Submitted by TuvixWasMurderedR1P t3_yd1jb3 in philosophy
Mkwdr t1_itpjoyu wrote
It sometimes seems easier to say ‘something must be done’ than come up with concrete individual actions. It’s arguable whether throwing soup at a painting has more practical effect than helping others through charity. Obviously it sends what specific problems you seek to alleviate. And saying that is not the equivalent of saying we should do nothing.
The problem with ‘overthrow the whole system and put in my ideologically pure alternative’ is that it tends to be undemocratic ( but for their own good because they are too stupid, evil or brainwashed to know what good for them of course) and all ideologies tend to have unintended consequences when faced with real life that may be worse than the one overthrown (and often the intended methods are morally suspect.) We undoubtedly should be far more sceptical about capitalism and no doubt there is much that should be done to reform it, but we should treat exhortations to overthrow it with the same scepticism.
Also I’d point out that Singer claiming human nature is not as pliable as Marx believed doesn’t seem to be the same as saying it’s entirely fixed so his argument for manageable personal action is not really contradictory in substance despite the mention of fashion. He seems to be saying that you can’t successfully change a whole economic system in a way that clashes with human nature but you might be able to work within in it to alleviate the problems.
glass_superman t1_itpthts wrote
>He seems to be saying that you can’t successfully change a whole economic system in a way that clashes with human nature but you might be able to work within in it to alleviate the problems.
It is kind of a ridiculous way of thinking on Singer's part, though. He suggests that our current system of capitalism can't be changed, though it's only 250 years old and came into being exactly as a change in economic system that no one thought could change.
So he suggests instead charity, which has been around for thousands of years and has yet to solve poverty.
If anything, a change in the economic system is more frequent (a few times in recorded history) than charity's ability to solve poverty (thousands of years, still no success). Yet he claims that the latter is more likely to work?
Tinac4 t1_itpw3yy wrote
Singer doesn't advocate for giving to charity because he thinks it'll miraculously solve poverty--he advocates for it because it simply makes the world a better place. If you lived in a hypothetical world where you knew that you couldn't personally accomplish any political changes, and you saw a child drowning in a nearby lake, would you jump in and rescue them, or would you continue walking because saving the kid wouldn't solve any of the systemic problems of our economic system?
The question of whether to spend effort on getting people to donate to charity vs getting people to push for policy changes isn't so easy to answer when you factor in likelihood of success. Political change is quite difficult for any person to accomplish--there's no shortage of left-wing academic figures who got a lot of attention advocating for change but had little impact overall. In contrast, Singer has been extremely successful at getting a lot of people to donate to charity. What's better: A high probability of convincing 1,000 people to donate and save 10,000 lives, or an unknown but probably very low probability of convincing the entire US to reform its political system? Do you save the drowning children in front of you or do you gamble on a tiny chance of a vastly higher payoff?
(Plus, you can multitask by donating to charity and also voting for good politicians or policies. Singer votes, and isn't silent about who he votes for.)
GrogramanTheRed t1_itpy4lt wrote
There's a useful concept in mathematics called a "local maximum."
One way to solve a problem is to simply do the thing that most directly relates to maximizing a desired attribute in ourselves and the world. This is roughly analogous to the "greedy algorithm" in computer science, and it's what Singer largely advocates for.
However, it usually results in getting stuck in local maxima--a space where any different incremental actions lead to a result that is worse than the result we're currently. It is often the case that in the total probability space of reachable solutions, there may be better solutions, but we will have to go through a temporary period of pain or reduced effectiveness to get there. But since we don't yet have that new solution--the problem isn't fully solved yet--we can't know for sure that we actually can get to a better solution than the local maximum that we've found.
There's a element of wisdom involved in apprehending that what we've found is merely a local maximum, not the global maximum. And there's a element of risk in striking out for the the higher peak across the valley. Call it a calculated risk or--if you want a drop of poetry--a leap of faith.
This criticism of Singer is essentially that he lacks the courage to step out from the local maximum that he's found. Whether it's a fair criticism or not depends on one's overall judgement of the situation.
Tinac4 t1_itq21fx wrote
The difference between your stance and Singer’s has nothing to do with courage—it’s almost exclusively a matter of epistemics. Singer thinks we live in a world where systemic change is hard and where he would have a very small chance of accomplishing anything if he switched away from charity to advocate for it full-time. You (apologies if I’m making any bad assumptions) think we live in a word where systemic change is somewhat easier and where Singer would have a substantial chance of making concrete changes if he pushed for it. Courage doesn’t factor into it—and unless criticism explicitly focuses on why systemic change is easier than Singer thinks, it’s going to miss the mark.
(Another possible difference of opinion is that Singer is more risk-averse—that given a choice between saving 1 life with certainty and 101 lives with a 1% chance, he’d pick the former—but since he’s a utilitarian, and it’s hard to do utilitarianism without being at least somewhat comfortable with expected value theory, I doubt that’s his main objection.)
GrogramanTheRed t1_itqezhn wrote
I was sort of describing a stance rather than presenting a stance of my own. I understand your first paragraph here to be something of an elaboration of my last paragraph.
My own stance is, however, remarkably similar to what I laid out. I don't have a particularly detailed understanding of Singer's work--I've only read brief papers by him, and not many of his longer works. However, I would describe my own position briefly, if you're interested.
It is a long tradition in philosophy going back to at least Plato to analogize between the individual (I almost want to put scare quotes around "individual" here) and society. I would like to do that as well. It may seem strongly disanalagous at first, but close introspection of one's own mind shows that while there is something unified or unifying about conscious experience, the mind itself is made up of many different parts, each of which has its own motivations, goals, and behaviors. Each of us can be treated like a society in and of ourselves.
This is talked about in great detail in the meditation traditions that spread out from India, as well as in various psychotherapeutic modalities, from newer modalities like Internal Family Systems and Core Transformation to more traditional modalities like paychodynamics.
When you spend some time working with the parts through therapy and/r meditation, it starts to become clear that there us a far broader possibility space for the state of the whole bodymind system than one initially thought possible. Things can be both far better and far worse than one thought was possible. One can become aware of ways that your parts interact with each other that are quite surprising. For example--over the last week in my own meditation practice, I have discovered that there is a part of me which functions as a "bliss limiter"--it tamps down on a particular body experience of fizzy joy and pleasure which the Buddhist tradition calls "piti." It has been tamping this down this experience specifically because other parts were afraid of losing control and being unable to fulfill their functions and their goals. But I have found a way to allow the bliss limited to safely ease up a little bit without threatening too many other parts.
By analogy, I strongly suspect that there are aociety-wide modes of relating which are both far better and far worse than what we experience now. And just as clinging too hard to what works now in the individual status quo can lead the individual to severe depression, anxiety, suicidality, etc., I suspect that clinging to status quo methods of working with society can also lead us to dark places.
Singer's work is a little bit like the standard advice for dealing with negative mental health states. Giving to charity and changing to more prosocial personal habits and modes of consumption is rather like eating your vegetables, getting exercise, and trying to get enough sleep. They are indeed helpful and have been shown both scientifically and in many people's personal lives to improve things overall. However, they are limited in what they can do. There are other, very surprising ways of working which can have much more dramatically positive impacts.
Similarly, I suspect that there are things we can do as a society which can improve the overall state much more dramatically than we usually think possible. I think we can point to world history over the last 500 years for many such previous examples. (As well as many times where the local situation became much worse than people thought was possible quite suddenly! Which should be a warning!)
Tinac4 t1_itqqhvu wrote
Thanks for taking the time to explain! I think I understand a little better now. It does seem like the difference of opinion is going to come down to how easy to find and how common those transformative policies are--although I think you could plausibly put them into the same category of explorative research, where you cast a wide net to find a few major discoveries.
Smallpaul t1_itpxb7e wrote
I don’t think anyone knows which is more likely to work at a global system level. But it is demonstrably easier for a single individual to dramatically change the life of another individual through charity (I have done it several times). For me to achieve the same through politics is incredibly diffuse and difficult to prove, especially if I eschew electoral politics as many Jacobin writers would probably suggest.
Obviously I’m happy that some people work on behalf of the poor through politics, and I vote for them. But I could spend my whole life without accruing any evidence whatsoever that I had actually improved anyone’s life. It’s almost a faith based activity, whereas the fruits of my charitable work are obvious,
The other issue is that in politics, the harder you work, the harder your opponents are motivated to work. In charity there are seldom opponents. Hardly ever is there a person who makes it their life goal to re-impoverish people.
glass_superman t1_itq7k2e wrote
> Hardly ever is there a person who makes it their life goal to re-impoverish people.
It's basically the mission statement of many corporations. The IMF has austerity plans to "help" poor nations.
Nestle buying up the sources of water in order to resell water to poor people is an attempt to reimpoverish people, for profit.
No one explicitly has the aim to impoverish people but we set up systems to allow us to do it while obfuscating the guilty. And when we fail to obfuscate the guilt, we give charity! Charity was invented to relieve us of our guilt.
Smallpaul t1_itqa3un wrote
> No one explicitly has the aim to impoverish people ....
Yeah that’s what I said before you contradicted me and then contradicted yourself.
> ... but we set up systems to allow us to do it while obfuscating the guilty.
Sometimes the guilty are pre-obfuscated. When America set up its highway system rather than a decent train system, nobody knew they were contributing the flooding of Tuvalu. The world is hella complex and only a tiny minority of problems are caused by identifiable “bad guys” and a much smaller minority of those “bad guys” are capitalist CEOs, as opposed to warlords, authoritarians and others who get power outside of democracy or capital markets.
> And when we fail to obfuscate the guilt, we give charity! Charity was invented to relieve us of our guilt.
No. Charity was invented to help people.
But yes it does also assuage guilt. Another way to assuage guilt is to say that charity does nothing. Then you can do nothing and feel justified.
SalmonApplecream t1_itrdxtg wrote
He literally does not say it cannot be changed. He just says that random individuals can't do very much to change it.
glass_superman t1_itrxc67 wrote
Is not every change in society made by random individuals? Sometimes working together?
SalmonApplecream t1_itrxsa0 wrote
Not really, it’s normally changed by a powerful select few
Mkwdr t1_itq09i3 wrote
I don’t think it’s ridiculous if we take it as improve on rather than just change. It’s always possible to change just not necessarily for the better. There’s certainly lots to be improved in capitalism but whether it can be improved on is yet to be demonstrated. It’s certainly possible but the writer is far clearer on Singer’s faults than any alternative.
glass_superman t1_itq4vwd wrote
> There’s certainly lots to be improved in capitalism but whether it can be improved on is yet to be demonstrated.
Probably the same was said of every economic system. It can't be bettered until it is.
Mkwdr t1_itq7czb wrote
Or not. But it’s up to someone to suggest an alternative and why it might work better bearing in mind what we know about people etc ( and indeed better than a reformed version of what is already there) and persuade people that is the case.
pickleshoesteve t1_itqzo1r wrote
Charity isn't about "solving" poverty. It is about doing what you can to help lessen the suffering of others.
Vainti t1_itq3sig wrote
Changing our economic system is obviously possible. We can become more authoritarian and less capitalistic. But we have never been able to create a non oppressive economic system. Creating such a system through democracy without having your movement co-opted by dictators may very well be unrealistic.
TuvixWasMurderedR1P OP t1_itppp0j wrote
You're making a lot of assumptions about Singer's would-be critics.
The alternative to charity isn't necessarily throwing soup cans at priceless art, and to suggest that is to provide a pretty unsympathetic view of the critic.
Charity itself is a luxury of sorts, and not everyone can participate.
Also, while some critics of capitalism or of Singer (or both) might be petty tyrants and dogmatically committed to some purity test, there's no reason why that's necessarily the case. There are conceptions of alternative systems that are nonetheless pluralistic, and to suggest that these don't exist is to be intellectually dishonest.
Nor do we have any reason to believe that there's a democratic consensus around the status quo, or that the status quo somehow conforms better to "human nature," whatever that may be.
Mkwdr t1_itpza3o wrote
I’m curious what your pluralistic alternative to capitalism. I’m all for reforming and controlling capitalism through social measures - but the article certainly seemed to me to be suggesting a complete replacement. And indeed rather sneering at Singer. Personally I think the third way is to actual out in the effort to convince , persuade, and work through the democratic system - if you have actually worked out what can and needs to be changed.
Amphy64 t1_itpwtf3 wrote
>The problem with ‘overthrow the whole system and put in my ideologically pure alternative’ is that it tends to be undemocratic ( but for their own good because they are too stupid, evil or brainwashed to know what good for them of course) and all ideologies tend to have unintended consequences when faced with real life that may be worse than the one overthrown (and often the intended methods are morally suspect.)
Not really, it tends to assume false consciousness and that people would already agree if they weren't being mislead. Most people in our society -UK here- even already easily agree animals have moral value, claim to care about them, back laws protecting them and want further such legislation, frequently express horror at footage of animal agriculture or outright refuse to watch it yet continue to act according to the status quo and counter to their own apparent beliefs, for various reasons. I can't think of an actual instance of such an ideology being implemented with unintended consequences, examples?
Charity also is not counter to ideological consistency aimed at systemic change - I donate to vegan charity Viva, for example.
Mkwdr t1_itq1g4e wrote
>Not really, it tends to assume false consciousness and that people would already agree if they weren't being mislead.
Indeed. Which I think is covered in “they are too stupid …. brainwashed”. I didn’t say the assumption was always necessarily wrong ( though I certainly don’t trust ideologues Of any flavour on the subject).
>Charity also is not counter to ideological consistency aimed at systemic change - I donate to vegan charity Viva, for example.
No indeed the two are not mutually exclusive , one can do what you can on a micro(?) level while working for wider macro change. My problem is while I can see a change in our eating habits and people being persuaded of that over time , it’s far harder to come up with an alternative to “capitalism” that would work better overall and be accepted to populations.
Bear in mind that I absolutely agree with the social limitation of capitalism. But the article seems to be promoting replacement not reform.
Amphy64 t1_itq3gxk wrote
But what I mean is, there's a difference between imposing something over people's heads on the mere convenient assumption they're too brainwashed, and aiming to unbrainwash them and letting them join the calls and action for change. Mostly those wanting systemic change aren't even assuming it's possible, or remotely logical -those with more power are not the ones likeliest to dismantle their own power-, to impose top down like that.
Mkwdr t1_itq4l0k wrote
I absolutely agree.
But I think it’s hard work persuading people they are wrong or misled and takes time - much easier to complain about them being ‘sheep’ and feel righteous? But I ( being not at all an expert) have a theory that ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.
Though I wonder if ( on the two ends of a horse shoe principle) there is a link between right/left ( I use the words vaguely) ideologies , authoritarianism , and underlying Hobbes/Rousseau social beliefs. That is the right think people are inherently crap and need whipping into shape right from the start - while the left think people are inherently perfect … and need punishing and controlling when they inevitably disappoint. Just a random thought.
Amphy64 t1_itqdbxg wrote
>ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.
Again would need an example because cannot think of any: only of supporters of the status quo claiming it's the case. Us vegans are always getting accused of somehow pushing veganism on people despite evidently possessing vastly less influence and access to power than the animal ag. industry. Usually what it actually means is 'vegans made me think about how my actions aren't in accordance with my beliefs and that made me feel bad some I'm going to blame them and call them pushy'.
Rousseau is not nearly as idealistic as he gets accused of being - he suggests people will act in self-interest and is not expecting perfection, or even, on the worse side, that means of control like religion aren't useful. It is the eighteenth century, I'm never sure why anyone expects idealism as some might mean it today from it. Which, in terms of arguable improvements, suggests 'idealists' have a point. This debate could easily be had about slavery using worryingly similar language to that applied to the oppression of non-human animals. Leftists assume the system creates the bad outcomes, not inherently the people.
Mkwdr t1_itqdwzd wrote
Well I’m thinking of practically every group that has tried a form of communism, national socialism or theocratic government as an ideology.
Amphy64 t1_itqek9k wrote
That's not a specific example of an ideology being adhered to the point of unexpected bad outcomes, though. Nazism had the bad outcome built in and intended, so do theocratic governments.
Mkwdr t1_itqhdtx wrote
You seem to have shifted the point.
I wrote..
>ideologues become authoritarians because “people just won’t make the obviously right choices so must be made to for their own good’.
(Now admittedly I implied so could have made clear “for their own good” according to the ideologues.)
You asked for examples where that happened.. not
>example of an ideology being adhered to the point of unexpected bad outcomes
So ?
But I would suggest that no ideology thinks of itself as the bad guy ( shout out to Mitchell and Webb “Are we the bad guys”.) I think that those ones mentioned are wrong in principle and practice. My point is that when the inevitable failure occurs then they need to blame someone and ratchet up the authoritarianism.
Amphy64 t1_itqjb2r wrote
Think Nazism is likewise different to your original point though, because as well as the deliberateness, there is a lack of cohesiveness to the ideology, making it more of an excuse for what was done than an example of what can unexpectedly happen if following ideology -that was mentioned in the first post I think-, it was with considerable public support, not just imposed from above.
Lack of coherence and consistency suggests lack of sincerity - eg. demands for pre-marital chastity combined with a sexual double standard where all the emphasis is on the demand that women should be modest, but intimate examinations are apparently acceptable, and rapists are enabled. People may not think of themselves as the bad guys but that's not what good faith looks like either.
Mkwdr t1_itqkqac wrote
To me you are identifying the problem with all ideologies. The contrast between theory and practice. While no doubt some are more thoroughly worked out than others - Is there a political ideology which hasn’t been open to exploitation and hypocrisy by those with the power to implement it?
I think I’d say with that in mind that it’s true that powerful believers in charge use authoritarianism as a method to try to compensate for the system failing , while powerful free loaders do it to keep themselves in a privileged position? Though that makes my wonder the balance between those two groups in any specific example of an ideology.
But I’m only thinking aloud.
Amphy64 t1_itqqb7v wrote
But exactly - it's easy to come up with examples of deliberate exploitation, human error/idiocy, impossible circumstances and simple panic, not so much of bad outcomes originating from someone sincerely trying, sticking to principles and expecting a good outcome with legitimate reason for that expectation. Almost like maybe it doesn't actually happen and supporters of the status quo just claim it does to try to undermine positive change - and I think we should be clear this accusation gets thrown at the left, not the right, despite the ideology frequently having then being accepted with time.
Using authoritarianism would often intrinsically represent a failing in belief, not consistency. Although another accusation thrown at the left is that of being authoritarian just for defending their position against the status quo and reactionaries.
Mkwdr t1_itqrxz0 wrote
You’ve lost me somewhat.
All I’m suggesting is that throughout history organisations based on a specific ideology ( in which the ideas matter more than actual individuals - who become a means to an end) have a tendency when faced with the reality of failure to shore up the system or punish scapegoats by greater authoritarianism. Individuals matter less than preserving the ideology.
If you are saying there are no genuine believers at the top and it’s their own power they seek to maintain with the increasing authoritarianism then I think you have a very good point.
Though I think it’s possible there may be examples in which the action taken in the name of the ideology actually undermined their power and a more pragmatic approach would have been better for them?
Amphy64 t1_itquhj7 wrote
>
Depending on the ideology, the idea individuals mattered less would tend to be an inherent contradiction, certainly to leftwing movements that are intended ultimately to benefit a people consisting of individuals. If said 'individuals' actually means 'clear enemies who are outright trying to destroy the progress and murder those trying to establish it', then it's only leftist movements that seriously get blamed for this and it has darn all to do with those making such accusations thinking it just went ideologically 'too far', and everything to do with thinking they had no right to try to oppose the status quo to begin with, it's just a bad faith conflation. It's not that individuals matter less than some kind of assumed-abstract ideology in such a case, if the ideology was supposed to benefit the majority and not the minority totally deliberately trying to sabotage its application.
No - genuine believers may be around, but are then up against the opportunists, the people who are just bad/inexperienced at applying an ideology, consistency issues that already existed, legitimate differences in ideology that may be hard to resolve, the weight of the status quo, all the mistakes and pressures of the situation itself, the people behind deliberate internal and external opposition, and likely do not want to be an authoritarian even if they could. So the explanation for what went wrong was still not the typical lame accusation of 'ideological purity': the people who were ideologically at least fairly consistent may not have stood a chance. Which does not make them wrong nor the aim of consistency wrong, it just suggests it's hard, which is more the actual problem imo than anyone ever being overly ideologically consistent on any scale. If more aim for it, it may get easier for others to do, ie. veganism again.
>Though I think it’s possible there may be examples in which the action taken in the name of the ideology actually undermined their power and a more pragmatic approach would have been better for them?
Possible but I've more often seen the reverse argued. Whether a specific action was just a bad idea/misguided/stupid is a somewhat different question.
Mkwdr t1_itqzdzh wrote
I find the suggesting that ostensibly left ideologies such as communism put the welfare of the individual over the collective somewhat difficult to take seriously. Similar with the idea that the millions that they imprisoned or killed through commission or deliberate omission were clear enemies. I would say that pretty much all political ideologies claim everyone is better off even if it’s because the hoi poloi are better of in their place.
I would suggest that ideologies by their nature put conceptual factors above realistic pragmatism and when the two clash authoritarianism attempts to reconcile the problem. Ideologies don’t survive the test of being implemented.
So far like democracy could be said in practice to be the worst system apart from all the others , capitalism is the same.
MrPezevenk t1_itqegjb wrote
>than come up with concrete individual actions
Individual actions are explicitly not the point though.
Mkwdr t1_itqfl0t wrote
That would appear to beg the question. The author thinks individual actions that work within the system are insignificant and the system needs changing as a whole. Well that’s easy to say.
And since in practice there are only the actions of individuals working separately or together _ what do they do to change the whole system and what do they propose to replace it with?
It’s like people protesting to “stop racism!” - well yeh I agree …. and now how do we do actually precisely and practically do that step by step since just saying stop probably isn’t going to do it.
MrPezevenk t1_itqg3fo wrote
>And since in practice there are only the actions of individuals working separately or together
In practice most actions that are socially significant are collective, not individual, and very hard to reduce to "many different individuals separately doing x and y". If you are asking for a step by step guide of what YOU specifically should do, this is beside the point. If the question is about what a social subject "should" do, then that is a totally different question and a very widely addressed one.
Mkwdr t1_itqjbgi wrote
Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert. I don’t see it makes a difference. Lots of people giving to or volunteering for the same charity is a collective action. Just saying “act collectively” isn’t very useful without specifying precisely what to do.
That’s rather my problem with a protest which is of a “stop being bad” nature without doing the more complex work of planning for and persuading for necessity concrete specific steps. Does collective action just mean “if I make enough fuss someone else like the government will sort it out” so my only personal action is to protest?
I think what can I and I should do that will make a difference is not beside the point at all. Including working out how what I can do to influence those with more power to take action. But so is precisely what actions they should undertake.
MrPezevenk t1_itqlcc9 wrote
>Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert
Definitely not in concert.
>Does collective action just mean “if I make enough fuss someone else like the government will sort it out” so my only personal action is to protest?
That is very much not the point and as I said before it is also not the point to give a personal manual for any person to follow. The whole point is that "what do I specifically do" is not really a good question because, who are you? And whatever it is that you do end up doing, what does it matter if it's only you doing it? It's like saying, what do I do to create a good blockbuster movie? There is no answer to this, it's a lengthy process that goes through a number of institutions and involves many different bodies of people going back and forth. If the question is, what are the elements of a good blockbuster movie, then the question makes a little bit more sense. It also makes more sense to ask "I am involved in x aspect of y movie, what do I do to do my part well?", and that also makes more sense. Otherwise it doesn't.
Social progress is not something that can be framed individually in the abstract.
Mkwdr t1_itqo66n wrote
>Collective is just lots of individuals acting in concert
>Definitely not in concert.
Don’t leave me hanging! lol
Collective
> done by people acting as a group.
In concert
> acting jointly.
>That is very much not the point and as I said before it is also not the point to give a personal manual for any person to follow.
In your opinion. As I think I might have mentioned this begs the question. The writer if the article may think that ( though I’m not sure that necessarily true). But he’s disputing what Singer might think. You don’t get to decide the point when that’s in contention.
My point is that real, precise actions for real individuals to do that can make a difference is precisely the point. Such action could be direct or indirect through persuading others to take an action. But what action matters? It’s difficult for individuals to do anything - so don’t take any personal responsibility?
Like I said , it may be that lots of individuals changing their behaviour or indeed acting to persuade others to change their behaviour - is useful. But even more so if they attempt to work out precisely what behaviour needs changing and how.
MrPezevenk t1_itqotfb wrote
>It’s difficult for individuals to do anything - so don’t take any personal responsibility?
So, stop asking for what abstract individuals should do and start asking what social classes, institutions and movements should be doing. If you want a concrete answer it is not possible to get one on the level of an abstract individual.
Mkwdr t1_itqq8mm wrote
Um… I was paraphrasing up your argument.
Abstract concepts such as a social class cant do anything… only the individuals that make them up. So we are back to what should the individuals in that group actually do.
MrPezevenk t1_itqsdbm wrote
>Abstract concepts such as a social class cant do anything…
Yes they can. They do all the time. Let's open a random news article from, uh, say the guardian. Let's look at the title of the first featured international news article:
>Russia-Ukraine war live news: Ukraine fears Russia planning false flag attack amid Kremlin’s ‘dirty bomb’ claims
Neither Ukraine which apparently "fears" nor Russia which apparently is feared to be planning a false flag attack are people. It's an abstraction of multiple different people doing and thinking often conflicting things but summing up to a specific overall direction.
Mkwdr t1_itqt73w wrote
lol.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments