I want to like this article but it sounds like the author is more concerned with signaling what they know vs. educating/enlightening the reader. It should be a genre of writing in itself if it’s done well and tastefully.
Agile vs Waterfall isn’t “Kayfabe”. Software developers genuinely believe that there is some rivalry because they’re uncritical and inexperienced with software development management layers and don’t know any better.
> The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
Tolkein said that it didn't pay to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you happened to live near one. In the same way, it's a good idea to think very carefully about how God affects you, if you happen to live in a universe where He exists.
So the first question is, do you live in such a universe? Is He there, or not? Not "would you prefer Him to exist, or not?" Not "Does your culture say He exists?" But does He actually exist? Is He really there?
If He exists, this is a very different universe than if He doesn't. And it would be wisdom to live in a manner that fits the universe you are in...
I think understanding/explaining what "fear of God" means is kind of hard to explain in the postmodern world. It's partly recognizing that to know God is to fear God, but that also is not that great of an explanation. There's another verse about walking humbly with thy God. That may be a better more modern verse to pick I'd say.
Micah 6:8? He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
I have a secular hypothesis about stupidity that echoes this: that it’s root is narcissism. A person becomes stupid when they come to believe that they could not be wrong.
This could be why profoundly accomplished people sometimes become stupid. Their accomplishment convinces them that they are intellectually superior, at which point they proceed to stop thinking critically.
What is virtuous and what is moral for the atheist? Is it more than the bits of the religious morality his ancestors believed that doesn't contradict his present desires?
That question seriously troubled me for some time. Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong? Logically, evolutionary science lets us conclude that it increases individual fitness by increasing mating opportunities and group fitness by spreading alleles that are good at reproducing themselves. Judging by the popularity of the subject in fine art, aesthetics can't condemn it either. So what makes it wrong? Is it anything more than a bald assertion? On what basis and by whose authority? Is ethics merely the science of discerning whatever it is that the strongest secular power one is subject to will permit? I find that proposition philosophically unsatisfying.
Meanwhile, while there is plenty of room for elaboration, a theist can rest on the moral foundation that Mankind was created with inherent dignity in the image of the Creator and thus rape, murder, theft, and various other offenses against that dignity are objectively immoral, regardless of what whoever holds the local monopoly on violence thinks. Additionally, to aid those who may not be capable of drawing those inferences, the sacred scriptures literally spell out the most obvious dos and don'ts.
> Ethics cannot be deduced from logic and aesthetics. To give an example, why exactly is rape wrong?
Rape is wrong, because it induces bodily and emotional harm. You can deduce your whole ethics and morals from the 'reduce the suffering you cause' view. You don't need religion for that.
That’s begging the question. Why is harming another human being wrong? It could be the benefit to yourself and others is greater than the harm caused. The children born of that rape may well think that their being alive is a net good. In fact, it’s statistically certain that all of us have at least one rape victim somewhere in our ancestry and thus wouldn't otherwise be alive.
Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient. What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?
> Just because you personally think harming other persons is bad isn’t sufficient.
What is insufficient about it?
That involuntary harm to one may occasionally benefit the many? Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time? And what about individual's right to freedom from harm?
> What gives you the authority to impose that value on others?
Society has to negotiate values together. The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.
After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.
Your opinion isn’t a valid ethical premise. It has no basis beyond your whims. Someone else might believe that it’s good and how would you refute them without claiming that your opinion is somehow more authoritative?
> Even if so can the aggressor and wider society know that ahead of time?
Obviously, in general, no. You can’t know that shooting a random person in cold blood wouldn’t prevent some greater evil. You can’t know that the child of that rape won’t cure cancer. The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.
> The rule to avoid harming others is the least imposing value of all.
Once again this is begging the question. You’re trying to slip in the premise that minimal imposition is moral without any basis.
> After 30y of "living by faith" I'm no longer a fan of trusting in authorities just because their rules are old or their existence is unfalsifiable.
This betrays philosophical immaturity, which is of course fine. Most religious organizations do a very poor job with that aspect of formation, likely because those teaching are themselves philosophically immature. But this discussion isn’t about religion, faith, or your subjective experiences, it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation. If your anti-theism clouds your reasoning, feel free to instead pretend that we live in an advanced simulation and its authors defined human life as having inherent dignity. In that scenario ethics has a firm foundation. Now imagine the same scenario but without such a definition.
> But this discussion ... it’s about whether the normative science of ethics can have any nontrivial conclusions without an objective foundation
What is a more objective foundation than independently verified, experimental evidence?
> The limitations of human reasoning are one of the reasons I’m convinced a correct ethics must have a superhuman author.
So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?
> What is a more objective foundation than independently verified, experimental evidence.
This sounds like the classic is-ought problem. Experiment can, up to epistemological and ontological limits, only tell us about what is. It cannot tell us about what ought to be. If it appears to you that it can then you’re implicitly slipping in an additional ethical premise.
> So the apparent presence of this limitation is evidence of a higher power? How can you be sure that what you consider 'correct' ethics is objectively good?
I can’t. That’s one of the limitations of abductive reasoning. Unlike deduction it cannot reach absolutely certain conclusions. And if I could this entire thread would be moot. As for correct ethics, I accept Peirce’s view that ethics, like logic, is a normative science. Just as logic is defined to be the normative science of what is true or false, ethics is defined to be the normative science of what is good or bad. Hence my question about whether or not that science is trivial and admits whatever conclusions anyone says it does, or not.
> all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon subjective preference
You haven't shown this, so you're just sneaking in the premise that ethics has no objective foundation, which is the very question under consideration. I could just as easily baldly assert "all value propositions necessarily either are directly or rest upon objective foundations," but I'm not because it would be philosophically uninteresting.
I accept that there are no valid ethical premises is a valid conclusion from the absence of an objective ethical authority. I can only abductively conclude the existence of such an authority because it appears to me that ethics is not in fact a degenerate science that can produce any result whatsoever.
So your argument is that imposing the view that harming others isn't good is worse than imposing harm? Sorry I don't follow.
Also are you arguing that the fact that people harmed others has happened that somehow means a world where this happened less often or not at all is a worse one? With that line of argument you are excusing any crime at all that ever happened, because by vrtue of the butterfly effect we have to assume every action ever taken created the world we live in and is somehow sacred that way.
There is clear evidence that morality originated with the evolution of societal thinking and human collaboration. Morality is evolutionary useful because it improves in-group trust and collaboration. In other words, there is clear evidence that morality existed thousands of years before religion. Experiments also show that even 2 year old humans and a number of animal species have clear moral thinking.
Don’t just tell us there’s evidence, share it please. This is a site for satisfying intellectual curiosity.
> it improves in-group trust and collaboration
Merely improving in-group trust and collaboration doesn’t meet any kind of acceptable moral bar. Viking raiders had high in-group trust and collaborated extremely well, while raping and pillaging to their hearts’ content. Unless you accept raiding as moral, you’ll have to do better.
> Experiments also show that even 2 year old humans and a number of animal species have clear moral thinking.
This is a risible claim to anyone who has any significant experience with two year olds. It also contradicts your first sentence.
Edit: Three replies to a single comment inside half an hour conclusively indicates emotional rather than rational posting, especially since not a single one of my queries was responded to. One would think after all these years I'd be desensitized, but I never fail to be a little bit disappointed when I encounter someone who is incapable of dialectic, and, to make it worse, covers for it with puerile rhetoric. On the plus side, this does neatly illustrate the point of the submission.
I don’t think you understand what morality is. People can believe they are highly moral while killing “evil” outsiders (by their moral code). Religious organisations that declare themselves to be highly moral and follow the moral codes of a bible have historically had zero problems killing, burning and torturing people with different moral believes. Morality is a set of rules that a group of people (or an individual) choose to follow. There is no “universal” or “given by nature” morality. However morality is extremely useful in helping groups of people corporate and fight external groups. That’s why different moral codes from different culture/religions tends to be similar because they all help groups to collaborate and survive threats from external groups.
Your arguments are flawed. I don’t have to accept raiding as moral for my arguments to be true. For example, many Americans followed a strict moral code, inspired by and based on the Bible, while happily owning slaves and hanging non-white people from trees if they dared to object to being slaves. A clear example of in-group morals and non-morals directed at an out-group. I am sure those slave owners had a strong sense of justice and fairness to people in their own group but none towards other groups. Exactly like the Vikings.
Says who? Backed by what empirically true evidence? The Vikings had a strong moral code. That’s why they worked so efficiently as a group. They believe in justice and feared their gods. While raping and pillaging.
> Upon closer observation, it becomes apparent that every strong upsurge of power in the public sphere, be it of a political or of a religious nature, infects a large part of humankind with stupidity.
> The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom declares that the internal liberation of human beings to live the responsible life before God is the only genuine way to overcome stupidity.
Cold War moves by both companies here. Very strange behavior.
Hot take: Gabe and Tim are long time friends and they’re having a friendly competition over lawsuits with nothing more important to do with their money/time (they did, after all, both start video game companies).
> If there was any further indication that a group of people needed to all band together and overthrow their government, you'd think that'd be it, but I guess some people just love living in near slavery.
Which people? What if the majority agrees with this move but they won’t speak out in public about it?
I for one am perfectly fine with China being able to do this. It would, at the very least, keep Zuckerberg and others in check.
The anti-China rhetoric on HN is mind boggling sometimes when it’s put next to the constant stream of complaints in the West, regarding inflation/monetary handouts, zoning laws, corruption, real estate, oil spills and companies getting away with shit, etc. The list is endless.
And yet, you’ve accomplished nothing. In fact, things are now worse than they were and yet you just keep complaining thinking it will make a difference. You’ll never get anywhere complaining without having a path to act. China, evil it may be, actually acts.
Go and call your congresspeople. They’ll listen to you over the sound of money that is pouring their way to look the other way.
That's because we're more open and hyper-critical of our flaws and that's how awareness builds. Better than controlling the press to hide your flaws and only publishing good news.
I don't think I've seen a US/UK MSM article comparing China to us favorably in at least 5 years. Ive seen dozens or hundreds beating the drum against them..
It's a major coincidence for such a free press, right?
> I don't think I've seen a US/UK MSM article comparing China to us favorably in at least 5 years. Ive seen dozens or hundreds beating the drum against them..
There is no shortage of articles published by Western media suggesting that China is out-hustling and out-innovating the US, and that the West is in decline as China rises.
This alone doesn't entitle China to praise or admiration. It's an authoritarian total surveillance state in which information is censored, citizens have little to no recourse when harmed by government action, enemies of the state disappear, and ethnic minorities are rounded up and sent to camps for "reeducation".
> You’ll never get anywhere complaining without having a path to act. China, evil it may be, actually acts.
Acts for whom?
> Go and call your congresspeople. They’ll listen to you over the sound of money that is pouring their way to look the other way.
You taunt Americans, suggesting that politicians in the US ignore their constituents, but what do you think happens in China? Do you believe that the CCP gangsters who run just about every level of government listen to the Chinese citizens they govern?
Do you know what happens to plebs in China when they make too much noise?
Citation needed. Over what timeframe? In what sector? The US has accomplished a lot and nothing depending how you frame it.
> Go and call your congresspeople. They’ll listen to you over the sound of money that is pouring their way to look the other way.
I (and many others) have actually had great success organizing & calling my federal reps. Even the Republican ones! (Although I have the most success with Democrats)
Don’t generalize the politics of a country you’ve only read about. It isn’t fair to call out Anti-China rhetoric just for you to spin the same top.
You must be very naive thinking any other government can't kidnap anyone. Think of Assange - perfect illustration of what "free" western governments can do.
I'm not a fan of CCP in any way but I find naivety of HN commenters speaking about China and CCP here very amusing.
> Was Assange kidnapped and did he disappear for months?
I suggest you to educate yourself about the matter. He did disappear for years, not months, unfortunately.
And there is not need to become so defensive - if you look at history with intellectual curiosity you may find at certain point that similarities between US, Russian or Chinese government are quite extreme when it comes to fighting with forces opposing the government.
It's possible to muzzle monopolist practices and politician-buying by billionaires in the west without applauding or descending into China-style totalitarian control. The obvious thing comes to mind if you follow the latter path: That you have simply replaced the manipulating power of very rich business people with the literally authoritarian power of political leaders with armies and police to enforce their rule (plus lots of public money they control as if it were their own). And even then, some of the businessmen you previously hoped to muzzle with such measures find ways to buy their way into the new political power structure.
Eventually try the same in the U.S and more likely that someone like Zuckerberg becomes one of those who can pull policing power strings than him being punished by "tough on billionaires" politicians with too much coercive authority.
As a basic bottom line, i'd prefer a country with a Bezos or Zuckerberg trying to manipulate me into depending on them to a country where a Xi can literally force my dependence at any time. Neither is ideal but the first at least leaves room for saying no without being imprisoned or killed.
That doesn't work for people who need to be publicly accessible to some degree, like public health officials or school board members. But yes, I suppose most experts in the field could hide and never speak out instead of sharing their expertise.
i don't agree. i believe the west is much more resilient then doomers think.
the whole world is in a crisis right now, but things are rebounding. business is picking up again at super speed, people are optimistic again and close deals, new tech is being developed and deployed, climate change is finally being taken seriously, etc. etc.
its the nature of democracy that people discuss and fight over things and that decision making is therefore a messy process... but we are getting there.
even stuff like Polands confrontation now with the EU is part of a HEALTHY process and it speaks for the EU that all this is possible... no matter the outcome by the way, as long as indepedenent judges come to a conclusion!
so stop with your predictions of doom. I bet in the long-run, China and Russia will be the one who fail.
If I’m a hardline Westerner and I feel like participating in a pro-Chinese Western Community, what are my options? HN isn’t the place for this. Basically, I’d like to praise China for the last handful of bold moves they’ve made, but the usual channels (FB, Twitter, Reddit, HN, …) are vehemently anti-China. I’d probably get shadowbanned or banned saying the three child policy is the way to go forward.
Bill Maher praises China for being a 'serious country' and contrasts it to the non-serious US. That is pretty mainstream. There seem to be many people, both left and right, who see China's actions on clamping down unfettered capitalism and decadence as a good thing. In my view it's a mixed bag. I think the real driving force is in preparation of a US/China conflict which is starting to feel inevitable.
Thank you for putting up a black banner for Mr. Powell. Very appropriate.