Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

The blind faith, the unquestioning belief, the follow no matter what mentality, it being the "true" way to walk, etc.

Right, but that has no impact on the truthiness of my systen.

[Annadog40]

I think you need a new strategy if you wanna convince people.

[Accountant]

Any suggestions?

[Showtime]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which

asserts

that it is morally right to believe in it.

I have bolded the relevant word.

No one cares what you want to

assert

. I could

assert

that I am God's personal messenger here to tell you that you're an idiot, but that wouldn't make it true.

What beef do you have against orwellian methods? They

work

- that's why Orwell was so scared of them and why he wrote about them

That is literally the exact opposite reason that

1984

was written.

Orwell's dystopia literally only functions because it is so easily abused. The societal model you propose cannot function without this abuse. You cannot get rid of it practically or theoretically, and you in fact

desperately require it to exist

, because this abuse is the only thing keeping people in line and allowing the facade to continue.

Oceania exists because the model of "utopia" that it tries to function under will always, inevitably, result in abuse. It

requires

abuse, because constant abuse and the fear of same is the only way to keep dissenters in line. Big Brother, Minitruth, Miniplenty, the screens, the Two Minutes' Hate, O'Brien and other agents, Room 101 - literally all these things exist explicitly to abuse the populace, because abuse is the only way that Oceania can function. Because the system is fundamentally broken, and does not work.

You really ought to

read

this book before you try to mouth off about it. As it is, it's painfully obvious that - like everything else you've tried to talk about in this thread - you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter.

his morals are coming from his value system, which is just opinion based.

He claims it is objectively correct, not opinion. That's sort of the whole point.

Doesn't pretty much every religion do this?

Pretty much, at least in theory. In practice, most religious practitioners are much more tolerant of dissent than they strictly should be if they cleave entirely to the tenets of their religion.

But we don't have any Muslims or Discordians or Christians trying to win converts on this forum and demanding blind obedience to a system that they refuse to even attempt to justify. We

do

have Accountant. So.

[Annadog40]

Go to new users, welcome them, treat them well and help them out, then slowly reel them in to your ideal bit by bit cause all at once is too much, then when they become in the fold, have them welcome new members just as you did.

[Showtime]

Any suggestions?

Learning the basics of logic and rhetoric before trying to make use of them might be a good start.

[Not_Mafia]

Any suggestions?

Learning the basics of logic and rhetoric before trying to make use of them might be a good start.

[Showtime]

I have seen no connection with his posts to a cult

Hm...

The Buddha? No. A more accurate comparison would be something like a prophet who tells everyone about the teachings of God. Only it's not God, it's the absolute and perfect moral system that judges the entire universe and has the highest possible authority.

This is why you fail, because you value freedom over righteousness. You will never set foot on the correct path unless you let go of your foolish clinging to the useless concept known as freedom to do bad things.

Which you force them into by implementing a police state, natch.

Who cares? Results are results.

My goal is to maximize human righteousness and moral uprightness - to make the world perfect. Happiness is good as well, but sometimes these goals are incompatible. Too bad.

On the other hand, neither gay nor straight people have the freedom to contradict the absolute truth of the correct path, for that is bad. There are no "rights". Only good and bad.

You want me to prove my moral system? Well, that's impossible. But I don't think you should want to see it proven. You should just accept and obey. It doesn't matter if it's real or not.

Statements taken as axiomatic are only axiomatic within the system that they serve to define. If these statements cannot be shown to be factually true in the real world, they are considered false, and the system is discarded as worthless.

You deluded, arrogant fool. When will you understand that my system's authority is higher than reality's? It cannot be shown to be factually false in the real world, because if it was then the real world would bend itself until it reaches the system. This is what it means to be the highest of all things, even reality; the universe itself bends to you. That is why mankind will slowly but surely move towards paradise, and why your lowly and irrelevant concepts of proof and evidence are completely nonsensical. Nobody is trying to prove anything here. The only thing that's left is to assert the system and obey and worship it

...you know, you're right. Neither do I.

Glory to Arstotzka.

[Dwlee99]

The blind faith, the unquestioning belief, the follow no matter what mentality, it being the "true" way to walk, etc.

Right, but that has no impact on the truthiness of my systen.

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

[Sesq]

No you haven't. If you are sure you have, point me to one of your prior posts, repeat yourself or copy+paste it.

Tell me which part you're unclear about. Is it the actual content of my philosophy? Or the methods in which I intend to use to impose it on the world?

Both.

[Sesq]

How can something be its own evidence? No, "it just is" isn't an answer, nor is "it's self-evident", as you seem to use them interchangeably.

This is simple. "Evidence" means "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". One of the most important sources and source of information regarding the validity of the moral system is the moral system itself, which asserts that it is morally right to believe in it.

You're basically saying "it is because it is".

