New Testingstan

utilitarianism?
adr you're the best

Baks-kun wrote:thought better of posting this in the "let's all beat up on hongi" thread

my cool self wrote:I'm not sure why people are providing hongi with such opprobrium for not buying into deontological ethics. That is the only system of ethics which presumes actions to be inherently evil- a morally bankrupt philosophy in practice and virtue ethics do not consider actions to be inherently good or evil at all- their focus is on the outcomes after and the mindset before, respectively. If we are to be enraged with hongi for saying that he doesn't believe anything to be inherently good or bad, then assuredly we must condemn utilitarians all the more so, because while hongi's nihilism relies on personal choice alone, a morally bankrupt philosophy in practice can create situations where child rape, genocide, and all the horrors of extreme moral quandaries are not only not bad, but even the only moral choice!

edit:

good and evil are purely religious constructs anyway :troll:

lol i forgot i put that word filter troll in

mang i kinda wanna dive in to all this shit up to my neck but really i have more important things to do

fucking real life interfering with my internet spam

Zod wrote:

Baks-kun wrote:thought better of posting this in the "let's all beat up on hongi" thread

my cool self wrote:I'm not sure why people are providing hongi with such opprobrium for not buying into deontological ethics. That is the only system of ethics which presumes actions to be inherently evil- a morally bankrupt philosophy in practice and virtue ethics do not consider actions to be inherently good or evil at all- their focus is on the outcomes after and the mindset before, respectively. If we are to be enraged with hongi for saying that he doesn't believe anything to be inherently good or bad, then assuredly we must condemn utilitarians all the more so, because while hongi's nihilism relies on personal choice alone, a morally bankrupt philosophy in practice can create situations where child rape, genocide, and all the horrors of extreme moral quandaries are not only not bad, but even the only moral choice!

edit:

good and evil are purely religious constructs anyway :troll:

i hate that face

Baks-kun wrote:thought better of posting this in the "let's all beat up on hongi" thread

my cool self wrote:I'm not sure why people are providing hongi with such opprobrium for not buying into deontological ethics. That is the only system of ethics which presumes actions to be inherently evil- a morally bankrupt philosophy in practice and virtue ethics do not consider actions to be inherently good or evil at all- their focus is on the outcomes after and the mindset before, respectively. If we are to be enraged with hongi for saying that he doesn't believe anything to be inherently good or bad, then assuredly we must condemn utilitarians all the more so, because while hongi's nihilism relies on personal choice alone, a morally bankrupt philosophy in practice can create situations where child rape, genocide, and all the horrors of extreme moral quandaries are not only not bad, but even the only moral choice!

edit:

i don't see why you chose not to, that's a fairly decent contribution to that thread

unless you just don't want to get into a discussion on philosophy on SDN, in which case i don't blame you

it's time to flip the shit switch and turn up the diarrhea dial cuz its time to discuss philosophy on ESS DEE ENN enn enn enn

i just got home from cabinning to see that wong's been posting some incredulously stupid shit about philosophy that he clearly doesn't understand and i wish i was back there drinking and lighting fireworks

Respond to him, then.

Nietzslime wrote:i just got home from cabinning to see that wong's been posting some incredulously stupid shit about philosophy that he clearly doesn't understand and i wish i was back there drinking and lighting fireworks

hopefully i can cancel it out w/some ~[blingee]anarchist ethics[/blingee]~

Knubble tov wrote:Respond to him, then.

tell me, is your real name sisyphus?

Well he's a sissy and a puss...

Knubble tov wrote:Respond to him, then.

what positive repercussions do you imagine will be effected by that choice of action

hopefully i can cancel it out w/some ~[blingee]anarchist ethics[/blingee]~

cool beans

the thing is that i'm probably, in some ways, more nihilistic than hongi, but unlike him i know how to argue it effectively (the key is basically to be infuriatingly socratic)

Speaking of ethics has anyone ever tried kosher vodka? I just discovered yesterday that such a thing exists but didn't have enough money to pick up a bottle.

What... What's unkosher about regular vodka?

Zod wrote:Speaking of ethics has anyone ever tried kosher vodka? I just discovered yesterday that such a thing exists but didn't have enough money to pick up a bottle.

l'chaim? there are worse vodkas, but it isn't smooth like my preferred vodkas - it definitely has that astringent spiciness of russian vodkas

mang it is pretty hot tonight

that's prolly the biggest thing i'll miss about my old place

it just naturally kept cool. always like 10 degrees (F) cooler inside than outside in summer

Nietzslime wrote:

Knubble tov wrote:Respond to him, then.

what positive repercussions do you imagine will be effected by that choice of action

well you could get banned for arguing with him

Nietzslime wrote:

Denverite wrote:Speaking of ethics has anyone ever tried kosher vodka? I just discovered yesterday that such a thing exists but didn't have enough money to pick up a bottle.

l'chaim? there are worse vodkas, but it isn't smooth like my preferred vodkas - it definitely has that astringent spiciness of russian vodkas

i think that was the name. unfortunately i only had enough cash to pick up the bottle of nemiroff i was eyeballing, but i might pick it up the next time i'm in the store

ugh i got my laptop out to do my boring work tonight

but i left that old sok thread open

and ppl said i made up a ridiculous scenario in that hongi thread

but how's this one

I have invented a satellite that will blast the world with just enough radiation to sterilize the entire human population. The only way to stop me is to kill me. Do you kill me, or do you doom the human race to extinction?

but the mental giants of that thread dogpile "i hereby declare you insane"

lol

Nietzslime wrote:i just got home from cabinning to see that wong's been posting some incredulously stupid shit about philosophy that he clearly doesn't understand and i wish i was back there drinking and lighting fireworks

i would like to hear you explain or respond to wong but i don't blame you for not doing so in the thread

however could you tell me what he's doing that's stupid shit because i haven't really been following that thread all that much, but i think nobody is really responding to hongi from a philosophical debate standpoint, but rather are just piling on him to get a few free kicks

because by his argument, is 1984, the perfect social order, the most moral place around?

and while the nazis were immoral for doing ruthless things which weakened their society, were the rebels against the nazis worse for openly undermining their society? how do you determine?

i suspect he might try to get around this by bringing up his 'sympathy from evolution' argument, but that's basically the naturalistic fallacy - his arguments still suppose a sort of morality that actually seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the happiness or enlightenment of the people involved in the society, so basically he's managed to make an ethics that is worse than basically every other ethics out there

and his dismissal of shit like the problem of induction as 'kindergarten philosophy' is fucking nauseating

Stofsk wrote:

Nietzslime wrote:i just got home from cabinning to see that wong's been posting some incredulously stupid shit about philosophy that he clearly doesn't understand and i wish i was back there drinking and lighting fireworks

i would like to hear you explain or respond to wong but i don't blame you for not doing so in the thread

however could you tell me what he's doing that's stupid shit because i haven't really been following that thread all that much, but i think nobody is really responding to hongi from a philosophical debate standpoint, but rather are just piling on him to get a few free kicks

I'm pretty sure there are four or five people that have tried to engage with him in philosophical debate. Heck, I even went and found his historical precedents for him, since he's obviously not even thought far enough or read enough to realize the antecedents to his argument. If he'd acknowledged perspectivism before I did the work for him, I'd be a lot more willing to believe he's thought this out to the degree he originally implied he had.

Now that he's backing up and saying it's all his intuition, there's going to be a lot less interest in debate, because he's walking up to a gunfight with his fists.

Nietzslime wrote:because by his argument, is 1984, the perfect social order, the most moral place around?

and while the nazis were immoral for doing ruthless things which weakened their society, were the rebels against the nazis worse for openly undermining their society? how do you determine?

i suspect he might try to get around this by bringing up his 'sympathy from evolution' argument, but that's basically the naturalistic fallacy - his arguments still suppose a sort of morality that actually seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the happiness or enlightenment of the people involved in the society, so basically he's managed to make an ethics that is worse than basically every other ethics out there

and his dismissal of shit like the problem of induction as 'kindergarten philosophy' is fucking nauseating

DW's always been closer to a bible-belter than he likes to admit. He's what I think of as a fundamentalist/evangelical atheist. "This is what an atheist believes and all who do not believe this are less atheist than me, and I must convert non-believers to my faith so that they may be saved from damnation." There's a number of them on TEO, they're coming out of the woodwork in the circumcision topic.

His ethics, in this case, almost look collectivist, but I'd be really curious if he builds them out that way.

collectivist? his argument is fucking hobbesian, he's just too ignorant to know it. if any society is better than no society at all, well...

Nietzslime wrote:collectivist? his argument is fucking hobbesian, he's just too ignorant to know it. if any society is better than no society at all, well...

I think he's just being incompetent at expressing what he means, given his general contempt for social sciences and liberal arts, I doubt his education in philosophy is all that extensive.

My guess is that what he wants to say is (to put it in a Star Trek context): The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

I.E. if you assume a moron is making the argument, "The Nazis were immoral because their choices led to self-harming," could be interpreted to mean "The Nazis were immoral because their choices harmed large segments of the society in favor of other sections."

I can see my own high school self seeing the same things. I grew out of the highly deterministic "super-engineer" "oooooh-liberal arts cooties" mindset at about 18-20. Most of TEO never did.