There were environmental arguments presented against stacking rocks, and there is nothing lost to an individual by not stacking rocks. There is no hunger or suffering involved by abstaining from that, but the counterpoint was, apparently, “DONT TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.”
:manhattan:
How about, to mix it up a bit, we have a ‘struggle session’ on the theoretical level? Instead of using topics to have proxy debates about conceptions of justice and autonomy, we just lay out clearly our differing views of justice, autonomy, democracy, intellectual property, etc.
what, and get banned for sectarianism?
Didn’t Mao have much to say about self critique as an ongoing practice and as a healthy habit for the party? :mao-clap:
Is it that most of us don’t have the ability to properly articulate an argument about those things? Or that we all assume we share the same stance but the differences come out in these super specific situations that turn into struggle sessions? That’s why we get fixated on the specific things. If you ask how we feel about autonomy in the abstract, we all pretty much agree. If you ask about autonomy and not moving rocks, we argue because we don’t have the same view of it. The rock moving brings it out but the source is an actual fundamental disagreement about those things but we can never properly touch on it because it requires specificity to a “real world” situation in order to show up clearly.
Very good points, you can only really expect political philosophers/theorists to engage in this type of discussion