Moral Luck
Moral Luck, refers to the concept that individuals are essentially a product of their environment, particularly with regards to Political beliefs.
"Someone is morally lucky when they arrive at the correct position without any sort of critical thinking as to why it is correct." - Rem in a reddit post following a heated conversation on the subject of moral luck[1]
The term was first brought to the forefront on Destiny's streams during a particular heated debate between Rem, Vaush, and Hasan, wherein the term was discussed in exceeding detail.[2] Rem being of the position that political pundits, especially those with large audiences, have a responsibility to ensure their arguments are philosophically grounded. Rem would go on to assert that individuals who do not do so, run the risk of "lucking" into their positions through life-experiences, and may not truly be advocating for the "most correct" positions.
The term became so pervasive within the broader DGG community, references to it can be seen to this day.
On stream discussion
On March 23, 2019 Hasan, Rem, Vaush, Marty, and Destiny engaged in a heated discussion on the necessity of a foundational philosophical understanding for those engaging in political advocacy. In the discussion, Rem argued that political pundits, especially those with large audiences, have a responsibility to ensure their arguments are philosophically grounded. Rem asserts that individuals who do not do so, run the risk of "lucking" into their positions through life-experiences(Rem provided Hasan and Vaush as examples). Shortly after Rem makes this statement, an irate Hasan(seemingly under the belief Rem is trying to "clout farm") and a bewildered Vaush(seemingly hurt by Rem's comments) join the conversation and proceed to have a very tense confrontation with Rem. As the conversation proceeds, Hasan and Vaush argued Rem’s position is unrealistic, particularly in the context of the fast-paced and often "surface level" nature of online discourse.
Hasan stayed in the call for around two hours before needing to leave for bed. Prior to his departure, Hasan posited the question to Rem "How much analytical philosophy did Martin Luther King engage in before he decided to do advocacy?" Rem argued this was the worst possible example Hasan could have given, as MLK was a very well read student of philosophy and even wrote a paper on Hegel and continental philosophy. Vaush left the call shortly following Hasan's departure, seemingly frustrated with attempting to engage with Rem and his position.
After Hasan and Vaush's exit, Destiny engaged in an hour-long discussion with Rem and Marty to explore ways the conversation could have been more productive. He argued that one side had to "rise above" the other and suggested that the heated way Hasan and Vaush joined the call, combined with Rem's difficulty in clearly conveying his message, contributed to making the conversation unproductive. While Destiny didn't fully express his opinion on "moral luck" until Vaush and Hasan left, he emphasized that Rem held the correct stance in the conversation. He argued that individuals with large audiences should at least possess his own level of philosophical knowledge before advocating for their positions, citing his personal experience in debating individuals who failed to provide adequate arguments against incest.
| Play by play | |
|---|---|
|
Is Destiny wasting his time?
1:21 Rem asks Destiny if he thinks he could be helping people better by giving positive arguments for different policy positions as opposed to engaging with the "lowest common denominator of society". Destiny responds with an anecdote about a former friend of the stream's(Micspam) argument that Destiny should have become the next Philip DeFranco(i.e. just covering politics and policies). Destiny argues that he could potentially do this, but feels he is uniquely suited to engage in the particular debates he participates in, while being able to reach a type of audience that is typically unreachable by pundits on his side of the political spectrum. Destiny concludes that he is in fact "doing good". The difficulty of Leftists engaging with philosophy and "lucking" into the correct positions AKA Rem defines moral luck(and accuses Hasan of fitting the definition)
Rem then argues that Hasan falls into this category of "morally lucky" individuals, and Destiny laughingly states "that's way too brutal, hold on". Rem goes on to describe the difficulty he had in his fruitless two hour long conversation with Hasan in getting him to proclaim any "ethical positions". Destiny puts forth the argument that some individuals don't' have the "drive" to "ground things out", and that one could always push for more "grounding". Destiny points to himself as an example, as despite his engagement with philosophy, he has not read quite enough literature to deem himself "fully grounded" for any given position. Rem caveats that while he does not think Hasan is a bad person, and does in fact do plenty good, he considers Hasan to have "lucked" into his positions. Destiny counters that he believes Hasan is "grounded enough" to provide good policy level arguments. Destiny goes on to argue that having someone like Hasan who happens to be morally lucky is fine, as he can make other people morally lucky by finding his own stream. 