I’ve only read New Rationalists Directions and was wondering if people could point me in the same direction with stuff similiar to that.
Oh and welcome all!
“The Law” by Frederic Bastiat.
Alright thanks I managed to find a ebook version on feedbooks.
Viception: “Are your moral justifications part of a larger moral system?”
“Yes. I define moral as consensual altruism, amoral as neither moral nor immoral, and immoral as nonconsensual initiatory aggression. Consensual aggression can be boxing, two fighters consenting to aggression for sport. Nonconsensual retaliatory aggression can be you physically attacking someone who was about to or did attack you. An immorality example is stopping a loved one from committing suicide without the loved one’s consent, a violation of their self-ownership, a form of property. I advocate proportional justice. If one immorally physically harms someone, one should pay for the person’s recuperation. If one immorally kills someone, restitution is impossible, leaving retribution as the only just alternative. Some people dislike proportional justice. They prefer strong punishments to discourage bad behavior, but that likely leads to more bad behavior. For example, why is the punishment for rape less than for murder? If rape was more strongly punished, would not its occurrence fall? If rape was as strongly punished as murder, murder would rise. If a potential rapist is aware the punishment for rape is painful execution, then maybe the potential rapist will not rape. If the painful execution does not deter the potential rapist enough, and the potential rapist becomes an actual rapist, what is the cost for becoming a murderer? The punishment is the same: painful execution. The rapist’s benefit of killing the rape victim to reduce being identified is probably enough to persuade the rapist to murder the victim. The rapist is more likely to kill the victim if the punishment is the same than if it was higher. No moral system provides a fully satisfactory answer for each possible situation. Consider the trolley problem, a moral thought experiment: a runaway trolley is moving down a track on which 5 people are tied to it. You can flip a switch which would move the trolley down another track which has 1 person tied to it. What should you do? I would not touch the switch because to do so would be to choose who would die. What makes one human more valuable than another? You probably value a loved one more than a stranger. You probably value a drug researcher whose work made a drug that keeps you healthy more than an author who publishes literature you do not care about. You probably value someone who treats you kindly more than someone who treats you unkindly. You probably value a truth teller more than a liar. Human value is determined by the evaluator. Why should I choose to kill the 1 person instead of 5 people? Because more people are more worthy of life? If more people are more worthy of life, does not that mean the group is superior to the individual? If the group is worthy of more than the individual, does not that worthiness extend beyond life and into others’ property? Does not that lead to majoritarian tyranny? Regardless of what you think, you probably would not have time to consider those things. You only have a few seconds to decide. Consider the lifeboat problem, another moral thought experiment: you were on a ship that sank. There are not enough lifeboats. The water is so cold enough to kill anyone who stays in it for more than a few minutes. You are on a lifeboat that is slowly sinking because too many people are on it. One person on the lifeboat is sick and unlikely to survive. If the person is removed from the lifeboat, the lifeboat will float. If the person is not removed, the lifeboat will sink causing the death of the group. Would you force the sick person off the boat to live? This situation is different because unlike the trolley problem, your life is at risk and the sick person is likely to die. Maybe, killing the person to save yourself and others is worth it. Maybe, you would not commit murder. Maybe, you do not know what you would do in that situation. Consider as a last moral thought experiment, the baby problem: you are in a warzone, hiding with a baby and other adults. Enemy soldiers will be drawn toward any sound. The baby cries loudly and will not stop. Killing the baby is the only way for you and the others to live. Do you kill the baby? What if the baby was your own?”