I think you're overplaying the difference here, because there's a category difference. Your point is about psychology, while the realist's point isn't.
Let me first state that moral non-realism is fake and gay. Given that it's in the lion's nature to eat antelopes, a lion that consistently does this is objectively better than some sickly lion that can't and has to eat the leftovers of his betters. "B-but maybe the strong lion isn't objectively better, it's a s-social construct" is the wordcel bullshitter move. We instinctively like the strong lion (horse) better because it IS better. To the extent we like the weak one, it's because we feel pity because we recognize its inferiority.
(And yes, moral intuitions might differ, but a lot of realists don't rely on intuitions at all.)
However, that's still pretty abstract and doesn't automatically translate into psychology or social organization. But it should be said that Aristotle is likely the guy that made the most efforts to translate his moral framework into some sort of psychology.
And that's why I think it doesn't enter into conflict with your game-theoretic honor framework all that much. Given that human nature truly work as you describe, then we could say that human society truly should be organized as you described. You're already making claims about human nature, which you likely think are true, and deriving consequences from them. It's already pretty close to the "natural law" method.
All that said, you're right that there's a tension between the very general nature of the realist framework and the very embedded and particular duties and interests of any actual agent. But that doesn't mean that it's only for preference manipulation; I think it's also very useful to give us a shared grammar to partake in the very talks and negotiations you're proposing.
Lol. Moral realism scales just fine, typically by “dishonorably” shredding apart its enemies. Your intersubjective pluralist multiculturalism is the administrative philosophy of decaying empires, not revolutionary movements, you are Ottomanmaxxing. Which is fine, but Sultan Mehmood conquered less land than the Rightfully Guided Caliphs. Taqbir!!
I have hung out a lot in radical-right circles (obviously not as much as you, curious to your perspective) and if there is any social environment full of backstabbing, petty infighting, gossip and betrayal, my God. Also complete lack of genuine patriotism, the number of people I met whose money came from Israel, Hungary, Russia, or even China… It’s not a transactional honor culture at all. By comparison, neoliberal centrists and EAs are infinitely more reliable, willing to “disagree but commit”, explicitly negotiate, etc.
I think foreclosing universalist claims for particularist interests would be a massive self-own for groups that have the weaker hand in hard power terms. E.g., check this ( https://youtu.be/xhH6CON3SD8?is=PhJJtt_RquvFwMSq) or “Kollo Lena” by Zeyne, or “Jerusalem Freestyle” by Saint Levant. I have never seen any white nationalist music (let alone zionist music, which is trashy kitch) that comes close to this standard. Zeyne effectively connects the political cause of her people to broader pan-Arab identity, Islam, moral universalism, appealing to both progressivism and reactionary sentiments, it’s just incredibly clever and well-done. Meanwhile, EU rightists have “Ausländer raus”, it never escapes the cynical and memey.
Many hardcore EAs, really deep in movement coordination are moral anti-realists. They are willingly imposing their preferred view of the universe upon the world. Having a strong moral framework gives them permission to act and a close-knit, strongly aligned group, which lets them do cool things like founding Anthropic, adventures like travelling to rural Vietnam and stay on the ground for months to work with shrimp farmers or sexy dangerous activities like breaking in factory farm gas chambers with video cameras. Meanwhile, most of the BAP-worshipping Nietzsche steppe warrior guys just go to the gym, and make racist jokes and talk about crypto, while safeguarding their small pockets of wealth. It’s lame scarcity mindset surivival values third world shopowner-life, EA is objectively way more aristocratic.
Great piece. I’m not a moral realist, but I think it’s pretty firmly embedded in human psychology and most people can’t cope with any ethical framework in which morality isn’t metaphysically and axiomatically true. Lots of guillotining required! I think compromise between conflicting moral claims ultimately produces many of your same ends regardless, if perhaps less smoothly.
Walt, you're a pretty clever gent, but no. Honor is a species of virtue, virtue is transcendental, transcendentals are the creature of metaphysics, one's "metaphysical dream of the world" is the highest cause of all. Next stop? Get ready! God. Who is pure act and being. Being and becoming. Aristotle and Aquinas and a bunch of others) are way ahead of you. Still, what you have written gives me hope for your beautiful soul.