9:07 MrMouton joins the call and asks what the term "morally lucky" means. Destiny explains: "When Rem says that Hasan is morally lucky, what Rem is saying is, Hasan doesn't actually have the proper philosophical groundings for his ideas, and he could have just as easily been an alt-righter, and he just happened to grow up around enough people who are left-leaning, and that's why he's left leaning." - Destiny Rem once again caveats that Hasan is more empirically correct than individuals on the right, as individuals on the left are arguably more well read on certain positions. Destiny laughs at this argument, and argues that Hasan isn't quite as well read as he should be, pointing to arguments the two have had revolving around rent-control. Rem jokingly states he's trying to dig himself out a hole with Hasan right now, and Destiny isn't helping. Rem then argues that moral luck may explain why The Young Turks spawned someone like Dave Rubin, Destiny laughs that Rem seems to be on "team Vaush". Rem points out that Vaush has not read philosophy either, and that anything said about Hasan could also apply to Vaush. 11:41 Destiny states that he agrees with Rem to some extent, at least on an emotional level. He points out that he enjoys grounding out his opinions moreso than other individuals, as it allows him to change and adapt to new ideas easily. Destiny then argues that if an individual does not wish to do all the "leg-work" involved in philosophically grounding oneself, and they more or less fall in line with his own positions, he doesn't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Destiny then suggests that while it would be ideal if Hasan was literally citing philosophers on stream, it's not realistic. Hasan and Vaush join the call
Shortly after Vaush joins the call, Hasan earnestly attempts to engage with Rem regarding the difficulties he experiences in bringing over complex philosophical terms into the streaming medium he inhabits. Hasan goes on to admit this is a "bottleneck" for himself, and argues that it may be a difficulty for Rem as well. Rem counters this, arguing that he does not go onto public platforms with massive audiences, and taught a political philosophy that he does not feel he can adequately ground in an ethical theory. Rem goes on to describe the difficulty he experienced in getting Hasan to "ground" himself in an ethical theory in a prior conversation they had. 20:37 Rem remarks that while Destiny posses some frankly morbid philosophical positions, he can actually ground his political positions. Destiny then asserts that one could argue "how could you have any metaethical position when you're lost with things like metaphysics or epistemology." Vaush cuts Rem off before he can respond, and asks Rem if he truly believes he "lucked" into being a leftist. The debate
"You can have one(a perspective), but you have to simultaneously acknowledge that yours is just as justified as someone who is on the alt-right." As Destiny opens up Factorio, Rem then directly asks if either Hasan or Vaush can give ethical reasons to support their political positions. Hasan then responds that he would like to see the "redistribution of girlfriends." Vaush responds:"I want the greatest number of people to experience the greatest amount of happiness possible. I believe I follow that by pursuing policies which allow for the material redistribution of wealth, which would allow people to get the most they can out of the consumption of material necessities that will allow them to live... free of subsistence worries." Shortly after Rem acknowledges Vaush's utilitarian perspective, he asks Vaush: "What if I was a Deontologist, your position is not compatible with Deontology, and I don't think you have a way to argue against me if I was one." To which Vaush retorts that he should not have to shoulder the burden of Deontologists and Utilitarians, and would rather just "dab" on right wingers without having to solve an "unsolvable" philosophical dilemma. Rem then acknowledges that while people in Vaush's position may be able to attack those on the right who are incompatible with most ethical systems, they would still have to concede that their positions are just as justifiable(from a philosophical framework perspective) as those on the right. Vaush responds he would never attack right-leaning individuals from a philosophical perspective, and would instead argue with the fundamental immorality of their arguments. Rem posits a hypothetical to Vaush: "Could you actually give me an argument right now to my(hypothetical) position where I have an ethical system, such that, black people are excluded as being moral agents. Do you actually think you could give me a... philosophical argument against that?" Vaush responds he would be unable to ,and that he would just want his debate opponent in this hypothetical to "be dead". Hasan responds that Rem would have to justify if black people had agency in this scenario as well. 24:51 Destiny provides a "real life" example which served as justification for his own endeavors into philosophy: "When somebody says something like "I believe in the superiority of the white race over