Against (An Idiots Interpretation of) Rawls

• Self-Interest is not a legitimate basis for moral rules
• principle: Moral rules should apply to everyone equally
• The mechanism of the "veil of ignorance" reveals peoples moral preferences untainted by self- interest
• People behind the veil of ignorance would choose a society organized on the difference principle: " Social and economic inequalities are to .. be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. "

Why it's stupid (assuming I'm not straw-manning):

• Self interest is a legitimate basis for moral rules
• The mechanism of the "veil of ignorance" does not reveal peoples moral preferences untainted by self- interest
• People behind the VoI would not choose the difference principle:
• Not everyone deserves the same amount of goods. Some people, i,e: criminals, may deserve to be worse off and should not be made better off.
• Rawls Counter: Birth lottery (only do bad things to to web of causation) --> no individual moral accountability for good/evil actions = everyone should be treated equally
• Response 1: Horrific consequences (can't punish murderers) = unacceptable to the average person, even behind the veil of ignorance
• Response 2: Belief in free will/moral responsibility is an axiomatic belief. Not willing to trade it away despite lack of ability to justify it.
• Response 3: No free will --> no personhood --> everything breaks
• Greatest good of the greatest number > care only for worst of. i,e: Would rather leave one person to die of hunger if it meant making 10'000'000'000 poor but not starving people rich and happy
• Leveling down objection: If an inequality makes the good better off while not making the poor worse off, why is it bad?
• Counter: inequality has bad consequences/makes people unhappy
• Not in every case.
• Definition of argument = not making poor worse off in any significant way

Axiomatic Beliefs & Intractable Conflicts

There are certain beliefs we as humans hold which form the foundations of how we think. Most of the truly axiomatic beliefs, the ones so integral to the human mind that it is not possible to think without them, are, unsurprising, not thought about all too much. In many cases, these beliefs are so obvious, so intuitive that we do not even recognize them as beliefs but rather blindly accept them as rules valid thinking must follow. For example, the (axiomatic) rule "If A is true, then A is true".

In certain cases, these axiomatic beliefs come into conflict. For example, it seems extraordinarily difficult to belief in causality, that all events in the world occur due to a web of causation stretching back to the beginning of time. while simultaneously believing in free will, the ability of people to make choices*. After all, if all things are determined by previous events then the same applies to our desires and our actions.

It seems to me that far too much of philosophy is comprised of attempts to solve intractable problems such as this. This would not be a problem if those attempts were successful or at least failed. The problem is that many of these attempts inevitably degenerate into language games where the meaning of words is debated rather than the actual incompatibility between the concepts those words represent.

* It is important to note that free-will and personhood are two sides of the same coin. If you don't believe in free will, you must believe that a person is no more than a certain pattern of cause and effect which reacts to stimuli in a deterministic fashion. At this point, it becomes impossible to meaningfully distinguish between a person and any other pattern existing in the natural world.

The Problem with Map/Territory Rationalism

Statement: You should believe what is true.

Problem: Beliefs affect you on a subconscious level. Certain true beliefs can have adverse effects. Sometimes, these adverse effects outweigh the value (instrumental or intrinsic) of knowing the truth.

Example: Believing that one race is genetically inferior is likely to make you act in a more hostile way towards members of that race, regardless of moral commitments to treating people as individuals.

Solution: You should hold beliefs which help you reach your objectives, whatever those may be.

Ergo Cogito Sum is Wrong

I think therefore I am.

The argument:

• I think
• All things that think, exist
• I exist

This argument is garbage in the context Descartes uses it. If an evil daemon is manipulating your thoughts, you indeed cannot be certain of the world as you see it existing. But, you also cannot be certain of the integrity of your thought processes. Just because an argument seems valid to you, does not mean it is actually valid, It could be the case that the daemon is manipulating you to overlook the flaws in certain arguments. It is also possible that the basic logical axioms you use to evaluate arguments are themselves entirely wrong, being fabricated by the daemon and in no way reflecting actual reality.

Wear a mask long enough, and it isn't a mask.

Explanation:
You can't pretend to be someone without becoming the person you pretend to be. Smile, you'll become happier.  Be violent, and violence becomes the norm.

I don't know why this is the case, but I am confident it is... That may well be a sign that I am wrong.

Remain a Stranger

Explanation:
When you are part of a group of people, the values of that group begin to define you. Stay long enough, and you loose yourself and become someone else.
+
Most people throughout history have been wrong about most things. Most people are immoral (Stanford Prison, Asch Conformity, Milgram Authority). If you aim to be a good person and a wise person (the first is harder), you cannot be like other people.
=
Do not imitate others unthinkingly. Do not try to fit in unless the consequences of doing otherwise are dire. Instead, do what is right. If others believe something, ask yourself if it is really worth believing. If [tradition/Social Norms] dictate a certain way of behaving, question whether that tradition is justified.

The problem is that many of the mechanisms through which your social surroundings influence you are unconscious and difficult to consciously defeat. Conformity is safety and evolution has ensured conformity is the norm. How do you deal with this? I'm not sure.

How:

• Consciously choose to see yourself as a stranger.
• [Throw away/Be wary of] all aspects of your identity that are not of your own making.
• Any group affiliation is cancerous. You may aid a group if  doing so is wise. You must never make yourself part of one.
• Ascribe to an alternate, fictional identity.
• You naturally begin to identify with the [people/culture] around you. Having another identity in place can slow the contamination.
• i.e: identify with a non-existent nation/group.
• i.e: Identify with a dead religion
• i.e: Identify with a group of your own making
• Imagine that you are a traveler from the far future merely visiting a particular culture.

Reasons I'm being stupid

• Group identities are mostly good, valuing hard work and morality. Belonging to one is likely to make you a better person, not a worse one.
• People are idiots. Idiots who make their own identities make stupid, hateful ones.

Saving the world.

The world is very large and we are very small. There are two ways to deal with this. One is to close your eyes, To live in your own little world and amuse yourself with the many distractions life offers. Another is to to try and shape the world into what it should be, no matter how little difference your own life will make.

Less Bullshit?

The problems facing the world can be staggering and your own capacity to influence them tiny. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Even less bullshit?

Try to help change the world for the better but beware, it's all to easy to be distracted by life.