Jon -
That is true, though not free of further consideration. Eric's steelman highlights a tight coupling between individual and society, tight enough that actions on the *negative space*[1] of society are effective actions induced on the individual. Similar arguments arise when we talk about lowering one's individual carbon footprint by not driving. Extensionally, this is fine but ignores the fact that computational difference amounts to much more than *convenience* in practice[2]. Not driving is self-gimping and only makes it harder to influence the necessary change.
This is a good place to insert some aphorisms:
"sometimes the most you can do is nothing"
"less is more"
maybe "what needs to be done" is back down our leverage ( kind of like limiting the killing power of weapons in the hands of individuals, or the performance/wastefulness of other technologies with known bad side-effects... automobiles, water-wasting systems, etc.).
I understand the arguments of not losing ground against
competitors, but that evokes arms-race, red-queen, and race-to-the
bottom.
That said and in further response to Barry, to treat Trump as a felon (which he likely ought be) and to exact this judgment through indirect means sets a dangerous precedent by ignoring type. However, maybe this is what we want our society to be like? I think I must be ok with the idea that it is *mobsters all the way down*, but again, I keep hearing idealistic talk of ethics on this server.
World as Lover, World as Self, World as Battleground, World as Trap:
I don't think of any of this as "ethics" proper, just a larger
view of consequences including: "what kind of world do I want to
live in?"
- Steve
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |