it. The ideal could be more general ideal than usual, but it's still static. This is how ideals are usually understood in philosophy.

What are we arguing about, then?

You know that better than me. My post wasn't directed to you.

One of my opinions you'd disagree with is that I think my ideals (Rawlsianism) are a private matter and not particularly effective in social settings.

Besides, if you're so much against ideals, what's your reason for criticizing inhumane results?

They harm me.

OK, let me rephrase that: On which grounds do you criticize inhumane results? What is your argument for why other people, whose self-interest might not be the same as yours, should oppose things that lead to inhumane results?

Well, what is people's self-interest in the first place?

Developing the environment they live in. Other people and the (edit: natural) environment are critical to this enterprise.

Well, that's what you say. Why should anyone agree with that?

I don't see why convincing people that their "true" self-interest is whatever rotting-bones-ism says it is would be less difficult than convincing people to have and act on the right kind of ideals.

If other people are getting hurt, that creates a bad economic environment for me. We could have been working towards mutual enrichment instead.

Have you studied classical capitalist economics? Most of these arguments are already present in Adam Smith, whom the political right usually agrees with. The only thing socialism adds is that changing the structure of society could enrich our lives further.

[Raphael]

If you are motivated by ideals, then you wouldn't be able to recalculate when the situation changes.

Huh? Why not?

Having an ideal means holding on to a value and refusing to change it. The ideal could be more general ideal than usual, but it's still static. This is how ideals are usually understood in philosophy.

There's values, and there's the application of values.The latter can change a lot depending on the situation.

Have you studied classical capitalist economics?

Somewhat, as a exercise in how people can get things wrong

Most of these arguments are already present in Adam Smith, whom the political right usually agrees with. The only thing socialism adds is that changing the structure of society could enrich our lives further.

I think I said before that I think Smith and Marx and their respective followers all got that wrong. Neither Marxism nor run-of-the-mill capitalist economic ideas have a track record that inspires much confidence. Looking at history doesn't convince me that either theory is all that good at figuring things out.

[rotting bones]

There's values, and there's the application of values.The latter can change a lot depending on the situation.

I agree, but the values themselves are still static. Historically, we see quite often that old values don't have the effect their authors expected. To have the right values to begin with, you'd have to anticipate all future changes. That is, you'd have to be omniscient. This is the appeal of theism for people who think values are important.

Somewhat, as a exercise in how people can get things wrong

Most of these arguments are already present in Adam Smith, whom the political right usually agrees with. The only thing socialism adds is that changing the structure of society could enrich our lives further.

I think I said before that I think Smith and Marx and their respective followers all got that wrong. Neither Marxism nor run-of-the-mill capitalist economic ideas have a track record that inspires much confidence. Looking at history doesn't convince me that either theory is all that good at figuring things out.

If you don't agree with economics at all, then where do you think wealth comes from, having the right values? Like some kind of Christian nationalist?

[rotting bones]

Note that contemporary Neoclassical and Keynesian economics agree with the parts of classical economics I'm referring to. This is the motivation for the whole discipline of economics: cooperation for mutual enrichment, though capitalist economics focuses narrowly on trade.

[Raphael]

If you don't agree with economics at all, then where do you think wealth comes from, having the right values? Like some kind of Christian nationalist?

Note that contemporary Neoclassical and Keynesian economics agree with the parts of classical economics I'm referring to. This is the motivation for the whole discipline of economics: cooperation for mutual enrichment, though capitalist economics focuses narrowly on trade.

Let's just say that I think that a lot of economics, including some of the most basic and widely shared ideas, is a bit like the medicine that was taught at medieval and early modern European universities. Not completely false, and clearly concerned with a subject that is very important, but still riddled with many small and some larger falsehoods, and in urgent need of getting rid of the Theory of Humors.

[zompist]

If you are motivated by ideals, then you wouldn't be able to recalculate when the situation changes. [...]

Having an ideal means holding on to a value and refusing to change it.

Sorry to intervene, but the above doesn't hold for my own experience or what I see in history. People's values change all the time, and if that bothers philosophers, so much the worse for philosophy.

Every gain in civil rights is an example. People get added to the concept of "humans we care about." To use an ancient example, Buddha granted women— with ill grace— the right to join the sangha. Leftism in the 90s was a long series of adjustments to actually take various disprivileged people into account. The idea of diversity as a value is relatively new. (The earlier idea was tolerance leading to assimilation.)

Existential threats created new values. Poison gas, the atomic bomb, and climate change created a new value in developed nations: it's good to preserve the ecosphere.

Orwell argued that the idea of improving the present world couldn't really develop while people believed that another, better world awaited after death.

These are positives, but people are also prone to narrow or corrupt their ideals. Fascism involves excluding people from the set of "humans we care about". Google stopped believing in "don't be evil". The Soviets went from valuing worker self-organization to prohibiting it.

[Travis B.]

I get the feeling that rotting bones has preconceived notions about how humans act and think, and uses them as first principles to derive concepts about humanity and the world without input from, well, how humans actually act and think.

[MacAnDàil]

If you are motivated by ideals, then you wouldn't be able to recalculate when the situation changes. [...]

Having an ideal means holding on to a value and refusing to change it.

Sorry to intervene, but the above doesn't hold for my own experience or what I see in history. People's values change all the time, and if that bothers philosophers, so much the worse for philosophy.

