Them: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
-
Them: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
Me: this is what evil is. This is how evil talks.
@petrillic There are things I don’t like about Emmanuel Levinas (Theology!). However, his response to his WW2 experience was to attempt an “Ethics first” approach to philosophy. This, I think, is admirable; especially when applied to politics.
“Setting aside ethics” is the logic behind class divisions, racism, sexism, gender discrimination, climate denial,…
The pattern is clear. “Ethics first” means respect for others and the world we live in. Those who don’t respect that do not deserve respect in return, as per Popper.
Evil? Perhaps; though the word has supernatural overtones.
Uncivilized, and unacceptable to a civilized society? Certainly. -
Them: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
Me: this is what evil is. This is how evil talks.
@petrillic meh, I've enjoyed some conversations that start that way. But if they aren't detailing those ethical concerns then they are expecting people to ignore them all the time and not just in this conversation.
-
@petrillic evil is always a bullshit concept. anyone who uses words like that has serious mental problems.
How about torture, rape, or double-tap bombing hospitals?
If that isn't evil what the fuck is it?
-
How about torture, rape, or double-tap bombing hospitals?
If that isn't evil what the fuck is it?
@violetmadder @petrillic it's torture, rape, and bombing hospitals, obviously.
-
How about torture, rape, or double-tap bombing hospitals?
If that isn't evil what the fuck is it?
@violetmadder @petrillic and, it needs to be said - this is such an annoyingly lazy, unsophisticated, ridiculous, cliché response. for hundreds of years (at least), people have been denying the existence of moral truths, and putting forward still-undefeated arguments refuting moralism (Hume's Guillotine, Error Theory, Stirner's observation that religious morality is nothing but the subjective preferences of a being revered as a god, etc.), and every time the nonsensical nature of moralism is brought up, moralists simply fall back on the tired old refrain of pointing to cruelty and calling it evil, insisting "there are things i don't like, therefore evil must exist!"
-
my friend that is most people at the grocery store
@gloriouscow @petrillic This is the competition for slots in the grocery store parking lot.
-
How about torture, rape, or double-tap bombing hospitals?
If that isn't evil what the fuck is it?
It's what the news wants you to care about, so you don't focus on improving the life of yourself and people around you, and remain a helpless little obedient worker drone.
CC: @3Fingers@blorbo.social @petrillic@hachyderm.io -
It's what the news wants you to care about, so you don't focus on improving the life of yourself and people around you, and remain a helpless little obedient worker drone.
CC: @3Fingers@blorbo.social @petrillic@hachyderm.io@cy @petrillic @violetmadder what does this even mean
-
@cy @petrillic @violetmadder what does this even mean
It means evil is almost always a bullshit concept.
CC: @petrillic@hachyderm.io @violetmadder@kolektiva.social -
Them: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
Me: this is what evil is. This is how evil talks.
@petrillic
Me: If you set aside all the ethical concerns, it is still in my interest to live in an country that assists the poor, people with kids, the elderly ..., a country that provides good health care for it's population and social insurance. Because I, egoistically, want to live in a safe country surrounded by happy people. -
@benji_w @violetmadder @petrillic no, it doesn't. you're completely evading the point, being intentionally obtuse. nothing sounds evil to anyone. that's not possible. what's happening is, you're imagining that there is a concept we call "evil" which can be used to describe things you don't like.
it's not "declining to judge", it's an acknowledgement that the concept of a good/evil judgment is fundamentally illogical, and built on inherently oppressive frameworks.
-
@benji_w @violetmadder @petrillic all of that is wrong. you do need it to be objective and universal to see it as "evil" because that's what defines morality. subjective values are preferences. objective imperatives represent morality. and no, since evil doesn't exist, you don't see those things as evil. you're deceptively and manipulatively using the word "evil" to coerce people into behaving in ways that conform to your preferences. you're probably inclined to respond to this by saying you're fine with coercing people to not torture or rape other people, but that would be simply missing--and proving--my point.
why would i say "i agree" with someone saying something is evil, when that's exactly the sort of rhetoric i want to abolish..? morality absolutely is a mental illness.
-
@benji_w @violetmadder @petrillic no, you don't think it's evil.
funny you should specifically mention intersubjectivity, i was thinking the past few days that i should make something responding to Mackie's clarifications at the start of Inventing Right And Wrong, because they give entirely too much space for the acceptance of an intersubjective "bad" as a standard interpretation of "evil"...
in some areas, i agree with Mackie, like the delineation between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, and in the hypothetical sense, sure, something can be "bad" in the (almost aristotelean) sense that "this does a bad job of serving this purpose", and if the implied purpose is simply your own happiness, then something is subjectively "bad", to you, in the hypothetical imperative sense. but often "bad" and "evil" are simply synonyms, and i'm saying "bad" in the categorical imperative sense of the word is nonsense.
the problem with the post is that it uses moralism. it's rooted in moralism. it's all ABOUT moralism. there's nothing to say about it, other than point out the fact that it's nonsense.
i'm going to sleep and won't be checking back for a while, so i want to say this first.
it's absolutely crucial for everyone to understand that morality is entirely a product of oppression, and it does nothing except oppress marginalized people.
no one needs to convince others to oppose things that are actually harmful. describing something as torture is sufficient to make someone angry that it's happening. the purpose of morality is to make people angry about things that AREN'T harmful, and justify violence towards people who aren't a threat: the satanic panic of the 80s/90s. honor killings in the middle east. gender-variant american prisoners being forced off HRT right now. etc.
people oppose things that hurt them and their loved ones naturally. morality is a tool used to brainwash people into bigotry.
-
It's what the news wants you to care about, so you don't focus on improving the life of yourself and people around you, and remain a helpless little obedient worker drone.
CC: @3Fingers@blorbo.social @petrillic@hachyderm.ioWhy on earth would caring about something stop me from taking action to stop it?
-
Them: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
Me: this is what evil is. This is how evil talks.
@petrillic "if i set aside all ethical concerns" is technically a question, and the answer is no
-
@petrillic My boss, in response to the meeting where a number of us raised a whole lot of ethical concerns around LLMs: "We can't not use it just because of these big picture issues"
Incidentally, I'm looking for a new job.
@anyia @petrillic that's some pure dishonesty, damn. I hope you find a new job soon.
-
@anyia @petrillic that's some pure dishonesty, damn. I hope you find a new job soon.
@cairobraga thank you
-
@violetmadder @petrillic and, it needs to be said - this is such an annoyingly lazy, unsophisticated, ridiculous, cliché response. for hundreds of years (at least), people have been denying the existence of moral truths, and putting forward still-undefeated arguments refuting moralism (Hume's Guillotine, Error Theory, Stirner's observation that religious morality is nothing but the subjective preferences of a being revered as a god, etc.), and every time the nonsensical nature of moralism is brought up, moralists simply fall back on the tired old refrain of pointing to cruelty and calling it evil, insisting "there are things i don't like, therefore evil must exist!"
@3Fingers I'm addressing this to your shape on the screen but don't actually care if you see the post. It's not for you. It's for onlookers wanting more info about why they feel they need to block you or warn their server admins about your reply above.
For one thing, the original post was likely referring to AI slop. "Putting aside all the ethical concerns" is a phrase used so often by slop shovelers that it's a meme by now.
Secondly— it's not the original poster or anyone else in the conversation who seem to be suffering from mental distress over the existence of the word evil appearing in a memetic post. There are other people here who either understand the shorthand or they don't and move on.
Telling the entire word what it can and cannot see, which words do and do not have meaning, is a ridiculous act. More than one perspective exists.
You show awareness of that at one point but then repeatedly contradict yourself.
Interestingly, you argue that evil doesn't exist but love does. They're a part of the same abstract systems. Love is no less difficult a concept to define, and its meaning varies based moral paradigms.
Your response, as you acknowledged, comes across as a defense of evil. It sounds the same as "racists don't exist" / "racism doesn't exist" when someone mentions how people talk like racists. Worse, it's saying the victims of racism are insane for talking about harm. Communication is always approximate. It doesn't matter matter that race doesn't really exist. Most of us are aware there are people who believe it does and hurts others through racism.
To bring up the example already in the thread: Are you able to agree that torture, rape, and bombing schools is bad, or would you argue about the definition of the word and how it only has meaning if these abuses affect yourself and loved ones, if you have any? At this point, my assumption is the the argument would slide even farther from the original point.
"Putting aside all ethical concerns" is a common definition of evil. People who talk like that don't sound logical, only cruel or (as if there's a difference) willfully clueless of abuse.
-
Them: if you set aside all the ethical concerns…
Me: this is what evil is. This is how evil talks.
@petrillic @mariyadelano If we can just set aside that everything is wrong with it…
https://beige.party/@maxleibman/114745353400485361 -
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
