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
    01·
    3 days 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.comEnglish
      0·
      3 days 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
        0·
        3 days 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?

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                21·
                3 days 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.

                  • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                    2·
                    2 days 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.