Yes, I realized midway that I could just keep on explaining and would need to stop at some point too early, so I stopped at the conclusion waiting for questions.

Of course, we will need some common ground here, that would be:
1- god is what's on top of any value structure. for all intends and purposes to an individual relation that would be god.
2- reaching the top of a value structure requires measured steps measured by how far the are able to move in that structure, after accounting for the changes to the structure done by the movement.
3- everything that can be called "art" definitely has commonality, hinting at the existence at an intrinsic object of pure art, all seems to culminate into the input of the receiver (that would be a conscious being) through a medium (those would be the senses) such mediums are majorly visual, sound and literature (literature could be under a broader term of logic or pattern but would then take a large part of the visual and the sound spheres) and I would argue logically there is a perfect art, (I would even call prayer) that is fully non related to the input medium, and only later it diverges into the different art mediums.

Now on those assumptions or conclusions what are the disagreements?

I feel like it would be wrong for me to comment here.

There has been research done on the efficacy of introducing students to animal ethics and them changing their behavior by (for instance) ceasing to eat meat.

It can be effective - not like high percentage of students effective but like it gets a few students to think and act differently when they weren't aware of the issue at all before.

So, there is some evidence that exposure to ethical issues that demand behavioral changes that run against social norms can work. It'd be wild to think otherwise, since that'd mean no one would ever rationally question social morality. But that happens a lot. Not always due to exposure in an ethics class, but similar kinds of exposure and training in general

I think the author is correct that the focus on STEM has limited instructional time for other subjects like social studies and English which have historically focused on ethical issues. The problem is that need is always there, and schools have attempted to replace that with SEL, which is being attacked.

It’s taught by parents raising their young children at crucial development times. This is dumb

Yep, if technology is the here all end all then why did the.industrial and technological revolutions and machine age result in people working more and more even with women entering the workforce.

You feel that way because this is the first comment you have made that is actually engaging with the topic of discussion.

"I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism"

It is. Along with every other political theory. The real thing you have to explain is how under Chomsky's definition theocracy or fascism isn't anarchist because it questions the justification of liberal democratic authority, and seek to dismantle it because they view it as unjustified.

You are merely stating that you disagree without giving me a real reason why my extrapolation of the consequences of that definition do not follow.

Something other than what Chomsky proposes is pretty obviously what separates anarchism from other political theories.

Here's some evidence that there's no meaningful correlation.

EDIT: That said, the article isn't about "advanced study of ethics", it's about more basic professional ethics. It says that e.g. engineers need to do something beyond rote algorithmic code-of-conduct-obeying, they need to exercise judgement. The humanities don't fix a lack of judgement, and IMO nothing that can be taught does. If you don't genuinely care about honesty, others' safety, others' dignity, your own personal responsibility and trustworthiness, externalities, etc., nothing that a professor will tell you (but an employer will tell you to disregard for money) will make you care.

I feel like you're just wanting to talk AT me at this point, but I'll respond one last time here. I don't see how questioning whether a power relationship is justified or not ISN'T a defining feature of anarchism, but yes everyone sort of does that, but anarchism is still a reaction to that question, making it an essential component. You HAVE to ask that to get there. Sure maybe Chomsky's too broad here, but I don't see how its nonsensical. Anarchists would be the reactionaries to an authority they deem unjustified, and I think it's honestly as simple as that.

"As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme"

You are simply not engaging with the discussion at hand. This is the description Chomsky uses, which is the actual topic of discussion:

""Primarily, [anarchism] is a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical
of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of
hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending
from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks
whether those systems are justified. Their authority is not
self-justifying. They have to give a reason for it, a justification."

The justification of whatever power relation, and the criticism of other sets of power relations, is fundamental to all bodies of political theory of which I am aware. Anarchists of course disagree that "God wills it" is a good enough justification, but that simply means that there is some other set of criteria by which anarchists evaluate the justification of any given power relation.

Ergo: merely questioning weather a power relationship is justified is not a defining feature of anarchism. Everyone already does that. This presupposition leads to idiotic conclusions. A Nazi screaming "The Authority of the Zionist Occupation Government is unjustified and should be dismantled" suddenly becomes a piece of anarchist political theory.

I found it funny to write it like a British school or university exam question.

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. As far as I'm aware he simply states that anarchism is personal freedom (or liberalism) brought to an extreme, or "natural" end, which, if I'm interpreting correctly, seems pretty coherent, even if I don't agree.