I don't think that it's a belief of philosophers but rather Rotting Bones. After all, William MacAskill advocates avoiding value lock-in.

Every gain in civil rights is an example. People get added to the concept of "humans we care about." To use an ancient example, Buddha granted women— with ill grace— the right to join the sangha. Leftism in the 90s was a long series of adjustments to actually take various disprivileged people into account. The idea of diversity as a value is relatively new. (The earlier idea was tolerance leading to assimilation.)

Existential threats created new values. Poison gas, the atomic bomb, and climate change created a new value in developed nations: it's good to preserve the ecosphere.

Orwell argued that the idea of improving the present world couldn't really develop while people believed that another, better world awaited after death.

These are positives, but people are also prone to narrow or corrupt their ideals. Fascism involves excluding people from the set of "humans we care about". Google stopped believing in "don't be evil". The Soviets went from valuing worker self-organization to prohibiting it.

Going in the good inclusive direction has been called "expanding the circle".

[malloc]

When it comes to Eric Schmidt, the "m" is silent: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/politics ... id=ios_app

[Raphael]

When it comes to Eric Schmidt, the "m" is silent: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/29/politics ... id=ios_app

If only the rest would be silent, too.

[malloc]

Alarming news today as Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar faced a raid on her house today by federal agents. They are alleging that her citizenship is invalid and apparently searched the house for documentation to prove it. The raid comes after years of hostility from Trump toward Omar and the city of Minneapolis more generally, leading many to consider the raid politically motivated.

[malloc]

Well, we are entering the final stretch before the midterms. Many polls look favorable to the Democrats, particularly the collapsing approval ratings of Trump himself. Nonetheless the stakes are incredibly high and Republican victory would not only reinforce their political power but annihilate the morale of their opposition.

[bradrn]

Many polls look favorable to the Democrats, particularly the collapsing approval ratings of Trump himself.

I’m glad you’ve highlighted this; it’s important and relevant.

Nonetheless the stakes are incredibly high and Republican victory would not only reinforce their political power but annihilate the morale of their opposition.

Agreed, the stakes are very high. I think ‘annihilate’ is too extreme — lots of people hate Trump, and that hate doesn’t suddenly disappear — but certainly I would encourage all the Americans here to get out there and vote. (I’m sure they need no encouragement anyway.)

[malloc]

Agreed, the stakes are very high. I think ‘annihilate’ is too extreme — lots of people hate Trump, and that hate doesn’t suddenly disappear — but certainly I would encourage all the Americans here to get out there and vote. (I’m sure they need no encouragement anyway.)

Maybe so, but I worry that many people would interpret a Republican victory as evidence that Trump remains quite popular and thus lose their enthusiasm for resistance.

[bradrn]

Agreed, the stakes are very high. I think ‘annihilate’ is too extreme — lots of people hate Trump, and that hate doesn’t suddenly disappear — but certainly I would encourage all the Americans here to get out there and vote. (I’m sure they need no encouragement anyway.)

Maybe so, but I worry that many people would interpret a Republican victory as evidence that Trump remains quite popular and thus lose their enthusiasm for resistance.

People don’t all give up quite that easily.

[Travis B.]

Agreed, the stakes are very high. I think ‘annihilate’ is too extreme — lots of people hate Trump, and that hate doesn’t suddenly disappear — but certainly I would encourage all the Americans here to get out there and vote. (I’m sure they need no encouragement anyway.)

Maybe so, but I worry that many people would interpret a Republican victory as evidence that Trump remains quite popular and thus lose their enthusiasm for resistance.

The thing is that even if Republicans win individual races, Trump himself is deeply unpopular, and people are in general quite bitter about what his administration has done. They won't go "oh well the Republicans won we might as well give up" in that case.

[lëtzeshark]

The thing is that even if Republicans win individual races, Trump himself is deeply unpopular, and people are in general quite bitter about what his administration has done. They won't go "oh well the Republicans won we might as well give up" in that case.

Another thing is that a lot of bigger races (esp. Senate and Gubernatorial races) tend to be more popularity contests, so, even if a state leans to a certain direction, the personal (un)popularity of a politician can make a big impact on how the race goes and that office can also go for the other side even despite a wave. See, for example, Laura Kelly in Kansas in 2018 (and in 2022); Doug Jones in Alabama in 2017; Joe Manchin in West Virgin(ia); Linda Lingle in Hawai'i in 2002; Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe in Maine (for many years); and, in my state* (North Carolina), Pat McCrory in 2012 followed by Roy Cooper in 2016 and 2020 (and, consequently, Josh Stein in 2024). We can even see this right now with the Tex-ass Senate election, where, while the state definitely leans red (and the governor's race as well is favoring the Republican, though maybe less strongly than in previous cycles), Ken Paxton (longtime attorney general) has a popularity which might approach that of certain diseases. Same also in Ohio when comparing the gubernatorial and Senate special election, though the latter is maybe more due to the personal popularity of Sherrod Brown, ex-Senator unseated in 2024.

*I vote in North Carolina and have voted there since I became eligible to vote... even though I wasn't born there.

[Travis B.]

I haven't heard anyone say anything positive about Trump in quite some time now, and I live in probably the most Republican county in all of Wisconsin...