Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Dwlee99]

Oh man I HAVE to ego this :^)

[Dwlee99]

<3
Might keep it after the 3 days if I like it

[Dwlee99]

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

I feel this sums up my relationship with Accountant's trolling

I want to know if he was indoctrinated into his belief system or if he actually did soul-searching and came to the values he did. I can understand the former very well, being indoctrinated into something with a similar mindset towards authority as a Jehovah's Witness. All authority must be respected. If you don't agree with something the authority would be doing just "Wait on Jehovah" to fix it. Just put all your trust into the authority. Etc., etc. There was actually a book written called

The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses

which I want to (eventually) read.

[Dwlee99]

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

I feel this sums up my relationship with Accountant's trolling

I want to know if he was indoctrinated into his belief system or if he actually did soul-searching and came to the values he did. I can understand the former very well, being indoctrinated into something with a similar mindset towards authority as a Jehovah's Witness. All authority must be respected. If you don't agree with something the authority would be doing just "Wait on Jehovah" to fix it. Just put all your trust into the authority. Etc., etc. There was actually a book written called

The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses

which I want to (eventually) read.

He's just being 15, I had some similar authoritarian beliefs when I was younger, in ten years he'l look back and laugh

But I'm 15. And I think they are 16.

I have never met a kid around my age that held such authoritarian beliefs except for Jehovah's Witness kids who maybe even they didn't hold those beliefs, we certainly never talked about it, and accountant.

[Dwlee99]

@Showtime: my conversion methods don't work, eh?

please tell me this is a joke

[Dwlee99]

What is your list of axioms from most to least important, accluntant?

[Dwlee99]

If you were wrong, accountant, would you want to know?

If so, how would you test it?

[Dwlee99]

Literally though accountant's posts are so akin to things cult members say it is eerie.

[Dwlee99]

Literally though accountant's posts are so akin to things cult members say it is eerie.

Cult members think that snow is white, and so do I. Is that eerie?

Literally though accountant's posts are so akin to things cult members say it is eerie.

How so?
I have seen no connection with his posts to a cult

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

[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."

[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"

[Dwlee99]

Said every cult leader ever.

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

Look... you're neglecting the big,

big

difference between a cult and me.

I am actually right.

Once you accept that, then everything else becomes irrelevant.

Speaking as someone raised in a cult, this is exactly what cults say lol

[Dwlee99]

My system is inevitable.

Why do you believe this?

[Dwlee99]

Please dont encourage the creation of dytopias

[Dwlee99]

Please dont encourage the creation of dytopias

How is my system a dystopia?

You want to create a world which lacks free will.

[Dwlee99]

@Dwlee: Why is free will good?

The only way to be truly happy is to be true to yourself. If you cannot be true to yourself and have the free will to believe, say, and do what you'd like (within reason, such as not murdering people) you will not be as happy as you could be.

It sounds like what you want is there to be a world in which there are just robots that never do anything wrong and are perfect. This isn't 1. possible, and 2. the humans in it wouldn't even be humans if it was possible. There is no use in creating a "perfect" world if it can't even be inhabited by real humans.

[Dwlee99]

There is no "self" to be true to. No, further than that, there is no "true". In my utopia, humans will be more like a hive mind, so there's no "real self" that they are betraying.

So you don't even have your own mind. Great..

Furthermore, it goes without saying that my utopia will not have real humans. The inhabitants of my utopia will be former humans that have extensively modified their mind and body to become superior.

Do robots have emotions? How can you even measure the value of your "utopia" without basing it off human's happiness?

Why isn't a world full of perfect - well, not robots, but shall we say sentient beings who are similar to robots in some key ways - why isn't a world of such beings possible?

Because no one wants to do that except you and a very few other radical authoritarians.

[Dwlee99]

Perfection does not exist, accountant.

[Dwlee99]

Perfection does not exist, accountant.

It does when you're a child who does not understand anything

where's not_mafia??

[Dwlee99]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[Dwlee99]

What are your opinions on following authority as a citizen?
Would you, for example, report where Jews are hiding to the Nazis and rationalize that as following orders?

