[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4189

File: 1574075415274.png (1.65 MB, 1000x1492, 250:373, fs_queen.png) ImgOps Google

While we can imagine some forgotten past, before states, before kings, before even tribal elders, when early man (woman, and child) lived in small communities too sparse and isolated to be much but politically flat; socially egalitarian one to another, as time passed, people of the Bible, people of the first historian Herodotus, people of the modern, complicated world became subjects to (occasionally agents of) systems of institutional power and authority.  What are we to make of these hierarchies?  How are we to respond to powerful forces in our lives and the lives of others?

 No.4190

File: 1574082743567.jpeg (153.34 KB, 800x1000, 4:5, 923288A2-C31D-4BC0-99D2-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>4189
Hierarchy is not only essential, but natural. To assume that all people are inherently equal is childish. Some people are clearly born to preform higher roles, while others lower roles. Some are born smart and charismatic and thus should fulfil the roles most suited to their skills, while others are born stupid and unattractive, but that is not to say that they aren’t strong, brave, loyal, hard working, or obedient, (all just as necessary, in some cases more necessary to maintain a society than mere intelligence and charm.) that they don’t have a valid and important role to fulfil. Even the minimum wage worker fulfils a vital role, for if his position were not to exist society could not function.

Some are meant to be kings, others peasants, but both roles are important, both roles valid, and neither should be looked down upon, for without one the other could not exist. People should learn to view themselves as part of the hierarchy, as part of society, not an individual fighting against it. To view oneself as an individual, especially for the inferior to do so, puts one on the level below even the most menial worker on the societal order, it makes them important to nothing but their own sense of petty individualism. At least the menial worker is providing a valuable service, an essential service for the very survival of the community, which makes him so much more than a individual, so much more than a menial worker, for in a way even though he inhabits the lowest position in society, he can take his self worth and pride from that society, for like everyone else on the social order from highest to lowest, he in a way is society, he is the collective, and all the achievements that come along with it can in part be claimed by him, as an essential and vital part of that collective. The individual who wishes to see himself as neither inferior nor superior to anything or anyone is once again invalid, he is important to nothing but his selfish individualism, imbued with no greater meaning than his pitifully life, unlike the worker, who lives for the community as the community lives for him.

 No.4191

>>4190
I can tell this is not quite the view in my country, or not quite how people would say it, as personal initiative has a greater value and the philosophical roots go back to the Scottish enlightenment's questioning of religious hegemony and the thinker Rousseau's belief in man as a naturally a solitary creature, engaging in social contract with caution.  Authorities here justify their power as protecting public safety and order, individual (or corporate) rights, and national security.  However, the basic truth of hierarchy, higher and lower roles -- your natural and essential -- is not absent.  Perhaps your community is one of less dissonance.  Philosophically more snug.

 No.4192

>>4191
I agree that individuals do play an important role in of themselves, and I’m not wholly against the idea of individualism. My problem is with people who take it to the extreme and deny the natural role that hierarchy and society should play in our lives.

>Perhaps your community is one of less dissonance.  Philosophically more snug.
Probably less so than yours. I’d hardly call anywhere in the West “philosophically sung” right now.

 No.4193

>>4191
>Philosophically more snug.
>>4192
>“philosophically sung”
“philosophically smug”?

 No.4194

i'm a born rebel

fuck the man, man

and that's my input

 No.4195

Hierarchies are not natural nor absolute.

Instrumental value is not the same as intrinsic value nor can that instrumental value exist outside of context of what means that they are valuable towards achieving.

To claim that humans need authorities is to conflate a temporary need on the part of some people in certain circumstances with "human nature". It's a pretty naive, and most importantly, a myopic interpretation of the world and the people in it.

Authorities do not provide happiness, it just placates the anxieties of the inexperienced, who typically end up with a bias to invest a greater amount of competence and ability in whomever they designate as their authorities, regardless of the actual reality of their chosen authority.

Installation of an authority who is given the sole responsibility for thinking for everyone else is essentially just an opiate for fearful people

 No.4204

File: 1574171004409.png (413.98 KB, 1888x1080, 236:135, our_town.png) ImgOps Google

>>4193
Snug was what I hoped to write, as in each fits snugly into place.

