10
edits
No confusion with group entity: Difference between revisions
m
more fixes
m ("helping the economy" -> uneconomic growth - no need for bogus redirect) |
m (more fixes) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
It was probably first stated in this exact form by [[Bob Black]], who emphasized the difference between [[eat-or-be-eaten]] group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar. | It was probably first stated in this exact form by [[Bob Black]], who emphasized the difference between [[eat-or-be-eaten]] group relationships and co-operative relationships that were possible between beings that were similar. | ||
However, this is part of a general [[embodiment]] trend in modern [[philosophy]]: It's a central issue in [[philosophy of body]], [[philosophy of action]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[animal rights]], and [[Great Ape personhood|hominid personhood]]. It relies on [[empathic integrity]]: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or [[ideology]]. | However, this is part of a general [[embodiment]] trend in modern [[philosophy as usual|philosophy]]: It's a central issue in [[philosophy of body]], [[philosophy of action]], [[eco-anarchism]], [[animal rights]], and [[Great Ape personhood|hominid personhood]]. It relies on [[empathic integrity]]: having high empathy for things like oneself, and low or no empathy for things that are simply abstractions or [[ideology]]. | ||
One application of this principle is the rejection of [[animal experiment]]s and [[vivisection]] as being for the [[public good]]: the abstract "advance of [[science]]" or "improving of [[medicine]]" or "[[Uneconomic growth|helping the economy]]" are all rejected as valid [[moral reasoning]]s because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve [[suffering]], but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved. | One application of this principle is the rejection of [[animal experiment]]s and [[vivisection]] as being for the [[public good]]: the abstract "advance of [[science]]" or "improving of [[medicine]]" or "[[Uneconomic growth|helping the economy]]" are all rejected as valid [[moral reasoning]]s because economies, sciences, medicines, are only assumed to relieve [[suffering]], but bodies do most definitely suffer in the processes involved. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Most critiques of [[mass movement]]s and [[cult]]s and [[military training]] focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups. | Most critiques of [[mass movement]]s and [[cult]]s and [[military training]] focus on the confusion with the group entity that is deliberately created by the group's conditioning of the individual to identify overly with groups. | ||
A trivial example is [[outing]]: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the [[vile mailing list]]. Strong objections to [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong [[ | A trivial example is [[outing]]: someone believes that a group has "rights" or "needs" to continue some behaviour, and, without identifying the impact of that behaviour on bodies, leaps instantly to risking the bodies of others in order to propagate that behaviour. This seems to be a particular problem of the [[vile mailing list]]. Strong objections to [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] of that and other kinds have been one impetus to developing some strong [[policy]] to ensure we don't [[require response to hearsay]], or otherwise credit statements from nowhere or no-one about bodies. | ||
The [[due process]] principle of [[no self-incrimination]] is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing [[authority]], and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the [[group entity]] doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as [[torture]] for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its [[power]]. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line: | The [[due process]] principle of [[no self-incrimination]] is likewise based on similar logic: to take one person, isolated from their peers and support, facing [[authority]], and demand of them that they either incriminate someone else or themselves, is to place the interests of the [[group entity]] doing the interrogation (its need to save time, to appear competent, etc.) above those of the bodies affected by decision. Such methods as [[torture]] for instance might advance the group-entity's interests by speeding resolution of cases, or generating fear of its [[power]]. But there should be no confusion with group entity interests, by those who might be next in line: | ||