I don't know what's odd about what I wrote, but I rephrased it for you:

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea, and ideas don't oppress people. People oppress people. Ideas are given power by individuals that choose to adopt them and impose them on others. I could have chosen various other examples, but I tried to make the injustice as clear as possible.

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it? — Tzeentch

In your scenario the culprit is Islamic fundamentalism. — praxis

I don't think so. Islamic fundamentalism is an idea. It is given power by individuals that choose to adopt it and impose it on others. I could have chosen various other examples, but I tried to make the injustice as clear as possible.

The principle at play here, is that the moral and physical impositions of the collective undermine the interests of the individual. We recognize that as injustice, especially when the injustice is magnified by one's own moral framework. Can you recognize it too when one's own moral framework is what hides it?


Well said!

I mentioned that "Abused individuals owe no loyalty" meaning that any moral intuition or social norm could be justifiably considered invalid in that situation when looking at it from the perspective of interdependence and cooperation for mutual benefit. From the perspective of dog-eat-dog competition, slavery is cheap and offers an advantage that can't be shared by all. — praxis

Ok, as far as the first part of your response goes, I think we are in agreement.

Is there any perspective, other than dog-eat-dog competition (essentially "might makes right"), for which these moral intuitions or social norms, in the example we discussed, would not be considered invalid?

It is my view that there aren't. I'm also assuming that, like me, you don't find "might makes right" a convincing moral idea.

Didn't we agree that the woman born into a Islamic fundamentalist society is not morally indebted to that society simply by virtue of dependency?

Presumably she was enslaved against her will and in order to provide some value to the enslavers. Your scenario didn’t touch on betrayal. — praxis

You mentioned freeloaders and traitors, and I thought you were going somewhere with that.

Anyway, since we seem to agree the individual's dependency is not a sufficient basis for collectivism, what else is there?

Interdependence as a rationalization for behavior is rather unusual, probably because it's far too abstract an idea to be popularly adopted. There's no natural intuition to step back and look at the bigger picture, even though that could lead to a more fulfilling and sustainable outcome. So yeah, certainly couldn't rest with that alone. — praxis

Dependecy is the argument that I have seen the most in this thread. I struggle to remember any others that were put forward. What else is there?

And may I assume you don't view the woman in my example as either a freeloader or a traitor?

Abused individuals owe no loyalty just as societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors. — praxis

Is the woman in my example a freeloader or a traitor? (Or neither?)

The emphasis of this thread seems to be on relationships between individuals and groups of individuals. The vocal point of individualism is rather the relationship between the state and the individual. I think that's where much of this thread has gotten stuck on. Terms like "state", "society" and "collective", can be used somewhat interchangably, however caricaturing the issue individualism has with states as an issue with any kind of interaction at all, is just that; a caricature.

The opponents of individualism seem to believe that the state holds a moral claim over the individual on the basis of dependency. in that regard seems to be the only one to state this plainly, however it is implicit in what other opponents of individualism have claimed here.

He stated:

No man is an island, the individualist's actions inevitably affect others, Beyond some petty grab for control it is necessary to rein in the individual for the good of the collective. Devoid of any sense of obligation to the group a person quickly becomes detached, drifting without any firm anchor of reciprocality to caution them. — New2K2

To this I replied:

What if he (the individual) regards "the collective" that attempts to rein him in as an immoral enterprise? — Tzeentch

This is a crucial question.

Is a woman that is born into Islamic fundamentalism somehow morally indebted to a society that oppresses and enslaves her?

To me the answer clearly is 'no'.

Unless one wishes to answer 'yes' to that last question, one must come to the conclusion that the moral claim that is being forwarded by opponents of individualism cannot rest on dependency alone.

Were those who forced non-state societies into the drudgery and disease of developed agriculture working with them cooperatively or exploitively? — praxis

Exploitatively. What is your point?

I think there are two basic strategies for social living, which are living cooperatively for mutual benefit or competing for resources. In competition there is always winners and losers, so in that strategy some are guaranteed to suffer. That's not the case in a society that cooperates for mutual benefit. — praxis

The problem arises when such societies force individuals to participate against their will.

Honestly. I just find within that moral framework the seeds of it's own destruction. — James Riley

That sounds rather theoretical, whereas the destruction caused by states and collectives is tangible, real and overwhelming.

Which, I will add, is not entirely strange considering the term has been used popularly to describe selfishness in society.

