Can Totalitarianism be a Moral response to climate change?

dust1n said:

I'm less worried about extinct than I am general depopulation (by not great means).

Click to expand...

Aye....I'd rather that population control be intentional than catastrophic.

It is never moral to have total control of people and their property.

Quintessence said:

I don't consider totalitarianism evil; I don't believe in good and evil.

The question to me boils down to whether or not I value the present state of biodiversity over future biodiversity (because there will be a new flowering of biodiversity millions of years down the road as a result of the human-induced sixth mass extinction).

The answer is yes. And I have no words to express how much it sickens me that my species is responsible for a sixth mass extinction. For the flourishing of the non-human world, there are no measures I would stand against.

Click to expand...

For a moral nihilist, you sure seem to be morally outraged about this.

Straw Dog said:

For a moral nihilist, you sure seem to be morally outraged about this.

Click to expand...

You'd be wrong, but if you say so. My sense of ethics is not grounded in morality (aka, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil), it's grounded in virtue (aka, personal character, values, and honor). Given how much my culture is entrenched in approaching ethics from systems of morality, it is not uncommon for people to misunderstand or conflate my approach with morality.

Quintessence said:

You'd be wrong, but if you say so.

Click to expand...

It doesn't depend on whether or not I say so. Either I'm right or I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time and it probably won't be the last.

Quintessence said:

My sense of ethics is not grounded in morality (aka, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil), it's grounded in virtue (aka, personal character, values, and honor). Given how much my culture is entrenched in approaching ethics from systems of morality, it is not uncommon for people to misunderstand or conflate my approach with morality.

Click to expand...

I don't wish to misconstrue your methods and have just been curious after reading some of your posts. I'd like to learn more about the nuances if you don't mind a few more inquiries.

Do you differentiate between the quality of characters and values? Is it right to develop a rich character? Is it right to value biodiversity and the flourishing of life? Is it wrong to value extinction?

Straw Dog said:

I don't wish to misconstrue your methods and have just been curious after reading some of your posts. I'd like to learn more about the nuances if you don't mind a few more inquiries.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I appreciate the courtesy, though I'm not sure a nuanced discussion of this really belongs in this thread.

Straw Dog said:

Do you differentiate between the quality of characters and values? Is it right to develop a rich character? Is it right to value biodiversity and the flourishing of life? Is it wrong to value extinction?

Click to expand...

If by "differentiate between quality" you mean I understand that different characters and values have different natures, then yes. If by "differentiate between quality" you mean calling some set of values ultimately "better" than some other set of values, then no. When I say I'm a moral nihilist, I mean I reject the idea that reality can be broken down into "right" and "wrong" and instead declare that reality simply is. Humans sticking normative labels on things like "better" or "worse" or "right" and "wrong" are precisely that - labels we stick on things. They're projections. It's map, not territory. It's a map of the territory I ultimately reject.

That said, there is not a human alive that doesn't make normative value judgements. When I do it, I prefer to avoid moralizing, or viewing things in black-and-white, right-vs-wrong terms. Rather than going "well, is that right or is that wrong" I ask "well, is that in keeping with your will (i.e., your honor, virtues, values, whatever) or isn't it?" And a callous disregard for the nonhuman world is definitely not in keeping with my values. Anthropocentrism is probably the cardinal sin of my sense of virtue. Than doesn't make me "right" or "wrong," it is just how I live my life. It just is.

Quintessence said:

Not at all. I appreciate the courtesy, though I'm not sure a nuanced discussion of this really belongs in this thread.



If by "differentiate between quality" you mean I understand that different characters and values have different natures, then yes. If by "differentiate between quality" you mean calling some set of values ultimately "better" than some other set of values, then no. When I say I'm a moral nihilist, I mean I reject the idea that reality can be broken down into "right" and "wrong" and instead declare that reality simply is. Humans sticking normative labels on things like "better" or "worse" or "right" and "wrong" are precisely that - labels we stick on things. They're projections. It's map, not territory. It's a map of the territory I ultimately reject.

That said, there is not a human alive that doesn't make normative value judgements. When I do it, I prefer to avoid moralizing, or viewing things in black-and-white, right-vs-wrong terms. Rather than going "well, is that right or is that wrong" I ask "well, is that in keeping with your will (i.e., your honor, virtues, values, whatever) or isn't it?" And a callous disregard for the nonhuman world is definitely not in keeping with my values. Anthropocentrism is probably the cardinal sin of my sense of virtue. Than doesn't make me "right" or "wrong," it is just how I live my life. It just is.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested to see a thread on Moral Nihilism. It's often an undercurrent in Anarchism and Communism I've found in so far both of them reject preexisting moral systems as an emancipatory belief system, but it generally seems to be misrepresented rather than understood. I haven't been able to find books that deal with nihilism from the perspective of the nihilist. it would be good to hear what its like as an ethical way of thinking to live by. How do you respond to the paradox of nihilism (that asserting no objective value constitutes a value in itself?)

The fundamental problem is that short-term interests override any long term concerns regardless of the type of government we have. Even if a totalitarian government with a strong environmental ideology was established with I doubt it would take long for vested interests to come into play. It's also likely that any such government would spawn violent opposition and eventually destabilise.

Human nature depresses me.

Quintessence said:

That said, there is not a human alive that doesn't make normative value judgements. When I do it, I prefer to avoid moralizing, or viewing things in black-and-white, right-vs-wrong terms. Rather than going "well, is that right or is that wrong" I ask "well, is that in keeping with your will (i.e., your honor, virtues, values, whatever) or isn't it?" And a callous disregard for the nonhuman world is definitely not in keeping with my values. Anthropocentrism is probably the cardinal sin of my sense of virtue. Than doesn't make me "right" or "wrong," it is just how I live my life. It just is.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. As a moral skeptic in my own way, I can relate to your views. I'd love to discuss the nuances another time in another thread.