[baddox]

I've seen a heck of a lot more people justify things by claiming to have objective moral knowledge. Throughout history, the most atrocious acts imaginable have been justified this way. I am much less worried about invoking the satisfaction of people's needs.

[TeMPOraL]

You can't convince people to go kill and die for you by saying they're just satisfying your needs. So you have to invent something people will actually buy, and this tends to be something about morality, religion or politics.

[lovemenot]

So what? There are so many ways to be wrong, why introduce an entirely different one into this discussion? It's a false dilemma.

[calibraxis]

Capitalist morality merely poses as amoral. The moment you propose a more sensible alternative, you're hit by moral arguments about terrible things happening when you interfere with the invisible hand (of Providence).

When we mention "satisfying people's needs", those with more money get more satisfaction. That's how markets work. Like advertisers (corporations paying other corporations to spread propaganda), nation-states (which must control their populaces pretty much by definition), etc.

[lostlogin]

The subtle distinction between "want" and "need" is at the root of this. What the user wants is at odds with what they need.

[ckozlowski]

Who decides what they "need", if not the user in so much as what they "want"?

I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them.

That's no freedom at all.

[TeMPOraL]

You can't look at it in a binary way. Of course it's a bad idea to prescribe people their needs. I wouldn't want someone telling me what I am to have for dinner. But there are also needs that are obviously better left unmet. For instance I may feel a need to take possession of your property. It's not a kind of freedom you'd want to grant to me.

[ckozlowski]

I think it is rather binary, but I think your example in this case demonstrates a different principle.

Having my "needs" defined separately from my "wants" denies me my freedom. But that's different from you say, deciding to confiscate my things without due process.

[TuringTest]

> I'm terrified of others prescribing what's "needed" because someone else has decided what what's "wanted" isn't the best for them.

I'm equally terrified of others convincing you that what they have to offer is the best for you, with minor tweaks to "cover your needs"; yet that's the basis of profit-based marketing.

[ckozlowski]

I respect your concern (I'm trying to be non-specific in terms of pronouns here, but it's hard), but that's a fear we have to live with, no? The notion that someone else's argument might be more persuasive than our own, that someone else's message might be accepted instead. Surely, there's something perverse about it, underhanded, or perhaps I'm just not enlightened enough, otherwise I wouldn't accept such a false pretense. Surely, if I'd been shown the light, and not doused in such propaganda, I'd make a better choice!

The problem with that of course, is that a lot of people can make that argument. And regardless of who's making the argument, be they weak or strong, they all rely on the premise that the person needs convincing of something, because to imagine that they might come to a conclusion that's not your own /by themselves/ is a terrifying thought.

I'm sorry, but I really can't condone the notion that some messages should be feared in that way, and that someone else knows what's best because they presume I do not.