black people. I can make these like vague understanding things like 'I believe all people should be treated equally..' or by having a little bit of an understanding of the underlying arguments, I can turn the argument on them and I can say something like 'okay, well you think that white people's lives should be valued more than black people's... what if I were to make that argument more extreme and say white people with brown eyes instead of white people with blue eyes' and then I could turn that onto them and force them to answer the question. I think having a slightly better understanding of deeper principles can enable you to understand an opponent's argument better and dig a little deeper and them kind of turn it around on them. I don't think i'd be able to do that if I hadn't spent a little time engaging with some ideas." - Destiny Hasan retorts that this is allegedly not enough according to Rem's framework, and that Destiny would be required to be able to justify morally that black people have agency before he can argue on behalf of black people. Rem agrees, and argues that this is not a difficult thing to do, to which Vaush assets such a position is not pragmatic for people engaging in actual political advocacy/debates. Rem then asserts that while the average person should not reasonably be expected to bear this responsibility, individuals advocating for political positions, especially on public platforms, should be be expected to put in the "philosophical work" to ensure their position is the correct one. Vaush mockingly suggests that Rem is advocating for people to pursue philosophy before joining in political advocacy, to which Rem reiterates that is not his belief. Vaush argues his perspective as a "rule utilitarian", that even if he has not fully "solved" the philosophical implications of what he believes in, he could make the argument that people could broadly lead better lives under his system than under the system of fascists. Vaush goes on to argue he has a utilitarian obligation to engage in praxis against their values. Rem replies, in the case of right-winger, Vaush does have the moral justification to argue his position, given most ethical systems are incompatible with right-leaning positions. He caveats that his primary argument centers around the distinction between an individual who considers themself to be a communist versus a Rawlsian liberal. Rem's train of thought is then interrupted by a "deez nuts" joke from MrMouton, at which point Hasan takes the time mto thank Rem for making him seem more entertaining by comparison. Vaush replies that this remark was rude, and Rem replies that such a personal attack indicates that Hasan is incapable of defending his own position. From this point the two engage in a very heated personal(and unproductive) argument. "Hasan literally almost everything you've said in this discussion so far, has just been a personal attack, and you've not actually engaged with me on any sort of level". -Rem Hasan then accuses Rem of gaslighting, and calls-back to a time where he believes Rem referred to himself as "morally-inconsistent". Rem denies ever saying such a thing, and Destiny attempts to steer the conversation back on track shortly after by restating Rem's argument with an analogy: "Let's say we want to take a car trip... and the best vehicle we can take is a nice blue car, it gets really good miles per gallon. Now, let's say you have a really advanced driver, and he says 'I know that this car is good, because it has very good miles per gallon, so we're gonna use that car to go on the road trip.' What Rem is saying, is that you don't know enough about cars, to know that the reason why you're driving that blue car is because it gets a lot of miles per gallon. So what could happen is, another shiny blue car could drive by, like an alt-right blue car, and you might wanna drive that car instead even if it gets shity miles per gallon, because you don't understand why you were ever driving the original blue car."- Destiny explaining Rem's argument with an analogy. Hasan attempts to engage with the analogy, and argues that if he looks at the history of the alt-right blue car in this scenario, and finds that it has killed several individuals, he could make an informed decision without needing to understand the underlying mechanics of the car. Rem takes issue with this, and argues that if Hasan's intention is to "sell the fucking car", he needs to understand the underlying mechanisms behind the product. Vaush chimes in and states the analogy has been broken down to uselessness, he argues that when individuals in his position engage in political advocacy, they are making some "basic points" and hoping people "pick the fuck up" on it. 32:16 Shortly after Vaush claims that he is "grounded", Rem asks what his grounding is. Vaush responds that he has an "axiomatic foundation of wanting to maximize happiness for as many people as possible." Rem mocks Vaush for "presupposing a random thing" that he refuses to justify, to which Vaush argues that most of philosophy is built on "unjustified presupposed axioms". Rem then derides Destiny for "bringing on a new generation of axiomatists", and Vaush pointedly asks Rem to prove to him that it is the right thing