Comment by Curious42 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Curious42 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Couldn't one also argue that a group of humans have a right to exclude other humans from the zones they hold

They could, but they'd be dating back to the principles that were prevalent when various species of the Homo genus existed. When Sapiens were a threat to the Neanderthals, the Neanderthals a threat to the habilis etc. They were thought of as threats for similar reasons as you mentioned; one being more privileged than the other, which led to an insecurity.

A lot of factors such as the geography, and the natural resources that companions the land play a huge factor in the well-being of the society. From what you're suggesting, I get the idea that you want that to remain as a given privilege that should only be cherished by the people who were born around it. That a human born in terrible conditions is a threat to the more affluent, and it's resources and security, solely because the latter was born in a better habitat.This doesn't seem very different to me than the ideologies adopted by the tribes and the cavemen that date back to tens of thousands of years.

I hope I'm not coming off too strong with my words. The language is my barrier, and I've been known to go off on a tangent sometimes due to that. I hope you understand.

Can you clarify why, from the third person, such significant privilege that affords such significant benefits would ever so willingly given up? I'm asking you to supply the logic such that we can convince individual members of our tribal states that they should support the movement towards a borderless/nationless world. So far, the argument has been moral (When privileged, you have a moral obligation to elevate those less privileged), though I was hoping for a stronger argument than that.

Isn't it a sufficient argument that we should strive to create a world where all people have equal opportunity? Yes, there is a natural human instinct to try provide the best situation for oneself. But beyond that, you can either decide everything is arbitrary and nothing matters, or you can make decisions based on a moral framework. Equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth beyond their control, seems like a good basis to me.

That said, I expect there are more robust philosophical arguments. I'm no philosopher, but I'll take a stab at it. Consider the prisoner's dilemma. If everyone acts solely in their own self-interest, it's worse for the whole than if people act cooperatively. Human civilization can be seen the same way. An individual might elevate themselves by acting purely out of self-interest, but on the average we're better off acting cooperatively. So I would suggest that not only is there a moral imperative to strive toward equality, doing so will also improve quality of life overall.

I actually agree that it is wholly sufficient (Based on my life situation) though not necessarily convincing in general. I've been trying to explore the frame used by people voting along protectionist lines, and I don't believe this form would convince them given that the most common narrative against globalization appears to be losing too much to others.

Thanks for this answer. It made me go back and re-read your points again, and reflect on my own viewpoint a bit more deeply. I expect that were I not personally as financially comfortable as I am, it would be less easy to think in the abstract about the merits of equality. I believe in immigration, I donate a decent amount to both domestic and international charities, etc... but it's not like I do it to the extent of materially affecting my own way of life.

And of course, that's natural; people DO value their own well-being and that of their families and friends (and especially children) more than that of strangers. It's a very rare person who's willing to completely sacrifice their own standard of living in the name of global utilitarianism. (Mother Teresa comes to mind, but that's about it...) But it's also pretty rare for a person not to feel any selfless compassion for others either; it's just harder when one feels one's own needs aren't being met.

So maybe that's the real solution to your problem: find a way to address people's needs without resorting to a zero-sum mentality. When people feel they're getting by alright, they will naturally be less begrudging of others. Easier said than done of course, but not impossible. Much more difficult when the focus is on this zero-sum game instead though.

> I expect that were I not personally as financially comfortable as I am, it would be less easy to think in the abstract about the merits of equality.

The crux of the issue. I appreciate you taking the time, and employing the insight, to identify it. In my experience of such discussions, few do.

> Isn't it a sufficient argument that we should strive to create a world where all people have equal opportunity?

It would seem not, or this conversation wouldn't have played out the way it has. I'd certainly be interested to see a defense of this claim that didn't rely on one's interlocutor sharing one's own moral precepts in order to cohere.

Can you also make a defense for racism using the same parameters as you want the aforementioned points reasoned out with? Sometimes, logic needs to be manufactured hand-in-hand with what's morally right. The transition from slavery, to equality wasn't easy, and neither was it done overnight.

I'm not saying a borderless planet would work out; at least not anytime soon. But we should at least be working towards it.

We know that AI could go bizzarlly wrong, but we still work towards achieving better results everyday.

> Sometimes, logic needs to be manufactured hand-in-hand with what's morally right.

The point I'm making is that not everyone agrees with you about what's morally right. In fact, most people in the US, at least, do not. If you want to effectively advance your cause, it is worth finding an argument for your claims which does not rely on moral precepts your interlocutor may not share.

As a side note, likening the existence of national borders to the institution of slavery is probably not such an argument.

If you take it with an open mind, you'll see that my intention is not to liken them, but to demonstrate that not every cause has an inherent, intrinsic argument.

It's not a surprise to me that it's most people in the US that are against the idea of this, because they fear that instead of the datum of other countries moving up, that of USA will go down. This insecurity always annoys me. But take everything I say with a grain of salt because I do not consider myself patriotic whatsoever, and in that sense, my thoughts are in the opposite direction as those of Americans, who, through personal observation are the most patriotic people I've come across.

I don't believe any answer to a "what ought we do..." question can cohere without agreeing to a shared moral framework. The answer to the question will always assume you want to maximize something(s) and choosing among those competing somethings will always be a values judgment.

I really hope you're wrong.

Well what would the logical alternative be? If I argue that someone should support a policy because it serves their self interest, that presumes a moral framework. If I argue they should support it for the greater good, that assumes a moral framework. And so on. I don't think it's a question of looking really hard for the right argument, such an argument is logically precluded.

And it seems to me that most people's framework tends to fall somewhere between the two. People actually aim to maximize some function that depends on both self-interest AND the greater good. The weighting between the two varies between individuals, based on numerous other variables, but very few people are 100% one way or the other (Mother Teresa vs a sociopath). So ISTM now that the goal isn't to convince people to follow a particular moral framework, but rather to attempt to influence the variables that already steer people toward one or another. One of those is exposure. There's that Mark Twain quote, "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness..." Another, as discussed above, is financial well-being. The more comfortable one is personally, the easier it is to consider the plight of others. There are certainly others.

I agree with you that while there are some appeals to self-interest that support a goal of equality, fundamentally it is an issue of morality. And I agree with you that you can't logic someone from one moral framework to another. But I would add that almost everyone does have some amount of 'maximize the greater good' built into their moral framework already, so the only logical way to work toward this is to focus on the variables that will add weight to that side of the equation.

I'm not the person you're asking but I hold similar views. An alternative argument could be that should your particular zone have a reversal of fortune - war or climate change, say - It would be good to have the ability to move freely to somewhere with better prospects. The world isn't static.

Effectively a utilitarian argument, using good-will today as a hedge against tomorrow. I believe the argument, though the strength depends on how much risk you expect tomorrow versus how much you give up today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com