Hacktivism: Good, Bad, Ugly?

[dneal]

Chip: not keen on logic, but keen on rhetoric (oh, I mean linguistics).

The fact remains that your two Kant/Nazi articles commit the fallacy of: guilt by association. Let's be honest though, shall we? You're not interested in discussing some silly thesis on Kant inspired Nazis. Hell, maybe you are! Feel free to start a thread on it. You're derailing your own thread. Sad, very sad (to quote an orange politician).

Your last post? Argument from ridicule, ad hominem and more guilt by association, by the way.

[TSherbs]

In fact, I took two university courses in philosophy: an introduction/survey course and a senior honors class....

I took one. Loved the visiting Prof from England (he became a friend), but the material left me cold, so I did not pursue.

[Chip]

The debate over Kant's metaphor—lying to the murderer at the door— is interesting. Who are you to dictate the progress of my thread?

More to the point: what would you decide? What would your duty be? To "truth" and the murderer? To the refugees?

My philosophy courses, long ago, were taught by a man who, in his youth, served in the Dutch resistance against the Nazi occupation. For obvious reasons, he was not a fan of Kant. Nor Nietzsche.

[dneal]

If you're serious, then yes the debate over Kant's metaphor is interesting. It displays the dilemmas created by his "categorical imperative". Similarly, utilitarian ethics and vaccine mandates display a dilemma created by the "greatest happiness" principle. Those two theories are the dominant (and conflicting) theories to date.

As I stated in another thread, no ethical theory is perfect.

I'm pretty sure neither Kant nor Nietzsche had anything to do with Nazis, other than through conjecture.

[Chip]

Kant died in 1804, Nietszche in 1900. Their doctrines, however, were widely taught and likely well known to the founders of National Socialism in Germany.

The historical foundation is perhaps similar to that of John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell, their ideas being applied in a manner they couldn't envision.

[Chuck Naill]

In fact, I took two university courses in philosophy: an introduction/survey course and a senior honors class. I wasn't keen on the subject, compared to Anthropology and Linguistics.

Godwin's Law is an internet meme sort of thing, frequently used by RWW trolls as an escape hatch. In fact, RWW types are just as prone to comparing their adversaries to Nazis (e.g. jack-booted thugs, etc). A recent example is the comment (on Fox News, of course) by Lara Logan that Dr. Anthony Fauci is as bad as the Nazi war criminal Josef Mengele.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media...le-comparison/

Which for the engaged is verifiably false.

There is a segment of Americans who are uneducated, woefully ignorant, and disinterested for which are prey to this stuff.

[dneal]

Kant died in 1804, Nietszche in 1900. Their doctrines, however, were widely taught and likely well known to the founders of National Socialism in Germany.

The historical foundation is perhaps similar to that of John Calvin to Oliver Cromwell, their ideas being applied in a manner they couldn't envision.

Well, people can invent all sorts of justification for their misdeeds. How many lives is Jesus responsible for? Is the inquisition his fault? The 30 years war?

[Chip]

Is the Buddha responsible for the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims? Trying to assign culpability in that sort of historical (or legendary) case is a waste of time, except when the doctrines are pernicious in the time when they're formulated: e.g. Hitler's desire to kill all the Jews. Bolsonaro's promoting corruption and deforestation to enrich his cronies. Trump's forcing migrant parents and children apart.

But it is both legitimate and relevant to trace ideas and philosophies that engender terrible consequences to their roots.

[dneal]

Of course the Buddha isn't responsible for that, just like Jesus isn't responsible for the inquisition, and Kant and Nietszche aren't responsible for Hitler. In other words (yours, in fact):

"Trying to assign culpability in that sort of historical (or legendary) case is a waste of time".

Yep. So let's stop doing that.

[Chip]

Nevertheless, certain ideas/cultural complexes seem more conducive to eventual atrocities than others.

There are numerous passages in the Quran that urge believers to view unbelievers and apostates as enemies, subhuman, criminal, etc. and describe punishments: cutting off limbs, beheading, etc.

In the Christian Bible, there are similar passages that judge infidels, heathens, or heretics as unredeemably evil and urge their killing, whether by some divine act (e.g Jericho, the plagues of Egypt, the closing of the Red Sea path) or through attacks by armies or individuals (the Crusades, pogroms, the liquidation of Jewish ghettos).