>>4192
I try to come up with ways of looking at people that won't make me into a misanthrope.  A good deal of energy goes into systems to govern and order society, hopefully there's a positive function to all that.

>>4194
There you go!  :D  I'm with you!  (To a point.  Well, to the point I worry about maybe doing something that would make me a bad pony, or getting people upset, or thinking bad thoughts about humans in general.  Maybe we can be a little bit rebels, though.  :) )

 No.4205

>>4195
What are your thoughts on better methods to respond to fear?  I think you're saying authorities tend to be incompetent in making people safer.  Or are you talking only about authorities that don't allow any individual freedom?

 No.4206

Individuals will always stretch to try to take more authority then they have.  It is morally imperative that you try to erode this authority at all opportunities to keep it from getting out of control.

 No.4208

>>4204
>I try to come up with ways of looking at people that won't make me into a misanthrope.  A good deal of energy goes into systems to govern and order society, hopefully there's a positive function to all that.

Unfortunately this way of looking at people as needed authority to be happy often comes off as misanthropic.

>>4205
>What are your thoughts on better methods to respond to fear?  I think you're saying authorities tend to be incompetent in making people safer.  Or are you talking only about authorities that don't allow any individual freedom?

I am saying that the power and infallibility of the authorities is fundamentally illusory. Something taken on faith. A myth essentially, one that frequently falls apart when, inevitably, the illusion is challenged by the failures of the authorities, which are not rooted in anything other than the facts that the authorities are not infallible, they are 100% as human as anyone else, driven by the same conflicting needs and desires as anyone else and just as capable of making mistakes in judgement as anyone else.

In fact the illusory power of the authorities falls apart as soon as they lose some soft power with the majority of the people. Then the limitations of physics constrains all power of the authorities and they are limited by what resources they have and how many places they can be at in one time.

Take for example when the U.S. implemented a prohibition on all alcohol consumption. It was ratified in the least populous states on the promise that it couldn't be realistically enforced on a broad scale and was attractive as a bludgeon, a prohibition that could only ve selectively enforced against political rivals or against marginalized populations. But the authorities were eventually pressured internally by those who actually wanted to enforce it universally, and they failed miserably. The prohibition only worked in parts of the country where is was already popularly supported, but the majority of Americans were breaking it anyway, cause alcohol can be derived from anything that produces carbohydrates, and the market demand for it was really high. So it just led to the rise of the speakeasy culture, where most American adults went to deliberately break the law and defy the authorities, whose time and resources were strained to the point that all efforts were futile.

It's one of those moments in history where the illusion of authority shattered. The masses always collectively have more power than those who are designated as their authorities.

Basically what I am saying that (for some) the authorities are just a security blanket for those who have no tolerance for uncertainty, especially when that uncertainty involves people they have no control over. So they invest that power into authority figures who essentially serve as an emotional security blanket that fills them with a false sense of control over people they fear.

This role of the authorities as a security blanket can be so strong that those who cling ro it are even willing to rewrite history in their favor, just to maintain the illusion that authorities have always been needed.

That's why there are alternative narratives that have passed around in basically every culture, throughout history. The emotional need for the security blanket that is authority is not universally human nor has it ever been.

Given that I value judgements made with the least amount of self-deception, I would think the answer to fear of the possibility that the world is, essentially, like a car stuck in cruise control with no steering wheel, no one and nothing is actually in total control of anything, is too just work towards building a tolerance for chaos.

 No.4215

>>4208
I think you're right on the money with this post. I'll just add that I think, ultimately, the idea of authority, that illusion, is far more powerful than any real authority itself. It acts as deterant to crime and security blanket for those who have an emotional need for it. It very much is an illusion, too. See how many people get robbed and the robbers never caught, or see how many security guards cower at the first sign of actual threat. The narrative of authority right now is so much stronger than any ability to enforce it. Personally, that's a major reason I think authoritarian overreach should be avoided, it threatens to shatter the illusion.