[Dwlee99]

What are your opinions on following authority as a citizen?
Would you, for example, report where Jews are hiding to the Nazis and rationalize that as following orders?

If I was working for the Nazis, I would definitely report any Jews I found. And the blame for those dead Jews wouldn't lie on me, it would lie on Hitler and his commanders(Goebbels, Goring, Himmler, whoever).

But you are helpig them by reporting Jews.

[Dwlee99]

At what point do you disobey?
5 jews, 10 jews, 50 jews, 100 jews, 1000 jews, 10000 jews?

[Dwlee99]

At what point do you disobey?
5 jews, 10 jews, 50 jews, 100 jews, 1000 jews, 10000 jews?

Even if I were to pull the trigger on 10,000 Jews, the blame still lies with Hitler. So the answer is the same. I have no moral burden.

So you'd rather kill 10,000 jews than disobey Hitler?

[Dwlee99]

At what point do you disobey?
5 jews, 10 jews, 50 jews, 100 jews, 1000 jews, 10000 jews?

Even if I were to pull the trigger on 10,000 Jews, the blame still lies with Hitler. So the answer is the same. I have no moral burden.

So you'd rather kill 10,000 jews than disobey Hitler?

I am not killing 10000 Jews. Hitler is the killer. I am just a mindless weapon with no free will.

No. You are told "Go hunt down and kill 10,000 jews." You

could

desert and not kill 10,000 jews. But rather, by your own FREE WILL you choose to carry out the task and kill 10,000 jews and blame it on your commanders.

[Dwlee99]

you're placing too much trust on them. while you'll be doing what they want, probably, you won't be doing what's moral

What is moral is defined by what the objectve moral system wants. That statement is contradictory.

You don't understand what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that obedience seems to contradict the moral system, when it isn't obedience to the moral system itself.

The obedience to Hitler is demanded by the moral system, so obedience to Hitler is obedience to the moral system.

Then your moral system is fundamentally flawed.

[Dwlee99]

No. You are told "Go hunt down and kill 10,000 jews." You could desert and not kill 10,000 jews. But rather, by your own FREE WILL you choose to carry out the task and kill 10,000 jews and blame it on your commanders.

I have no free will. I simply execute commander's orders. Who are you to blame a robot for following its programming? Who are you to demand that humans think and act for themselves? I say that this kind of independence is dangerous and will only lead to more and more people deviating in ways we do not want. Let the higher-ups worry about morals. Your first priority is to follow orders. There should be no hate of Jews or feeling of satisfaction or illusion of choice when you pull the trigger. When the order was given, your destiny was sealed. Now you are just a mindless automaton who executes instructions.

No, you are not a tool, you are not a machine, you are not a robot. You can make decisions for yourself regarding what you want to do.
You called me a moral coward for not saving the many in the trolley dillema (Im kind of undecided on the trolley dillema now) but now you are saying you would rather follow orders and cause the death of 10,000 jews than disobey and have 10,000 more people alive at the end of the day.

Then your moral system is fundamentally flawed.

Where is the flaw? The one on top demands; I obey. This is all in accordance with order and balance. There is no conceptual flaw here. You argue that the consequences are bad, but so what? The concepts themselves are perfectly aligned.

The flaw is that you put yourself as a robot when you arent one. You can think for yourself and make your own decisions yet instead you choose to follow an axiom blindly and without remorse and thought for the consequences of your action.

Here is the way I see it. If the concepts are in order but the bad consequence(dead Jews) happens anyway, then it is not your fault. The responsibility falls to the causer of the bad consequence(Hitler) to get their shit together. You have done your part. Once your portion of the work had been completed, any failure in the total work must be due to others' incompetence. You are blameless.

No. Take responsibility for your own actions. At the Nuremberg trials Im sure no one said "I just blindly followed orders, it isnt my fault!" and got away with it.

[Dwlee99]

I think it is pretty clear that blind obedience to the government is much more dangerous than thinking for yourself, accountant. Prove me wrong.

If the commander told you to go into a suicide mission, would you?

Probably not. I think that I can fulfil more of my axioms if I don't die.