Having that divine sanction for a militant culture undertaking conquest, colonization, extermination, etc. provides a rationale for the violence.

[Chip]

Back to Kant and the ranking of duty (to self, family, friends, city, nation, etc.) this scene from The Sound of Music plays in my memory:

[dneal]

If you're really interested in Kant, you might go back and read the articles you cited. Both are actually a defense of Kant, and that arguing his ethics is a justification of Nazis is a misinterpretation of Kant.

Also, he doesn't really rank duty. He has three formulations of his categorical imperative in Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.”

“Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.”

Kind of hard to twist those into a justification of Hitler or Nazis, but the "murderer at the door" is a good straw man.

Kant is the main philosopher who argues the intrinsic value of an individual. That's what sets him against utilitarianism. Other than that, he's known for development of a priori reasoning.

[Chip]

I did. The reason I posted those links is that they both present a case and then argue against it in a manner that I thought you'd find persuasive.

Here are two more with which you'll disagree.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/11/...tler-and-kant/

https://www.stephenhicks.org/2013/09...an-philosophy/

[dneal]

Not really. The first is another critique of Peikoff's half-baked argument that Kant inspired Nazis, the second is the same except that it's Russell doing it. Both support my opinion that you can't place direct blame on Kant for Hitler/Fascism/Nazis, etc... Why would I disagree?

You should check out Steven Pinker's latest book: Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters

-edit-

Not sure what the point is of the YouTube clip. Being summoned to get the mandatory Covid shot? Mocking the Austrian government’s having their police check citizen’s Covid papers? Seems that there’s a stronger prima facie case for utilitarianism supporting authoritarianism than there is for Kant.

[Chip]

I get summons (if you will) to renew my driver's license and insurance. Which doesn't seem that terrible. I place vaccination in that category: a simple duty to one's fellow citizens.

Not having much use for Eurocentric philosophy, your bêtes noires (e.g. utilitarianism) aren't on my mental map. I imagine yours as a smudged document with lots of straight lines and notations: Hic Sunt Utilitarians. When I see the word utilitarian, I think of the Kochs (Georgia Pacific) and their ilk, who see trees only as raw material for the accumulation of wealth and power. They can't see the forest for the dollar signs.

The point is the idea of duty to "higher" powers (whether an oppressive state, a religion, or an abstract ideal) combines with unacknowledged self-interest to overwhelm loyalties to people— loves, friends, family, neighbors— within one's orbit. Which, along with cowardice, leads the dutiful to betray them to those powers: kidnap and murder by proxy.

One oft-missed point is that "duty" is frequently a cover for simple hatred and avarice. The Nazi occupation, Aryanization, and the Holocaust enabled one of the largest transfers of wealth in European history.

[dneal]

Ok, but if 8 in 1 million people who went to get their driver’s license got shot in the face instead of a shot of their face, would you be so keen on getting a driver’s license? In this alternate world, the government mandates driver’s licenses.

That would make your analogy more accurate.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I'm not convinced. The risk of getting dead from COVID is present whether there is a mandate or not. The mandate (for vaccine) reduces that risk. I believe this is the most accurate and honest way to frame the argument, and that the version being given implies that the risk is only present for those who follow the mandate, and is thus dishonest in its intentions. This comment is of course aimed at the argument and not the person presenting it, to be clear.

Edit: shouldn't this be in the other thread?

[dneal]

Yes, it should be in the other thread, but Chip seems ok with that and a little testy if you question the direction of his thread. Post #23.

The specific argument is about mitigating societal risk through mandates, at the expense of some. It becomes less compelling as we learn the effectiveness of vaccination is lower than claimed. The larger argument is about hypocrisy as long as it makes one feel good, and the refusal to confront that hypocrisy.

[Chip]

Ok, but if 8 in 1 million people who went to get their driver’s license got shot in the face instead of a shot of their face, would you be so keen on getting a driver’s license?

That's a 0.000008% percent chance of dying. Pretty good odds, I reckon. What's the source for your 8 per million figure?

Second, I'd bet that more than 8 people per million die or are injured in auto accidents enroute to the DMV. How many people die while driving to McDonald's? How many people do you think die driving to church? Or die in church from gunshot wounds?

You keep mentioning the straw man. Here's what he thinks. . .

[dneal]

It’s an estimate from a study, in the other thread.

You can expand your understanding of a straw man from just fanciful characters, to more intelligent notions with Pinker’s book.