D
Deleted member 51358
broken but not destroyed
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2023
- Posts
- 32,948
- Reputation
- 58,819
The reason we reject determinism is because if we don't then our sense of justice completely break downs. To understand why consider these two values which society has a broad consensus on.
Assumption 1. There is a general consensus that we should try to mitigate disadvantages people may face if those disadvantages are the result of things out of things(We build ramps because disabled people cant use the stairs for example)
Assumption 2. We can't blame people for things which they have no control over. (For example we wouldn't punish some random dude because say there was a volcanic eruption which killed some people)
Accepting determinism creates a conflict in how we approach both of these. Lets use the USA for example as that is where I live. In the USA we pay more in taxes in handouts to billionaires then we towards improving the working class. This naturally feels a bit strange, so how does society justify this? Egalitarianism, everyone is perfectly in control of their fate so there is no need to help the unfortunate. Take homeless people the idea that perhaps having a low iq, sub par looks, neurodivergence, or just poor circumstances and environment are never causes for his state. The homeless man actually likes being homeless, that is why he is where he is so there is no need to help him. This also paints successful people as being inherently more noble as they're success is solely due to their actions and nothing else so we should reward them. We should indeed give George Soros more of our tax dollars.
If we accept the assumption 1 and determinism then the conclusion naturally is we should try to improve the situation of the unfortunate more, we also conclude that we shouldn't necessarily give free money to the elites of society since they are no longer more noble than the unfortunate.
Determinism also violates assumption 2, things which are deterministic by their very definition you have no control over. So accepting determinism while blaming the unfortunate for their state would obviously be a contradiction. This would be text book cognitive dissonance, having two contradictory beliefs causes significant stress on humans so we try to avoid considering things which contradict our views.
This is why when you discuss determinism you will be called a nazi, racist, a fascist a incel etc. Anything will be said to reduce your ethos in the eyes of the person youre having a discussion with so they no longer have to bother considering what you say. This blind egalitarianism and more broadly the idea that we are perfectly free agents ironically makes us easier to control, because when we accept these things we start thinking "ok maybe we should actually give billionaires MORE money" and also allows us to demonize lower classes easier as we can now attack the very substance of their character.
@Mainlander @SlayerJonas @imontheloose
Assumption 1. There is a general consensus that we should try to mitigate disadvantages people may face if those disadvantages are the result of things out of things(We build ramps because disabled people cant use the stairs for example)
Assumption 2. We can't blame people for things which they have no control over. (For example we wouldn't punish some random dude because say there was a volcanic eruption which killed some people)
Accepting determinism creates a conflict in how we approach both of these. Lets use the USA for example as that is where I live. In the USA we pay more in taxes in handouts to billionaires then we towards improving the working class. This naturally feels a bit strange, so how does society justify this? Egalitarianism, everyone is perfectly in control of their fate so there is no need to help the unfortunate. Take homeless people the idea that perhaps having a low iq, sub par looks, neurodivergence, or just poor circumstances and environment are never causes for his state. The homeless man actually likes being homeless, that is why he is where he is so there is no need to help him. This also paints successful people as being inherently more noble as they're success is solely due to their actions and nothing else so we should reward them. We should indeed give George Soros more of our tax dollars.
If we accept the assumption 1 and determinism then the conclusion naturally is we should try to improve the situation of the unfortunate more, we also conclude that we shouldn't necessarily give free money to the elites of society since they are no longer more noble than the unfortunate.
Determinism also violates assumption 2, things which are deterministic by their very definition you have no control over. So accepting determinism while blaming the unfortunate for their state would obviously be a contradiction. This would be text book cognitive dissonance, having two contradictory beliefs causes significant stress on humans so we try to avoid considering things which contradict our views.
This is why when you discuss determinism you will be called a nazi, racist, a fascist a incel etc. Anything will be said to reduce your ethos in the eyes of the person youre having a discussion with so they no longer have to bother considering what you say. This blind egalitarianism and more broadly the idea that we are perfectly free agents ironically makes us easier to control, because when we accept these things we start thinking "ok maybe we should actually give billionaires MORE money" and also allows us to demonize lower classes easier as we can now attack the very substance of their character.
@Mainlander @SlayerJonas @imontheloose