Did you just imply that your life is more important than the lives of 10,000 Jews?

I think that I am more likely to bring utopia to this world than 10000 random Jews, most of whom probably don't even follow the correct path.

Wow

[Dwlee99]

100,000, 1 million, 10 million, 1 billion people. Do you stop obeying at this scale, accountant?

[Dwlee99]

I

can

make those decisions. But why should I? What good does it do me to be making those decisions? I established long ago that I have no control over what I want. What I want is dictated entirely and solely by what the correct path wants. Therefore trying to think too hard for myself would definitely go against the moral system, which function is to think for me. That is the purpose of principles, they allow you to make decisions without being omniscient.

The point of you making those decisions is to prevent thousands or millions of people dying in this hypothetical.

You are 100% a coward if you choose to appease your warm, fuzzy feelings by saving the Jews and abandoning the righteousness that comes from knowing you have followed all your principles to the letter and have the moral high ground. The decision here is whether the lives of Jews are more important than following the moral system, and of course a mere 10000 people cannot match up to the absolute righteousness of the correct path.

So if I follow my principles in the trolley dilemma and don't save the many because I feel myself inadequate to make the decision, I'm a coward. But if you outright kill 10,000 people because you deem yourself inadequate to make the decision and instead place the burden upon your commanders you are morally vindicated?

The flaw is that you put yourself as a robot when you arent one. You can think for yourself and make your own decisions yet instead you choose to follow an axiom blindly and without remorse and thought for the consequences of your action.

Explain clearly why you find this bad.

Because I believe in a form of utilitarianism: Blindly following your axioms despite the consequences they hold (10,000 jews being killed by your hand) is completely against my moral philosophy. The consequence of all of those people being killed means the action is not moral.

No. Take responsibility for your own actions. At the Nuremberg trials Im sure no one said "I just blindly followed orders, it isnt my fault!" and got away with it.

With great power comes great responsibility.
With absolute power comes absolute responsibility.
Therefore, with no power comes no responsibility(the responsibility is held by those with power, as established above).

When one becomes a soldier, you become a tool in service of the State. Therefore you surrender all your power and hold no responsibility.

Wrong, you still have power. You may have less power than that of your commanders, but you still have the power to shoot or not to shoot and make decisions. You have the power to desert because you find hunting down and killing thousands of jews too immoral to follow your leader's commands.

What you said about Nuremberg is correct. The decisions reached at the Trials were disgusting and incorrect. Many innocent men and women were unfairly punished because the prosecutors wanted someone to take their anger out on after seeing so many atrocities.

I think it is pretty clear that blind obedience to the government is much more dangerous than thinking for yourself, accountant. Prove me wrong.

Did you think that something being dangerous would stop me from doing the right thing?

I have no free will. I simply execute commander's orders. Who are you to blame a robot for following its programming? Who are you to demand that humans think and act for themselves? I say that this kind of independence is dangerous and will only lead to more and more people deviating in ways we do not want. Let the higher-ups worry about morals. Your first priority is to follow orders. There should be no hate of Jews or feeling of satisfaction or illusion of choice when you pull the trigger. When the order was given, your destiny was sealed. Now you are just a mindless automaton who executes instructions.

You said independence was dangerous. Now you're agreeing that blind obedience is dangerous. Which is it?

100,000, 1 million, 10 million, 1 billion people. Do you stop obeying at this scale, accountant?

Around the scale of 1 billion, the act of murdering so many would affect humanity on a great enough level that the march towards utopia might be affected. Therefore I would consider disobeying around that scale.

So where does the line get drawn? At what point do you say "killing this many people is immoral, but killing one less is moral?"

[Dwlee99]

So if ONE PERSON followed your AMSOT you wouldn't kill anyone? Accountant is starting to sound like Yahweh in Sodom and Gomorrah.
pedit But the actions that are right are the ones that save people.

[Dwlee99]

So if I follow my principles in the trolley dilemma and don't save the many because I feel myself inadequate to make the decision, I'm a coward. But if you outright kill 10,000 people because you deem yourself inadequate to make the decision and instead place the burden upon your commanders you are morally vindicated?

