Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
In respect to your general position I have made the observation that I see your ethical value-system as a very real *imposition* that chooses to act against the way things are in our world
This use of "imposition" can only be figurative, because ethics and values cannot
literally impose upon anything: only living beings (humans included) are capable of imposing upon one another (via their chosen actions). My point is that in this literal rather than figurative sense, choosing to act in accordance with ethical values is
least impositional, because ethical behaviour minimises harm inflected upon others - the worst type of imposition.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:37 amYou seem to be alluding to a very strange sort of logic here: that other species sometimes behave in nature in certain ways, therefore we as human groups should behave (or at least are justified in behaving) in the same way as those species towards other human groups.
What
I am saying is that *we* arise within a naturalistic context and, as it pertains to a specific instance -- in this case
the founding and the construction of South Africa, which can become an 'emblem' for a great number of similar situations, from *time immemorial* up to and including our present -- which I personally take as a sort of *model*, that in one way or another these are inevitable processes that pertain to 'the world of becoming'. The world of mutability and mutation. The world of growth and decline. The world of 'planting' and also 'construction'.
That didn't really address my point. It simply more or less restated your own point in different terms. The strange logic is still operative: given our "naturalistic context" (that which I'd referred to as "other species sometimes [behaving] in nature in certain ways") we as human groups should behave in - or at least are justified in behaving in - the same way, such as by stealing the land of others so as to "found and construct" our own (more modern) societies upon that land.
You even take it a little further here, arguing not just that we are justified, and not even just that we should do it, but that it is
inevitable that human groups behave in this unethical way.
Reordering from later for better relevance and flow:
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:37 amI don't otherwise follow your logic.
Well, of course you don't! How could you?
Right. I can't, because it seems to be
incomplete.
Here's how I see the situation in our exchange as it stands:
(A) I've affirmed that choices are unavoidable, and that when we inevitably make our choices, we should make ethically principled ones. I also affirm that one of the most generic ethical principles is to avoid (minimise) harm to others where it
is avoidable, and that, in the context of our discussion, two more specific (derivative) applicable ethical principles are (1) that we should not steal from others (whether a pencil or land), and (2) that stolen property should be returned to its owner.
(B) You've fairly explicitly endorsed these principles, although with something of a seeming qualifier: that your endorsement applies to these principles "on the mental and abstract plane".
(C) You've gone on, though, to point out (according to my paraphrasing and framing) that the natural world to a large extent does
not seem to operate according to these principles: that there seems to be a whole lot of harm (including theft without return) going on out there, with living beings and species acting out of self-interested power rather than ethical principles. I'd say it's arguable given the design of the world (obligate carnivore species, etc) the extent to which that harm really
could be avoided, but that simply shifts that which is in this context ethically unprincipled from the behaviour of the living beings in the natural world to its designer (or to whatever its origin otherwise is), so it doesn't get around your point.
Finally, you've claimed (according to my paraphrasing and framing), apparently based on (C) that:
(D) Therefore, human groups are justified in rejecting the principles in (A) even though you (with a qualifier) endorsed them in (B), and, instead, in acting out of self-interested power, such as by stealing the land of other peoples to build more modern societies upon it.
Here's where I don't follow your logic: I don't see how (D) follows from (C). There seem to be some missing connecting premises/inferences.
I also think it's worth noting with respect to (C) that there are
also aspects of the natural world that operate with little or minimal harm. Consider the fact that plants survive harmlessly by photosynthesis, and that flowering plants and bees have a mutually beneficial and harmless symbiosis. Similarly, trees have a mutually beneficial and harmless symbiosis with fungi in the form of mycorrhizae (forming the so-called "wood wide web").
So, even if you
could supply the missing premises/inferences, it's not clear why we should take the lead from the parts of the natural world that seem to ignore the relevant ethical principles as opposed to the parts that seem to be in accordance with them.
Moving on:
Re your proposal to "assimilate" colonised indigenous peoples and African Americans: of course I am intensely opposed to it, because it is genocide by another name. Who in their right mind would
not intensely oppose genocide?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
A tribal people, living off the land (more or less), without a written language and without a sophisticated material culture and technology will, simply by proximity, be subsumed into the dominant and dominating culture.
This is not inevitable and can be resisted. The awareness in colonial societies as to how deeply wrong they have been to deny an already-mistreated people their right to self-determination is slowly but surely increasing. We can only hope that this process is not hijacked by reactionaries.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
in South Africa we must take into consideration the people who took over the system and, as it is happening, run it into the ground. You are quite aware that I am referring to Black Africa itself. And you are also aware of the perception that *they cannot run a country* and they cannot *manage civilization*. And so we must then note that they never wanted it in the first place, did they? It was *imposed* on them by Europeans and European culture.
I haven't studied the situation in South Africa in much depth so I don't know how true this is, but I do know that there are a host of factors - aside from government corruption and presumed incapacity to run a country - that play into the mix, including an ongoing wealth gap with a lot of black poverty (and, if I'm remembering correctly, unemployment too). The legacy of Apartheid is far from over.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
What interests me is the 'turn against oneself'. The review of history, the revisioning of it, the vilification of historical processes, and the development of a kind of reverse-trajectory.
Again, according to whom do we determine the "unrevised" history? The original land thieves or their original victims? The answer will naturally be different in each case. You're not being objective here even whilst making unqualified statements which seem to be intended to be objective.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
Nothing is absolutely settled for me. In the final analysis I cannot say with clear certainty what *view* to cultivate and hold to.
Perhaps not, but you do have some... strong tendencies, at the very least.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
The entire conversation however is very interesting to me.
I'm not sure to what extent I play a part in that, but I can't promise to engage promptly going forward given my energy levels.
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:36 pm
One final note. When I said "I am
nothing if not self-interested" it has a double-meaning. You take self-interest as a negative. But I transvalue it into a positive. If I cannot have self-interest I cannot, literally, build and achieve in the realm of
becoming. I would be nothing if I did not have self-interest to accrue to me all that I do have, all that I am, and all that I choose to remain being.
Sure - self-interest is a positive in the sense of taking responsibility for oneself and having reasonable goals and objectives for oneself upon which one acts. It becomes a negative when those goals and objectives are pursued by unreasonably imposing on - and causing avoidable harm to - others. This applies as much at the level of human societies, races, cultures, and tribes as at the level of individuals.
