BasedGroyper99

> No, "good" is an evaluation, and exist only inside human minds.

I think we fundamentally disagree on that. But it was an interesting conversation.

> The assumption that "higher good" should be important to me more than my own life is laughable.

I don't think it is laughable at all. People across the planet, history and culture all identified a highest good, which clearly isn't one's self-preservation. For one because then there are multiple highest goods which are all in competition with each other, and also because at some point we die, so all our effort ends up being futile.

> Why should we be just slaves to the whatever group of people that decides what "higher good" is?

I don't think it is decided by anyone the same way 2+2=4 isn't decided. It is recognized. But if you don't trust other humans to decide or even know what the highest good is, why would you trust yourself. Aren't you just a human as well?

I see. It seems rather reasonable to me. If there is a highest good and it is not myself, then sacrificing a lower good (me) for a higher good is the correct move, as long as there isn't an even higher rule that prohibits me from doing so. We do the same when we eat animals, at least the people that don't believe it is prohibited to eat them.

based?

It's ultimately a philosophical issue about the nature of consciousness.

Some people think that consciousness is a phenomenon that emerges when we introduce enough complexity to some amount of matter. After all, if we are just atoms in the void, but still feel so different, we have to point to something, and the arrangement of our atoms seems like a fair candidate. So in order to build conscious beings like ourselves, we just need to figure out the correct arrangement.

Other people think that consciousness is something fundamental that does not emerge from complexity. And they will argue against the explanatory power of complexity, usually with other things that are somewhat complex, but don't show signs of consciousness. Will a traffic jam start to feel something if there are enough cars? I don't know. To them this whole endeavor is like alchemy or witch brewery. "If we just try this even more complicated recipe, then maybe the potion will get healing powers or maybe we get gold!". And additionally in computer science, we can just inspect the code, line by line. It's like believing that David Blaine can do actual magic, even when there are videos out there where he himself explains every little trick and misdirection.

I'm saying the tracks are on the same level as roads. Not riding the trains.

But a fountain is something that naturally occurs. It is used in that way because it gives more water than anyone can use, but enough water for everyone in reasonable amounts. It's not just some kind of lesser evil. Trains and railroads must first be built and maintained, they are on the same level as roads and busses.

I think there is a difference between providing the opportunity and giving things out for free.

I don't think I'm misconstruing these two definitions, because I didn't talk about the definitions you just brought up. I also think it is quite clear that I'm talking about what the government should or shouldn't provide, not what some specific government currently is providing.

I'm neither an individualist nor an American. I'm actually from Germany and experienced how the 3 months of Deutschlandticket affected the people around me.

> If I drink water from a public water fountain why is that in the public's interest?

If there were no fountain, then many people would get water bottles and that's too big of a hassle.

Defining a public good is quite hard, and any definition will most likely other controversial terms like "reasonably" or "foreseeable" in them. However, I think a public good is something that can be shared by many people in reasonable amounts, and that cannot reasonably be attained by the average individual. It is usually characterized by its scale.

So for example, you can't build your own park, but you can use the public park without blasting your music on max volume.

It may be the case that I cause a lot less externalities, but I don't think that affects the definition of a public good. If I visited my friend by using a motorcycle, I'd cause less externalities too, but I don't think motorcycles are public goods. Same with scooters, e-bikes and normal bikes.

>public parks, public litter bins, public roads These examples are permanent things, that only need to be maintained, and it's easier to just let the government handle them instead of letting the individual pay or having a subscription model or something alike. Also: all the public goods you mentioned cannot be managed by any single individual, that's why they are in the public hand, but it only goes so far as your activity is in "public range". You can't pave your own roads, you can't carry a trash can with you wherever you go and you can't play football in your house. That's why the government gives you roads, parks and trash cans. But: it is not allowed to put your house trash into a public bin. Or have a barbecue in the public park, or block the roads for a protest.

I think using the train is more like using the car. I can agree that the tracks are a public good, but actually using the train is clearly different from that. Just like the government provides me roads, but not with rides.

> I don't think I've ever seen planes classified as public transport I guess my framework fits that, because while you may need to maintain the air and the airport, the individual flights only help the individual person.

Why is it a public good? It only benefits the individuals who are travelling. If I take the train to visit my sister, I don't see how that is in the public's interest.

Your calculator can fool thousands, but only because you can fool others, it doesn't mean that it becomes the thing it is pretending to be. My point was quite limited to saying that you won't get actual intelligence, even if the things that fool us get more and more convincing.

To me all of this is like alchemy or witch brewery. You just don't get gold or magic powers from some weird recipe or combination of non-gold stuff or non-magical stuff.

Yes. The same way the best magicians are just using a complex construct of illusions to fool the audience. Or if two children stacked under a trench coat deliver a very, very, very convincing performance of an adult and manage to purchase alcohol, they still don't become an adult.

> Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing.

But what if a woman wants to kill her unborn child?

You're opening a can of worms, but that's basically what every debate does. The idea of "sex work" has other, larger implications. For example, in my country, if you are unemployed, the government gives you some money, but less money if you don't try to find work. If "sex work" is a legitimate form of work, can the government suggest you seek such a job, if you can't find work otherwise? Will your friends and your family pressure you? It may seem far-fetched at first, but if I think back to all the other things that were liberating alternatives and now have become mandatory. Cars gave us the freedom to quickly get from A to B, but now a commute of 1 hour is acceptable. Phones gave us the freedom to reach everyone almost instantly, but now you have to be available 24/7 for everyone else. You can get the latest news at any time, but you also have to stay up-to-date. It is no coincidence that most women put on make-up every single day.

What I'm trying to say is that everything that is "liberating" only shackles you to a new framework eventually.

Yes, but imagine having that service 24/7 available from everywhere and for almost every product imaginable?