Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.
Nah, it doesn’t. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it’s pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters. And what do you mean by “basic universalism”?
response to your edit: that is not an unequivocal denouncement of genocide lol. That’s some weaselly shit where Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad) and instead try and say “these are ways in which Israel can continue to justify genocide.”
Don’t worry, utility monsters aren’t real. A utilitarian would say the “benefit” the IDF reaps from doing genocide is completely dwarfed by the suffering they cause.
lol. Utilitarianism requires you to come up with some way to quantify the utility of an action. Such a system isn’t real, so a utilitarian just makes shit up about utility according to whatever agenda they have in mind. Case in point: Zionists, of which EA is rife with.
I just don’t see how all these people come in and get insulted, only not to realise that no one is here to debate them and instead are just finding ways to clown on them. I will never get it. Thanks tho, this was super dull and I regret everything
I was hoping they’d get interesting so I didn’t jump on banning them, but holy shit did they ever take so much space in the thread to say fucking nothing. now I’m pruning hopefully just enough so viewers can get a taste of how much horseshit they were spewing without being tempted to take up more space continuing any of it.
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn’t if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn’t, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That’s first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky’s designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
If he wouldn’t save the drowning child, does that mean I shouldn’t? Does his potential personal failings really invalidate his ideas and arguments?
No. That’s exactly the ad hominem fallacy.
Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.
Edit: If you need Peter to do it for you, here: If Biari was central to [October 7th], he was capable of extraordinary evil and ought to be brought to justice. But that does not justify killing 126 civilians.
Nah, it doesn’t. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it’s pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters. And what do you mean by “basic universalism”?
response to your edit: that is not an unequivocal denouncement of genocide lol. That’s some weaselly shit where Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad) and instead try and say “these are ways in which Israel can continue to justify genocide.”
Removed by mod
lol. Utilitarianism requires you to come up with some way to quantify the utility of an action. Such a system isn’t real, so a utilitarian just makes shit up about utility according to whatever agenda they have in mind. Case in point: Zionists, of which EA is rife with.
you noticed that debate wasn’t allowed here and then turned an entire thread into a pointless fucking debate. thanks for that. fuck off.
I just don’t see how all these people come in and get insulted, only not to realise that no one is here to debate them and instead are just finding ways to clown on them. I will never get it. Thanks tho, this was super dull and I regret everything
I was hoping they’d get interesting so I didn’t jump on banning them, but holy shit did they ever take so much space in the thread to say fucking nothing. now I’m pruning hopefully just enough so viewers can get a taste of how much horseshit they were spewing without being tempted to take up more space continuing any of it.
18 of 45 comments. literal 40%
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn’t if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn’t, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That’s first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky’s designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
“What do you mean the clock is broken? It’s 12 now, and the clock says 12!”
@SmoothOperator @mountainriver
What’s your position on Codes Of Conduct for free software projects? Just trying to confirm some prejudices here
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, I’m not a software developer.
@SmoothOperator OK, how do you feel about the statement “technology is politically neutral”?