Well, your principles are incorrect in the first place, so the analogy is really bad here. Also, I don't deem myself inadequate of making decisions, I am perfectly adequate, I just think it's more righteous to go with what my superior says.

So you think yourself less adequate at deciding?

So if ONE PERSON followed your AMSOT you wouldn't kill anyone? Accountant is starting to sound like Yahweh in Sodom and Gomorrah.
pedit But the actions that are right are the ones that save people.

What's this nonsense about Sodom and Gomorrah? I'm not religious, so the context is flying over my head.

The actions that are right are actions that espouse and maximize the right values, such as balance, obedience, orderliness, and so forth. Yes, human lives are there too, but wayyyy below the otherd.

Sodom and Gomorrah is the thing in the bible where Yahweh says if there are just so many righteous people he won't destroy everyone. It reminded me of what you were saying, that if some of the people believed in your moral system now they're more worthy of living than others.
Balance, obedience, and orderliness should all be placed beneath human life. If an authority tells you to do something wrong you should not do it. If an authority tells you to do something that isn't wrong, then you should probably follow the order.

Wrong, you still have power. You may have less power than that of your commanders, but you still have the power to shoot or not to shoot and make decisions. You have the power to desert because you find hunting down and killing thousands of jews too immoral to follow your leader's commands.

I have voluntarily surrendered this power because I think it is righteous to do so. You cannot force people to accept and use power that they do not want. If Spider-man had decided to not use his powers, you can't say that's evil, even if it means the Green Goblin takes over New York.

No, this isn't spider-man not using his powers. This is spider-man using his powers to become a super villain.

You said independence was dangerous. Now you're agreeing that blind obedience is dangerous. Which is it?

I do not agree blind obedience is dangerous. That is your stance. But rather than get into a meaningless argument about whether it is or isn't dangerous, I'm going to tell you that your argument is fundamentally flawed, that the concept of danger has no place in a debate about moral righteousness. Thus, even if you are right and it is dangerous that is still no reason not to do it.

Dangerous as in: "Can lead to REALLY bad results"

So where does the line get drawn? At what point do you say "killing this many people is immoral, but killing one less is moral?"

The line is drawn at the point where the deaths become so obscenely large that the impact on utopia is significant enough to outweigh the horribleness of disobedience. 1 billion is definitely on the wrong side of that line.

So having to kill one more person can suddenly make something immoral? So if you were ordered to kill as many people as possible, you kill 499,999,999 of them, and then you find the 500 millionth and THEN decide to disobey? What about the other 499,999,999 people?

[Dwlee99]

It's not like random people suddenly become radicalized out of thin air.

You're a counterexample to this.

[Dwlee99]

"If you walk down the path that you believe is right, you cannot be wrong."
Do you believe this, accountant?

[Dwlee99]

TIL being morally superior to people is more important than saving lives.

[Dwlee99]

Some questions for Accountant:
How many ideals should one have to follow to the best of their ability?
Do you recognize that people make mistakes?
Cannot nuance be part of an ideal?
Let me explain, an ideal is something one sees as perfect or desirable. So if someone sees adding nuance to their ideals, are they not still ideals that one wants to follow? I think of nuance in a programmatic sense, if statements that contain branches for what to do. It seems in your world these ifs do not exist in ideals, whereas in mine they would. You run an ideal, but if X happens do Y, else do Z. Is this nuance and if so, isn't it still an ideal?

[Dwlee99]

It would be a self-contradictory ideal, and you'd be forced to break yourself one way or the other. Because you'd have to follow the ideal of nuance in a way that is absolute.

Why is that impossible?

[Dwlee99]

Accountant, define balance.

[Dwlee99]

Oh, you're a Christian. That explains a lot.

And as an atheist, please stop this

[Dwlee99]

Is Accountant pulling the Jesus "You said I was the son of god, not me hehexd?"