This implies that I'm for the project of the development of the state, regardless of the incalculable suffering that it may cause. As though I wish that any hunter-gatherer societies that exist today were developed into states, or worse, annexed by a state. — praxis

You seem to miss my point, as it was not a personal attack but what I consider to be a valid summary of your reply.

In your defense of societies, which in the modern era manifest as states, you seem to point towards the good societies do for individuals. I'm pointing out that it also causes evil to individuals, and asking you whether you simply accept this as collateral damage. "For the many to thrive, some must suffer," seems to be the reigning sentiment on the opponents of individualism "You will have to suffer, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make". That there is no valid reason why the individual would have to accept such a bad deal seems obvious to me.

It's curious that the individualism that you appear to value so much is a consequence of the development of the state, and now you and NOS pooh-poohing the thing that gave rise to your moral framework. Shouldn't you guys be grateful? — praxis

If I understand correctly that you are proposing that states enable individualism, then we must have wildly different definitions of that term.

No man is an island, the individualist's actions inevitably affect others, Beyond some petty grab for control it is necessary to rein in the individual for the good of the collective. — New2K2

What if he (the individual) regards "the collective" that attempts to rein him in as an immoral enterprise?

Devoid of any sense of obligation to the group a person quickly becomes detached, drifting without any firm anchor of reciprocality to caution them. — New2K2

Do you believe this to be true for all individuals? If yes, on what basis? And if no, why should those for whom this is not true contend with being imposed upon?

In short, your answer seems to be "Yes, they are simply collateral damage".

The system that facilites and promotes the birthing of individuals, then promptly attempts to claim them for its own purposes, like a failed parent, has no other answer than "If you don't like it here, you can leave".

Of course, this isn't even a realistic option for the vast majority of individuals. To emancipate oneself from the mental clutches of the state is a lengthy process, by the end of which one finds themselves rooted in the system. To emancipate oneself from the physical clutches of the state, a near-impossibility.

Luckily, the individual has other options. Namely, to dispose any of the state's mental and intellectual impositions in the trash bin where they belong, leaving the state with only its most primitive tool, the cement of "society"; coercion, which the average individual is insignificant enough to evade.

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe. — praxis

And what about those for whom it has not been worth it? Are you happy to accept them as collateral damage? Do you believe they should too?

I'll readily concede that attempting to sell one's will to power as philanthropy is much more complicated.

I don’t think that any of us knows what it would be like to somehow erase all our conditioning and achieve a kind of moral blank-slate, if a ‘moral blank-slate’ makes any sense. Would such a way of being value liberty as much as you appear to? — praxis

I don't think the result would necessarily be a moral blank state, as you put it. There are still the self, reason and the laws of nature that can provide a basis for personal morality. And whether one values liberty or not, it would be the product of this process. Intellectual liberty at least, which in the modern world is perhaps the most under pressure.

It's a metaphysics of and for monkeys. — StreetlightX

I'll take a monkey over a tyrant any day. :kiss:

But can't you opt out of it? What if I voluntarily choose to abandon that because I want to do something else right now? It's my free choice after all. — BitconnectCarlos

If one could simply opt out, then there wouldn't be much point to calling something a moral duty.

The choices we make are largely shaped by the culture and environment we develop in, or at least the way we rationalize our choices. It’s as though you’re claiming that we choose the way we choose. — praxis

Our world views are, at least initially, largely based on the beliefs and opinions of others. That is an obstacle to freedom and one's ability to make conscious, voluntary decisions.

Assuming the decision to have a child was conscious and voluntary, then a moral duty is accepted.

If you have good parents, for instance, who raise you right are you not duty-bound to them? If your parents provided you with a great upbringing and did everything for you are you really going to tell me that you have no moral duty to them unless you voluntarily choose it? — BitconnectCarlos

One cannot force conditions on someone and then tell them what they expect in return.

On the other hand, one would assume that sometime during one's lifetime one's interactions with one's parents become conscious and voluntary, and perhaps on that basis a moral duty can develop.

Metaphysical rubbish, for which you have no proper answer?

Man, at the very least initially, does not choose to exist. That much is a fact, and no amount of tirading will change that.

For one, the State owns your body, literally. — baker

Morally that is certainly not the case, assuming we can agree on such basic things as the right to bodily integrity.

If such is the case in practice, then I hope we can also agree that it is morally reprehensible and such situations should have been done away with in 1863, which is already several millenia too late.

Yes, you would like to make the claim that individuals owe their existence to the societies they are born into, forgetting the fact that man doesn't choose what society he is born into, nor does he choose to exist at all. I see no reason why this situation would forfeit his essential freedom, which can only be a result of voluntary choice, or such is my view.

And you are just an internet philsopher. Your point?

...but pretty much any human is born into webs of social, political and even ecological relations which pretty much everything around it, webs upon which they are dependent upon for their very existence. — StreetlightX

None of which, at least initially, a result of his voluntary choice.

Therefore I believe none of these to hold any moral claim to him.

I just don't see that freedom. — baker

If you don't see that man is in essence free, you must believe that his existence can belong to someone else. Who?

But this is not true of any existing human being. — StreetlightX

Oh, then by whom, by virtue of their existence, are they rightfully owned or to whom are they rightfully indebted?

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual. — Tzeentch

One would assume that the denizens of this forum would be intelligent enough to understand that the phrase "Man is born free" does not imply that babies are born in absolute physical freedom.

Man is born unindebted, under possession or moral authority of no state, society or individual.

The individualist notion of freedom is literally infantile. — StreetlightX

Beyond infantile, individualism is inherently moribund - a dead ideology. — Maw

Luckily there is anti-individualism, and what delightful historical company do we find ourselves in!

So for example if a kid were raised in a, oh I don't know, heavy libertarian culture and eventually applied their God given critical thinking skills to discover that they've been manipulated, would they throw off the invisible chains and go on to undo the damage and work to help empower the working class? — praxis

Sure, why not? If they are guided by reason and that is where it takes them. However, one would hope that since they had to undo the damage done to them, they would apply methods that do not do the same to others.

More seriously, if I'm following correctly it appears to be a catch 22 situation. The freer a person becomes the more responsibility they assume, but the more responsibility they assume the less free they become. — praxis

A free person more readily recognizes and accepts those responsibilities that are theirs, because they chose them voluntarily. They do not necessarily assume more responsibilities. While responsibilities limit one's freedom, since I believe responsibilities can only be assumed and not imposed they are an extension of one's own free will.

Human nature. One wants better for themselves. — Outlander

I don't share that view of human nature, and frankly I think attempts at psychoanalyzing complete strangers sooner point towards projection.

What about all the other individuals who do not need constraints? Are they are just to be considered collateral damage?

If, on the other hand you think human beings are by nature social animals then there must be constraints if we are to live together in peace. — Fooloso4

I don't require constraints to live in peace with others.

From an early age individuals are taught what to believe. By their parents, by the educational system, politicians and so forth. This happens before the individual is capable of critical thought.

If the individual develops critical thinking, they have a chance to reevaluate all they know, and rid themselves of the false beliefs of others.

The "invisible bonds" are the beliefs of others, and one is still inherently free, because one by virtue of their own mental faculty holds the key to the lock.

If a person is actually free then they can freely assume responsibility. So why is there such an apparent lack of it? — praxis

While individuals are inherently free, they must still actively accept that freedom, and few do.

Most are enslaved in their formative years and never escape their (mostly psychological) bonds, sadly.

It seems to be the case that only when accept the fact that we’re not free, accept our interdependence, that we may tend to become more responsible. And because we’re a social species this acceptance may provide meaning and an enhanced sense of well-being, feeling part of something greater than ourselves. — praxis

For some those things may very well be true. For others, maybe not.

I am in favor of individuals making such choices freely.

What if your ability to live where, in the manner in which you've become accustomed and act as you please and state what you state is the sole result of claiming the essential freedoms of another? — Outlander

Then shame on whoever did that claiming.

So, you don't quite believe this, you believe in protecting a familiar status quo that serves you and little more, just another case of looking out for number one. — Outlander

I believe what I stated, and this is just an underhanded (and sleep-inducingly old) attempt at framing it as selfishness.

What makes you believe I am so fond of the status quo?

Fixed.

Does that not happen where you are from? — Fooloso4

Oh, sure. I just don't believe any of it to be legitimate.

The family is a social structure with rules and differences in power. It is not freedom without constraint. — Fooloso4

I don't think a state of nature implies freedom without constraint either. I'm having trouble seeing how this relates to my earlier posts.

Society is a group of people. — Fooloso4

And this group of people can lay a claim to the individual's freedom or impose responsibilities, then?

Man has never lived in a state of nature. There has always been some organization, starting with the family. — Fooloso4

I don't think a state of nature implies an absence of families.