these folks sure are quiet these days
these folks sure are quiet these days
i can't even guess as to why they went quiet. not one guess at all. we will never know.
edit: well they're not quiet now once they get called out
You're viewing part of a thread.
You were not dealt this hand, you chose it by not telling them 'no'. it is the most powerful word you have in your arsenal learn to use it. there is a reason utilitarianism is panned basically universally in ethics classes. Had you been willing to exercise it against the DNC you might not be in the very situation you find yourself in now.
How did that work out for all the people who said no? Now Trump will help Bibi annex the West Bank. I've taken Ethics, utilitarianism was absolutely not panned.
- you had a shit ethics professor.
- bibi already has the west bank and it was done under biden's watch and harris supported it.
"Every ethics course pans utilitarianism"
"I took ethics and they gave very serious consideration to utilitarianism"
"Am I out of touch? No, it's the ethics professors who are wrong"
Do you hear yourself?
I said you had a bad professor if they didnt teach the basics of how utilitarianism leads people to justifying genocides as a moral positive. In fact id go so far as informing you that the failure of your professor to give you that understanding means they didnt teach it seriously.
I never said they shouldn't teach it or that it wasnt a philosophy to teach seriously. I said its a bad philosophy. And many professors of philosophy do teach it as such and include covering the massive moral and structural failings of the concept.
Do you hear yourself? Because you're arguing things I never stated.
Name one single ethical philosophy that can't lead to negative outcomes.
DSG: don't support genocides. there. I developed one for you.
In reality there being no perfect philosophy doesn't weaken the arguments that utilitarianism is a absolutely trash philosophy.
fun fact: thats like arguing that without religion people can't be moral.
So deontology? An absolute trash philosophy, see the Paradox of Deontology. Lying is wrong, so you shouldn't lie to the axe murderer when they ask where your family is. Enabling genocide is wrong, so we should let the person who wants to accelerate that genocide and enable others get into a position to do so. Many more will suffer and die, but hey at least you can be smug about your virtues.
This is a childish philosophy for childish people. It says "Who cares about the consequences of my choices. All that matters is that I don't have to make any difficult choices when presented with an ethical dilemma. Who cares if the death tolls skyrocket." It disincentivizes action in the very situations that most desperately rely on ethical considerations.
If you make "the right choice" and more people directly suffer because of it, you didn't make the right choice. You made excuses.
I didn't say anything about deontology. those are your words. I'm spoke only of not committing/supporting genocide. which makes it distinctly different from deontology. It amuses me you ignored the actual point of my response for a straw man.
I fucking agreed with your position question. there is no universal non-negative moral philosophy and you decided I was arguing some a specific retarded philosophy.
this is why you idiots are idiots. you think you need to slap a label on something and develop a system of behavior for morality as some universal truth.
I dont. I simply pointed out the shittiness in your personal choice of utilitarianism.
Edit: and if utilitarianism isn't your personal philosophy then why the fuck are you wasting everyones reading this nonsense?
Slapping labels on things are how we discuss ideas. If you can't describe your worldview, you can't support or defend it. That said, the consequentialist stance is less label-obsessed than you. It only cares about results, not the philosophical pathway you followed to get there
How is erecting an absolute rule in ethical behavior distinct from deontology? Your stance against utilitarianism logically extrapolates to all consequentialism, and all teleology at that. You've constructed a philosophy where the rule, Don't Support Genocide, is elevated over the consequences, genocide is accelerated and expanded.
More deaths is an explicitly negative result, so your ethical philosophy failed at the one thing it was supposed to do. Defend your virtues all you want while the suffering of those actually affected skyrockets. Childish excuses.
Slapping labels on things are how we discuss ideas.
incorrect. thats how you discuss ideas. other people communicate via music, math, pictures, touch, analogies, pick a form of information transfer.
If you can’t describe your worldview, you can’t support or defend it.
again incorrect. I don't need to write a treatise on my totality of reasoning to inform you that genocide is not okay under any circumstances. I can limit the conversation to specifically genocide not being okay.
If you need me to expand on why genocide is not okay I will gladly direct you to seek psychiatric help and you can discuss philosophy to your hearts content w/ a person who is being paid to listen to your drivel.
More deaths is an explicitly negative result, so your ethical philosophy failed at the one thing it was supposed to do.
What more deaths? trump isnt in power yet this is not a claim you can assert. nor is my decision to not vote for harris relevant or responsible for trump being elected or his behavior during his next term. The responsibility lies with him and the people who voted for him and no one else. after all if they didnt vote for him then he wouldn't have won.
The only thing I'm guilty of is not supporting genocidal candidates, full stop. you supported more genocide than I did, by your own argument you're the morally bankrupt one here.