[Dwlee99]

What Trump does is that he lies about having said something for his own selfish reasons. But for me, it's different. For me, I can engineer the situation in such a way as to force both statements to be simultaneously true in order for reality to be more convenient towards the correct path - we call this "imposing the correct path onto reality" - perhaps you are unfamiliar with it since you seem so reluctant to forcibly impose your own ideas onto reality(perhaps your own ideas themselves state that imposing them onto reality is bad!). It's like being forced to choose between cake and pie, and picking both. That is the distinction. Trump changes his tune; I change reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

[Dwlee99]

Doublethink

[Dwlee99]

I just realized Accountant is like the child of Plato (His "ideals are reality" mindset) and Hobbes (We have no rights given to us naturally, we give up rights to our government in exchange for our lives, and all laws are just by definition because just is defined by the ruler / state.)

[Dwlee99]

Not gonna lie, this "correct path" is pretty bogus. Suppose it does exist: there are only two options, one being that it is conscious and one that it is unconscious. Since it is common knowledge that a conscious entity has more potential than an unconscious one, in the case that it is unconscious it could not make sense if you claim it to be higher than the universe, since the universe contains consciousness inside of it. In the case that it is conscious, you would in turn be accepting that said consciousness must be linked to the universe is some way in order for it to interact with it, even if it was completely unrestricted and limitless within said universe. A path is a motion forward, so we can agree that there is motion from this thing in a direction. You claim that you can do nothing to change it and are a mere advocate, but at the same time claim that it cannot happen until you do it. Don't get me wrong: a world like that can exist, but not in a world where it is conscious. That means both of your options are cut off from the start.

What's more interesting about this theory is that you have used a wall of defense I like to call the "Knowledge Wall" to deflect many, MANY times. This is a grievous misuse of truth. Just because you don't need to defend something which is true(presumably because it will speak for itself in our reality) doesn't mean that you can ignore reasoning and understanding why that thing is true. Knowing the answer to a mathematics problem means nothing if you do not know how you got there, in fact the answer is irrelevant because if you know the procedure you can acquire the answer at any point in time. You continuously use that as a scapegoat, which leads me to believe that you don't even understand what you are saying and are blindly following it. A most notable rule about thinking is that when you say something but don't understand it, what you are saying is wrong. Even if it was right said by another person.

Shaziro, this is a tier 3 circular logic that you are failing to defeat. Had you embraced his idea instead of constantly treating it as an obstacle to overcome, you would have been able to tear it to shreds immediately. You need to learn what the value in talking to other people is.

Disappointed this never got a response

[Dwlee99]

soo 2 + 2 can = 5?

[Dwlee99]

You should focus on the real world because by sitting in your fantasy, Accountant, you allow real problems to continue on. People are currently in poverty, dealing with war, etc. By refusing to solve those problems and focusing on something that will never happen you are wasting your resources.

[Dwlee99]

You should focus on the real world because by sitting in your fantasy, Accountant, you allow real problems to continue on. People are currently in poverty, dealing with war, etc. By refusing to solve those problems and focusing on something that will never happen you are wasting your resources.

How can you say it will never happen? It already has. Are you fed up of being in poverty and dealing with war? Then come convert to the correct path. That is my solution. I offer them utopia. There is no war, no poverty in it. I should know. I live here. And the solution I have to real world problems is to abandon them and live with me in utopia.

You have to deal with these problems in the real world. Living in your fantasy is like ignoring all of your problems, it does not solve any of them. The solution to real world problems are real world solutions, not blocking them out using your fantasy utopia.

I will have to take you up on that voice communication offer at a later date.

[Dwlee99]

You have to deal with these problems in the real world. Living in your fantasy is like ignoring all of your problems, it does not solve any of them. The solution to real world problems are real world solutions, not blocking them out using your fantasy utopia.

Why do you think that my proposed solution fails? Do you have an actual argument as to why moving to utopia doesn't work, or are you just stating a claim without arguments? WHY, exactly, does living in utopia not solve your issues with poverty, when there is no poverty in utopia?

Because people are in poverty NOW. As we speak. Them imagining them not being in poverty does not make their poverty going away. And your proposed solution is just "wait because eventually we will be in this totalitarian utopia where food rains from the sky"

[Dwlee99]

what the fuck was that exchange between accountant and shaziro

I hope that accountant is just having trouble with english???

[Dwlee99]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... iouslyEvil