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.
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.
other people communicate via music, math, pictures, touch, analogies, pick a form of information transfer.
These are all variations on labels. They are either effective forms of information transfer, or they're ineffective. Effective information transfer requires that the recipient can accurately decode the meaning of the message. If your communication mode accomplished that, congratulations you've made a label by another name. If it did not, you have not communicated your message.
No one is saying genocide isn't wrong, that's a ridiculous straw man. What people are saying is there are two outcomes: everyone in group A dies, or everyone in group A and group B dies. Not supporting genocide doesn't end the genocide. This isn't even the trolley problem because everyone on the side track is also on the main track Harris losing saved no one, and now the additional deaths will start. The performative resistance will be replaced by unlimited support.
Why do you think all those extra deaths justify your virtue? Don't Support Genocide will exacerbate the very problem it was intended to solve. This is why absolutism is a childish ethical philosophy doomed to failure. Of course genocide is wrong in every circumstance, but your absolutism just enabled the exacerbation of genocide. I hope your ideological purity is worth the annexation of the West Bank, because that's your prize
Again you dont get to pin the actions and behaviors of one person onto other people. If my non-vote for harris is culpable your vote for harris is as culpable.
By voting for harris you supported a genocide and still failed to prevent trump from being elected. I voted to stop both genocides. The fact trump won has nothing to do with either of our votes. You dont get to claim the moral high ground because harris was supported by the dnc.
What i do get to claim is that by perpetuating a genocide was a morally bankrupt option and unfit to lead this country. Same with biden. Same with trump.
Harris had the option to not perpetuate a genocide and chose not to. That puts the loss on her.
You however do not get to claim more deaths by trump is worse than maybe slightly less deaths by harris. Thats not how lives are counted. If you wanted to play that game than biden caused more deaths with his covid policies than trump empirically making him the worst option.
Simply put, you can sum all you want and you still wouldn't be entitled to my vote for your candidate who is committing a genocide.
The price of my and many other peoples vote was no genocides. Period.
Now to address your no one is arguing that genocide is good. You absolutely are, you are 100% saying committing a genocide is morally justifiable if it doesnt cause you, and insert token group here personal discomfort on the home front. And to that my morally bankrupt friend is why you're an ass.
Profoundly incorrect on all counts. I hope your principles drown out the screams, because those of us with brains and hearts will be screaming with them.