Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.Are pacifism, socialism and compromise all short-termist?
Pacifism reduces casualties --- in the short term.
Socialism reduces poverty --- in the short term.
Compromise reduces disappointment --- in the short term.
I think you may be giving these stances too much credit.
There’s something to be said about people who have a high time preference also often being pacifists or socialists. But that may have more to do with the constellation of ideas in that particular memeplex than logical sense.
For example, compromise increases disappointment right away since nobody involved gets what they want, and they realize this immediately when the compromise is made.
Related: Lying reduces conflict - in the short term.
I prefer the term macro economists use: Borrowing from the future. It can work out in the long term, if the future cooperates, for instance it is possible to get away with a lie. But it’s always a very risky gamble, since the future is very uncertain, and therefore it is not a good strategy.
On tangent to this, I think consequentialism is not a theory of ethics at all, it’s just borrowing from the future as well. Anchoring moral action to predicted (prophecied) consequences is nothing more than an attempt to sidestep ethical deliberation completely.
In other words, it is evil.
Did you know you can type em dashes (on Mac) by hitting alt + shift + hyphen?
I'm on PC, and alt+shift+hyphen does not work—but alt+0151 on numpad does... which is a very Windows way to do it, but I'll take it.