Are land rights the point where utilitarianism fails? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/land-ownership-and-hypocrisy?RUclips&
Great observation. There is only power. Those whom it is imposed upon and those who wield it. Moral philosophy and ethics are often done in a vacuum that does not take into account history and sociology . Often when I hear these arguments like Singer's I wonder what brutal truth they are trying to not confront(Hierarchical civilizations need slaves and genocide) or marginalize to such an extent that its consideration is not the philosophical purview.
0:49 There always are secondary unintended consequences. So such a linear approach in reality does not hold. Second: it is a mistake to call consequences which are mechanical a moral attribute. Twice mistaken takes you off the board as a philosopher. Utalitarian or not.
Tommy is completely correct. Peter's will not be able to fathom the possibility of working with earth because his brain is wired to obey law. Tommy is a philosopher and Peter is an algorithmist.
I posit that the first evil is when people allow themselves to be victims of organized evil knowingly or unknowingly, and it is the collective mindest of the masses of dim-witted sheeple - the majority of society - that collectively makes a decision to allow themselves to be victimized as a collective. It is a tyranny of the ignorant and foolish masses, the first evil that opens the gate for more evil. And as history has shown the wiser and more rational in the minority are ignored and sometimes persecuted for warning of and pointing out the collective madness, irrationality, and ignorance of the masses.
Science is rigor and not inherently dehumanising. You can be rigorous about ethics too. a) survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals b) truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals c) sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals d) reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization
I think there's a fallacy made when making the claim that indigenous rights are the antithesis to the ideology of brute force. Without property rights, the only claims to land are made by force. It's not a position that validates tribal peoples claim to land to argue that brute force was used to acquire it. I guess the simplest way to put this is if you don't have any concept of property rights, your things can be stolen as soon as someone makes a claim to it, and resolving those claims peacefully through signals and documentation is the innovation that Westerners brought to certain areas of the world that didn't previously have an idea about property rights.
@@onlynormalperson I don't see how your response is related to whether or not claims to land by indigenous peoples aren't made by brute force in the absence of property rights. I could make a different argument for a claim to land that doesn't involve property rights but tribal boundaries are determined by physical force and making the argument that force invalidates a claim to property invalidates an indigenous claim to land.
@@onlynormalperson Well, there are the numerous historical accounts from indigenous people themselves of the many wars they fought amongst various tribes that involved invasion and taking their enemies' land. You might want to look into some history and not a priori so much.
@Nerval-kg9sm and there are plenty of accounts of parents taking their child from another parent through violence but we still don't recognize a parent having stewardship of their child as being rooted in violence, so I'm not sure what your point is.
I think our ancestors get a bad wrap. Just look at the news now. What stories float to the top? All of the horror and chaos - painting the world as a more hostile place than it actually is. I suspect the way humans transcribed history in writing is very much the same. Without documented footage, we'll never know if society is as barbaric as what's claimed. Historians disagree on events from a few decades ago. How can we be sure of anything hundreds of years ago
“The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation ended all these silly “fixed ideas “ 180 years ago: try to keep up, dear ‘ philosophers.’ Stop the rot/ babble.
I wonder what Tommy's view on Israel would be because historically they have some claim to the land, yes they did push people out which is wrong, but if you're against Israel's claim to the land surely you'd have to be against other groups who claim historical ownership.
the problem in that case is that both Israelis and Palestinians are descendants of people who lived there long ago. Nor are Palestinians the ones who pushed the Hebrews into exile - that was the Romans after the Jewish revolts (although the Romans, and later Byzantines, Arabs, and Ottomans, did allow a Jewish minority to reside there). I think the bigger problem is for American zionists who think that the ancient Hebrew kingdom justifies the existence of Israel while they live on land historically inhabited by Native Americans.
Yes you make good points, historically women were denied the right to own property or inherit wealth as it was transferred to husbands under marriage, leading to financial dependence. Similarly, under Sharia law today daughters earn half the inheritance of sons so surely that will affect property rights too.
Of course indigenous land was settled.. fully settled, was Mabo imaginary too…. boundaries clearly marked, each tribe recognised, same as Peter’s council boundary fence down to last centimetre. wtf ..wow that’s fantastic.. Would Peter prefer tribes sat comfy in one spot hoping to be fed & polluting surroundings of pristine Eden for those later to inherit ?
