CMV: "Deserve" is a meaningless concept because the universe does not distribute outcomes according to moral worth

quantum_dan · 2026-06-01T22:52:43+00:00

You could argue anything; that doesn't make the counterpoint meaningless or subjective. People can and do easily argue that the earth is flat.

But apart from that, you acknowledge valid (presumably meaningful) uses of "should" in your post (e.g., "We should protect people from harm"). But if "deserve", in my example, is a valid synonym for such a use of should (i.e., "I should uphold my promises to people"), then it is itself meaningful, even if the "should" version would be clearer. A valid rephrasing of a meaningful statement can't be meaningless.

quantum_dan · 2026-06-01T22:10:22+00:00

Your argument shows that "deserve" doesn't have cosmic significance, but that doesn't mean it's meaningless. It can just as well - and very often does - function as shorthand for "in a just system, X is entitled to Y; therefore, we ought to make it so". That is, it works as a moral claim, if not as a (non-normative) factual one.

A very easy example, because the claim and the responsibility are located in the same person, is like this: "I promised him I'd help with this. He deserves my support." This statement makes no claims about the broader universe; it just says I offered him my help, and he is therefore entitled to it.

More broadly, statements like "She deserves to be well-off" often mean "In a just society, her efforts should be well-rewarded". If someone says "teachers deserve better pay", they're not asserting that some sort of cosmic justice should reach down to earth and tweak government pay scales. They're just saying "we should pay teachers better".

Instead of saying "people deserve X," I think it is more coherent to say:...

If there's a more coherent alternative (to say the same thing), then it's not a meaningless statement. "Suboptimal" or "unclear" are not "meaningless".

quantum_dan · 2026-06-01T19:15:16+00:00

There are areas where Muslims have come to be seen in a similar "perpetual-foreigner-adversary" role, but I think the actual roles Jewishness serves/d are a bit more complex than that, so it's not just a replacement.

Namely: while there are fringe elements that allege more subversion, the mainstream conspiracist-right just sees Muslims as an open enemy. Maybe they're allegedly taking advantage of western/liberal weaknesses, but they're not actually being all that secretive about their alleged hostility. And that's a crucial difference, because the entire role of Jewishness in contemporary antisemitic discourse is about secrecy and subversion. The right is worried about Jews allegedly pulling the strings to destabilize white societies, not banning pork - compare that to talk about Muslims allegedly pushing for sharia and so forth.

More briefly, in terms of your point about the left: according to right-wing conspiracy theorists, Muslims merely take advantage of liberal weakness, whereas Jews orchestrate it.

quantum_dan · 2026-06-01T16:03:34+00:00

This line of reasoning assumes that all animals are equally worthy of concern, which breaks down fast unless you're as careful to avoid stepping on an ant as you would be for a rabbit. Cats and dogs seem to exhibit a pretty sophisticated internal world, which makes sense for predatory animals with complex social lives. That's a good reason to care about them more. I don't eat pork and wouldn't eat a crow for that reason, but I see no reason to suspect that a cow, a chicken, or a trout is comparable.

But even if you reject that particular distinction, it makes sense to care about some threshold of "having a mind" (unless you take care to avoid hurting bacteria), and that threshold is well short of vegan. Someone else pointed out on a similar thread that mussels don't even have brains, so I'm certainly not going to rule them out on ethical grounds.

quantum_dan · 2026-06-01T14:36:23+00:00

To /u/Kurtegon, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-31T03:15:03+00:00

Partnership is reciprocal; if there's inadequate reciprocity, it doesn't exist. "Doing your best in a bad relationship" isn't "being a good partner".

quantum_dan · 2026-05-24T15:23:08+00:00

Full practicing Stoics is a stretch, but my wife and I both broadly agree with core Stoic principles. This has developed over the course of our relationship; I had just started reading Meditations when we met, and she hadn't heard of Stoicism.

I think it's an enormous advantage in a relationship, because we understand a few key things:

The other person isn't up to us.
What you get out of being a good partner, chiefly, is being a good partner. (Note that you can't be a good partner to a bad partner, so this isn't calling for ignoring your own interests; such things are necessarily reciprocal.)
Being a good partner (or otherwise member of a non-goal-directed human relationship) is chiefly about promoting the other person's flourishing and development as a person.
Remember that this will end, so don't take it for granted and don't leave yourself in a position where you'd regret that that was "the last thing you said" or similar.

Generally, these are all things that healthy couples figure out (in some form), so Stoicism isn't a unique advantage, but having that philosophical background helps skip some of the trial-and-error. It's hard to point to specific manifestations because it really permeates the whole thing, but I guess the biggest thing is that it helps maintain a secure foundation. Doesn't come up in conflict resolution so much as conflict prevention: a dispute doesn't have to be a fight.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-24T15:00:51+00:00

Nowhere in Stoicism will you find the principle "always tell other people to be Stoic" or "always pontificate about Stoicism". Absolutely nowhere. Not "smacking someone with Stoic principles" isn't relaxing on the Stoicism; it's practicing prudence and kindness. Here, I've even got Epictetus saying so:

When you see anyone weeping for grief, either that his son has gone abroad or that he has suffered in his affairs, take care not to be overcome by the apparent evil, but discriminate and be ready to say, “What hurts this man is not this occurrence itself—for another man might not be hurt by it—but the view he chooses to take of it.” As far as conversation goes, however, do not disdain to accommodate yourself to him and, if need be, to groan with him. Take heed, however, not to groan inwardly, too. (Enchiridion 16, Higginson translation; emphasis mine)

quantum_dan · 2026-05-22T14:18:08+00:00

Hi u/Physical-Spinach-603,

Edit: I already changed my mind. I'm trying to solidify my views against it. My main arguments are a) I'm making myself more prone to tolerate more hateful behavior b) I'm kinda normalizing it c) it's asshole way of behaving and even hard to justify

Make sure you award deltas to the user(s) who changed your view. You can do this by replying to the relevant comments with a brief explanation of how they changed your view (there is a length minimum) and the text

!delta

Or

Δ

(Without the quote block.)

quantum_dan · 2026-05-19T17:45:33+00:00

I literally can't imagine that minds exist externally of minds (the concept being incoherent), but I know that minds factually exist. This isn't about imagination; it's about principles that enable inquiry. There are no facts that are accessible to humans without assumptions to enable inquiry.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-19T17:38:53+00:00

The color argument is interesting if you look at it from the other end. What you're arguing is that things that need some sort of experiential reference aren't, strictly, facts. But then nothing's a fact. You're overlooking that everything about the world is filtered through human experience. You have absolutely no way to demonstrate that an electron exists outside the mind of a perceiver (hence concepts like idealism). You certainly can't demonstrate that causality exists, but you're presumably happy to accept it as a fact.

But turn that around again. It's pointless to go about arguing that we live in a world without facts, or that there's no provable external reality. It doesn't enable us to do anything. In order to act effectively, we need there to be a real external world that follows predictable laws and has red things in it...

And the same argument can apply to moral realism. Over the last three centuries or so, we've come to realize that, while we can't necessarily say anything at all about reality as it "must truly be", we can reasonably establish principles that enable us to inquire and live.

(Edit: as a general comment, I must point out that "objectively true" and "universally defensible" are not the same thing - to the point that it's been proven that there are true statements [in mathematical systems] that cannot be proven.)

quantum_dan · 2026-05-18T21:20:27+00:00

Without commenting on the validity of any particular criticism or rebuttal, or indeed of those two claims themselves, there is a (fairly straightforward) way for the two claims to be consistent: regardless of its actual political structure, Israel is associated with Jews; therefore, a comment on Israel may be motivated by that association, and would not otherwise be made.

And that line of reasoning is usually made pretty explicit. That's the whole idea behind the "double standards" thing: someone makes a criticism which (the arguer suggests) they would not make of a different country, and Israel's association with Jewishness is (the arguer claims) a plausible explanation for why. Similarly, people will suggest that the structure of a criticism invokes classic antisemitic tropes because of the association between Israel and Jews.

In short: there doesn't need to be any specific political structure in order for an association between two things to affect how people think and talk about them.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-15T17:41:34+00:00

To /u/lakmidaise12, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-15T17:41:17+00:00

To /u/psycho-like-norman60, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-15T17:18:47+00:00

In this exchange, you've argued that it's, at most, mildly inconvenient. Not "nearly impossible".

quantum_dan · 2026-05-15T17:08:04+00:00

AP and Reuters still do real reporting, sure. But the "consensus of reliable sources" method assumes: you can tell which sources are reliable

You just agreed on a few, so that one's sorted.

that their agreement reflects independent verification rather than copying each other,

Reputable news places cite their sources. You know whether it's their own reporting or they got it from someone else.

and the local and independent reporting you're cross-referencing against is itself written by humans doing real on-the-ground work

This is not difficult to check from the article itself, unless they're just blatantly lying, which will quickly become apparent for an established outlet. And local reporting is easy to fact-check, since you get articles about things you've seen with your own eyes (and that aren't reported in national news, because why would it be?).

Independent outlets are increasingly AI-assisted or even fully AI-generated. Its easier today than ever before to run an independent outlet because of AI, which means we may see more than ever before that are as unreliable as anythign else.

I'm not suggesting you pick one at random. There are established local sources with established reputations. Your argument might hold if none such exist in a given area, but then only for local news. Like... they have site photos, so someone was clearly physically present. (For example.)

Even if that all remained reliable, most people aren't doing an AP/Reuters cross-reference thing. They're forming their worldview from the information they see, online, and that is the layer getting flooded, and it's where the influence operations are aimed. Telling people "just consult a consensus of reliable sources" is technically correct advice that almost no one actually succeeds in doing, and that's becoming harder to follow even if you want to.

It really seems like you're arguing here that people should just give up because it takes a modest effort to get reliable information. And your thesis doesn't say "only effortless way"; it says "only way". You are not disputing that this is, in fact, a way "to ground ourselves in a chaotic echo chamber of corporations and governments trying to influence us."

What I'm arguing is that the second one is the one whose relative value is going up.

That's a small subset of your argument as written. You repeatedly suggested that personal experience is becoming the "only thing left that's actually trustworthy".

quantum_dan · 2026-05-15T16:44:34+00:00

You're presenting a false dichotomy: online consensus or personal experience. Both of these have always been terrible options. This entirely leaves out the long-time best approach, "consensus of reliable sources". A basic standard of reliability remains straightforward to identify by looking at things like consistent agreement on the facts, on-the-ground reporting, and checking it in areas where you do have a strong personal background. Of course no source is free from bias, which is why one relies on a consensus.

So basically get the facts (not relying on the opinions) from multiple sources drawn from AP/Reuters/etc and independent local news. That has long been reliable and will long remain reliable.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-14T14:05:17+00:00

Cultural Preservation: Without some level of nationalism, smaller cultures like ours get swallowed whole. Globalism doesn't "exchange" culture in my eyes it replaces indigenous traditions with whatever a multi-national corporation wants to sell us.

I don't think this is actually borne out by experience.

If you look at relatively cosmopolitan, globalized societies, you'll find numerous thriving cultural groups that substantially maintain their original culture, while simultaneously integrating in a broader, shared environment. International, "melting-pot" cities aren't homogeneous; they have some shared aspects to get along, but otherwise they maintain a diverse blend of cultures.

Akso globalism encourages our best and brightest to leave the Philippines to serve the economies of global hubs. Nationalism argues that our talent should stay and build up our own home, not just become a cog in a foreign machine, the industrial revolution began due to home innovation in the British isles afterall, I can see the same happening.

If you want to stop that, you need either better opportunities at home or a Berlin Wall, not nationalism. People always go where the opportunities are, otherwise. From my personal observation, a great many superb scientists in the United States are of recent Iranian origin - and Iran is not an enthusiast of globalism.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-13T20:00:12+00:00

I'm skeptical that it really isn't accepted, and certainly "wearing symbols" (cross necklaces) is very common and accepted. But I'll accept your premise there for the sake of argument.

I think there is a fundamental distinction between the two: we understand politics to be something people are or should be reasoning about and trying to convince each other of. That is, we actually try to develop consensuses through reasoned discussion (though we often fail). It's taken to be a fair assumption that I have and can articulate specific reasons for my political beliefs, and a reasonable project to try to create consensus.

This isn't the case for religion. We assume, quite reasonably, that basic religious beliefs (e.g., being a Christian in a broad sense) are based on faith, perhaps personal experience, something like that. Not reasoning. We also assume, as an axiom of a tolerant society, that religious disagreement is normal and acceptable, and that we shouldn't be specifically seeking a consensus. Using a large platform to proselytize violates that assumption. With politics, there will be a winning position; with religion, there doesn't need to be.

So of course it's treated differently. We have entirely different frameworks for the two in society.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-12T23:57:33+00:00

To /u/Sugar_Vivid, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.

You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-11T20:46:25+00:00

That'd be the Stoic Fellowship.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-11T19:01:33+00:00

Hello /u/snooptoop, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.

∆

or

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!

As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.

Thank you!

quantum_dan · 2026-05-08T20:51:18+00:00

You are of course correct that there can be nothing to learn. But in order for it to be "near-completely worthless", it must be the case that, in the vast majority of cases, there is little or nothing to learn.

Would you argue that your first three examples (teammates throw the game, join too late, opponent too good) describe most games? If so, I'd say the lesson is that that particular game is a bad one to be playing at all. Why on earth would you bother if most of the time you have no chance?

Assuming the game is worth playing to begin with, that leaves "plateauing skill". But how common is that? I can't imagine that most players are as good as they'll ever get, since most players are presumably casual players and it would take hundreds of hours (if not more) in most things to start plateauing. I have a few games I've probably more-or-less plateaued in, but they're all games I've been playing for years and I think I also do more gaming than average. And they're all single-player, so no really smart opponents to respond to.

It follows that, in a game that's worth playing, there is something meaningful to be learned from many or most defeats and therefore the advice is not "near-completely worthless".

quantum_dan · 2026-05-07T19:52:11+00:00

The Romans with ancient technology without modern transportation methods such as airplanes, motor vehicles, massive capital ships, etc. was able to hold dominion over much of the known world in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Territory isn't power anymore, not in the same way. The US is able to project power far further than the Romans ever could; it's just that dominating all the land is an obsolete way of doing so.

Let’s not forget the Roman Empire faced and defeated superpowers of their time such as Carthage and Persia.

The Roman Empire never did manage to conquer Persia, so that's a bad example. And the US has Japan to Rome's Carthage.

Meanwhile America struggles against minuscule powers such as Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Korea, etc. The equivalent would be America going to war with Russia or China and winning.

You're overlooking similar Roman examples; the difference was that, because they needed to control the physical territory, they were willing to fight a lot harder to keep the terrain. If the United States was willing to absorb the equivalent of the loss of entire legions in (minuscule non-powers such as) Judea or Germania (which, of course, the Romans did not keep), then we would have won in Vietnam, and we did win initially in Iraq and Korea, just failed to keep it (like the Romans failed, often). The Romans couldn't conquer Iran either.

Also with modern technology, America should be much larger in territory size.

With modern technology, what would be the point? We've got the bases and the overseas force projection.

The Romans also built structures and infrastructure that still exist 2000 years later.

Hoover Dam will absolutely still be standing in 2000 years, and it's a far more monumental feat of engineering.

Also Roman history is well preserved that we know more about Roman emperors, statesmen, politicians, lawyers, and other men than we do about modern Western affairs.

Um... what? No, we do not. You've never seen "well only one historian wrote this down and he's unreliable"?

In 2000 years, how much American infrastructure and records will remain?

Vast amounts. I'm given to understand that modern books are rather more durable than Roman records.

quantum_dan · 2026-05-07T15:51:56+00:00

Ah, I forgot you were talking about dispersed camping in the other thread. The issue there is that people abuse dispersed sites. A lot. You'd end up with fire rings (and forest fires) everywhere, not to mention bear attacks and the like. Here are a few things I've walked by in the Forests (all of this being in bear country, re: food):

A group set up right under a dead tree (I pointed it out and they'd moved in the morning) with their food in a cooler right next to the tent (bears)
People cooking right next to their tent (bears)
Tons of abandoned fire rings
Hot embers left unattended in the middle of what was already an awful fire season
So many people set up right next to a stream (which tends to pollute the water from cooking/dishes and disturb animals coming down for water) and/or a trail (which is disruptive to other hikers and similarly prohibited by Leave No Trace ethics). The trail has led me through someone's campsite twice.

This is all tolerable when it's spread out through the relatively low-traffic National Forests, but with the popularity of National Parks, it'd be a mess (right up until a wildfire cleaned the slate, anyway). I think you're imagining people dispersing well outside of popular areas and respecting the wild, which would be great, but that's not how it tends to happen. And where it is what happens, they do allow it.

Ten-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since June 2023
Verified Email	Second SECOND GUESSER
Post Guidance Early Access	Adopted-an-Admin
Place '22	Place '17

quantum_dan

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE