tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post7445877086388528504..comments2024-01-11T21:24:44.379-07:00Comments on A Blog of Tom: A Vote of FaithTom Cantinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-48262392672210110412014-04-16T20:03:14.257-06:002014-04-16T20:03:14.257-06:00If you ever come to wonder what "Anonymous&qu...If you ever come to wonder what "Anonymous" thinks about a thing, signal that in your post. I will keep reading from time to time, but I do not intend to reply any more. Thanks for many interchanges. Love, Anonymous Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-51865989370513563592014-04-16T11:30:32.597-06:002014-04-16T11:30:32.597-06:00I see what you are trying to do, which is to hijac...I see what you are trying to do, which is to hijack a conversation about the choice between democracy and despotism into yet another attempt to persuade me to accept Jesus as my personal saviour. <br /><br />Please don't. I wrote the above post because I wanted to address the question of apathy: why bother voting, why bother engaging for social change when we have no power to affect anything?<br /><br />That is an important question in this world. I believe people should think seriously about it, and discuss it, and make an informed choice between these two worlds. If they choose World 2, they should understand that involves some degree of commitment and sacrifice: they need to get involved and informed and engage in the process, or at the very least not acquiesce when other people flout it.<br /><br />Is that not an important message? Or is there only one conceivably important message to you, the message of salvation, that warrants interrupting and pre-empting every other question?<br /><br />Think very carefully about that, because it speaks volumes about your choice with respect to Worlds 1 and 2. If you believe you are entitled to ignore other people's interests and harangue them into accepting your authoritative book of How Things Must Be, if you believe you are justified in silencing conversation on all topics but your own, then you are not actually committed to the principles of World 2. You say, "I guess you are right that World 2 is better," which is pretty tepid.<br /><br />Fine. Let me convince you, on your own terms. The standard for "empty and meaningless" that you apply to find World 2 wanting should be applied to both worlds for any meaningful comparison. If World 1 is even slightly less "empty and meaningless", then maybe your lack of enthusiasm for World 2 might be justified. <br /><br />Why do you find the idea of everyone masturbating unsettling? Presumably you mean that people are acting to gratify their own desires and needs, without regard for others. And yeah, that seems morally bleak, if that's all that's happening. It'd be nicer if people actually cared about something other than themselves, whether it be each other or God or whatever. In fact, I agree, but let's go compare World 1.<br /><br />Remember that World 1 is one in which conflict is ultimately resolved through unprincipled coercion, whether those with power get what they want, regardless of any principled argument the weak may offer. (Principled argument may work, but only if the strong already accept the premise of World 2, or if the argument shows that it's actually in the strong's best interest to agree, in which case the argument is not one of principle but self-interest.) In other words, World 1 is founded exclusively on self-interest. This is clear when you think about how coercion works. Do as I say, or there will be consequences that YOU do not like.<br /><br />In that sense, everyone in World 1 is furiously masturbating all the time. The weak do the will of the strong not because it is right, not because they value the strong and respect their judgment, but because being fed feels better to THEM than being beaten. Every choice is made on the basis of pure self-interest.<br /><br />Contrast this with World 2, which is founded on the principle that something can override self-interest. If the weak can provide a principled argument showing that the strong ought to do something because it is right, even if it may not be in the strong's personal interest to do so, then the strong (in World 2) will do it. <br /><br />In other words, if you want a world in which people are concerned about morality or each other or anything at all other than their own personal gratification, you ought to embrace World 2 and reject World 1 with whole-hearted zeal, not some lukewarm "Yeah, I guess..."Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-54714083359315961102014-04-16T09:56:08.424-06:002014-04-16T09:56:08.424-06:00I guess you are right that World 2 is better, but ...I guess you are right that World 2 is better, but do you see why it seems empty and meaningless?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-28235008680524511412014-04-16T08:49:45.350-06:002014-04-16T08:49:45.350-06:00In World 2, everyone is masturbating. In World 1, ...In World 2, everyone is masturbating. In World 1, everyone is either raping or getting raped.Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-2502432948715447902014-04-16T04:34:50.846-06:002014-04-16T04:34:50.846-06:00Why does it seem like your world is everybody mast...Why does it seem like your world is everybody masturbating?