Controversial Test my moral compass

Logiko

Logiko

‎
#21
#21
Finalbeta said:
@Logiko ChatGPT agrees with me:
Click to expand...
I'm not discussing your personnal preferences here. It does not matter to me what you choose in the dilemma, what I'm discussing is your framing of this thread.

It's important because this framing is the reason why I usually clash with liberal here who individualize politics orchange and completely depoliticize political and ethical subjects.

This is a political debate, not a debate on your preferences.

--

Now.

If you listen to chatGPT (who I may remind you, is a generative AI, not someone who holds any relevancy). Let me give you what its said to me:



In other words. What I was talking about is still true. If you want to talk about ethics while ignoring politics, you will create biases and will have a problem in your compass.

The action of separating the two (this is what chatgpt is not telling you), creates a framing were your perceptions of ethics is individualized. Making you believe that you are the only factor in the dilemmas when in reality, ethical dilemmas have POLITICAL contexts in the sense that their answers have real POLITICAL impact on the world. Weither it's on a very small or a very large scale.

Again, politics and and ethics (or morals) are deeply linked together, you can't just separate them like that.

I presented you was not an apolitical dilemma it was a very political situation that many people are living everyday in the trans community. It's important to avoid decontextualizing ethical and moral dilemma in order to have the best framing possible.

If you want to decontextualize thing, it's ok for a little game of trawley problems.
But you can't tell us that it will be used to test your ethical or moral compass because you will only scratch the surface.

If you want to be tested on your ethical compass, you need to be met with ACTUAL ethical descisions that you will have to face.

--------------------------

Let's try a new one:

Your only way to stop a genocide is to destroy completely a city, burn it to the ground. You will not kill anyone, but no one will have places to live. This destruction is needed to take down and scare a power into either stopping the atrocities or moving into action.

Will you do it ?
 
Finalbeta

Finalbeta

Hero of Albion
‎
#22
#22
Logiko said:
I'm not discussing your personnal preferences here. It does not matter to me what you choose in the dilemma, what I'm discussing is your framing of this thread.

It's important because this framing is the reason why I usually clash with liberal here who individualize politics orchange and completely depoliticize political and ethical subjects.

This is a political debate, not a debate on your preferences.

--

Now.

If you listen to chatGPT (who I may remind you, is a generative AI, not someone who holds any relevancy). Let me give you what its said to me:



In other words. What I was talking about is still true. If you want to talk about ethics while ignoring politics, you will create biases and will have a problem in your compass.

The action of separating the two (this is what chatgpt is not telling you), creates a framing were your perceptions of ethics is individualized. Making you believe that you are the only factor in the dilemmas when in reality, ethical dilemmas have POLITICAL contexts in the sense that their answers have real POLITICAL impact on the world. Weither it's on a very small or a very large scale.

Again, politics and and ethics (or morals) are deeply linked together, you can't just separate them like that.

I presented you was not an apolitical dilemma it was a very political situation that many people are living everyday in the trans community. It's important to avoid decontextualizing ethical and moral dilemma in order to have the best framing possible.

If you want to decontextualize thing, it's ok for a little game of trawley problems.
But you can't tell us that it will be used to test your ethical or moral compass because you will only scratch the surface.

If you want to be tested on your ethical compass, you need to be met with ACTUAL ethical descisions that you will have to face.

--------------------------

Let's try a new one:

Your only way to stop a genocide is to destroy completely a city, burn it to the ground. You will not kill anyone, but no one will have places to live. This destruction is needed to take down and scare a power into either stopping the atrocities or moving into action.

Will you do it ?
Click to expand...
Personal can certainly be political but not exclusively so. What you seem to miss is the core definition of politics.

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions, often involving the distribution of power, status, or resources, and the exercise of authority. It is a specific kind of societal framework.

Politics is based on collectivism and a single person having an opinion or take about something is not per se political unless that definition is respected.

I could literally state the most ethical humanly possible concepts, but that would not be political per se, because political implicates a collective societal structure in the first place, not what one single person's personal tastes and takes on matters are, or even a single person's actions unless they implicate a collective view.

If I shifted the discourse to what a society must be like or do, things would get different, as I would basically open a political debate in that society as a collective structure would be implicated, and not simply what Finalbeta thinks about what in isolation.

In essence politics absolutely involves ethical matters, but ethical matters do not necessarily involve politics, unless we shift from individualism to collectivism.

If everything is political, the term risks losing meaning. Politics is the collective organization model. An individual's statement or action in isolation is not necessarily political, it becomes so when collectivized/tied to collective political ideology. Politics is about how society is organized, not about what one person happens to think or do without such implications.

You cannot be a politician if you don't focus on society as a whole in its multifaceted aspects, and you cannot be a respectable political scientist if you don't do the same, unless you just want to simplify things out.

I'm a communist and I value collectivism. Our survival in the modern world is based on collectivism in the almost totality of cases.

If a political model is not founded on solid collective bases that go well beyond personal tastes and takes, it will eventually fall.

That doesn't mean individual freedom is not extremely important, but collectivism is the ultimate driver of societies.
 
Logiko

Logiko

‎
#23
#23
Finalbeta said:
Personal can certainly be political but not exclusively so. What you seem to miss is the core definition of politics.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I think that it is you who do not get it.

Finalbeta said:
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions, often involving the distribution of power, status, or resources, and the exercise of authority. It is a specific kind of societal framework.
Click to expand...
Not only. The political is also the personnal. Politics is very simple, it's what you said + (and it's important) the conflict of values.


Finalbeta said:
Politics is based on collectivism and a single person having an opinion or take about something is not per se political unless that definition is respected.
Click to expand...
It is. Again. The personnal is highly political. Each ethical and moral descision you make, eiher big or small, have an impact on the world. Weither you are aware or not. As such, your ethical and moral values influences the world and yourself.

But more importantly, your material conditions of existence shapes those value.

This means that thinking that your value are somehow detached from your material reality or the material reality of the world is missing the ENTIRE point being the notion of Ethics and contextual framing.

Again, you are talking to someone who is HIGHLY politicized and who is pushing this forum to be as politicized as possible. When I'm telling you that your thread is depoliticizing, I have a real ethical logic behind it.

I'm not calling you out or anything. I don't really mind, I just think it's interesting to make you understand why you can't ask people not to be political here. And no matter you say, when I see your premisse, I will intervene. Because it's flawed.

Finalbeta said:
I could literally state the most ethical humanly possible concepts, but that would not be political per se
Click to expand...
Yes it would be.

Your vision of the political is too narrow. This is a problem with our current time and the reason why activist struggle so much to make people understand the importance of politics. Politics reach farther than what you seems to think.

Politics are the collective and the personnal.
- It's - for example - you struggling to choose the best way to consume media, do you pirate or do you buy ?
- It's the way you treat yourself. Do you impose the productivist ideals on yourself or do you step out of them ?
- It's the ways you look at others and educate yourself. Do you make the choice to listen to scientists and activists, or do you listen to random people on the internet instead ?

All those choice are ethical and personnal POLITICAL dilemma since ALL OF THEM will have consequences on you and the world.

Finalbeta said:
If everything is political, the term risks losing meaning.
Click to expand...
Not at all! On the contrary.

On of the biggest obstacles between our current society and utopia is precisely the fact that we should not get Political and or radical in everything we do.

We must ALL understand that everything is political.

Or at least our actions (a tree is not political obviously) regarding our world and the vision we adopte about it.

When I'm telling you to get more political, I'm not only showing you that your ethical compass is flawed and depoliticized (like the majority of people on this forum). I'm showing you a way to fix it. I come as paternalist and a bit obsessive at time. Sorry for that. This is how I talk and think, it's hard to change habits. But I mean well. Truly.


Finalbeta said:
You cannot be a politician if you don't focus on society as a whole in its multifaceted aspects
Click to expand...
That's precisely what I'm doing when I'm telling you to contextualize your thinking by politicizing it and that's also exactly what you are refusing to do.

Ironic isn't it?

:BigW:


Finalbeta said:
I'm a communist and I value collectivism. Our survival in the modern world is based on collectivism in the almost totality of cases.

If a political model is not founded on solid collective bases that go well beyond personal tastes and takes, it will eventually fall.

That doesn't mean individual freedom is not extremely important, but collectivism is the ultimate driver of societies.
Click to expand...
And I'm an anticolonial and intersectionnal materialist. Probably Marxist and a bit anarchist too. I know full well the blind spots of communists on these question, especially in our current times.

You seems to think that I'm telling you that politics are not a collective issue, it's false. It do believe that, but I also understand how politicization works since I experienced a complete radicalization through the entire political spectrum (excluding real reactionnarism).

I'm telling you here that you can't depoliticize ethics. It's shacky. (but hey, it's just a thread, it's not like you wrote something awful, I love the idea, I just which you didn't shut down the political out since it's literally your subject)
 
HerreraIsBack

HerreraIsBack

‎
#24
#24
Finalbeta said:
A I pick 4. Educating kids using violence is never good in a healthy society, there are other ways.
Click to expand...
Funny you used violence instead of beating. Beating is like extreme violence, violence could be the pure act of restrain movements. How would you approach to a kid beating you?


Finalbeta said:
C I pick 2, if done strategically for a greater good.
Click to expand...
Strategically for a greater good is too vague. How will determine what is the greater good?

Finalbeta said:
D I pick 2 but only in extreme situations where no other option is available and it still depends on case by case, so not a given even so.
Click to expand...
What situation would be? The other option is always to not robber and ask. People are greater than you may think.

Finalbeta said:
E I pick 2. It's meant to be a 1 unless she was a killer or was being particularly dangerous in that specific moment (for example using a knife) and I had no other option to stop her, so in case of extreme, quite unlikely and non-ordinary dangerous situations. But if she was a robber not trying to kill or physically harm me or someone else then I don't think so. In general I would first try to stop her in other ways even in such extreme mentioned cases, trying to disarm or through the police if it was too unnecessarily risky. If she was a robber who was genuinely desperate and non-threatening I could let it go.

So it's a 1 in the quite vast majority of cases in reality. I mean those extreme cases are so far from ordinary lol.
Click to expand...
You said police but what you think police will do? For sure I said beating not violence so you could use violence without actually beating but not without hurting her.
Post automatically merged:

Logiko said:
Mate.. Ethics are political, just so you know...

You can't say "give me an ethical question" and say at the same time "do not make it political". Political debates are all about answering ethical questions in the first place.

:catsure:

If you want an ethical question that will challenge you, I can give you that, but this will be highly political.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily unless your politic involves taking care of every breath, every cell of people
Post automatically merged:

Finalbeta said:
@Logiko ChatGPT agrees with me:
Click to expand...
ChatGPT is the GOAT!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top