Also I wasn't saying I find Hitler enlightened lol he was my example of a perspective worth knowing and understanding so that we don't fall into pitfalls like xenophobia and nationalism. He's a teacher of what would be harmful to society and our fellow man. This perspective is important so its not repeated.

> worth more then one’s

Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
Total mistakes found: 128
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

‘Discuss’?

You've barely made mention of the central question of contention: weather Chomsky's definition of Anarchism is coherent or not. Calling that playing devil's advocate is charitable to the extreme. As it stands you haven't made any real point

I do wonder why on earth you would consider Hitler enlightened in any way.

I guess I'm just playing devils advocate. I appreciate lots of viewpoints, even ones I don't necessarily agree or identify with, like Chomsky's. I still find his insights useful as a way to view something like anarchy from a lense I wouldn't normally approach on my own. Chomsky's views are as useful to me as Hitler's; sometimes enlightened, sometimes cautionary ways NOT to think lol

"You HAVE to have power over those that would assert themselves over others"

I mean I agree, but that's also part of why I am a Marxist and not an Anarchist.

But that's all beside the point. My quibble here isn't with Anarchism as such. Merely Chomsky's conceptualisation of it. You are doing an exedingly poor job of convincing me that Chomsky's conceptualisation is actually useful or really meaningful in any sense.

I've noticed in some media, Nietzsche is almost treated like gospel. It's strange and infuriating to hear people talk about Christianity as if it were a long dead religion that nobody believes in anymore.

How can a system of education that is coerced and rooted in systemic prejudice possibly teach ethics?

Except in the context of a cautionary tale, we mean.

My point is that ethics is generally something you learn from society, and as institutions of higher education are basically there to promulgate the status quo, they are unlikely to convince anyone of anything new. Put another way, I don't think anyone who didn't already believe in stoning criminals to death will come away with that belief after taking lessons, because such lessons will only reinforce the current social expectation that you not support that. And if you did hold such a belief already, the lessons likely won't convince you, because you must already have strong reasons for holding such a belief in defiance of conventional wisdom and societal disapproval.

> but with just this definition, how satisfactory do you find it?

Not satisfactory at all. The definition is fairly idiosyncratic (for no apparent reason), lacks intuitive appeal, and the complete lack of reasoning makes it nearly impossible to accept.

I like it… I’ve dabbled just a touch and want to reread Zarathustra and get to beyond good and evil.

I won’t go on too long explanatory excursion here but I will say I think that this is what many of us are doing, or are at least attempting to do in our own right.

The idea that adhering to any deontology such as Christ cult comes with the implicit exception to free will (let’s not get bogged down in a physics lesson in free will - just say agency and volition). By following someone else’s code, esp dogmatically, you sort of diminish your own potentials and possibilities in exploring and expanding yourself, the world around and the people you interact with. Sure it’s “safe” but nothing worth doing is safe. And people conservative minded (afraid of change) old farts will shriek at the redefining and side effect at every corner.

I believe modern society, esp in the day and age of social media, grants us even further reach to push back and explore these tensions, to refine our views. Because you don’t know what you think until you run them on trial in the real. Without at least writing them down, you don’t even know what you think yourself most often.

Sure we haven’t came up with objectivity (since it doesn’t exist), but we relativistically refine our iterations as we progress for fitnesss. Anyone familiar with David Deutsche’s concepts form “the beginning of infinity” would catch my drift.

And it’s not perfect and we have the potential for steps back at any moment. But the Uber mench must be brave enough and strong enough to burden truths not meant for every shoulder to bear.

On the fear of Nihilism… I see more of a fear of existential nihilism than a disrespect for life. If condition decrease or are bleak for the future, this is when people react without conditions for a future they don’t see existing or being very dark. So imho Nitsche got this wrong, as we supplement our need for spirituality and community elsewhere

U jelly brah

Well we could take the biblical approach and stone our children to death for their disobedience:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%3A18-21&version=KJV

Or we could take Sheriff Joe Arpaio's approach and dye everyone's underwear pink:

https://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justice/arizona-arpaio-profile

I somehow think it is not just the criminals who need ethical training.

The debate is really about the causes of crime and whether reform is better than punishment with no attempt at reform. So next time your politician claims he is going to get tough on crime remember that means less reform and more punishment.

Yes we need ethics to be taught in the same way as reading, writing and arithmetic. Please note Deuteronomy is the Old Testament and Jesus said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". Which means no one can cast a stone because everyone has sinned. But we will always have pink dye.

ok