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

  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago
      1. you had a shit ethics professor.
      2. bibi already has the west bank and it was done under biden’s watch and harris supported it.
      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        “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?

        • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

            • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                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.

                • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  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?

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    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.