Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

Call it whatever you want; won't change a thing.

[T S O]

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

I prefer not to use that word. It's very loaded. A better phrase would be paraconsistent thinking.

I fucking love this.

[Accountant]

Thank you.

[Shaziro]

I think he was saying he loves it because he finds it mockable, Accountant.

[Accountant]

Okay.

[Not_Mafia]

How come you hate trade unions?

[T S O]

Accountant loves trade unions. I have influenced his beliefs, so I know this.

[Accountant]

How come you hate trade unions?

Responsible for strikes. Hate strikes. And protests.

[Not_Mafia]

What negotiation rights should workers have?

[Accountant]

Ones that involve talking and not public protests

[Shaziro]

Right so this thread p. much died after Accountant claimed to be God, let's revive it! Accountant, can there be a sliding scale between directly opposite of your ideals and directly on your ideals? If so, is that not nuance? You have stated before you hate nuance and see nuance as the problem with all other ideals.

[Accountant]

First of all, I never claimed to be God. Second of all, nuance exists in the real world - that we cannot deny. However, I have said that I think a nuanced approach to the world is extremely flawed and a bad way to go about things. A nuanced approach might lead one to say things like "oh, this thing is almost on the correct path, even if it's not quite on it. Since it's almost on the correct path, that's good enough for me!" when we should really be going "I don't care if it's close, the fact is that it's not on the correct path and must be re-educated. The position on the sliding scale merely determines how much effort we have to put in to make sure it's compatible". Hence, the declaration:

I'll give you two.

[On the correct path] and [not on the correct path].

[Shaziro]

Why is there only one "Correct path" and not two, or more? To assume there is only one proper path is to assume that every single minute facet and action in life changes the outcome in some perceptible way.

[Accountant]

Why is there only one "Correct path" and not two, or more? To assume there is only one proper path is to assume that every single minute facet and action in life changes the outcome in some perceptible way.

There's only one correct path because there's only one right thing to do. For instance, suppose you were faced with the trolley problem. There can only be one right answer, right? There can't be two "most moral" actions, precisely because of the meaning of the word "most" itself, and it's pretty obvious that you should always seek to do the "most moral" thing.

[Shaziro]

Yes, but whether I eat a slice of melon or a slice of tomato is not really a moral quandary, yet you might find tomato more ideal than melon.

[Accountant]

Yes, but whether I eat a slice of melon or a slice of tomato is not really a moral quandary, yet you might find tomato more ideal than melon.

Eating fruit is not a moral issue; it's not covered by the correct path in the first place, but by your own personal preferences.

(Or, to be even more precise, the correct path

does

cover it, but in an indirect way: the correct path says "in situations like this, the correct action is to act on your personal preference". And thus for me if I like tomato, I'll eat tomato - if I ate melon even though I liked it less, that would be incorrect, and would show that there was something fundamentally sick, twisted and wrong with me.)

[Accountant]

Don't interpret that as "anyone who eats melon is sick and twisted". What I mean is that anyone who chooses to eat melon over tomato even though they like tomato better, or vice versa, is screwed in the head.

[Shaziro]

Okay, but what if you like tomato less, but tomato is more healthy for you?

[Accountant]

Okay, but what if you like tomato less, but tomato is more healthy for you?

Then the correct path instructs you, once again, to act on your personal preference.

Tomato: yuck, healthy
Melon: tasty, unhealthy

Now, you go into your mind and check your personal preferences, utility function, whatever: the thing that helps you make decisions depending on which outcomes are more preferable. And you ask it something like "which is better: tastiness, or healthiness"?

[Shaziro]

But doesn't your health change your ability to be productive in some ways? Furthermore, how would you react if I managed to prove that some preference of yours is morally bad?

[Accountant]

But doesn't your health change your ability to be productive in some ways? Furthermore, how would you react if I managed to prove that some preference of yours is morally bad?

I don't see what the first has to do with anything. For the second, the correct path order "do not do morally bad things" supersedes the order "do things in accordance to your personal preference", in the same way that a General's order supersedes a Sargeant's(I've used this metaphor many times because it's so applicable to my philosophy).

[Shaziro]

Ok, so if I prove that one of your preferences, which you have acted in accordance to, was actually morally wrong...what?

Also, I prefer the saying "A Sergeant in motion outranks everyone"

[Accountant]

Ok, so if I prove that one of your preferences, which you have acted in accordance to, was actually morally wrong...what?

Also, I prefer the saying "A Sergeant in motion outranks everyone"

Then I'd not do it, even if it was my preference.

[Annadog40]

"in situations like this, the correct action is to act on your personal preference".

What about in cases where you don't like tomatoes but need the nutrition out of a tomato?

[Accountant]

Do you prefer having nutrition or not having nutrition?