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-18322895846840789792014-04-15T21:38:48.227-06:002014-04-15T21:38:48.227-06:00On many issues, yes, but I was responding to the c...On many issues, yes, but I was responding to the concern for empty, sad lives. If you deem that to be an important consideration, then presumably you will want to choose the world in which more people have happy and fulfilled lives. <br /><br />I have not offered a Kantian justification for why you should choose World 2, because I assume it's kind of self-evident that World 2 is based on respect for autonomy.Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-63504066953858729972014-04-15T18:51:25.806-06:002014-04-15T18:51:25.806-06:00You are so utilitarian!You are so utilitarian!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-27309562514134660692014-04-15T11:45:19.167-06:002014-04-15T11:45:19.167-06:00That's beyond the scope of this discussion. Pe...That's beyond the scope of this discussion. Peaceful coexistence also doesn't ensure that people get enough vitamin C, or that they write better poetry, or that they're not inconvenienced by heavy snowfall. <br /><br />We either respect autonomy and personhood (by adopting principles of civil discourse and democratic rules) or we do not. If someone else's life is sad and empty, and you can offer a way to improve it, great. I submit you'll have a better chance at success in improving human happiness and fulfilment in world 2 than in world 1. Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-70614203404757505422014-04-15T03:59:12.022-06:002014-04-15T03:59:12.022-06:00I am very glad that you are arguing for reason in ...I am very glad that you are arguing for reason in society, and I certainly do not like the degree to which force is the bottom line. I just am not satisfied that peaceful co-existence is enough. Many very dysfunctional families have achieved peaceful co-existence. But what they have is sad and empty. In other spheres, people get along, but they are sad and empty. Why sad? Why empty?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-59697263619018377632014-04-14T20:14:06.476-06:002014-04-14T20:14:06.476-06:00I assume you're capable of language and reason...I assume you're capable of language and reason, and that you have interests and desires that relate to the physical world around us. I assume that those interests and desires may come into conflict with the interests and desires of other minds. That's pretty much all I need to assume to make my argument.<br /><br />Now, I'm not offering "an efficient social order" as some inherent good. Perhaps you prefer a world ruled by force rather than reasoned negotiation, and if you do, I cannot persuade you otherwise using reason. All I can say is that if you opt for force over argument, you can offer no reason why I shouldn't preemptively shoot you.<br />Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-26588611916175333442014-04-14T16:54:41.069-06:002014-04-14T16:54:41.069-06:00But surely this is still begging the question. Yo...But surely this is still begging the question. Your answer assumes what we are and advises on a course of action. The only satisfaction it offers is an efficient social order<br /> for those who want an efficient social order. Is there any reason why we should want that? If it is just to make things go nicely-- nicely for whom? and Why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-69040217852863328102014-04-14T11:19:21.945-06:002014-04-14T11:19:21.945-06:00The "me" is an individual, all of whom m...The "me" is an individual, all of whom make up the "we". And so long as we live in a finite planet, there's no renouncing membership in that "we"; we ARE going to have to coexist somehow, because there will be conflicts over resources or space or time or attention. Even the decision to go off and live a solitary independent life in the wilderness somewhere does not truly free one of the necessity of interacting with other interests, in that by withdrawing you do not acquire any practical right against those who might follow and try to mine the mountain out from under you. You're gonna have to find a solution to the problem of the existence of other persons somehow, and total withdrawal kind of undermines one's ability to argue one's case by reference to reason and rights.<br /><br />We can resolve our differences by reason or by force. That's the real choice. I'm recommending that we choose reason. If enough of us choose that way, it become reality.<br />Tom Cantinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06234109728445439457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1883551996126668365.post-87507683885071655922014-04-14T03:45:29.962-06:002014-04-14T03:45:29.962-06:00Thank you, Tom, for a clear explanation of the two...Thank you, Tom, for a clear explanation of the two points-of-view that will determine all.<br />I am curious about the "me" who makes the decision one way or the other. Is this "me" so swallowed that I become what I believe, or am I still somehow distinct? And if both decisions seem to be just a game, who is the "me" that is playing this game, and who set it up, and why am I playing it at all? And if I fold up the board and go home, where is home?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com