No logic.

[Sesq]

My point is that the top head human can't be forcibly reeducated, as they are at the top.

You can't have paradise if it cannot be reasonably built or function, regardless of whether or not I want it (or even if everyone wanted it.)

Your axioms are the subjective moral authority (i.e., god), so you're essentially a theological orwellian who refuses to say it, despite the evidence being there.

the top human head wouldn't get to the top unless he was forcibly reeducated in the first place

Also, they're objective. God is subjective. There's nothing theological about what I do - no metaphysics or religion or supernatural elements are involved.

But if he needed to be forcibly reeducated to get to the top, who would do that? You'd need someone on top who was forcibly educated first. Also, people can change their minds.

When I say theology, it's because of how much of a leap of faith (hehe) you're taking to this objective moral system, and how you follow it as if it is a god.

[Sesq]

I criticized your attitude towards morality, you said you don't care.

Ergo, you don't care about the possibility that your attitude towards morality may be wrong, which signals to me that you think morality is unimportant.

Morality and disobedience... pretty fucking different.

Kind of weird when people say Accountant isn't open minded yet they lack the same open mind that he is lacking.

Well, open-mindedness is good if you're wrong, because it lets you become right. But it is bad if you're right because you run the risk of becoming wrong.

How do you know in the moment if you're right or wrong? You don't. Stay open-minded always.

Thank you. It's nice to know there are open-minded people out there.

Oh, plenty of people here are open-minded.

You are just utterly, absolutely, irredeemably,

comically

wrong in literally every respect.

On one hand, a person on the internet tells me I am wrong. On the other, the arbiter of ultimate judgement and absolute truth tells me I am right and obedient. I wonder who to believe.

Hint: it's not you.

Do you not understand that this god is entirely of your own invention?

With that in account (AYYYY) you're possibly the most self-righteous child I've ever met.

Kind of weird when people say Accountant isn't open minded yet they lack the same open mind that he is lacking.

I'm open-minded, but I kind of need things like "logic" and "reason", or else my mind is not going to change. Considering Acc's posts, no wonder I haven't mentally gone anywhere yet.

You not caring about my opinion is a failure, because I'm currently the only person in the thread who can perceive the truth. Perhaps when you become less immature and radical you'll settle down and see how important justice and order and harmony is. Right now you're akin to a wild child who wishes for reckless independence, not realizing that independence with the wrong ideals will only lead to danger. However, it has become clear to me that you won't be convinced, so there's nothing to do but wait for the truth to become apparent. I have faith that you are a good person - that's why you align yourself with the good guys in the first place, so I think that an accord and mutual agreement between us is not too far off.

I would like to point out that I understand everything in this thread, because it was I who created those concepts.

OH,

HE'S

IMMATURE?

HAAAAA

HAHAAAHAHAHHAHAH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

AHAHHHHHAHAHAH

1) What is morality if not a code that you obey? A disobedient person will never be able to obey such a code, so a disobedient person is inherently immoral.

2) The "god" is not of my invention. It already exists. I merely obey it. I am proud of being self-righteous - such a trait indicates that I'm morally superior.

3) Logic and reason are incredibly important, but the absolute moral system is even more important.

1) Morality is simply what you believe is right, and you can disobey your morals. You can also disobey other people or governments in accordance with your morals.

2) Being self-righteous means you're a pretentious halfwit.

3) But it'd need to have logic backing it first.

[Sesq]

I'm open-minded, but I kind of need things like "logic" and "reason", or else my mind is not going to change. Considering Acc's posts, no wonder I haven't mentally gone anywhere yet.

his morals are coming from his value system, which is just opinion based.

Opinions have logic behind them. I'm more talking about his orwellian methods.

What beef do you have against orwellian methods? They

work

- that's why Orwell was so scared of them and why he wrote about them, because he was afraid of a flawed ideal being imposed through orwellian methods. As my ideals are not flawed, this fear is baseless.

your IDEALS are not entirely flawed. It is the exploitation that is possible that is the issue, which you have provided no reasons against happening. Also, I don't want people watching and controlling me all the goddamn time. Sorry if you were a victim of child abuse and don't have a healthy view of authority, and need to invent morality in order to try and push yourself from a submissive state into your own, but I do not suffer from these problems.

[Sesq]

I'm going to assume you meant that you'd rather tell a lie and kill someone. Well and good. But what about betraying your principles?

my principles are simply to bring as much happiness and little sadness into the world as possible. I don't see the point in applying moral absolutism to actions because every situation is different and due to lesser of two evils situations it is always possible for a rule ethical theory to be wrong.

Would you kill someone if it meant making the world happier?

Doesn't the fact that people disagree on this invalidate the supposed objectivity?

[Sesq]

The blind faith and discouragement from questioning anything is functionally identical to a fundamentalist religion

That's just a surface similarity.

Yes... The "surface" of which a religion or ideology is structurally based.

[Sesq]

The blind faith, the unquestioning belief, the follow no matter what mentality, it being the "true" way to walk, etc.

Right, but that has no impact on the truthiness of my systen.

Said every cult leader ever.

What makes you different? At least be self-aware enough to acknowledge how comparatively dumb this looks.

[Dwlee99]

ooh here is another good one
"The truth will withstand scrutiny, but a lie, no matter how skillfully crafted, will wilt and wither under the intense heat of an inspection"

[Randomnamechange]

I'm going to assume you meant that you'd rather tell a lie and kill someone. Well and good. But what about betraying your principles?

my principles are simply to bring as much happiness and little sadness into the world as possible. I don't see the point in applying moral absolutism to actions because every situation is different and due to lesser of two evils situations it is always possible for a rule ethical theory to be wrong.

Would you kill someone if it meant making the world happier?

Stopping sadness is more important. If that person was causing harm to others and killing them was the only way to stop them, if it was bad enough I would (e.g. assassinating an evil despot if it would improve the situation.

[Accountant]

I have bolded the relevant word.

No one cares what you want to assert. I could assert that I am God's personal messenger here to tell you that you're an idiot, but that wouldn't make it true.

>not caring what the objective truth and ultimate judge of all morality says

wew

[Accountant]

That is literally the exact opposite reason that 1984 was written.

Orwell's dystopia literally only functions because it is so easily abused. The societal model you propose cannot function without this abuse. You cannot get rid of it practically or theoretically, and you in fact desperately require it to exist, because this abuse is the only thing keeping people in line and allowing the facade to continue.

Oceania exists because the model of "utopia" that it tries to function under will always, inevitably, result in abuse. It requires abuse, because constant abuse and the fear of same is the only way to keep dissenters in line. Big Brother, Minitruth, Miniplenty, the screens, the Two Minutes' Hate, O'Brien and other agents, Room 101 - literally all these things exist explicitly to abuse the populace, because abuse is the only way that Oceania can function. Because the system is fundamentally broken, and does not work.

You really ought to read this book before you try to mouth off about it. As it is, it's painfully obvious that - like everything else you've tried to talk about in this thread - you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter.

Oh, wait, I think we have different ideas of "abuse".

I thought you were talking about corruption or people selfishly using the system to profit themselves(eg. karnos' post about the 9999 land speeders). The "abuse" that you speak of is not going to happen. Let's look at each facet of the abuses you've listed and I'll explain why they either won't exist in my society or are ultimately good for the society.

1) Big Brother
In 1984, Big Brother is a figure of questionable existence. He is akin to a figurehead who is used to justify all sorts of atrocities. In my utopia, there will be no need for justification. That's because everyone will agree on everything, so the existence of a "Big Brother" would be completely unnecessary. The functions of a leader would be to calculate details and make administrative decisions. For example, everyone will agree that a bridge has to be built(or, more realistically, they'll all agree that X person is a good decision maker and will represent the correct decision, and then X makes the correct decision of ordering the bridge built). After that, it is the function of the leaders to determine the best way to build the bridge, order studies to make sure it's sturdy enough and so on. As you can see, since all decisions in society eventually boil down to this, there is no need for a Big Brother to keep people in line - they will keep themselves in line because they love the line, because they have been educated as to the beauty and righteouness of the line.

2) Minitruth and Miniplenty
Propaganda and starvation will of course be unneeded. There is no need to disseminate propaganda to get people to support a cause they already support. Starvation is a completely useless thing and nobody wants it, so we simply won't have it. I suppose you could argue that the re-education schools are considered propaganda, but they're propaganda in the service of the good guys, so that's fine.

3) The telescreens.
In 1984, the function of the telescreens is to monitor citizens to make sure they aren't up to no good. Once again, such things will not be necessary in the utopia. As the citizens blindly trust the leaders to follow the correct path, so do the leaders blindly trust the citizens to do the right thing. In this manner, everyone will work together for the greater good without the need for checks and balances like telescreens. This is all in accordance with the rule of balance. Furthermore, there's no need to monitor people that you know are definitely good.

4) Two Minutes' Hate
There is no need for this kind of program. Citizens will already be taught to hate evil and bad things, and they're not going to suddenly stop hating evil past some arbitrary two minute timeslot. I suppose you could consider that in my utopia the hated evil will be "24/7 Hate"!

5) The Thought Police
The Thought Police in 1984 function to attack people who have committed the crime of wrongthink. Of course, in my utopia, wrongthink will not be possible. Thus, the existence of an agency to catch wrongthink is unneeded.

6) Room 101
The function of Room 101 in 1984 is to teach dissidents to love Big Brother - or in the context of my utopia the government. That function is already fulfilled by schools who will teach the correct path. Therefore, torturing people to love the government is unecessary.

As you can see, all the things you are worried about will not happen.

[Sesq]

That is literally the exact opposite reason that 1984 was written.

Orwell's dystopia literally only functions because it is so easily abused. The societal model you propose cannot function without this abuse. You cannot get rid of it practically or theoretically, and you in fact desperately require it to exist, because this abuse is the only thing keeping people in line and allowing the facade to continue.

Oceania exists because the model of "utopia" that it tries to function under will always, inevitably, result in abuse. It requires abuse, because constant abuse and the fear of same is the only way to keep dissenters in line. Big Brother, Minitruth, Miniplenty, the screens, the Two Minutes' Hate, O'Brien and other agents, Room 101 - literally all these things exist explicitly to abuse the populace, because abuse is the only way that Oceania can function. Because the system is fundamentally broken, and does not work.

You really ought to read this book before you try to mouth off about it. As it is, it's painfully obvious that - like everything else you've tried to talk about in this thread - you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter.

Oh, wait, I think we have different ideas of "abuse".

I thought you were talking about corruption or people selfishly using the system to profit themselves(eg. karnos' post about the 9999 land speeders). The "abuse" that you speak of is not going to happen. Let's look at each facet of the abuses you've listed and I'll explain why they either won't exist in my society or are ultimately good for the society.

1) Big Brother
In 1984, Big Brother is a figure of questionable existence. He is akin to a figurehead who is used to justify all sorts of atrocities. In my utopia, there will be no need for justification. That's because everyone will agree on everything, so the existence of a "Big Brother" would be completely unnecessary. The functions of a leader would be to calculate details and make administrative decisions. For example, everyone will agree that a bridge has to be built(or, more realistically, they'll all agree that X person is a good decision maker and will represent the correct decision, and then X makes the correct decision of ordering the bridge built). After that, it is the function of the leaders to determine the best way to build the bridge, order studies to make sure it's sturdy enough and so on. As you can see, since all decisions in society eventually boil down to this, there is no need for a Big Brother to keep people in line - they will keep themselves in line because they love the line, because they have been educated as to the beauty and righteouness of the line.

2) Minitruth and Miniplenty
Propaganda and starvation will of course be unneeded. There is no need to disseminate propaganda to get people to support a cause they already support. Starvation is a completely useless thing and nobody wants it, so we simply won't have it. I suppose you could argue that the re-education schools are considered propaganda, but they're propaganda in the service of the good guys, so that's fine.

3) The telescreens.
In 1984, the function of the telescreens is to monitor citizens to make sure they aren't up to no good. Once again, such things will not be necessary in the utopia. As the citizens blindly trust the leaders to follow the correct path, so do the leaders blindly trust the citizens to do the right thing. In this manner, everyone will work together for the greater good without the need for checks and balances like telescreens. This is all in accordance with the rule of balance. Furthermore, there's no need to monitor people that you know are definitely good.

4) Two Minutes' Hate
There is no need for this kind of program. Citizens will already be taught to hate evil and bad things, and they're not going to suddenly stop hating evil past some arbitrary two minute timeslot. I suppose you could consider that in my utopia the hated evil will be "24/7 Hate"!

5) The Thought Police
The Thought Police in 1984 function to attack people who have committed the crime of wrongthink. Of course, in my utopia, wrongthink will not be possible. Thus, the existence of an agency to catch wrongthink is unneeded.

6) Room 101
The function of Room 101 in 1984 is to teach dissidents to love Big Brother - or in the context of my utopia the government. That function is already fulfilled by schools who will teach the correct path. Therefore, torturing people to love the government is unecessary.

As you can see, all the things you are worried about will not happen.

You're projecting copious amounts of complacency. If you want to keep people in line, you're going to start incorporating elements of those systems.

[Accountant]

Go to new users, welcome them, treat them well and help them out, then slowly reel them in to your ideal bit by bit cause all at once is too much, then when they become in the fold, have them welcome new members just as you did.

I don't like that idea. I think it feels a bit manipulative. If I'm going to do this, it would make more sense to throw everything at them at once, rather than be deceptive and only feed them bits.

[Accountant]

Any suggestions?

Learning the basics of logic and rhetoric before trying to make use of them might be a good start.

It would be dumb to try to use logic and rhetoric to assert something that is above either. Only a fool would try to prove the existence of God through mortal means...

[Accountant]

The blind faith, the unquestioning belief, the follow no matter what mentality, it being the "true" way to walk, etc.

Right, but that has no impact on the truthiness of my systen.

"Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense."

I do not seek to be deep. I merely seek to assert the truth. In fact, I think my system's tenets are shallow and obvious, which is why it always makes me roll my eyes when people can't even see something that simple.