 No.4217

File: 1574216081591.png (367.93 KB, 886x804, 443:402, 1987535.png) ImgOps Google

>>4208
Authorities are realifications of discipline in the minds of many.  Like beliefs or motivations, they are not real in the sense of behaviorism or basic material physics, likewise hunger perhaps is not real, you can only observe eating or seeking food.

>looking at people as needed authority to be happy often comes off as misanthropic

Loving humans is a tough love.  They simply aren't ordered enough that a universal ethic will make you popular generally, or at least not one I can find.

>that frequently falls apart when, inevitably, the illusion is challenged by the failures of the authorities

On the scale of days, authorities are fairly trustworthy, somewhat on the scale of lifetimes, on the scale of centuries, they come and go.  I doubt any will last forever, even those that claim to be eternal, such as religious authority.  I try to be respectful as possible, though, even knowing that which ought not change does in the long run.

>judgements made with the least amount of self-deception
Hmm...authorities are often a sort of cloak than that clouds more individualist truth.  I do believe in objective science, although I note authorities are not always fond of this activity, so I try not to oppress humans with science where it is unwelcome.  I don't know that you'd agree, but that seems kindness.

 No.4218

>>4215

>It acts as deterant to crime

citation needed.

>>4215
>and security blanket for those who have an emotional need for it

I generally think this security blanket stagnates most people and causes more problems than it solves.

Sometimes truth is better and far more responsible.

>>4215
>The narrative of authority right now is so much stronger than any ability to enforce it.

I disagree with that.

It seems like an unjustified generalization of humanity. And something informed by an unjustified assumption about people's fundamental moral and ethical natures.

>>4215
>it threatens to shatter the illusion.

Human beings for the most part  assume all other human beings are simpler than they are.

Most people, I believe understand that authority is fundamentally illusory, but assume they are the only ones who realize it.

>>4217
>Authorities are realifications of discipline in the minds of many.

Did you mean reification or justification?

I would argue that an authoritarian meta-ethic is actually detrimental to one moral development. It keeps one in a preconventional moral state. Plus, a definition of morality justified by the will of an authority cannot be absolute so long as the authority has the power to change what is good or what is evil, and it fundamentally implies that the ethical system is arbitrary.

>>4217
>Loving humans is a tough love.  They simply aren't ordered enough that a universal ethic will make you popular generally, or at least not one I can find.

It's misanthropic because it infantilizes people, it unjustly assumes that humans, in general, cannot develop beyond a preconventional morality.

Something of a product of the vicious cycle of self justification bias intrinsic in so many authoritarian ideologies and their self-justifications.

>>4217
>On the scale of days, authorities are fairly trustworthy, somewhat on the scale of lifetimes, on the scale of centuries, they come and go.

I don't think it's a matter of trust, it's a matter of recognizing that they are not actually needed. And recognizing that there isn't much rational justification to one's assumptions about what constitutes "human nature", recognizing that all such declarations are are mostly just unjustified generalizations made with lots of cultural bias.

>>4217
>Hmm...authorities are often a sort of cloak than that clouds more individualist truth.  I do believe in objective science, although I note authorities are not always fond of this activity, so I try not to oppress humans with science where it is unwelcome.  I don't know that you'd agree, but that seems kindness.

It's coddling for people who have yet to develop courage for truth and is ultimately damaging in the long run.

 No.4219

>>4218
>realifications
I mean that it is not a concrete thing like an individual or government building, it has reality more in the mind.

>preconventional moral state
Well, yes.  Perhaps conventional if the enforcement has a pattern.  If humans could be trusted to follow ethical standard of their choice, I don't see why they would need enforcement.

>the will of an authority cannot be absolute so long as the authority has the power to change
Well, I'd say the purpose is it supersedes the individual.  Some authorities are subject to bigger authorities.  But when you get to the biggest authority, there's nothing to challenge it.  I guess that's as close as you get to absolute.  I think there's something that keep authorities from being arbitrary.  Something about human empathy, probably.

>assumes that humans, in general, cannot develop beyond a preconventional morality

I guess it does.  But I am thinking of adults, not infants.  And I don't think I hate infants.

