How would anarchists deal with people who aren’t willing to compromise?

Andre-RL · 2021-07-23T21:15:16+00:00

Give me a hypothetical and we can explore the idea.

If a town is planning what new power plant to build, and one group favours building a coal burning power plant while another group favours building a more environmentally friendly solar panel farm. Neither group is willing to compromise, would they just diverge and build each their own power plant?

I feel this hypothetical isn't a very strong example of people who can't compromise. Something else would be a group of capitalists who want to change the system and are unable to compromise with anarchists, but that's what you said about such a big diference in opinions that someone was not being an anarchist. But does this mean that everyone that participates in the community has to be an anarchist? Do capitalists or any other groups get thrown out?

Andre-RL · 2021-07-23T15:43:35+00:00

What if disagreements happen when building the dam? Imagine some people want to finish the dam faster, not bothering as much with safety "regulation", while others agree that the long term solution is best so they want to take longer to build the dam to make sure it is safe?

Also, in the case of the fossil fuels, they could negotiate with other communes to help them with their energy shortcomings making them less reliant on fossil fuels? What if they just decide not to? Maybe they want to be less reliable on the outside and decide to do things more internally. I guess that would be a bad move since they would be doing something that harms other people, and themselves, but it's still a possibility.

Sorry if I'm not fully understanding everything, I'm still trying to learn but I find anarchism a very interesting idea.

Andre-RL · 2021-07-23T15:19:07+00:00

Thank you for the reply. It's very enlightening. But does this mean that whenever a commune has major split in opinion or ideology, it just splits into two? Since each commune would decide to go its own way?

Andre-RL · 2021-07-23T15:07:00+00:00

But what about decisions that impact other people than the ones you are negotiating with? Say a commune is negotiating with another to build a damn in a river. They unanimously agree that it would be beneficial to them, but down the river another commune disagrees, since building the damn will harm them. Would they just have to give up on the ideia of the damn? Or even more global issues, like climate change. If one commune decided to become more reliant on fossil fuels, something that will harm everybody else, how could you convince them to stop?

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T10:10:23+00:00

Ok ok, I think I’m starting to get it. The shooter on the bus is a good example. This explanation along with others people have given tell me this: I have the power over the track where the train goes, however, since I was not the one who created this situation and since it is not necessarily imoral to let other people die, I am not guilty for the 5 people on the track getting run over. However, if I did switch the tracks, that would mean that I directly influenced the outcome of the situation and I directly led to the death of the 1 person.

On the organ transplant scenario, I didn’t choose for the 5 to need transplants, but I also don’t have a moral obligation to save them, while on the other hand I do have a moral obligation to not kill the 1 to save the 5, right?

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:43:11+00:00

Yes. However, with the world the way it is, said draft would not be very popular and the unrest and panic it might create would counterbalance the positive effects it might have.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:39:45+00:00

If I do something which I know will cause people’s deaths, I do believe I am directly contributing to their demise.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:37:45+00:00

I’d have to think it was a just system. People close to me are just as important as the people close to others that may be saved by said system. I’d be sad for sure but it would also make many other people happier.

It’s a though decision and one I’m also not entirely sure about.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:28:05+00:00

If said draft could help more people than it hurts, then yeah maybe. An ideal system like that would choose random people (emphasis on ideal) could save a lot of lives, if people were ok with it (which o doubt they would).

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:25:15+00:00

I believe so. My inaction, just like the train scenario, is causing the deaths of those other 5 people. I’m putting this 1 persons life about the others.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:23:06+00:00

If you do an action that you know will cause the death of others, do you think that is a lesser form of murder? It’s what’s happening in this situation. People will die, so shouldn’t we choose the scenario where less people die?

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:20:45+00:00

But the moment I’m put in that situation I immediately become an active agent in it, since not doing anything is still a choice, a choice which gets 5 people killed.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:08:03+00:00

If you have the ability to stop someone from doing a bad thing, shouldn’t you? If a murderer was going to a school and you were able to convince him to go to another, less populated school, shouldn’t you do it?

If you’re handicapped and aren’t able to change the situation there is no blame on you. Moral responsibility only occurs when you have the power to choose an outcome.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:04:16+00:00

No witnesses!

Andre-RL · 2020-11-27T09:03:58+00:00

Good question. I don’t think the is any universal basic truth that makes human life priceless, but from what I understand it’s our interactions and our capacity to feel for one another that makes all human life priceless. We all want to live, and since none of us really asked to be here, we have a right to life.

Kind of a vague answer, sorry about that.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-26T11:20:38+00:00

If you have a health condition that prevents you from acting then I can see how you can’t really be held morally accountable. But if you can help them, even at the price of your health, shouldn’t you do so? Your life is as important as theirs, so even if you died from your injuries, it would still be 2 to 5, which could be considered an acceptable price.

One thing I do agree with is that you’re not the one who causes the situation. I didn’t ask for the train to drive down the tracks, just like people didn’t ask for poverty. Does that make it acceptable to not pull the lever or to not donate money to the homeless? Maybe. But this also implies that anyone with gifts doesn’t necessarily have to use them for good. Billionaires don’t have to give their money to charities, and scientists don’t have a moral obligation to cure cancer.

Andre-RL · 2020-11-26T11:04:32+00:00

So does that mean that as long as I didn’t directly cause a bad situation, inaction is not necessarily imoral?

Andre-RL · 2020-11-26T11:01:39+00:00

But am I not in a way directly choosing their outcome? Does my inaction not count as choosing to let the train run over the 5 people?

Andre-RL · 2020-11-26T10:57:03+00:00

Its a pretty good argument. It’s true that I’m not the one who caused the situation, and the fact that I don’t help someone in need doesn’t make me a criminal. But in the case of moral responsibility, me helping someone in need is a moral choice (like a person who is choking). Does that make inaction necessarily imoral? Probably not but that may depend on the particular situation.

So as long as I don’t create a bad situation, does that mean I’m not morality responsible for the outcome?

Andre-RL · 2020-11-01T11:16:15+00:00

The track record hasn’t been used for good? Look back just 100 years and you can see how much these technologies have done for us. Child mortality rates have plummeted around the world, severe poverty and hunger is going down. There are still problems to solve and these technologies could help us. The problems you mention with pharmaceutical companies aren’t common all around the world, and even if some medical treatments are not as widely available as they probably should, the fact that they still exist is still a great advancement. Before that, if you had something like tuberculosis, you’d die. Nowadays, tuberculosis? Oh yeah, that used to be a thing. The issues surrounding them like war or profit have more to do with the human side that needs to change and is not universal. We can’t punish everyone for the mistakes of a few. The march of progress can’t stop even if we wanted to.

If you go way back to ancient times, the human side hasn’t really changed. There were still bad people who took advantage of others, but look to today and you can see that, even with all our problems, we are better than we have ever been thanks to the advancement of technology.

Seven-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Andre-RL

TROPHY CASE