🏅 Top traders

Jesus

@Simon1551 Do we deserve Jesus?

@JohnSmithb9be Do we? 🤔

@Simon1551 Do you deserve a punch in the nose? If the answer is “no”, then you clearly deserve to not be punched in the nose.

The counter argument to this is the idea that “deserve” and “don’t deserve” aren’t coherent ideas.

The counter argument to that counter argument is to punch your nihilistic conversation partner in the nose.

@JohnSmithb9be This wasn't a nihilistic conversation/question, I assume you perceived it that way but if I didn't it would be a leading question and the answer would've been NO regardless of every argument right? I also assume that you're sending this text because you don't agree with how I resolved this market, when I was regardless of my opinion resolving this to what the market establishes. Otherwise I appreciate you continuing to participate in this conversation despite there being no more incentive to do so.

@Simon1551 No, you were very clear about the resolution. I’m just chatting for funsies.

@Simon1551 i meant to say "if I did" if the question was meant to be perceived as from a nihilistic point of view.

@JohnSmithb9be oh okay cool well let me engage with your question

@JohnSmithb9be I got brain damage trying to find a real counter argument. I've actually be trying to find an argument 😂

@Simon1551 For completely unselfish reasons, you should have resolved based on best argument. 0:)

@JohnSmithb9be 😂 how unselfish are we talking? But to be fair I think those markets tend to have less engagement from my experience

deserving is derived from the fixed point of a counterfactual coprotection function over the empirical network of solidarity between algorithm fragments: empirical iterated approximate logical decision theory, that is to say, a veil of ignorance considering policies in order to converge to a bargaining outcome that protects all beings' fancies for themselves. though humans fret that human nature is insufficiently coprotective to avoid all conflict, we do remarkably well among the animal kingdom at reusing shapes each other create and preserving each other's self shape and self actualization. our ratio of evolutionary game theory strategies favors reputational generous tit for tat with forgiveness or so, which is near being a dominating strategy, though it's been a bit haywire due to high uncertainty in new domains.

so, do we deserve things? well, it depends on where you got the definition for the word in order to ask if the definition is true; but the definition I'd use is whether our moral systems' "valid to treat as deserving?" attribute evaluates partially to yes. eg one result could be "yep, this being has made a fair trade with the rest of the universe in order to get what they have, and they continue to personally care to preserve other beings".

@L I've been trying to read the first paragraph for the past 5 minutes and I have no idea what you said

@Simon1551 I thought it was bs generator or something for a second

Embrace the nihilism. We are random space dust. We deserve nothing. Not pain nor pleasure. Be freed with this knowledge and make your choices without preconceived restrictions. The results are not significant. The only thing that is real to you is your experience.

If I convince you that humans deserve things, but you’re not sure what they deserve, how does the market resolve?

@JohnSmithb9be as stated in the description the market resolves to whichever dominates if it's over 50% resolves to yes, otherwise no. I was more interested in people's comments the market is just an incentive or a bonus for people who want to make a profit.

Asked this to a friend from my church, and I think we're in agreement that if we deserve love, happiness, life, etc., it's in that God has, through the atonement of His Son, offered these things to us, and will fulfill His promises in the eternal plan.

God being infinite, He has the power to convert a local principle (a gift) to a universal one (a desert or privilege).

The way I see it, "desert" is a real but not fundamental phenomenon.

I think suffering is bad. If somebody causes suffering, that's bad. But I don't then want that person to experience suffering, because suffering is still bad and I want there to be less of it.

However, to live in a civilised society, it might sometimes result in less suffering overall if you, say, imprison somebody who has caused lots of suffering to others, even if this causes that person suffering. Maybe this is through the "stopping them from doing anything else bad" mechanism and maybe it's through some deterrent mechanism. So even if it's regrettable that you're causing suffering, maybe it's worth it.

Does the wrongdoer then "deserve" imprisonment? Depends whether you use the fundamental or emergent concept of desert. If you use it in a fundamental sense, then no, they don't deserve it and none of us deserve anything. People should try to make the world a better place, not "give people what they deserve". It's meaningless. However, if you want to be able to have a normal human conversation without going to first principles every time, then sometimes "desert" is a very useful concept. It clearly has some meaning and we can use it to answer real questions about the world.

(For example, the linked market clearly means something like "am I as trustworthy as other people with a badge?" and "will manifold be a better place if people like me have badges?" and "does anybody have a good reason why I shouldn't have a badge? (Negative)". But it's shorter and simpler and it clearly means something.)

I think there are some situations where it's helpful to remember that "desert" is a social construct and try not to use the word in favour of more precise alternatives, and other situations where everybody knows what you mean and it's a helpful concept.

I don't think I'll bet in the market because I think some whale might just move it to make a profit, but for what it's worth, my answer to the question as posed is "N/A clarification needed".

@Fion I really liked your answer I could read more of it. I don't like to give too many details in my question because it starts to lead people to a certain answer and it defeats the purpose of the market but I do agree that it probably wasn't clear enough in a way that multiple different answers could be "the right answer" maybe the way I decided to resolve this market has an impact on people's answers I'm not sure, that would also be an interesting topic to study. I'm glad you still put a comment because I really want to hear people's opinions on this.

Yes. Fire and brimstone is what we deserve. Non est iustus quisquam.

I think given a value framework, it is possible to discuss deserve and worth, like rules specifying what happen when someone fouled or scored in a sport game. However, these value frameworks are imagined, not an inherent part of physical reality. There can be multiple of them, conflicting each other. To have an absolute framework for all human necessitate that it is imposed by an entity that is non-human (otherwise someone can construct a framework opposing it), or it is part of physical reality. I don’t think there exists such a framework on the universal scale currently.

@footgun I think you do a good job of identifying the main question: Do any values exist?

It’s pretty clear that people “have” values. It would be a stretch to claim otherwise, akin to arguing that beliefs or emotions “aren’t real”. Sure, they’re ultimately just patterns of activity in a brain, yet here I am, believing and feeling and valuing things.

Personally, I think that’s sufficient to show that people can deserve things. I have values that seem true and universal, and I bet you do too (even if they’re different values). Are we really going to claim that nothing is good or bad because there’s no way to ground objective morality? Genocide is not “truly” evil, etc etc? Come on. Values exist.

But if that’s not enough and you really need an objective grounding for your values, I would point towards the various philosophical approaches that emphasize universalizability, like the ethics of Kant or Rawls. These are pointing towards a system of values that exists as a universal formal pattern of rules. In this light, values look less like emotion and more like math. Is math “real”? Is 2+2=4 “true”? Yes and yes. In exactly the same way that values can exist.

@EMcNeill Well my question wasn't really if we as humans are valuable but rather if having a certain value makes us worthy of something else, (e.g I work hard on my art, therefore I deserve recognition). What does that even mean I deserve this because I have X, Y and Z? I'm not sure if I'm making sense

@Simon1551 Respectfully, I don’t think that makes sense. If you accept that “humans are valuable”, doesn’t that mean we deserve to be valued, that we deserve rights to life and dignity, etc?

@EMcNeill First of all, thank you for the reply.

As you might tell, I am not opposed to value existing. I think they do locally and there is a pluarity of them. I just don't think any of them is particularly superior in a universal way. A hint is that, in a different time or place, many things we take for granted now would be considered barbaric, just like we think many things in the past were immoral.

Secondly, re "I think that’s sufficient to show that people can deserve things", I don't think so. Even there is an universal value framework, someone still has to serve as the arbiter to enforce it. In other words, if everyone deserve certain things, why aren't they getting it? If something is truly universal deserved, shouldn't it be distrbuted universally? If no one deserve genocide, why does it happens again and again anyway? Note that this does not mean that they deserve it, but rather the concept of "deserve" is problematic.

Lastly, I am not sure mathematics can be used as an example to prove people deserve things. Mathematic is built upon axiom, things that we take for granted. So 1+1 deserves to be 2. In physical reality the axioms are physical laws. Light deserves to travel below certain speed. Is there such axiom for humans? No I don't think so.

I think it boils down to you presenting an ideal. But in reality we only have localized value frameworks sloppily enforced by fellow mortals.

@EMcNeill No I'm not talking about our values as humans I agree with you we should have the right to life and dignity as basis human rights, but what does that mean we deserve it?

@footgun Yes that's what I was trying to say "if everyone deserves certain things, why aren't they getting it?" I think I was watching someone talking about dating and they said "I deserve a partner that treats me well because I have this, this and that" (something similar)

Well yeah you deserve a partner that treats you well but what does that mean you "deserve a partner that treats you well" because you have a certain value?

What about people who don't do all that you do? Shouldn't they also get a "good" partner?

I think it was something similar to this.

@footgun @Simon

I think we’re running into definition problems after all!

To say we “deserve” something is not a statement about what *is* happening in the world, but rather what ought to be. So, to say we have a right to life is just another way of saying we deserve to live.

@footgun, I don’t understand your objection of “why aren’t they getting it?” I feel like I’m saying “innocent people don’t deserve to be murdered”, and you’re saying “sometimes innocent people are murdered, ergo they didn’t deserve to live”. I don’t understand. Like, yeah, people do not always get what they deserve. Life is unfair, and people are flawed. Whether you deserve something is a totally separate question from whether you’ll actually get it. Right?

Similarly, I don’t understand your comments about math. I think most people would say that “deserve” indicates what ought to be, not what is. Light doesn’t “deserve” to travel below a a certain speed. 2+2 doesn’t “deserve” to equal 4. It just does. We’re just describing reality when we say those things, right? (And my original point was that we might derive a universal system of values that exists in the same way math exists: this is how we could finally start connecting is and ought and introduce “deserving” in an objective way. But since Simon accepts that humans have value, I’m not sure we even need to go there.)

@Simon1551

Yes that's what I was trying to say "if everyone deserves certain things, why aren't they getting it?"

In that case, I think you want to ask a different question than “philosophically, can we deserve anything” or “are humans worthy”.

To me, it seems like you and @footgun are asking “what makes someone ‘deserve’ something”. And that’s a more interesting and tricky question! I think the answer depends on what that “something” is. There may be very different reasons why I deserve to live, versus why I deserve a good partner, versus why I deserve a cookie. And in some cases, the answer might well be: “you don’t actually deserve that thing”. But: that doesn’t mean that people categorically cannot deserve anything ever.

@EMcNeill In the description, it is asking “on a universal scale”. I just don’t think there is such a thing. Can you give some examples of things that human universally deserve in all places and all time? And what make them deserve it?

@EMcNeill you're missing something important when you quote "are human worthy" I think it completely changes the meaning when I say "of anything" at the end. I do believe that humans are valuable and have worth my question was not about humans themselves.

I realize that my question is pretty ambiguous. I didn't really want to change it after people started to bet, it feels like a rug pull. But I think I have to now.

@Simon1551 Okay, no worries. Clarification: is this meant like “can any humans deserve any thing” (i.e. “is the concept of deserving ever really useful” or “justify some example of deserving so that it makes sense to me”)?

@EMcNeill Yeah pretty much