>they are not actually needed
The alternative of thinking humans keep giving into fear to create usless and irrational organizations, self-inflicted oppression at grand scale....I don't know.  Maybe if it happened once or twice and they learned.  Humans are pretty smart, but they are not perfect at making choices that meet their needs, so you have to allow some accidents.

 No.4222

>>4219
>>4219
>I mean that it is not a concrete thing like an individual or government building, it has reality more in the mind.

So you mean a social construct?

>Well, yes.  Perhaps conventional if the enforcement has a pattern.

I was making reference to the piaget's conception of moral development. Preconventional morality is essentially moral obedience for the sake of avoiding punishment, conventional morality is moral behavior for the consideration of others in one's community. Postconventional means a morality based in adherence to abstract moral principles.

All children start with a preconventional morality and develop a conventional morality when they grow and move away from the need for a deterrent to bad behaviors.

The authoritarian meta-ethic literally robs people of the ability to develop a conventional morality, especially when that authority continually reinforces to whom they pressume to rule over, that they would be incapable of any morals without them, thus creating self-fulfilling prophecies, creating people incapable of morality without an authority figures. Essentially like victims of emotional abuse manipulated into being incapable of autonomy.

>If humans could be trusted to follow ethical standard of their choice, I don't see why they would need enforcement.

But the fundamental illusion of authoritative power reveals that by in large, humans can be trusted to follow their own ethical principles.

The authorities serve them by being a security blanket for those who understand that they might not need an authority, but their fear and loathing of other people lead them to find a great appeal in someone having control over them.

>>4219
>Well, I'd say the purpose is it supersedes the individual.  Some authorities are subject to bigger authorities.  But when you get to the biggest authority, there's nothing to challenge it.  I guess that's as close as you get to absolute.  I think there's something that keep authorities from being arbitrary.  Something about human empathy, probably.

I don't think you understand what I was saying here. I mean "absolute morality" in the sense that the morals and ethical principles are rigid, unchanging, and are not flexible or dependent on the circumstances.

The assumption of most authoritarian meta-ethics is that a morality derived from an authority is absolute, but logically it cannot be if that authority has the power to redefine what "good" and "evil" even are or what they mean for any reason whatsoever.

Likewise, if moral value derives from the decree of an authority, it is neccesarily arbitrary because any sort of immutable instrinsic property or inevitable consequence of any action is completely irrelevant.

An absolute morality must transcend all authorities if it is to be absolute, even gods. And it cannot be arbitrary, as it has to be justified by the innate properties and inevitable (or highly probable) consequences of the actions in question.

>I think there's something that keep authorities from being arbitrary.  Something about human empathy, probably.

Which further contradicts the idea that authorities are necessary. In order for the authority's morality to be non-abitrary, the morality must be based in the properties of which behaviors be prohibited or commanded. Something that exist independent of the authority itself.

Which logically implies that the authority is essentially a kind of middleman rather than a source of any morality whatsoever. And given that authorities (and the illusion of authorities power) are essentially invented by the people they have authority over, then the real purpose is confirmation of an already preexisting morality that didn't derive from any other authority other than the authority of collective agreement on moral principles amongst the masses to begin with. It ultimately exist to aswage the cognitive dissonance between a desire for all the answers, right now and a terror at the possibility that there is no perfect or even ideal answer to most (if not all) moral conundrums.

It's fundamentally a self deception, or an example of living in bad faith (in the Satrean sense) to believe that the authorities we invent necessarily have greater access to moral truths than any of us do, despite their humanity and all the limitations and fallibility they would have,  because of our fears of being wrong about these things. Thus authority, paradoxically enough, serves to absolve us of personal responsibilities for mistakes in moral judgement, or as cover for immoral actions we take as being good because they are "obedient".

>>4219
>Maybe if it happened once or twice and they learned.

It's been happening over and over again throughout history that some cultures (like traditional chinese cultures) come to expect the backlash and destruction of authority figures to be a fundamental part of the cycle of chinese history, just to name one example.

And it happens all over the world. There are few cultures on earth that do not have an underground counterculture of people marginalized, disenfranchised and dispossessed by the authorities of that culture, who frequently exist despite the denunciations of authorities that they do exist. Plus, many of tge disenfranchised and marginalized in any culture frequently serve as justification on the part of the authority for it's own perpetuation, even if that means rewriting the history of their own culture. Because, again, the authorities do not transcend humanity or their own addiction to power.

Basically the only justifications for authoritarianism are the problems that authoritarianism creates for itself (but denies responsibility for)

 No.4227

>>4222
Hmm...your view, if I try to restate it, is that authorities are rooted in fear, they continue by keeping that fear in people's mind.  Probably usually fear of a dangerous other.  Immigrants, minorities, underclass.  Because fear is their fuel, they have little interest in remedying the root of this fear, and so they are ineffective at anything but self-preservation, and therefore do not relate to a human need for safety and security.  Further, encouraging people to respect authority rather than look to their own -- perhaps more adaptable and sensible -- moral compass keeps humans childish in submission to their Mother State, but a false mother, even who only tells scary stories.

It does seem that way sometimes.  The government of my country seems to stoke fears of immigrants.  Well, that's a political thing to say, I guess.  Some would say, the governments reveals the accurate state of things.

>absolute morality
For a respectful human, I think the only absolute is that their individual moral sense must give way to authority when an authority exists.  Once they've given up their individual prerogative, they have no right to ask the authority be unchanging, and few are.

>that the authorities we invent necessarily have greater access to moral truths than any of us do

If they didn't, I don't see how they could be just.  People would be advised to trust their own heart and resist authority when it commanded otherwise, or resist authority in general because it may presume to command otherwise.

>come to expect the backlash and destruction of authority figures to be a fundamental part of the cycle of chinese history

In the longer term, yes.  If you could use the eventual disolusion of authority as an argument against their validity, then it'd be hard to say any was valid.

Our basic disagreement seems to be on whether humans should be permitted authorities, whether it's a legitimate creation in furthering human well-being, something that usually relates to human needs (although perhaps instrumentally, as you clarify).  I'm trying to...trust humans, I guess, that they are not so dumb as to mess up something so important and big.  I don't trust that humans necessary understand me very well, but I'm odd so that's forgivable, I guess.  They should understand the common type of human.  At least I seek to give them that basic level of respect.  If that helps in understanding my starting point, at least.

 No.4230

>>4227
>>4227
>Hmm...your view, if I try to restate it, is that authorities are rooted in fear, they continue by keeping that fear in people's mind.  Probably usually fear of a dangerous other.  Immigrants, minorities, underclass.  Because fear is their fuel, they have little interest in remedying the root of this fear, and so they are ineffective at anything but self-preservation, and therefore do not relate to a human need for safety and security.  Further, encouraging people to respect authority rather than look to their own -- perhaps more adaptable and sensible -- moral compass keeps humans childish in submission to their Mother State, but a false mother, even who only tells scary stories.

Mostly, a lot of injustices are self sustaining cycles.

>>4227
>Some would say, the governments reveals the accurate state of things.

Again self-deception. It appeals to the needs of those who fear others.

>>4227
>For a respectful human, I think the only absolute is that their individual moral sense must give way to authority when an authority exists.  Once they've given up their individual prerogative, they have no right to ask the authority be unchanging, and few are.

How do you justify that?

Personally I think it's intrinsically unjust, no one has any moral obligation to obey an authority and may have a moral duty to rebel against any authority who perpetuates a greater amount of injustice and suffering that existed before the authority came to power.

>If they didn't, I don't see how they could be just.

Exactly, they are not justified on any moral grounds.

>>4227
>People would be advised to trust their own heart and resist authority when it commanded otherwise, or resist authority in general because it may presume to command otherwise.

Far preferable to a culture that is guilt tripped into obedience to an unjust authority, especially one that commands things like war or genocide.

Plus, that is the inescapable reality of how humans actually operate on a moral level. They must be self sufficient because the power of the authority is fundamentally an illusion. Everyone is doing it on an everyday basis. In fact I would argue that a movement from preconventional to conventional to postconventional morality requires one to question and defy authority figures.

>>4227
>In the longer term, yes.  If you could use the eventual disolusion of authority as an argument against their validity, then it'd be hard to say any was valid.