Singer’s consequentialist utilitarianism proceeds without a self-consistent philosophy of mind, for introspection and therefore reflective reasoning would not operate in his forward-thinking conceit of a theory.
“Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”, -a book- John of Patmos, 96 CE. Always been that way always will. Can’t Wait!
@@peachtreeministries1890 A Revelation is first person only, anything after that is hearsay written or spoken. Even Isaac Newton’s 300+pages on Daniel/ Revelation was a complete waste of time.
if you were from ancient Greece, I'm sure you'd have some interesting things to say about copulating with Children and how time won't change that either.....
We can all agree that what the settlers did was horrible but we do need to be forward looking. It's not feasible for every non-indigenous person to just leave at this stage. If the English didn't settle here then some other nation would have shortly after. The settlement could have been much more peaceful but unfortunately it is not possible to undo that damage. We need to be realistic and think of ways to keep the aboriginal culture alive and protect their rights to land while also making sure Australia is economically prosperous and safe. It is not a good time in this global climate for our country to be weak economically or militarily and that really needs to be priority. With the rise of AI and robotics the whole world is about to change drastically and issues relating to this is just simply more important than most things if we're thinking long term.
Ironically before the English the West Africans traveled here and traded with the indigenous group lol. Look into the travels of Abu Bakr and the metals he brought to South America. So your theory is slightly flawed
No concrete consistent sound evidences nor concrete consistent sound academic scholarly work from specialist in relevant fields of inquiry that illustrate the accuracy of some pre Colombian Malian settlement in the Americas , its Pseudo history
You really are afraid. You guys think AI and robotics are something that should be invested in like the movie Wall-E? Short term thinkers that are willing to destroy the earth. Crashing out is the “hood” term for that behavior. Good luck
@@chrisking1986 It is indeed an ahistorical view, you are correct. I'm not concerned with people who looked like me. They could have looked like sasquatches for all I care. What matters is the well-being of living beings. Of all living beings, not some racial majority.
i dont think that does justice to Curry's point. The issue is that historical Europeans presupposed the separation of peoples and used that to create a system of differential rights that lead to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Now, a few generations later, the descendants of Europeans use their current demographic majority to justify not rectifying those historical mistakes according to some supposedly universalist ethics. I dont know if I'm entirely with Curry on this, but we should do his view justice.
@@sankarchaya My characterisation fits perfectly with what you said. You're assuming difference in your very framing. Humans did things to humans, and some humans ended up in a more advantageous position than other humans. This is the state of the world at any point in time. Pick any point in history, any day of the week, any place on Earth, and this is the case.
@@Jacob-Vivimord I'm not assuming difference, the political and economic institutions as they currently exist are grounded in these historically conditioned hierarchies. Hence the impoverishment and cultural marginalization of existing indigenous communities in Australia, the US, Canada, etc. It's a matter of trans-generational goalpost shifting that empowers some at the expense of others.
Are land rights the point where utilitarianism fails? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/land-ownership-and-hypocrisy?RUclips&
Dr Curry is absolutely correct
All too often throughout human history, might makes right. Moral justifications are just an afterthought.
Well said.
That's how it's been, but that doesn't make it right. You can't derive an ought from an is. Common fallacy
@@jkabrams341 Agreed
Great observation. There is only power. Those whom it is imposed upon and those who wield it. Moral philosophy and ethics are often done in a vacuum that does not take into account history and sociology . Often when I hear these arguments like Singer's I wonder what brutal truth they are trying to not confront(Hierarchical civilizations need slaves and genocide) or marginalize to such an extent that its consideration is not the philosophical purview.
Where is the full interview?
Curry is a titan.
0:49 There always are secondary unintended consequences. So such a linear approach in reality does not hold.
Second: it is a mistake to call consequences which are mechanical a moral attribute.
Twice mistaken takes you off the board as a philosopher. Utalitarian or not.
Tommy is completely correct. Peter's will not be able to fathom the possibility of working with earth because his brain is wired to obey law. Tommy is a philosopher and Peter is an algorithmist.
