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
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.
guess I need my brain re-wrinkled
Nah, just wrinkled.
And what elements of EA makes it a political framework rather than a moral one?
Even if it were possible, it’s not my job to educate you.
saving lives through charity, not the distribution of power, resources and privilege within a society or communal framework.
My stars! Good job googling “political framework”! You seem to be under the impression that charities are a black box that do nothing other than save lives. Perhaps you should look into that.
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."
found on reddit. posted without further comment
The saying “there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire” springs to mind. Who did they, or their families fuck over, in order to garner that sort of wealth?
There’s a running joke/working theory I’ve heard that in order to become billionaire, you have to have killed someone. (The reality is almost definitely worse)
yeah, so we agree, EA, which is predicated on the wealthy actually giving away their money, is a flawed concept as that is something the wealthy cannot be compelled to do without force
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.
Not sure on that but I think he’s related to Sabrina Carpenter. Source, this line from Espresso:
I'm working late, 'cause I'm a Singer
It’s almost as if the wealthy by and large don’t actually care about doing good or improving society!!!
who is this peter singer fellow? Sounds like a great and unproblematic man. Please tell us more of his teachings.
Yeah. One thing I’ve realised since participating in Sneerclub is that when someone comes in thinking it’s debate club and 1. starts saying shit, and 2. you start coming up with counterarguments, and 3. you realise everything you come up with is just first order, basic stuff, then you have to remind yourself that this isn’t debate club, and that this person is stupid, and you don’t owe them intellectual energy.
In this case, in the broadest sense, politics is about getting a bunch of people to do something they might not initially agree with. Guess what a moral framework is designed to do?? Especially utilitarianism, which is literally just economics and accounting with a moral/ethical veneer. And that’s just first order shit!!! It’s not hard to go up the ladder from base theory to reality and come up with all kinds of examples and counterarguments or what have you. It’s just a waste of time with these people! They are either stupid or intentionally ignorant or both.
So yeah sometimes I’m ankle deep in drafting something offsite when I remember “it’s sneer club” and then I stop myself. You won’t convince these people, so just clown on them.