[deleted]

>Akhlaghi argues it is only justifiable to interfere in someone else’s transformative choice by competing moral considerations, such as if harm is likely to be done others.

"Don't give advice unless you think advice is really needed." As if we live in a vacuum, and our transformative choices affect no one. Thanks for nothing.

I agree that the terms "autonomous self-making" and "self-authorship" and "revelatory autonomy" are vague. Hopefully he provides a proper definition of the terms in his academic paper.

Though what I don't quite understand is how receiving advice actually interferes with this. After all, there's still a significant distinction between being told a thing and experiencing a thing.

I'm sure we've all had that experience in which our parents have offered us words of wisdom as children or teenagers, only for us to learn the exact same lesson "the hard way."

I thought that when I saw the article title, but frankly the link title is a more accurate summary than the article title.

Based on the limited article alone I don't believe there's a defensible position. The only one I can find personally is the concept of boundaries. In other words, intentionally blocking others from giving advice is a personal right, but beyond that I can't find any other argument to agree with their full stance.

Well said.

I was looking at his direct quotes specifically!

There's definitely a way to phrase things. Like how you'd explain answers to a test vs. how you'd describe a vacation. Extra couching if I'm not sure they're receiving it how I intend.

I feel like the point of advice is you're looking for influence. I'm not asking someone for advice because I expect to totally ignore it.

It was the title that was auto-generated by reddit when I put the link through. Didn't realize it wasn't the verbatim title. It usually just does it word for word automatically.

This is only an article about his academic article. My own inclination is to disagree as well, but I thought it was interesting for discussion. I'd like to read the original published one. I wonder how Dr. Akhlaghi defends this...

So, the author can't complain if I choose to seek advice because that is part of my own self-authorship. Also, the author can't complain if giving advice is part of my self-authorship, which by the way, self-authorship is not really defined in the text.

So the author is saying that a leader should never seek advice. That seems a bit, immoral, if you ask me. A leader should be open to the experiences of others. The author is taking too narrow a stance and not really considering all the implications of their idea.

Same, in a way. But sharing the perspective can have an influence in ways. I guess it's up to the person receiving it to take it in the way you describe.

Your just as likely to be right/wrong as they are, I always see myself as an additional perspective. Id never demand a choice, but I'll definitely share what's worked for me. Likewise that's how I take advice.

He says you shouldn't be giving advice regarding "transformative experiences" because making those decisions yourself shapes independent morals, values, and thinking.

He says that "it is impossible to know if a friend’s life will benefit from a transformative experience – such as new job, the birth of a child, or a university course – until after the event. It is for them to find out, he says." Therefore the friend shouldn't give advice.

Kinda crazy that advising on having or not having kids is the same level of advising not to take a certain class

Eta: shapes *preferences, not morals

I advise that author proofread their articles, and that philosopher learn to take good advice now and then.

I completely agree, having seen this intimately from both sides.

Wtf is the title of this thread? It's stupidly inflammatory, and not even a verbatim copy of linked article's title.

Moral duty’ to allow family and friends to make big life choices, says Cambridge philosopher

I haven't read the article, but I really doubt it actually suggests that friends and family shouldn't give advice to loved ones.

[deleted]

[removed]

I have stepped back from making strong arguments either way for family and friends when they are in the midst of making big decisions.

I kind of agree, you cannot project what you found yourself in your life onto what may happen to others. They are not you and life is not linear or predictable.

I'm not sure I'm buying into the severity he describes esp with his vague concepts

[deleted]

> Dr Farbod Akhlaghi, a moral philosopher at Christ’s College, argues that everyone has a right to “self authorship”, so must make decisions about transformative experiences for themselves.

> In a new paper for the philosophy journal Analysis, he argues that this right to “revelatory autonomy” is violated even by well-meaning advice from friends and family about crucial life decisions.

>…

> Akhlaghi argues it is only justifiable to interfere in someone else’s transformative choice by competing moral considerations, such as if harm is likely to be done others.

>…

Part of why I chose Aristotle's Ethics is because it is traditionally a good text to build up the skills to write philosophical commentaries. I am already doing the initial research to start writing a commentary on Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil so stay tuned.

I appreciate your response.

I suppose that my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity. It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.

I understand the impulse and reasoning as to why someone would want to cultivate a larger "We", to be more inclusive with our philosophical and political programs. I also agree that one shouldn't limit themselves to what they are (race, sex, religion) and should put effort into what they can be in regards to art, athletics, academics, etc.

However, this request can be a bit disconcerting. I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal, this particular person's particular universal. I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer). We will be adopting someone's Universal, whether it is everyone speaking English as a second language, neoliberal American global military hegemony, or Technocapital reaching back in time to assemble itself. To, for what Universal should I relinquish my ethnicity, my language, my God?

I believe that the more particular and the more specific a phenomenon is (ethnic customs, religious practice, etc.) the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings. This impulse creates diversity in the fight in contrast to the homogenizing effects of Capitalism.