Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- singularity [2026/02/09 08:45] – ultracomfy
+++ singularity [2026/09/08 07:39] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 {{page>Templates:Philosophy}}
 </WRAP>
 ~~Title:Singularity~~
 <WRAP centeralign>Philosophy/\\
 <fs xx-large>Singularity</fs></WRAP>
+A //singularity// is a proposed [[Ethics|ethical]] [[Imperative|imperative]] that is so strong as to harm, overwhelm or destroy all other ethical structures.
 My meaning of singularity has nothing to do with how the word is used by people who actually know things about things. For how Singularity is normally used, see the RationalWiki page on Singularity (and even that page does not talk about the physical phenomenon).
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
 The [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki|"rational"]] people over at [[:RationalWiki]] have an article on [[https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Singularity|Singularity]].
 </WRAP>
-A //singularity// is a proposed [[Ethics|ethical]] [[Imperative|imperative]] that is so strong as to harm, overwhelm or destroy all other ethical structures.
 Humans generally make choices based on both their interests and ethical constraints. There are a lot of competing interests and many ethical restrains. A person wants to get their work done fast, but they also don't want to hurt other people. Due to the multitude of factors in play, the many interests and ethical considerations generally keep each other in check, resulting in most people being mostly mild personalities.
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 ===== Logic =====
-There is nothing inherently wrong with singularities. While a singular issue will never fill 100% of all ethical considerations, there are many that are indeed very important. Climate change for example, which will end up very catastrophic and causing an unforgivable amount of suffering if not combatted properly. For a more theoretical example, a utilitarian considers human experience a singularity, and societies will invest a lot of effort to rescue [[agent|agents]] that have human experience (ie. humans) from death. In the short term, society considers the protection and rescue of human life to be a singularity that, if such an emergency occurs, supersedes most other considerations.
+There is nothing inherently wrong with singularities. While a singular issue will never fill 100% of all ethical considerations((Unless a non-entity god does turn out to be real?)), there are many that are indeed very important. Climate change for example, which will end up very catastrophic and causing an unforgivable amount of suffering if not combatted properly. For a more theoretical example, a utilitarian considers human experience a singularity, and societies will invest a lot of effort to rescue "[[agent|agents]] that have human experience" (ie. humans) from death. In other words, in an emergency almost all rules are out of the window to make sure human life can be saved.
-Many churches are singularities and attempt to force one into belief by way of [[Pascal's Wager]] (ie. believing in church costs nothing, but not believing can cost you your spot in paradise). If a cults brands nonbelievers as hostile, that is a way to force you into belief //directly// (rather than indirectly) by threat of divine punishment (that's the prime Jehovah's Witnesses tactic). There's philosophical singularities like Roko's basilisk, but there is also countless political ones, like tankies who seem to have fallen for the idea that anything to oppose the West is, if not good, at least justified; the West is the source of all evil and anything opposing the evil is better than the evil. In fact, believing in anything less makes you a fascist and a Nazi (key term: "centrists are de-facto fascists").
+Many churches consider themselves singularities and attempt to force one into belief one way or another. Classically this is done by promising eternal paradise for believers and //sometimes// eternal damnation for those who don't (or something to that effect). If a cults brands nonbelievers as hostile, that is a way to force you into belief //directly// (rather than indirectly) by threat of divine punishment (that's the prime Jehovah's Witnesses tactic).
+There are many philosophical (like Roko's basilisk) and religious singularities (like Jehovah's witnesses), but there are also countless political ones. Tankies for example seem to have fallen for the idea that anything to oppose the West is, if not good, at least justified; the West is the source of all evil and anything opposing the evil is better than the evil. In fact, believing in anything less makes you a fascist and a Nazi (key term: "centrists are de-facto fascists").\\
 Something similar happens with singularity vegans, who say that "true left-wingers™ are de-facto vegans", as anything short of fully rejecting all animal exploitation is equivalent to support of global animal torture. There are also singularity anti-ableists, singularity feminists and many, many more. As far as my knowledge and understanding lets me, I support the causes of veganism, anti-ableism and feminism, I just don't do it to a singularian degree.
+<wrap lo>And since we are talking about politics now (and I know I might have gotten that kind of crowd since I mentioned Tankies and Vegans) - //NO// I am not pandering towards hardline centrism. Centrism is the idea that not being extreme is automatically good by virtue. This is already nonsense, but //especially// doesn't make sense to believe in for a utilitarian like me, who doesn't believe in virtues to begin with. What I am doing is to pander towards avoiding ethical structures that flatten all ethical considerations into a singularity if reality itself isn't as flat as the singularity (ie. is more complex than what the singularity makes it out to be).((And yes I know it actually //is// that simple and I'm just a western/carnist chauvinist, I know. You've heard westerners/carnists say "it's more complicated than that" a thousand times and you're prepared to put it all down as propaganda/absolving oneself of responsibility. Am I right? Oh how well I know you. Look, we'll get along swimmingly in our not-getting-along.))</wrap>
+===== Individual =====
 For an individual, singularities tend to be very firm and hard to dislodge. That is mostly because singularities seem easy, obvious and self-evident. It is common for someone believing in singularities to assert the simplicity and self-evidence of their singularity, sometimes to a point where they will reject any outside attempt to discuss the singularity (except for full agreement with it), and disparage those who even consider the singularity to be open to debate. That in particular is in the nature of singularities, as singularities are the exclusive moral authority to the believer and questioning it means questioning the entirety of the moral values held by the believer.