to maximize happiness for the maximum amount of people." Rem responds that he doesn't necessarily believe that, decides to play Devil's advocate, and claims he holds an axiom that he wants to cause the most harm to everyone. From this point, Vaush becomes increasingly irate with Rem. 34:07 Vaush asks Rem what the political value of attempting to objectively determine the ideal mode of values that one needs to engage in political advocacy is. Vaush goes on to argue that pundits in his position make the best arguments they can, and every individual regardless of how solid their argument, will enact force/violence against the individuals they disagree with. Vaush concludes that politics is violence. Rem writes this entire argument off as pure "rhetoric", and steers the conversation back to the discussion on axioms. Rem proceeds to argue that because Vaush seemingly choosing an axiom at random, if he were to debate against an individual with a different axiom, he would be unable to have a conversation. Rem then explains Normative Ethics to Vaush, a philosophical topic centered around the debate of moral axioms. Shortly after, Rem mockingly suggests that Vaush would have known this if he read more philosophical theory. After a brief moment where Vaush, Rem and Hasan shout at one another in unison, Destiny attempts to explain Vaush's position to Rem. He explains that Vaush would argue someone like Donald Trump would not be able to ground out his positions morally, let alone define what the word "normative" means, despite being in a position of utmost political power. Rem retorts that he was making a philosophical argument and not a political one. To which Destiny responds Vaush and Hasan are more interested in political discourse than philosophical discourse. Rem then responds that while Vaush and Hasan would be able to have a political perspective, they would be unable to have a "justifiable" one without rooting it in a moral framework. 36:50 Vaush proceeds to argue that while he respects Rem's intelligence, and is admittedly "very triggered" at the moment, any argument Rem is making regarding philosophy and leftists would be laughed at from those on the right. Rem counters that he had not even hinted at such an argument. Vaush continues his argument irregardless, and asserts that if leftists were to attempt to live up to Rem's standards there would be very few available to combat right-leaning thought. Vaush believes people who don't share his political beliefs should be killed
In response, Vaush argues that he "operates in pragmatism", and points to an example of somebody who believes in "genocidal nihilism". He asserts an individual who engages in such a belief, is far beyond having a "sit-down" conversation. He goes on to argue that the proper way to deal with such an individual who holds such a belief is to "jail or kill them." Following this explanation, Rem states Vaush's position makes more sense, but caveats the way his position was stated makes it appear as though there is no possible discourse one could have with Vaush if they share a different ethical axiom. Vaush counters, arguing once more that Rem's position is impractical. Vaush goes on to state that while it may be possible to "hash out" different value systems in a neutral way, he does not believe it is practical for the average human being, and concludes that it should not be relevant for the "political process". Rem responds that his position would be more relevant to individuals with larger audiences. He points to an example of an individual "going to a picket-line", not necessarily needing a moral framework to engage in such an activity. He juxtaposes this against someone someone like Destiny, someone who's political messages have been heard by millions of individuals, and argues that Destiny must make it his priority to ensure his positions are the absolute correct ones. Rem concludes that the goal of politics is to advocate for the most correct, and true positions. Destiny disagrees with this conclusion. Exskillsme joins
43:57 Exskillsme chimes in, arguing that Rem's position regarding individuals with different axioms being unable to have a discussion is incorrect. Rem denies ever saying such a thing, points out that he actually argued against this position, and informs Exskillsme that Vaush actually made this argument. Exskillsme then informs Vaush that they had previously had discussions despite the fact that both appeared to have differing axioms. Vaush counters, asserting Exskillsme engaged his value system with "flagrant dishonesty and no actual interest." 46:01 Exskillsme explains why he's somewhat in agreement with Rem, arguing that while a moral grounding should be prioritized for individuals with large audiences, these individuals do not necessarily need to "solve philosophy". Rem is satisfied with the answer, and agrees with Exskillsme position. Vaush, seemingly in disbelief that Rem and Exskillsme were able to come to an agreement so shortly, takes issue with this development. Hasan argues with Rem
48:17 Hasan and Vaush ask Rem what he "identifies" as on the political spectrum. Rem informs them that he identifies as a "democratic socialist". Hasan further probes, asking Rem if he believes in "seizing the means of production", and Marxist principles. Hasan then concludes that they both have similar political beliefs, and attempts to understand Rem's perspective better by asking why he and Vaush could have become alt-righters if they were not surrounded by other left-leaning individuals. 50:32 After Hasan claims that one can ground themselves within an ethical system without "getting to the root of kantian philosophy", Rem asks Hasan what he thinks grounding is. Hasan avoids answering the question, and claims to have adopted Vaush's perspective of "maximizing happiness" fo the most amount of individuals. In response, Rem provides a hypothetical of an individual growing up in Nazi Germany. He then describes how this individual's perception of "maximizing happiness" may be vastly different from Hasan or Vaush's own. Following an inadequate response from Hasan, Rem concludes Hasan is incapable of grounding out a "logical and true" moral framework. In response, Hasan claims to not care if his system is not the "most correct", and admits to be willing to change it should a perceivably better one come about. Rem then asserts this proves his own point, and that an alt-righter could say the exact same things and be just as justified as Hasan. 55:17 Rem once again informs Hasan he is just as externally justified in his positions as an alt-righter. Hasan responds that he is justified as he wants the "least amount of harm". To which Rem once again asks Hasan to ground this position, and Hasan professes to being unsure how to do so, and asserts once more he just wants the least amount of harm done to the most people. Rem once again provides a hypothetical to support his position "How would you argue against me if I were an alt-righter and my core-ethical tenant was to kill all black people?" Hasan responds "That's a bad idea, I don't think black people want to be killed." Rem then informs Hasan this is not a proper justification for his position. 57:09 The debate derails further, and Rem discusses his issues with Hasan insulting him at the start of the conversation. Insults thrown out include: "sleeper dipshit", "condescending mother fucker", "little dick", and "sleeper cocksucker". Vaush asks rem for a moral justification of left-leaning positions
59:07 Following a heated discussion between Hasan and Rem, Vaush pointedly asks Rem to morally justify his political position. Rem confesses he is unable to morally justify his position over a different left-leaning principle, and explains it is not necessary for him to do so given the fact he is not a political pundit. Hasan and Vaush proceed to mock Rem for some time as a result of this position, and criticize Rem for holding them to a standard he does not personally live by. 1:07:49 Rem takes the "extreme position" and argues that there should be a higher bar set if one wishes to truly be "moral". Destiny takes issue with this argument and asserts that setting "too high of a bar" for oneself and those on "your side", then the other side will by nature have a much lower barrier to entry and be much more effective politically. Is Rem's position elitist?
1:14:55 Rem is pressured into providing a grounding for his position, before he can do so Vaush takes the opportunity to argue with Rem once more regarding holding him to a standard that Rem himself does not hold to. Vaush eventually asserts that it is not foundationally possible to justify an ethic axiom. Rem argues he can, to which Vaush essentially dares Rem to prove him wrong. 1:17:50 Following several minutes of prodding, Vaush eventually decides to debate Rem regarding the subject of First Philosophy. Before this debate can be had, Vaush throws out an olive branch to Rem, stating that while he likes Rem he'd like him to at least acknowledge there may be some pragmatic consequences to his position. Noticing that there are three people against him, Rem decides to bring in a friend to assist him. Stalled joins the call AKA Rem brings in the all-star philosophy team
Marty joins the call AKA Rem brings in the all-star philosophy team
1:29:08 Vaush chimes in, informing Marty that Rem argued pundits should be "forced" to undergo philosophical training before entering the political landscape. Marty responds with a hypothetical: "would you let a surgeon operate on you without any formal training?" To which Vaush responds that this is a false-equivalency. Marty counters, that the entire argument hinges on whether or not one should buy into the "level of professionalism" inhabited in political discourse. Marty goes on to argue that while there is not such a level of professionalism in modern political discourse, individuals like Rem argue that their ought to be. 1:30:48 Vaush provides the example of a trans-women "popping off" with their political youtube channel, and asks Marty if he feels this individual should be barred from speaking on their lived experience until they've put in the philosophical leg-work. Marty informs Vaush that he believes Vaush is misunderstanding his position. He goes on to explain that while this person can do what they want, it is not ideal that this individual is unable to formulate their position in some sort of normative ethics. Marty further explains that one could not have some "good working theory" without some background assumptions. Vaush argues once more that Rem has staked out an unreasonable position that would make it incredibly difficult for other individuals to advocate for political stances. Marty counters all one would need to understand ethics is the internet or a library card. Destiny informs Marty this position is not reasonable, and provides the hypothetical of disaffected minority with poor access to a reasonable library/internet. Marty argues this individual would have no basis for political advocacy to begin with, as they would not be readily read in any sort of areas to begin with. Destiny counters that unlike a doctor, technically every individual engages with philosophy throughout their lives, and one's political positions could be informed by their life's situations. Marty argues that Rem seems to be arguing that in order to do "good" philosophy/ethics, one needs to deliberate upon certain kinds of beliefs. 1:39:30 Marty provides a hypothetical: "Let's say you have an ethical demand, and I don't really have to meet that demand because I work 80 hours a week, do you think that that's a respectable answer?" Vaush argues that this should not be an ethical demand to begin with, to which Marty asks Vaush if he believes any ethical obligations/social constructs should exist. Marty further elaborates that he could universally apply the same criticism of "I work 80 hours a week, therefore I don't owe you anything" to even a basic understanding of the law. 1:42:12 Vaush becomes very irate with Rem, accusing him of being a "rabble-rouser", argues there is no reason for him to let Rem talk except for entertainment purposes, asserts there is no justification for how unpragmatic Rem has been throughout the conversation, and accuses Rem of requiring a "doctoral level education in philosophy" before speaking about politics. Rem begins responding, but is cut short multiple times as individuals in the call ask Rem to speed up his response. Rem eventually makes the argument that an individual would arguably be more moral with a basic understanding of philosophy, during this time Rem mutes Vaush. 1:49:31 Vuash argues one would require a huge amount of pre existing resources/privilege to be able to meet Rem's standard. Rem counters, arguing he has met several individuals from unprivileged backgrounds who have spent time engaging with philosophy. Hasan and Vaush are quick to write this off as superfluous anecdotal evidence, mock Rem for suggesting as such, and laugh as Rem attempts to finish his argument. Vaush provides his own anecdotal evidence, asserting that the small town he lives in has several people advocating for just political issues, yet would fail to meet Rem's standard. 1:51:57 Hasan leaves the call, asks Rem how much analytical philosophy Martin Luther King engaged in before he decided to do advocacy. Rem argues that this is the worst example Hasan could have gave, as MLK was a very well read philosopher. Marty even points out that MLK wrote a paper on Hegel. 1:52:59 Rem informs Vaush he was the worst person he has had to speak to regarding this topic. The conversation continues, and Vaush reiterates Rem's argument is unpragmatic, and an unfair standard to levy on any individuals attempting to engage in political advocacy. 1:55:30 Rem and Vaush loop through their prior arguments for an extended period of time, the resulting conversation becomes increasingly more unproductive until Vaush leaves the call. This unproductive conversation is cut between Destiny, and Marty fruitlessy attempting to act as mediators between the two when possible. Vaush calls Rem privileged, Rem becomes irate and the conversation becomes even more unproductive
Stalled claims Rem was unclear that his position only referred to content creators with audiences, despite the fact that Rem said as much from the very beginning of the conversation. 2:04:32 Marty posits the question to vaush: Aught thought-leaders learn philosophy before engaging in political advocacy? Vaush argues they should not, and they could if they want to. Vaush then asks Rem exactly how many followers are required for a thought-leader to have before they are required to learn philosophy. Marty responds that the amount is "fuzzy". Destiny later steps in, asks Vaush to clarify what he means by the "vast majority of people being unable to meet Rem's standard". Destiny points out that he meets Rem standards, and he has a very base level of understanding philosophy. Destiny and Rem discuss
2:42:11 Rem asks Destiny if he feels public figures should be well read enough(in philosophy) to justify their political positions. 2:46:40 Destiny responds that he agrees, and that political figures aught to at least have his level of philosophical knowledge in order to advocate for political positions. Destiny goes on to point to individuals who had made dumb arguments in the past, i.e. regarding incest. | |
| Debate Timestamps | |
|---|---|
| |
References
- ↑ https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/cbfh6y/rem_what_i_mean_by_moral_luck_with_regards_to/
- ↑ Streamer Drama ft. Hasanabi, Vaush, Marty & RemTheBathBoi. (Mar 23, 2019). www.youtube.com. Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjszEJBKWRs