• 13 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 7M ago
cakeCake day: Jul 13, 2020

help-circlerss

I just wanna step into the shoes of OP for that reddit post, but, like, thinking about the scientific method. Let’s say we start with the observation that life expectancy is higher than it was in 1990. Now we ask our question “Why is that?” And then we trip down the stairs, skip all the other steps, and land on the conclusion “oh, because the thing I already believed is true” without putting in any effort to actually figuring out why.


Also, Russia This one has interesting ups and downs. I’m curious as to why, but just looking at changes in life expectancy doesn’t actually prove anything.


Also U.S. for comparison

So you can see the red parts of the Romania graph coincides with relative low points on the U.S. graph.


What’s interesting is that HDI is just a combo Gross National Income, (which is similar to GDP, already on the chart), as well as life expectancy (also there on the chart) and access to education (measured by how many years a person is expected to spend in education). I suspect the HDI is up because, well, every country in the world has been having an upwards trend in HDI, last I checked. What I do appreciate about the HDI is that it uses a logarithmic GNI, to reduce the impact that wealthy people have on it. Anyway, since HDI is a geometric mean of indexed measures of GNI, life expectancy, and education, and life expectancy and GDP are already on the chart, I’ll just treat it like it’s just showing life expectancy and GDP, since HDI is a little bit redundant and doesn’t really give us any new information.

So, logical issue: correlation does not mean causation. I believe that the data presented is accurate, but that doesn’t in any way prove that that data is the result of capitalism. Maybe GDP? But this data doesn’t support that conclusion. The chart is being presented to the audience and framed in a way to suggest the conclusion that it’s because of capitalism, but it’s not actually evidence of that.

Also it omits data from when it was still part of the Soviet Union. So we don’t know from this chart 1. how things were pre-1990, or 2. what the trends were pre-1990. At what rate was life expectancy going up pre-1990? We don’t know from this chart. If the life expectancy was going up pre-1990, and continued to go up post-1990, then nothing special happened in 1990 (regarding life expectancy). And, if we look at the pre-1990 graph, whaddya know, it goes up!! (gosh I hope I’m attaching an image correctly)


would make the rental unit a haunted house wtf? The court ruled that because she’s an adult she must have known that ghosts are real? As opposed to children, who are notoriously skeptical of ghosts, I guess.


Good data but if it could be organized in order from most to least I think that would make comparisons easier


Okay, so it’s about production price rather than the price a thing sells at?


How do collector's items make sense with LTV?

I like to play MtG, and some of those cards are expensive as fuck, while others cost pennies, but they literally are all require equivalent amounts of labor. I also saw a Louis Vuitton dice case that costs $720. I’m no expert on dice cases, but I highly doubt it took significantly more labor than an…


Haven’t read it myself but can you give me a TL;DR of why it’s bad, please?


I wonder if after the plague is over the local SRA could be convinced to host a build party.



LMAO, my dumbass forgot about libraries. I hope they’re not too impacted by the pandemic.



not (necessarily) elections

This gives me pause. Elections yield mixed results, to say the least, but they’re at least a method of accountability. I want the ruling class to be accountable to the proletariat. Am I wrong here?


In my view you can’t really have an objective morality without a source for that morality that you can consult to answer moral questions. When I was Christian that was easy, it was the Bible. What I do think is important is that you apply you morality objectively. If something is bad, it is bad at all places and times, and same for if something is good. You can’t fall into the kind of moral relativism where, like, you say that even though slavery is bad now, it used to be okay before the culture changed. That’s a deeply problematic way to think about morals. In that way thinking of morals as being subjective is very bad. But also, I’m not unaware of any objective standard by which we can reach moral conclusions using nothing but observations and logic.


I kind of ramble a lot in this post but I get to the point at the end if you wanna skip most of my bullshit.

Moral philosophy is a really wacky thing. I wouldn’t say morality is objective, because there is not measurement we can take to quantify how good or bad something is. Conversely, I wouldn’t call morality subjective, either, because if an action is wrong, it is wrong across all time periods and cultures, even if it is accepted by the culture at the time. e.g. Slavery has always been wrong, but used to be accepted.

If you want to say that morality is objective, then there has to be some objective source of morality we can consult to answer moral questions. Theists would tend to say that their source of objective morality is their god or gods. But how do they know that their god is the source of morality? Socrates asked (paraphrasing) “Is an action good because the gods deem it so, or do the gods deem actions good because they are good?”

Rape and abuse are very clearly always wrong, but the moral questions that I think are more interesting, are ones where people will disagree. A classic example is theft. When a capitalist gains income from their workers’ labor, that’s an immoral theft. When the workers seize the means of production from the capitalist class, that’s a morally justified theft. (the word ‘theft’ may be problematic, but you get what I mean. Taking someone else’s stuff.) In fact, it’s the workers’ surplus value that bought that capital in the first place.

David Hume is, I think, very relevant here. He had the idea of the is-ought gap. That’s the idea that you cannot arrive at an “ought” (how things should be) from an “is” (a fact). You can use your values to bridge that gap. Let’s take the example of rape. You can’t take a series of objective observations about the act of rape and arrive at the conclusion that rape is bad without some value to bridge that is-ought gap. Let’s say you hold the value that “suffering is bad.” From there, you can observe, objectively, that rape causes suffering. Using the value “suffering is bad,” you can now conclude that rape is bad. Rinse and repeat for any action that causes suffering. But nowhere have we proven, objectively, that suffering is bad.

A useful tool for thinking about ethical problems is “the veil of ignorance.” It’s basically a hypothetical where you set yourself outside of the scenario, and imagine if you would want to be in that scenario without knowing who you will be. Would you want to live in the Jim Crow United States if you didn’t know what race you would be? Is capitalism desirable if you don’t know whether or not you will be a capitalist or prole?

If you want a secular objective morality, Kant’s got one of those. It’s called the Categorical Imperative, and it goes like this: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” So it’s like, imagine you’re god and can write the moral laws of the universe, and then follow those laws yourself. This doesn’t really solve all moral questions because what a Marxist would will to be universal law and what a liberal would will to be universal law won’t match.

I’m sure you’ve heard of utilitarianism, which basically says that that which maximizes happiness and well-being is good. It could also be phrased as that which minimizes suffering is good, or a combination of maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering. This could have some weird implications. For instance, imagine there are, say, a bunch of people that all need an organ transplant in order to not die. One needs a heart, one needs a liver, one needs a kidney, one needs a set of lungs. Imagine also there is some guy that happens to be a possible donor for all these people. Also he doesn’t have any friends or family. He doesn’t really do much of anything, and is just a hermit that kind of keeps to himself. Would you be justified in killing this one person without his consent and harvesting his organs? According to utilitarianism, that would minimize suffering (one death instead of several, plus no one would miss him because of his hermit lifestyle), and maximize happiness (the people get to live), but at the same time, did the guy deserve to be killed? I don’t think so.

There’s also secular humanism. I don’t really know much about it at all, but you can google it if you want.

Personally, I’m kind of in between moral philosophies. I don’t have any all-encompassing moral philosophy to determine what’s good and what’s bad.

What is and is not moral is like what is and is not porn. I know it when I see it.

Sorry if this is a lot of text, but, it’s a very interesting question.

Circling back to whether or not morality is objective or subjective, I think morality is subjective, but it should be applied objectively.


lmao what is this in reference to?


Nah I’m pretty sure sith are real. Don’t listen to the crypto-jedi “Star Wars is fictional” propaganda.


Well they don’t all run ads. For those that do run ads, it is a good point tho.



Biography of Karl Marx?

I want one that’s fun to read, and one that is not horrible anti-communist propaganda. I tried to find a biography myself but it turned up a bunch of weird reactionary books as well as some that just look boring. Also idk if this is the right community for this question? But I hope so…



Is the dev dumb or dishonest, I wonder. My money’s on dishonest pandering to the “gamer” demo.


Should I play Bioshock 2?

I played Bioshock for the first time kind of recently, own Bioshock 2, but really wanna get to Infinite…



Free speech in China?

What’s the history and current situation there?..


Discussing capitalist stuff?

Posting capitalist propaganda is disallowed (as it should be), but what would be the proper way to post anti-communist articles for the purpose of critique/response? Also, is /c/communism the right place for me to be asking this kind of question, or is there somewhere else I should post these kinds …



Looking forward to Watchdogs Legion.

It doesn’t seem like it will be explicitly leftist, at all. Far from it, since they opted for a comically evil villain that people of any political leaning would oppose, but the fact that you can recruit any normal citizen to join your resistance group seems neat. Unfortunately Ubi apparently has a …


Tonight We Riot is good

I just started it but it’s really cute already. Those lil’ pixelated workers. I just wanna liberate them all…


Is slavery capitalist?

I thought it was a separate thing that capitalists could use, but not necessarily capitalist production…


vegan Bechamel?

I’ve tried making bechamel with soy milk and oat milk, and not a fan of either right now. I think I should try a nut milk. Any recommendations? Also I think I might want to try soy milk again because the last one I used had added sugar and also I slightly burned the roux. Any other tips for vegan be…


What's the deal with the DPRK?

In what way is it a democratic republic? I mean, it just looks like a dynasty. If it’s not, could you explain how it’s not, and if it is, how is that ok? I’m not deliberately trying to repeat U.S. propaganda, I hope this doesn’t come off like that, but my only knowledge so far is only from the U.S.,…