/liberty/ - Liberty

there is absolutely nothing wrong in autism

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

>>85634

Isn't this the same guy who wrote an entire book on moral theory that was just "\utilitarianism rebranded?

>>85634

>Sam Harris

>>85700

Basically, yes. He claimed it was a scientific approach to morality. He's also a New Atheist, and most of those are trash whether you believe or not.

>>85744

>disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws

I thought objectivists believe that altruism does not exist?

>>85755

They dislike altruism, unless they can pretend it's actually egoism. It's not as senseless as it sounds, but also not as radical. The Bible already bashed people who give to charity but have no love for it, which is what disgusted Rand, too. When you give a dollar to a child because it makes you happy to watch a child smile, then Rand would not object, unless you were raising it to be a looter or something. Incidentally, she said that it is virtuous to help those temporarily in need. Helping a man out of a burning car or giving him food so he can last a week until he gets his new job is virtuous, according to Rand, but also not altruistic.

So it's not a non-issue, but Rands heartlessness is severely overblown. Which is partially her fault, as her style sucks bad, but a philosopher, of all people, should be able to look beyond that. There's environmentalists calling for the "culling" of 90% of the earths population, Marxists who supported the Gulags and the Terror in Russia, and leftists who despise charity because it implicitly affirms hierarchy, so it's not as if Rand was the most cold and cynical person the world has ever seen.

>>85634

He's an idiot, but he's sort of correct in this case. Objectivism is sound in theory, but it has a glaring flaw in that most people can't actually recognize in the moment which course of action will benefit themselves the most, so they just default to whichever option fucks over everyone else the most. Objectivists as a rule will always defect in the prisoner's dilemma, even in a scenario that's infinitely iterated and has no penalty for mutual cooperation.

The problem with Objectivism, is that you have to be smart enough to realize you're hurting yourself in the long run.

It's essentially Christian Liberal ethics, with more mental hoops to jump through to achieve the same effect.

Reverse engineering Christianity and re-purposing it for modern secularism is easier IMO, for the majority of the populace who has better things to do than read centuries worth of philosophy.

>>85742

>He's also a New Atheist, and most of those are trash whether you believe or not.

As a one-time follower of that shit in middle school, I'd have to agree. Dawkins isn't too bad though, it was actually one of his books that got me interested in game theory and economics.

>>85634

>Crack team of deadly philosophers

>All women

Camus, Sartre, Kierkegaard, Kant, Nietzsche, Hoppe, Russell, just off the top of my head. Fuck whoever made that shitty comic.

>>85634

>Sam Harris

Thanks, keep us informed.

>>85700

>>85742/

I don't know a whole lot about Sam Harris, but from what I've heard he seems to be an idiot who thinks you can substitute philosophy for science and create an "objectively best" political system based on science somehow. Basically, he seems to be one of these science zealot who are infinitely more cancerous than religous zealots.

>>85840

Probably existentialist comics, a pozzed Trump-hating poster of "philosophical" comics.

>>85700

>>86123

>>85700

He also said nuking the Middle East would solve the world's problems.

>>86123

>existentialist comics

I am aware of this guy. He doesn't have the self awareness to realize how up his own ass he is.

>>85744

>attempts

wrong.

libertarians are autistic, big 5 personality, lolbergs literally have a mental disorder

http://righteousmind.com/largest-study-of-libertarian-psych/

>>86854

not autistic, psychopathic at best, according to that study, though how to be stupid enough to view conformism as a positive trait is beyond me.

Also, moral psychology is cancer

>>86863

>though how to be stupid enough to view conformism as a positive trait is beyond me.

It's even stupider to bite the hand that feeds you (in this the hand that signs your research grants),

>>85700

>>85742

>>86123

hes no scholar. hes a political operative.

>>86863

>moral psychology is cancer

why?

>>88844

because I disagree with it

>>88844

Because it places indoctrination above the treatment. The psychiatrist is given authority to decide the future of his patient on his behalf. It is not about describing patients' condition and offering opportunities to change it, but the stating a norm, a standard to which others are to be fitted and enforces it.

Moral psychology is not a science or a service, it is a political tool used to deprive people of their rights, dehumanize them and punish dissidents, disguised as a helping hand, ineffective as the state itself.

Even in US it is used to prohibit firearm ownership and directly contradicts the first amendment, the part about the freedom of expression, to be precise.

It is also the reason psychiatrists and psychologists are viewed as enemies or threats by their patients, which in itself prevents people in actual need of help from receiving it because of fear of being imprisoned and and forced into a certain behavior, as well as greatly reducing, if not completely removing the positive effect of the actual treatment, as cooperation is a very important part of it.

>>88856

The whole discussion of how fucked up and politicized psychology is deserves its own thread. Actually, it deserves its own thread on literally every single board regardless of whether that board is even vaguely related to politics. Modern psychology is one of the biggest cancers in history, maybe even the single biggest.

>>88858

psychology is an area of (((females)))

>>86273

That's insulting to people that have autism.