While consequentialism > utilitarianism, who decides who the bad people are? There are obvious cases like serial killers, pedophiles, mass shooters etc
But these days, there’s a disturbing number of people who say that anyone not getting a pharma injection subscription is this type of bad person, or anyone who votes wrong, or doesn’t want global communism.
There needs to be a safeguard against such things.
Nobody has a monopoly on righteousness, so the only way to decide such things is through consensus vote - ie, standard legislative mechanisms. If there is a particular behavior we consider "bad," our legislators craft a bill to make it illegal. If there is a behavior that we consider "good," our legislators craft a bill to incentivize more of that behavior. Obviously there will always be people who disagree with the final judgement, but the fact that it has gone through the legislative process lends it legitimacy. Currently, our society doesn't do this well: instead, we form "cancel culture" lynch mobs to unofficially sanction anybody we consider to be "bad," and since the punishment is extralegal then it is completely arbitrary.
For example, if I use a bad word that makes people unhappy (perhaps it is viewed as racist or sexist by some) and some people online try to start a social media lynch mob against me, I am fully within my moral rights to start a religion or political movement and dogwhistle to my supporters that I would like to have all of my critics killed. After all, who the fuck are they to think that they can tell me what to do? They have no authority over me. People who participate in cancel culture may have loud voices, but they make up a very small minority of the population, and most reasonable people hate them. If they cross me by attempting to stir up a mob and impose extralegal sanctions on me when I don't feel that I have done anything wrong, I'm entitled to do exactly the same thing to them. "Tit for tat" is the only rule that consequentialists follow. If somebody hits us, we hit back.
However, if my critics followed the legislative process and made the bad word illegal, then I could be arrested for saying it. This method has more legitimacy because by following the process to LEGALLY impose sanctions on me for my bad behavior, the punishment is standardized rather than arbitrary. If I disagree with the moral judgement of the mob and think that I should not be punished, I have a non-violent process available to me to remediate the dispute - I simply need to build a coalition and get the law changed. Because I have non-violent options available to me when I think that the mob has been unjust, I don't immediately need to leap to a violent solution, such as terrorism or revolution. Most significantly, because the process to determine what behavior is good or bad has been voted on and enshrined into law, I know that this opinion is shared by the majority of the voting populace, rather than an angry vocal minority whom I could easily crush if I rallied enough angry people to my own side.
In other words, people who say you're a bad person and ought to be punished need to point to a law to back that up. That is the safeguard of which you speak. Laws should reflect our social majority's existing moral values. If they don't, then our legislators have failed us and ought to be replaced.
I think we are at the need to replace stage currently, so I’m hesitant to push for new laws.
Also, some things are beyond law and there can BE no legitimacy, such as anything involving bodily autonomy. I hesitate to lean too far into law, because everything China inflicts on their citizens is legal, and in Canada they can legally freeze anyones bank account for organizing politically against their regime.
If it once again GETS to where we have trustworthy lawmakers, then I could trust laws more than I do. As it is, one can be literally excluded from society over WORDS
> Also, some things are beyond law and there can BE no legitimacy, such as anything involving bodily autonomy.
The only way to say this and be consistent is if you support abortion but also oppose mask mandates. Do you?
Personally I think it is OK to "violate" bodily autonomy to a limited degree, as long as it is something that has been publicly debated and voted upon, rather than something done in secret by a shadow cabinet.
For example, the Tuskegee experiments were bad because they were done without the knowledge or consent of the public. The mask mandates would be good in states where the majority of the public supports them (or nationally, if the majority of Congress supported them). Basically, if our government has to hide the truth about what they're doing or artificially suppress debate, it's almost always because they're doing something evil.
Yes actually 👁 govt and other people need to stay out of some things
Some things aren’t up for a vote, I’m not into democracy without limits. The Tuskegee Experiments would have been bad even if every soychugger in existence was in favour…if someone wants to wear a mask, they can do so, that way I know who to avoid, but I’m not doing it just for THEM
While consequentialism > utilitarianism, who decides who the bad people are? There are obvious cases like serial killers, pedophiles, mass shooters etc
But these days, there’s a disturbing number of people who say that anyone not getting a pharma injection subscription is this type of bad person, or anyone who votes wrong, or doesn’t want global communism.
There needs to be a safeguard against such things.
Nobody has a monopoly on righteousness, so the only way to decide such things is through consensus vote - ie, standard legislative mechanisms. If there is a particular behavior we consider "bad," our legislators craft a bill to make it illegal. If there is a behavior that we consider "good," our legislators craft a bill to incentivize more of that behavior. Obviously there will always be people who disagree with the final judgement, but the fact that it has gone through the legislative process lends it legitimacy. Currently, our society doesn't do this well: instead, we form "cancel culture" lynch mobs to unofficially sanction anybody we consider to be "bad," and since the punishment is extralegal then it is completely arbitrary.
For example, if I use a bad word that makes people unhappy (perhaps it is viewed as racist or sexist by some) and some people online try to start a social media lynch mob against me, I am fully within my moral rights to start a religion or political movement and dogwhistle to my supporters that I would like to have all of my critics killed. After all, who the fuck are they to think that they can tell me what to do? They have no authority over me. People who participate in cancel culture may have loud voices, but they make up a very small minority of the population, and most reasonable people hate them. If they cross me by attempting to stir up a mob and impose extralegal sanctions on me when I don't feel that I have done anything wrong, I'm entitled to do exactly the same thing to them. "Tit for tat" is the only rule that consequentialists follow. If somebody hits us, we hit back.
However, if my critics followed the legislative process and made the bad word illegal, then I could be arrested for saying it. This method has more legitimacy because by following the process to LEGALLY impose sanctions on me for my bad behavior, the punishment is standardized rather than arbitrary. If I disagree with the moral judgement of the mob and think that I should not be punished, I have a non-violent process available to me to remediate the dispute - I simply need to build a coalition and get the law changed. Because I have non-violent options available to me when I think that the mob has been unjust, I don't immediately need to leap to a violent solution, such as terrorism or revolution. Most significantly, because the process to determine what behavior is good or bad has been voted on and enshrined into law, I know that this opinion is shared by the majority of the voting populace, rather than an angry vocal minority whom I could easily crush if I rallied enough angry people to my own side.
In other words, people who say you're a bad person and ought to be punished need to point to a law to back that up. That is the safeguard of which you speak. Laws should reflect our social majority's existing moral values. If they don't, then our legislators have failed us and ought to be replaced.
I think we are at the need to replace stage currently, so I’m hesitant to push for new laws.
Also, some things are beyond law and there can BE no legitimacy, such as anything involving bodily autonomy. I hesitate to lean too far into law, because everything China inflicts on their citizens is legal, and in Canada they can legally freeze anyones bank account for organizing politically against their regime.
If it once again GETS to where we have trustworthy lawmakers, then I could trust laws more than I do. As it is, one can be literally excluded from society over WORDS
> Also, some things are beyond law and there can BE no legitimacy, such as anything involving bodily autonomy.
The only way to say this and be consistent is if you support abortion but also oppose mask mandates. Do you?
Personally I think it is OK to "violate" bodily autonomy to a limited degree, as long as it is something that has been publicly debated and voted upon, rather than something done in secret by a shadow cabinet.
For example, the Tuskegee experiments were bad because they were done without the knowledge or consent of the public. The mask mandates would be good in states where the majority of the public supports them (or nationally, if the majority of Congress supported them). Basically, if our government has to hide the truth about what they're doing or artificially suppress debate, it's almost always because they're doing something evil.
Yes actually 👁 govt and other people need to stay out of some things
Some things aren’t up for a vote, I’m not into democracy without limits. The Tuskegee Experiments would have been bad even if every soychugger in existence was in favour…if someone wants to wear a mask, they can do so, that way I know who to avoid, but I’m not doing it just for THEM
OK, then I give you a lot of credit for being consistant. That's increasingly rare nowadays.
Unfortunately, it really is