There are states which fail to meet my expectations: quite a few states, really. Burma, Afghanistan, Russia, China, North Korea, Mexico, El Salvador, Ethiopia, and Somalia, for example. Not a complete list at all. At any given time in history, most states have managed to meet your expectations of violence and exploitation including the United States and the various nations in the European community. — Bitter Crank

This is exactly the problem I have with the idea of the social contract.

A contract suggests that when either side breaches the terms, some form of termination can take place.

In practice, the citizen has no such option. If the state breaches the contract, they can flee, or through some large, arduous political or bureaucratic process try to change things, if that is even possible at all.

In pratice, there is no social contract by which the state is bound.


Furthermore, states can move into extreme directions at the drop of a hat. During the Vietnam War the United States government forced its citizens to participate in conducting a de facto genocide against the inhabitants of a third-world country. (And it has repeated similar things since then)

Was this a breach of the social contract? If so, where could US citizens have gone with their grievances?

Short answer: nowhere. They could comply or be met with the state's violence. Even if they weren't shipped off to Vietnam, they were forcibly made complicit in the ordeal through methods like taxation.


The social contract is nothing but a fancy term to describe the same ties that bound serfs to their feudal landowners in the Middle Ages (you give me grain, I give you safety, or else), and it is every bit as one-sided.

It's a pacifier, but that only becomes apparent once one finds themselves on the receiving end of the state's injustice.

The root of the problem is not in the existence of states per se. It is in the perverse behavior of those who wield power. — Bitter Crank

States function through laws. Laws function through the threat and application of violence.

The state itself is a perverse instrument, so is it any wonder that perverse individuals are drawn to wielding its power?


The fact that you call the people in power and their behavior perverse suggests you see the same problem I do, but if you wish to change a system you cannot do so while abiding by the very same paradigm of violence.

Your vision of family (at least as you have projected it here) expects violence and ruthless exploitation. It isn't that ruthlessly exploitative families never have existed. — Bitter Crank

I invited you to envision a family. It should be obvious that I do not believe all families are exploitative. However, if a family were to operate in the way a state operates, we would unmistakenly recognize them as exploitative, and that's the double standard I am trying to lay bare.

What I am asking you is, what makes the actions of a state acceptable, when they're so obviously not in other situations?

Families are generally nurturing and loving. — Bitter Crank

Yes they are, and states are not.

This further begs the question.

The social contract (which is, granted, not a signed document. and nobody thinks it is) yields mutual support and benefit. That's how a functioning society works.

The social contract of mutually beneficial behavior would exist in an anarchist society as much as, maybe more than, it does in a hierarchical society. Our human ability to mirror other people's needs, desires, pains, etc. long preceded civil society. — Bitter Crank

This did not answer my question - what if the individual is not benefited but instead exploited or abused by the "social contract"?

Should they still abide by it? If they wish not to, is the state correct to say "If you don't like it here, you can just flee the country"?

No. Without a functioning social contract, you have chaos, and all you can do is try to stay alive. — Bitter Crank

How do we determine whether a social contract functions?

How many people may feel like they are being exploited / abused before the contract is considered defunct?

Societies have an implied social contracts which bind citizens to treating each other more or less civilly (and most of the time, the contract is honored). There are mutual obligations which are understood. The law, however, is not an IMPLIED social contract -- it is explicit. We understand that if we violate the law, there may well be quite unpleasant consequences. Prison is one of the possible consequences. — Bitter Crank

The problem with social contracts is that I was never asked to sign one. The dependency is first created without ever offering an opt-out, and then the demands are stacked high.

Again, I invite you to envision a family, this time one in which a depedency is created and then ruthlessly exploited. The excuse the parents give is "If my child doesn't like it here, they can just leave." - completely foregoing the fact that they worked to create that dependency in the first place, and then justifying their use of violence against their child on that basis!

I have great problems accepting that line of reasoning, and it still strikes me as obviously abusive. I have yet to be told why societies function differently in such a way that this would be justified.

Besides, what if the social contract is obviously defunct? Do I still have to abide by its rules?

Is a religious fundamentalist country justified in stoning to death women for adultery because, after all, that was the social contract she supposedly signed and if they didn't like it they were free to flee the country?

The main reason we seem to justify the "social contract" in western countries is because we like its terms, but this is the same as the religious fundamentalist defending their social contract because they like religious fundamentalism being the basis of their society.

Imprisonment is coercive, certainly, but coercion is not the same as violence (beatings, torture, execution etc.). — Bitter Crank

Force and coercive measures are not inherently violent. — Bitter Crank

The two are linked. How do you get someone into prison that does not wish to go there? With violence, or with threats of violence. Those two are in my eyes of the same moral quality.

Nothing in our justice system makes sense without violence to back it up - the threat of violence is always there. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work. That's why the moment the justice system's capability to intervene is in question things like rioting, looting and anarchy start taking over in a heartbeat.
That's why I consider the entire system to be predicated on violence.

Prison I find to be comparable to torture, even if it would be a "mild" form of torture, if such a thing exists at all.

Violence or nothing is a false binary. Societies use coercion (fines, for instance) to enforce rules. Leave your car on the street after a snow storm, and it might get towed away--a coercive measure people find quite aversive. Coercion yes, but the streets cannot be cleared of snow if people don't move their cars out of the way. — Bitter Crank

We go back to the head figure of the family, who now states "my household cannot function properly without violence and threats of violence" - would you consider this acceptable? I wouldn't.

I don't see why it would be acceptable in one instance, but not in the other. It seems like a double standard to me.

I'd call that domestic abuse, and awful parenting.

Governments have violence as the last resort, but have several options before the beating and shooting begin. — Bitter Crank

What would you call a household where everybody does what the head figure wants out of fear of getting beaten?

And what would your reaction be if the head figure excused themselves by saying the beatings are only a last resort for when the fear of being beaten isn't sufficient to force obedience?

To understand the anarchist's basic problem one must understand that government has only one tool in its toolkit and that is violence.

Why should A get to threaten B with violence to do X?

I wasn't aware that the missile actually killed two people.

It seems unlikely that a stray modern air defense missile hits something it wasn't supposed to and also kills two people, across the border of a neutral country no less. Unlikely in terms of statistical probability, but also due to the fact that the S-300 system makes missiles self-destruct when they miss their targets.

It's not impossible, but also not a conclusion I would accept without serious evidence.

You've got Zelensky negotiating from a position of power. — frank

What do you mean?

That Zelensky is making demands to start negotiations?

I don't see why that would be anything strange. As many as theorized, there's a good possibility Russia has reached its strategic goals (land access to Crimea) and if that is the case, they are likely looking to end the conflict sooner rather than later. Giving up Kherson may very well be the price.

It's just far fetched that the Russians would divest themselves of their assets prior to official negotiations. — frank

Perhaps giving up Kherson, the potential springboard for future offensive operations towards Odessa, was a prerequisite to starting those negotiations.

I don't know. — frank

Well, then we have ourselves a mystery, and all I'm doing is trying to make sense of it, while accounting for those things that seem to make little sense.

I have nothing to correct, and your representation of my view is fair.

They didn't. They were forced to give it up. — frank

Yes, yes. The logistical situation and all that - the common military response would be to reduce the amount of troops occupying Kherson to a managable level without announcement, leaving only tripwire forces and artillery scouts, etc. to make the enemy guess and pay with indirect fires should they advance - urban areas are perfect for that.

Giving up ground for free with loud announcement is not a typical military action, regardless of what position these troops found themselves in, which is why it is likely the town was abandoned under loud announcement for other reasons - a deal potentially, which is given some credit due to Zelensky talking about "the end of the war" shortly after the retreat from Kherson, even though there's no reason to assume that the retreat from Kherson in any way signaled a retreat from the occupied territories.

I hope you'll agree that a complete collapse of the Russian lines is not in the cards any time soon, so why would he be saying this, if there wasn't some deal made?

That is not what Tzeentch is saying though. — Olivier5

Indulge us - what do you think I'm saying? :lol:

He cannot imagine (or admit) that the Russians are forced to leave Kherson — Olivier5

I cannot imagine that Russia would give up Kherson freely, and loudly announce it, since it goes against any principle of two nations being at war.

You have a tendency in misinterpret my posts, and falsely give them a "pro-Russian" twist, so you can then discredit them on the basis of being "pro-Russian" - everything to avoid having to deal with the logic of the argument.

I'm not here to prove anything to you. Take a hike.

However unjust it might be, Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process. — Tzeentch

"Careful reading of the passage is essential for proper understanding and answering correctly."

Just calling out your bullshit for what it is. :kiss:

Your accusations of partisanship at my address have spanned the entirety of this 400-page long thread, so I'm not sure what you were expecting.

If you're going to be man enough to dish it out, be prepared to receive.

Nice self-criticism. — Olivier5

I've never been hostile to anyone in this thread, but keep trying.

And yes, yours is exactly the behavior I am talking about.

There are those who are obviously emotionally invested in the idea of a powerful Russia, as a force of nature. — frank

You're just proving my point here, buddy. :clap:

The issue in this thread is indicative of the times we live in.

Adhering to the "right" ideology, cheerleading for the "right" side, parroting the "right" narrative is all more important than acknowledging realities, even when the cost is prolonged war, human lives, etc.

That's why the more moderate voices in this thread are instantly met with hostility and branded as partisan, Russia sympathizers, etc. - because we do not adhere to the "right" narrative, and refuse to parrot its mantras.

The slightest hint of non-adherence is enough to invite hostility, because the cheerleaders realise how flimsy their views really are, and that they do not weather criticism very well.

Let us reconvene in a month, and see how that particular prediction panned out. — Olivier5

Dejavu...

Do you remember:

The Russian lines haven't collapsed, Putin hasn't been overthrown. The Russian economy hasn't collapsed, etc. etc.

All the propaganda nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum and never happened.

Your accusations of partisanship at my address is projection of the highest degree. You're parroting western propaganda, and wish to frame every happening as a defeat for Russia. That's why you're so defensive when someone voices a different opinion.

Sorry to give you a dose of reality every once in a while. Cozy delusions don't serve anyone.

Of course you do. It's just that your rose-tinted glasses are Russian made, and so are your 'good guys'. — Olivier5

Accusations of partisanship is all you have left?

Got any more copium for us? :rofl:

Xi nixed the nuclear option. — frank

Such a statement is meaningless, because Russia isn't seriously considering the use of nuclear weapons yet. If, after further escalation / mobilization by Russia NATO chooses to intervene with boots on the ground, nuclear weapons use will definitely be on the table, and what China thinks of it won't play a role anymore at that point.

Tzeentch is unable to imagine a world where brutal dictators don't win. — Olivier5

I just don't look at the world with rose-tinted glasses where the "good guys" always win. That's not how the world works, and no amount of cheerleading and/or copium in this thread is going to change that.

It's unlikely Kherson has large strategic value to the Russians, since for Russia this war is about securing land access to Crimea, and Kherson is located on the west bank of the Dnieper.

What makes you think so? — neomac

Russia is escalating this war however much it needs, and will continue to do so up until the point of nuclear war. There's no country in the West that is willing to go that far in their support of Ukraine.

However unjust it might be, Russia is going to get what it wants, and the only variable is how much of Ukraine will be destroyed in the process.

No, you don't give up territory for free, and especially not with a loud announcement. You make the enemy bleed for every inch, and you use that illusion that you are still defending the territory against your enemy to make them pay the maximum price.

This would have never been done under regular war-time circumstances, which is why I suspect things have changed, likely deals have been made.

What is odd? — ssu

"The odd" is that you don't give up ground for free when at war. Period.

By what judgement you made this idea that Russia gave a "guarantee"? — ssu

By my own judgement. The way the Russians left Kherson is odd, so I sought a reasonable explanation.

The United States pressured Ukraine into showing willingness for negotiations. Russia left Kherson in a way that is not typical for two nations at war. Now Zelensky is talking about the end of the war.

I would not be surprised if the deal has already been struck.

The Ukrainians had made it impossible for Russia to supply over the Dniepr a huge force as it's dependence on rail lines made this totally obvious. — ssu

Nothing stopped the Russians from reducing the force occupying Kherson, allowing it to be supplied while also imposing a cost on Ukraine for taking it. They chose not to, and that is not typical for two nations at war.

Prior to the midterm elections. Now the situation doesn't look so bad for the Democrats though. — neomac

Ukraine stands nothing to gain from prolonged conflict with Russia, regardless of who controls the United States. It's losing, and it is going to lose more.That might be an unpopular opinion, but Ukraine's current position is the best it's ever going to be, and it will only deteriorate from here, regardless of whether the United States profit from continued conflict.

Russia probably wants out of this conflict sooner rather than later aswell. It's not making any more attempts at conquering more territory.

A good recipe for peace, wouldn't you say?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/14/kherson-zelensky-atrocities-ukraine-war/

As I said:

Likely the deal has already been struck.

The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.

Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place.

Russia is probably well-prepared to defend against any Ukrainian offensives (apparently several defensive lines have been created), thus this situation with Kherson in Ukrainian hands is a stable state of affairs for both sides.

My guess is some form of peace talks are going to take place soon.

Likely the deal has already been struck.

The United States pressured Ukraine to show willingness to negotiate a few weeks ago.

Then Russia gives up Kherson as a form of 'guarantee' that no offensives for Odessa or Transnistria will take place.

Russia is probably well-prepared to defend against any Ukrainian offensives (apparently several defensive lines have been created), thus this situation with Kherson in Ukrainian hands is a stable state of affairs for both sides.

My guess is some form of peace talks are going to take place soon.

Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; — universeness

I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here.

you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives? — universeness

No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. I know nothing of their lives. Imagine the hubris.

No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species. — universeness

In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.

All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for every day conversation, but not for philosophy.

"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals.

How many support your position on this thread so far? — universeness

What makes you think I care? :chin:

I'm not here to convince anyone.

The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality. — universeness

Precisely so. Since "the human species" cannot act, intend, etc.; it is not a moral agent. To claim as much is to personify an abstract representation of what is actually a conglomerate of individuals.

The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. — universeness

But individuals do.

In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency? — universeness

That's just dictated by logic.

Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? — universeness

Oh, that's rich.

Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime.

Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. — universeness

It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion.

What are people making of the Russian retreat from Cherson?

A trap? Or did a deal go down behind the scenes?

Since Cherson may have served as a springboard for future Russian offensives, it seems to me Cherson may have been conceded to Ukraine as a form of 'guarantee' that Russia will not make a bid for Odessa / Transnistria.

Peace talks / a cease-fire may be close.

I personally think the fear of nuclear war is based on the idea that Russia is losing in Ukraine. Given the fact that Russia still seems to hold the areas that are strategically most relevant to it, I am skeptical about how desperate they are.

I would expect several rounds of escalations to have to happen, which would likely have to include NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine, before initiating a nuclear attack even becomes a serious possibility for Russia.

With that said, if the Russians would ever be under serious threat of losing Crimea, and all conventional options were exhausted, likely they would resort to nuclear weapons. I guess my point is that that state of affairs is not yet very close.

What is likely happening is that Russia is using nuclear threats to manipulate the foreign public - fear mongering, to erode domestic support in NATO countries.

Ok then state your position, ... — universeness

I've stated that impositions - 'to force one's will upon another' - are generally regarded as immoral, following common moral principles. Procreation is an imposition.

Procreation seems to be at odds with this principle, and over the last couple of pages I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok.

So far you have tried:
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.

- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects.

Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least.

Both arguments instrumentalize the individual for ulterior goals.

Both the second and third arguments are irrational.

The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope.

The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition.

If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. — universeness

Only human beings are moral actors.

I hope that clears things up.

YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. — universeness

You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. — universeness

I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game.

The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, ... — universeness

I can do no such thing, nor do I wish it.

Also, how does one terminate something which has already taken place?

Got any more strawmans for us?

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats? — universeness

Humans are the only moral actors.

This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted.

You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. — universeness

Then why are you capitalizing every other word, resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseudo-psychoanalyzing?

Those are not the actions of a calm person.

you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction — universeness

That is not something I claim.

So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent? — universeness

I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.

The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.

When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.

I'm discussing that moral question.

Maybe you need to calm down a little.

The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. — universeness

Nor is it the object of my argument.

Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer? — universeness

No.

Do I think it's immoral for a human to kill and eat a baby human?

Yes.

Apparently we hold humans and animals to different standards. Shocking, I know.

So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? — universeness

Only individuals are moral agents. Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. The individual choosing to perpetuate it is.

Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not.

You are the one preaching antinatalism as a solution to your conflated moral issue, so the burden of proof is yours. — universeness

This is plainly false. I am not preaching or proposing anything.

I'm pointing out an inconsistency in the reasoning of those who choose to reproduce.

'It would be great to have something that is of me and you that will carry on the bloodlines.' — universeness

The offspring shall serve the parents' ego, then?

Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness

It's either that or be a hypocrite. — Tzeentch

Based on what logic? — universeness

You stated:

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. — universeness

You sought to dismiss my moral dilemma on the basis that the choice is purely a human construct.

All morality is a human construct.

So you're either consistent and dismiss morality altogether, or start cherry-picking (which is what you're doing) and are inconsistent, ergo a hypocrite.

Your attempt to ignore legacy — universeness

No, I call it out for what it is: irrational ego-driven vanity.

You won't have a leg to stand on if your argument doesn't involve the well-being of the person you just forced to participate in your project, so I would suggest starting there.

People don't reproduce for the sake of the species' survival. This is just nonsense. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence? — universeness

Based on common understanding of human psychology.

But since you're the one claiming humans reproduce not out of personal motivations but some selfless act for the survival of mankind the burden of proof is on you.

Why would I have to reject morality altogether? — universeness

It's either that or be a hypocrite.

Necessary to intelligent lifeforms who value legacy. — universeness

Because you like "legacy" you get to press gang everybody into your vanity project?

Is that your threshold for imposition then? If you like something you get to force it on others?

If you are living a purposeless life and have no sense of purpose in your life, then you have reaped what you sowed. If you believe that life and lifeforms have no purpose then you are left with time as your enemy and oblivion as your saviour. How sad. If you do have purpose in your life, then you are contradicting your own words that suggest you believe HUmans have no purpose in this universe. — universeness

A thinly-veiled attempt at a personal attack, and not remotely related to what I said.