So it has always been. That is judged by a standard. There is no pure praxis that guarantees outcomes that, then, can claim moral equivalency or virtual supremacy. I think this essay is a marvelous swan-dive into an empty pool. All that, just so you can live the way you want and call it victory? Yeah, not buying it.
This argument has a problem. If morality is a fake flex, why is there a moral imperative to demonstrate true motives? By your own logic that itself is a fake flex. But then again, maybe you know this. You know I know you know I know this kind of post maybe. Hmm.
I don't believe that you are actually against moral realism. Your description of "inter-subjective honor framework" sounds identical to moral realism. It seems this article is just a sneaky way to troll tzeentch-maxxed wordcels.
> truths, of course, can’t be haggled over, which means each and every realist demand arrives pre-hardened and non-negotiable in principle....
> And an honest counterparty cannot negotiate with someone who has hidden his interests even from himself.
is arguably - I can't quite put the argument together, but - *exactly* why any concept of morality exists in the first place, psychologically or culturally. it's a winning strategy to be less reasonable, less arguable-with, and thereby force others in any sort of argument to cede ground.
(also to tar people who disagree with you with the label of 'bad people,' which non-moralized disagreement doesn't do? i can't make these pieces fit together yet, but clearly also a winning strategy move.)
One of the primary lessons learned in the business environment is that performance is not everything being able to access the right decision-makers is. In too many cases, companies assume that doing well at the execution stage is enough. While this can be true in some situations, the decision-making takes place at another level when visibility, trust, and alignment are just as important as the performance itself.
Forming an open line of communication and building a relationship directly with the individuals who make the calls is not a matter of circumventing processes. this is making sure that the value of the work done is properly communicated to the right people. The decision-makers will assess the risks, scalability, and viability not the daily performance. If they do not know you personally, they are making their decisions without proper context.
In order to succeed, one should take into account these considerations and implement them into a strategy. In highly competitive business settings, it will be decided not by how well things have been done. but by the positioning in the decision-making process.
I think you're overplaying the difference here, because there's a category difference. Your point is about psychology, while the realist's point isn't.
Let me first state that moral non-realism is fake and gay. Given that it's in the lion's nature to eat antelopes, a lion that consistently does this is objectively better than some sickly lion that can't and has to eat the leftovers of his betters. "B-but maybe the strong lion isn't objectively better, it's a s-social construct" is the wordcel bullshitter move. We instinctively like the strong lion (horse) better because it IS better. To the extent we like the weak one, it's because we feel pity because we recognize its inferiority.
(And yes, moral intuitions might differ, but a lot of realists don't rely on intuitions at all.)
However, that's still pretty abstract and doesn't automatically translate into psychology or social organization. But it should be said that Aristotle is likely the guy that made the most efforts to translate his moral framework into some sort of psychology.
And that's why I think it doesn't enter into conflict with your game-theoretic honor framework all that much. Given that human nature truly work as you describe, then we could say that human society truly should be organized as you described. You're already making claims about human nature, which you likely think are true, and deriving consequences from them. It's already pretty close to the "natural law" method.
All that said, you're right that there's a tension between the very general nature of the realist framework and the very embedded and particular duties and interests of any actual agent. But that doesn't mean that it's only for preference manipulation; I think it's also very useful to give us a shared grammar to partake in the very talks and negotiations you're proposing.
Lol. Moral realism scales just fine, typically by “dishonorably” shredding apart its enemies. Your intersubjective pluralist multiculturalism is the administrative philosophy of decaying empires, not revolutionary movements, you are Ottomanmaxxing. Which is fine, but Sultan Mehmood conquered less land than the Rightfully Guided Caliphs. Taqbir!!
guy who dates jewesses vs guy who dates mena baddies
Fair enough ahhaha. Couple of reflections though.
I have hung out a lot in radical-right circles (obviously not as much as you, curious to your perspective) and if there is any social environment full of backstabbing, petty infighting, gossip and betrayal, my God. Also complete lack of genuine patriotism, the number of people I met whose money came from Israel, Hungary, Russia, or even China… It’s not a transactional honor culture at all. By comparison, neoliberal centrists and EAs are infinitely more reliable, willing to “disagree but commit”, explicitly negotiate, etc.
I think foreclosing universalist claims for particularist interests would be a massive self-own for groups that have the weaker hand in hard power terms. E.g., check this ( https://youtu.be/xhH6CON3SD8?is=PhJJtt_RquvFwMSq) or “Kollo Lena” by Zeyne, or “Jerusalem Freestyle” by Saint Levant. I have never seen any white nationalist music (let alone zionist music, which is trashy kitch) that comes close to this standard. Zeyne effectively connects the political cause of her people to broader pan-Arab identity, Islam, moral universalism, appealing to both progressivism and reactionary sentiments, it’s just incredibly clever and well-done. Meanwhile, EU rightists have “Ausländer raus”, it never escapes the cynical and memey.
Many hardcore EAs, really deep in movement coordination are moral anti-realists. They are willingly imposing their preferred view of the universe upon the world. Having a strong moral framework gives them permission to act and a close-knit, strongly aligned group, which lets them do cool things like founding Anthropic, adventures like travelling to rural Vietnam and stay on the ground for months to work with shrimp farmers or sexy dangerous activities like breaking in factory farm gas chambers with video cameras. Meanwhile, most of the BAP-worshipping Nietzsche steppe warrior guys just go to the gym, and make racist jokes and talk about crypto, while safeguarding their small pockets of wealth. It’s lame scarcity mindset surivival values third world shopowner-life, EA is objectively way more aristocratic.
Great piece. I’m not a moral realist, but I think it’s pretty firmly embedded in human psychology and most people can’t cope with any ethical framework in which morality isn’t metaphysically and axiomatically true. Lots of guillotining required! I think compromise between conflicting moral claims ultimately produces many of your same ends regardless, if perhaps less smoothly.
Cool but if moralfagging gets guys pussy why shouldnt they do it
Walt, you're a pretty clever gent, but no. Honor is a species of virtue, virtue is transcendental, transcendentals are the creature of metaphysics, one's "metaphysical dream of the world" is the highest cause of all. Next stop? Get ready! God. Who is pure act and being. Being and becoming. Aristotle and Aquinas and a bunch of others) are way ahead of you. Still, what you have written gives me hope for your beautiful soul.
In this context, "honor" is meant as something closer to reputation.
So it has always been. That is judged by a standard. There is no pure praxis that guarantees outcomes that, then, can claim moral equivalency or virtual supremacy. I think this essay is a marvelous swan-dive into an empty pool. All that, just so you can live the way you want and call it victory? Yeah, not buying it.
This argument has a problem. If morality is a fake flex, why is there a moral imperative to demonstrate true motives? By your own logic that itself is a fake flex. But then again, maybe you know this. You know I know you know I know this kind of post maybe. Hmm.
because it’s adaptive
there’s no normative content
I don't believe that you are actually against moral realism. Your description of "inter-subjective honor framework" sounds identical to moral realism. It seems this article is just a sneaky way to troll tzeentch-maxxed wordcels.
Well there's always the case of deriving an ought from an is by implying the very framework of existence prior to observation rests upon it
> truths, of course, can’t be haggled over, which means each and every realist demand arrives pre-hardened and non-negotiable in principle....
> And an honest counterparty cannot negotiate with someone who has hidden his interests even from himself.
is arguably - I can't quite put the argument together, but - *exactly* why any concept of morality exists in the first place, psychologically or culturally. it's a winning strategy to be less reasonable, less arguable-with, and thereby force others in any sort of argument to cede ground.
(also to tar people who disagree with you with the label of 'bad people,' which non-moralized disagreement doesn't do? i can't make these pieces fit together yet, but clearly also a winning strategy move.)
One of the primary lessons learned in the business environment is that performance is not everything being able to access the right decision-makers is. In too many cases, companies assume that doing well at the execution stage is enough. While this can be true in some situations, the decision-making takes place at another level when visibility, trust, and alignment are just as important as the performance itself.
Forming an open line of communication and building a relationship directly with the individuals who make the calls is not a matter of circumventing processes. this is making sure that the value of the work done is properly communicated to the right people. The decision-makers will assess the risks, scalability, and viability not the daily performance. If they do not know you personally, they are making their decisions without proper context.
In order to succeed, one should take into account these considerations and implement them into a strategy. In highly competitive business settings, it will be decided not by how well things have been done. but by the positioning in the decision-making process.
I sense a grand irony within the essay.