Well said
Where can I find this entire conversation
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/land-ownership-and-hypocrisy?RUclips& :)
Would love to listen to full commentary, unfortunately have to join & pay, struth sorry what !
evil begins when you start treating people like objects instead of people
You mean like science does 😂
Sounds like a nonsense aphorism. Forget the likes. Not everything has to be pithy.
I posit that the first evil is when people allow themselves to be victims of organized evil knowingly or unknowingly, and it is the collective mindest of the masses of dim-witted sheeple - the majority of society - that collectively makes a decision to allow themselves to be victimized as a collective. It is a tyranny of the ignorant and foolish masses, the first evil that opens the gate for more evil. And as history has shown the wiser and more rational in the minority are ignored and sometimes persecuted for warning of and pointing out the collective madness, irrationality, and ignorance of the masses.
Science is rigor and not inherently dehumanising. You can be rigorous about ethics too.
a) survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals
b) truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals
c) sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals
d) reciprocity is a prerequisite for civilization
We are all objects in one sense though
As an Australian I am embarrassed by Singer.
Singer is a joke! Pure nonsense
Enclosure was, and remains, a crime against humanity. Everyone has the right to wander the Earth freely and settle anywhere anyone else may settle.
Go Tommy Go!
The moderator looks like Greg Pop.
I think there's a fallacy made when making the claim that indigenous rights are the antithesis to the ideology of brute force. Without property rights, the only claims to land are made by force. It's not a position that validates tribal peoples claim to land to argue that brute force was used to acquire it.
I guess the simplest way to put this is if you don't have any concept of property rights, your things can be stolen as soon as someone makes a claim to it, and resolving those claims peacefully through signals and documentation is the innovation that Westerners brought to certain areas of the world that didn't previously have an idea about property rights.
Parent's have a claim to their children. A child isn't property and the relationship is hopefully not based in brute force.
@@onlynormalperson I don't see how your response is related to whether or not claims to land by indigenous peoples aren't made by brute force in the absence of property rights. I could make a different argument for a claim to land that doesn't involve property rights but tribal boundaries are determined by physical force and making the argument that force invalidates a claim to property invalidates an indigenous claim to land.
@@ErinMagner82 how do you know tribal claims are determined by physical force?
@@onlynormalperson Well, there are the numerous historical accounts from indigenous people themselves of the many wars they fought amongst various tribes that involved invasion and taking their enemies' land. You might want to look into some history and not a priori so much.
@Nerval-kg9sm and there are plenty of accounts of parents taking their child from another parent through violence but we still don't recognize a parent having stewardship of their child as being rooted in violence, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Let’s be fair, murder won’t get you very far in modern society. I’m not my ancestors.
I think our ancestors get a bad wrap. Just look at the news now. What stories float to the top? All of the horror and chaos - painting the world as a more hostile place than it actually is. I suspect the way humans transcribed history in writing is very much the same. Without documented footage, we'll never know if society is as barbaric as what's claimed. Historians disagree on events from a few decades ago. How can we be sure of anything hundreds of years ago
The Palestinians are being genocided at this very second. Murder will get you very far in modern times.
Fair point. However to me it’s like buying meat and being against killing animals. You may not have killed the animal but you benefit from the death.
yes utilitarianism has failed in many ways.
“The Unique and Its Property “, Max Stirner,1844/2017 Landstreicher translation ended all these silly “fixed ideas “ 180 years ago: try to keep up, dear ‘ philosophers.’ Stop the rot/ babble.
I wonder what Tommy's view on Israel would be because historically they have some claim to the land, yes they did push people out which is wrong, but if you're against Israel's claim to the land surely you'd have to be against other groups who claim historical ownership.
the problem in that case is that both Israelis and Palestinians are descendants of people who lived there long ago. Nor are Palestinians the ones who pushed the Hebrews into exile - that was the Romans after the Jewish revolts (although the Romans, and later Byzantines, Arabs, and Ottomans, did allow a Jewish minority to reside there).
I think the bigger problem is for American zionists who think that the ancient Hebrew kingdom justifies the existence of Israel while they live on land historically inhabited by Native Americans.
Yes you make good points, historically women were denied the right to own property or inherit wealth as it was transferred to husbands under marriage, leading to financial dependence. Similarly, under Sharia law today daughters earn half the inheritance of sons so surely that will affect property rights too.
He has written about Israeli occupation and genocide against Palestinians
@@AP-pk6mk in what article?
Of course indigenous land was settled.. fully settled, was Mabo imaginary too….
boundaries clearly marked, each tribe recognised, same as Peter’s council boundary fence down to last centimetre. wtf ..wow that’s fantastic..
Would Peter prefer tribes sat comfy in one spot hoping to be fed & polluting surroundings of pristine Eden for those later to inherit ?
Singer’s consequentialist utilitarianism proceeds without a self-consistent philosophy of mind, for introspection and therefore reflective reasoning would not operate in his forward-thinking conceit of a theory.
@@shehrosemian lol it's like you just discovered intellectualism and are trying to cram as much wordy phrasing as possible
@@phillystevesteak6982Nice argument. Nice heart.
Maybe you could discover manners today.
The correct grammar for your comment would be “it’s as if you just discovered…”
“Might is Right “, - a book- Ragnar Redbeard,1896. Always been that way always will. Grow up.
“Revelation 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”, -a book- John of Patmos, 96 CE.
Always been that way always will. Can’t Wait!
@@peachtreeministries1890 A Revelation is first person only, anything after that is hearsay written or spoken. Even Isaac Newton’s 300+pages on Daniel/ Revelation was a complete waste of time.
if you were from ancient Greece, I'm sure you'd have some interesting things to say about copulating with Children and how time won't change that either.....
We can all agree that what the settlers did was horrible but we do need to be forward looking. It's not feasible for every non-indigenous person to just leave at this stage. If the English didn't settle here then some other nation would have shortly after. The settlement could have been much more peaceful but unfortunately it is not possible to undo that damage. We need to be realistic and think of ways to keep the aboriginal culture alive and protect their rights to land while also making sure Australia is economically prosperous and safe. It is not a good time in this global climate for our country to be weak economically or militarily and that really needs to be priority. With the rise of AI and robotics the whole world is about to change drastically and issues relating to this is just simply more important than most things if we're thinking long term.
Ironically before the English the West Africans traveled here and traded with the indigenous group lol. Look into the travels of Abu Bakr and the metals he brought to South America. So your theory is slightly flawed
No concrete consistent sound evidences nor concrete consistent sound academic scholarly work from specialist in relevant fields of inquiry that illustrate the accuracy of some pre Colombian Malian settlement in the Americas , its Pseudo history
You really are afraid. You guys think AI and robotics are something that should be invested in like the movie Wall-E? Short term thinkers that are willing to destroy the earth. Crashing out is the “hood” term for that behavior. Good luck
None of those people exist anymore. Stop looking for something to get you in front of a camera.
Separation between peoples is built-in to Tommy's conception, here. There's only people, not peoples. We are all equivalent.
That's an ahistorical view. People who look like you have made a bunch of rules for other people that created inequality.
@@chrisking1986 It is indeed an ahistorical view, you are correct. I'm not concerned with people who looked like me. They could have looked like sasquatches for all I care. What matters is the well-being of living beings. Of all living beings, not some racial majority.
i dont think that does justice to Curry's point. The issue is that historical Europeans presupposed the separation of peoples and used that to create a system of differential rights that lead to genocide and ethnic cleansing. Now, a few generations later, the descendants of Europeans use their current demographic majority to justify not rectifying those historical mistakes according to some supposedly universalist ethics.
I dont know if I'm entirely with Curry on this, but we should do his view justice.
@@sankarchaya My characterisation fits perfectly with what you said. You're assuming difference in your very framing. Humans did things to humans, and some humans ended up in a more advantageous position than other humans. This is the state of the world at any point in time. Pick any point in history, any day of the week, any place on Earth, and this is the case.
@@Jacob-Vivimord I'm not assuming difference, the political and economic institutions as they currently exist are grounded in these historically conditioned hierarchies. Hence the impoverishment and cultural marginalization of existing indigenous communities in Australia, the US, Canada, etc. It's a matter of trans-generational goalpost shifting that empowers some at the expense of others.
Try to take the land back. If you cannot without going extinct. Enjoy it the best you can or move. Nature is metal.