It's an argument against the idea that the need for authority figures are a humanly universal need. And thus there us no rational justification to state that humanity needs authority to be happy, it just doesn't hold true for all of humanity if the millennia long history of underground and counter cultures in essentially every part of the world is any indication.

>>4227
>Our basic disagreement seems to be on whether humans should be permitted authorities, whether it's a legitimate creation in furthering human well-being, something that usually relates to human needs (although perhaps instrumentally, as you clarify).

No, it's over whether humans really need authority figures on a fundamentally moral level.

Also, it's a fundamental disagreement over whether humans need hierarchical structured societies when the whole conception of a social hierarchy free of context is woefully reductive and does not reflect reality nor does it consider the nuance of pragmatic justification for an authority as simply a division of labor, a position whose justification is solely rooted in expertise in practical skills and thus only in the domains that such skills are relevant.

>I'm trying to...trust humans, I guess, that they are not so dumb as to mess up something so important and big.

Well "dumb" is an oversimplification in and of itself. "Dumb" in what ways?

Also, a lack of intellectual prowess is not the null hypothesis to explain the failures in human society when the basic lack of omniscience is a sufficient explanation, not even the combined body of knowledge that humans have generated over the course of human history comes anywhere close to omniscience. Human beings are not necessarily too dumb to figure this stuff out, it's just that we're not always able to account for everything relevant to our judgements within a desired frame of time (and this is deeply terrifying to some portion of the population and thus we tend to live in denial of that fact, and gravitate to the deeply appealling idea that someone must have all the answers out there, whether or not there is any rational justification to believe so) human beings are generally impatient when it comes to trying to find answers, because of fear of our own ignorance.

But of course, if we are to find truth, we must be willing to acknowledge and be awre of how tjose fears distort those judgments and lead us to conclusions that are not rationally justified.

>I don't trust that humans necessary understand me very well, but I'm odd so that's forgivable, I guess.


You are far from the first person to believe that their unique traits set them at odds with other people to the point they begin to believe that they are not human themselves. It's not that unique. A lot of people  think that they are not as understood as they are based on interaction with only a tiny bit of people who are different from them, combined with some unexamined base assumptions about how other people work, often times rooted in a fear of the fundamental chaos that free will represents, with a tendency to understand other people only in terms of what amounts to the superficial aspects of a person seemingly ignorant to possibly that another person's inner world may be as complex as their own.

There are few things that can be said to be universal to all humans other than that they are evolved to be adaptable, and thus are a reflection of their adaptations to their environment in psychosicial and biosocial ways. We're a more complex species than most animals but most humans still comprehend people other than themselves as something like animals or something other than themselves.

>They should understand the common type of human.

Most humans can't agree on what that constitutes. They all start out believing they are the common human, again, adaptability.

That and the fact that humans are generally self contradictory, given that the human brain consists of parts and structures and have functions that are far from the same age in terms of evolution and thus sometimes are the source of contradictions in human behavior (as well as the neurologically rooted bias to perceived our inconsistencies as actually consistent, even if it means our memories frequently contradict physical evidence of our past behaviors)

 No.4247

>>4230
>does it consider the nuance of pragmatic justification for an authority as simply  division of labor
Well, that's fine.  Most hierarchies I know have justifications, either religious or pragmatic.

>basic lack of omniscience is a sufficient explanation
I don't know about that.  The evil of authorities has become clear to you, and I doubt you claim to be omniscient.

>You are far from the first person to believe that their unique traits set them at odds with other people to the point they begin to believe that they are not human themselves

Oh, I've come across others.  I imagine there are many ways to deviate.  I know you disagree, but when I think of humans -- human nature, I guess -- I think of creatures who are justly served by human authorities.  I do not think I have always been...justly served...by authorities, so I can not, for myself, 100% respect them.  But disrespecting authorities is a dangerous path (in the right circumstances, deadly), I would not tempt others down that road, unless they really need it.

>Most humans can't agree on what that constitutes

Well, if I believed that human nature could not be known or agreed on, I wouldn't be able to figure how humans could create authorities that could be relied to act in ways morally appropriate for masses of humans.  I know that's your thinking -- authorities can't know humans nature well enough to know what is morally appropriate -- and it's all consistent.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]