From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs — synthesis

In reality both Marx and Engels eschewed the entire concept of equality as an abstract and idealistic bourgeois aspiration, focusing their analysis on more concrete issues such as the laws of motion of capitalism and exploitation based on economic and materialist logic. Marx renounced theorizing on moral concepts and refrained from advocating principles of justice. Marx's views on equality were informed by his analysis of the development of the productive forces in society. — Wiki

I guess Marx wasn’t woke. :sad:

Can YOU somehow support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome?

the extinction of these noble friends of man? — god must be atheist

Perish the thought.

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? — Tzeentch

In your scenario the culprit is Islamic fundamentalism.

If the left desires equality of outcome and you're against it that means that you desire inequality of outcome.
— praxis
Equality of outcome is a lack of diversity. You can't have both equality and diversity. To achieve equality of outcomes, we'd all have to be genetically engineered and raised by the State. — Harry Hindu

Can you somehow support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome?

Why is this so easily ignored, Atheist God?

:razz: Well, for a proof is in the pudding kind of example, there's not much division expressed at dharmawheel.net, a Buddhist forum where you are or used to be a mod, because not much division is allowed. :rofl:

No more, please, I'm gonna pee my pants.

Why Dharma is Different?

Dharma, however is different. It is different because it unites. There can never be divisions in dharma. Every interpretation is valid and welcome. No authority is too great to be questioned, too sacred to be touched. Unlimited interpretative freedom through free will is the quintessence of Dharma, for Dharma is as limitless as truth itself. No one can ever be its sole mouthpiece.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

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.

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. — Tzeentch

I mentioned that "societies owe no loyalty to freeloaders and traitors."

we seem to agree the individual's dependency is not a sufficient basis for collectivism — Tzeentch

How did we arrive at this agreement exactlly?

Sounds about right. Personally I find little affiliation with many of those groups but I am nonetheless concerned with how each member is treated by them. — NOS4A2

Well I can only hope your love for family trumps your love for Trump and laissez-faire (fuck the working class) capitalism. Other than that, if I recall correctly, you claim to be a godless expatriate so no loyalties there.

The fictional character that is synthesis doesn’t require credibility to function. :roll:

So you were lying about the shit? That’s shitty.

"individual" is an abstraction, yes, but it fits on all human beings. Individualism is concern with human affairs, sure, but it does not prohibit concern for other beings. — NOS4A2

The hierarchy is usually something like family > religious or political affiliation > neighborhood > nation, abstract notions aside.

Life is one shit after the next.. — synthesis

Lost your zen already. :lol:

Pretty much everybody gets it and is trying to do what they can (believe it or not). — synthesis

Silly me. You should have informed me of this from the start.

Then you’re not really talking about individuals but some abstract idea or collection of units, like ‘human beings’. In that case you have a lesser concern for units that are not human. I suppose that’s why oppressors dehumanize the oppressed.

You've got to leave the past in the past. — synthesis

If you believe the individual is the primary unit of concern, you necessarily have a concern for all persons, refusing to sacrifice a single one of them for some collective. — NOS4A2

If I were the primary unit of concern, for example, why would I necessarily have concern for all units?

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

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

Oh yeah, and written by people who owned other people.

Try reading it. — god must be atheist

17 days and not a whit of interest. Perhaps morality is not your thing.

Chill-out wonderer, I’m just bust’n balls. My new favorite pastime.

I say that we wait for someone to post something that is actually relevant to this thread now and just carry on like nothing happened. — thewonder

Trump isn’t completely irrelevant at this point, I suppose.

