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
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
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.
“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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.