I have merely been attempting to play off an instance of internet bullying. — thewonder

You’re the first to claim insanity that I’ve seen. Good work :up:

I think the philosophical issue is that of the atomised individual ego becoming the locus of meaning in a universe that is now understood to be devoid of it. Whereas in earlier times, individuals were situated in a matrix of social relationships, underwritten by divine law, with the advent of modern liberalism, the individual conscience assumes more of the role or arbiter of values at the same time that the advent of modern science declared that these have no real foundation in objective reality. — Wayfarer

Have been binge watching A Handmaid's Tale and in the tale the US is taken over by a group with a "matrix of social relationships underwritten by divine [men] law". Thinking about this today while driving it occurred to me that such a society may necessarily have to be patriarchal, because otherwise a family unit could be united against any oppression from the ruling class. Women would need to be an underclass in society in general and in each and every household. In the handmaid's tale women aren't allowed to read, even the Bible, or rather especially the Bible.

As it concerns NOS4A2, what I am saying is that it is just nihilistic to continue to have a go at him. — thewonder

He's not God.

If restricting means limiting the power of governments and corporations, then restrict away. Increase the power of the individual. It's the only way to unleash the productive powers of a society. — synthesis

Individuals would have dominion over governments and corporations in your dream society? If so, which individuals?

It’s OKAY, NOS.

Yes, it's called freedom. — synthesis

Restricting what folks can and can’t do isn’t freedom.

The old child proverb “sticks and stones” still holds true, in my mind. — NOS4A2

So your trauma dates back to childhood. I’m sorry to hear that.

I see the attempts at insult and belittling as little more than group think and ideological back-patting, the basest form of propaganda. — NOS4A2

The fact that you work so hard at rationalizing practically screams your pain.

It’s okay, you can be yourself.

you do that through getting out of the way and allowing people to do their thing. This means limiting the power of the few to control others. Minimize governments, get rid of corporations, so on and so forth. Go small and de-centralize. — synthesis

“Allowing people to do their thing” by forcing them to “Minimize governments, get rid of corporations, so on and so forth”?

I feel zero pain from the digs—they’re as soft and brittle as imagine their chins are—and I just dig them right back anyways. — NOS4A2

If they were so painless you wouldn’t be so inclined to “dig them right back”. It’s okay to feel hurt, NOS. It’s okay to accept concern for your mental well-being. You don’t have to pretend to be the tough guy anymore. You can be yourself, for once. I for one give you permission to be human.

The problem is that the Left desires equality of outcome — synthesis

Okay, synth, two can play your stupid game. If the left desires equality of outcome and you're against it that means that you desire inequality of outcome. Why do you want that? Is it because you're successful and want others to be unsucessful so you can feel good about yourself? That demonstrates insecurity. Why are you so insecure?

I can go on painting a silly caricature of you and pretend that I'm having a worthwhile discussion, if you like.

Would you feel better if I joined you guys and was completely miserable? — synthesis

I'd feel a better if you took the hyperbole down a notch or two. It's way past tedious.

I'm a white guy living a nice but modest life in S Cali too, and unwoke as well. You don't need to be woke to care about equal rights and the like.

I’m rooting for you. — NOS4A2

Then I'm in poor company (with Trump his ilk).

At stroke of midnight, Trump shall win.
I am certain that it is just a matter of time before Trump or his children win the presidential elections. — baker

Reviewing his term, when elected the Republican Party had a majority in both chambers of congress and held the executive branch. They lost it all in only four years, and particularly ungracefully at the end. Republicans don't learn is what you seem to be saying.

Me too. Not yet to NOS's satisfaction though. :cry: :razz:

Also we're naturally endowed with the capacity of reason and can override baser instincts and condition ourselves in particular ways.

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.

Life was really difficult for everybody, not just the working class.
— synthesis

No, the wealthy lived large. Weird that you don't acknowledge that.
— praxis

Most people died before they were 40. — synthesis

Still denying that the wealthy lived well? That your prerogative I suppose.

Whereas you see equality as a utopia, it is in reality the ultimate dystopia — synthesis

From what I understand wokeness is majorly about equal justice and it seems perfectly reasonable to me to get as close to that as possible. Perhaps you wouldn’t be so content with the current state of affairs if you weren’t a white male living in Southern California.