Спільнота Steam :: USA has fallen

USA has fallen

Free Palestine

Veganism is the radical notion that it's wrong to torture and kill others for fun.
https://www.philosophyforpalestine.com/

“Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines that everybody else is saying,... or else you say something which in fact is true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune.”
― Noam Chomsky

Розгорнути

Зараз у мережі

Нагороди профілю 9

Значки 18

Taylor Swift is our God

Учасників: 905

Taylor Swift Fan Club

Учасників: 5 033

Taylor Swift

Учасників: 525

Друзі 64

310

fate
Не в мережі

205

noaimbots
Не в мережі

201

bleed
Не в мережі

What A Bummer
Не в мережі

[GWJ] Keithustus
У мережі

Taylor Swift Lover
У мережі

Вітрина творчих робіт

And while we're at it, why don't suffragists and abolitionists get off their high horses too?

Every anti-vegan argument ever made

"BuT LiOns ThO" aka "it's natural, it's circle of life, food chain, animals eat other animals, humans are omnivores, etc."

Is-ought gap. It has been understood for a few centuries. Might wanna look into it.

"it's PeRsONAL cHOice" aka "don't force your morals on me"

Being a pdf file is a personal choice, don't force your morals on me! Also, maybe don't make normative claims that are self-undermining, could help your case. (And before you respond the way I know you're going to, maybe learn what a counter-example is)

"Plants are alive too!"
And yet no brain, just like you

"CrOp dEAThs tHo"
Good thing the 100 billion farm animals killed and tortured every year eat only air, that way we can avoid crop deaths by eating them.

"BUT MUH PROTEIN"
Where do you think the animals you eat get their protein from? There is, in fact, protein in plants. It's also just as good for muscle synthesis. And eating only plants lowers your risk of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes - the three biggest killers of humans. So don't pretend there are nutritional reasons to eat meat. You're doing it for pleasure, that's it.

If any of these obnoxiously brain-dead arguments even crossed your mind, then there isn't even a scintilla of grey matter left in your head.

Коментарі

Переглянути всі коментарі (570)

< >

social gadfly 24 жовт. о 14:31

That just sounds like a broader form of consequentialism to me.

USA has fallen 23 жовт. о 6:07

The prof has reason to do X, most reason to do Y, the killer has no moral reason to do Z and lots of reasons to not do Z. I don't see why the delta in strength between X and Y vs the reasons to not do Z would be 1-to-1 with the number of lives. For one, moral reasons will be competing with prudential reasons, and two, in many or maybe most practical real cases, reasons to not actively kill will be stronger than reasons to save.

I think what is unacceptable is claiming the professor is more blameworthy than the killer, or that he is a worse person than the killer. I don't think those intuitions are in contention with utilitarianism. I don't have fully formed theory of permissibility, but I'm sympathetic to sentimentalist accounts.

More broadly for killing/letting die: Someone dying is equally bad regardless of whether they were killed or let die, but this doesn't mean someone has equal reason to save vs not kill, nor does it mean these actions are necessarily just as blameworthy.

USA has fallen 23 жовт. о 6:06

I have a number of issues with utilitarianism, my attitude is basically 'utilitarianism is the worst normative theory, except for all the others.'

As for the professor/killer, I think you have reasons to do good things, and even stronger reasons to do better things. Utilitarianism can tell you what you have reason to do and what you have most reason to do. The professor has reason to save 10, but has most reason to change jobs and save 40 a year. He's choosing to do something good, he just isn't achieving perfection, something no one does. The killer, on the other hand, is not acting in accordance with any moral reasons, he's going against them.

You might be able to do comparisons like -30 vs -20 to determine preferable world states, but to say who is acting worse you would be comparing competing reasons.

social gadfly 21 жовт. о 18:14

I don't really care to criticize utilitarians from a practical pov because they have a damn good track record of being correct on things before society realizes it (slavery, animals, etc.) and they donate to charity. That said, I reject some of its conclusions.

For instance, the killing/letting die distinction. Imagine you have an intellectual who works as a professor, and he is wise enough to donate some of his income to charity, saving 10 human lives a year. However, he could get a high-paying job for some firm and save 40 lives a year instead.

Now, imagine you have a guy with no skills to meaningfully improve net well-being, but he's really good at killing people. He kills 20 people a year, and makes it look like natural causes so there's no mass hysteria.

On utilitarianism, professor is a -30, whereas the killer is -20, so the professor would be acting worse in this situation. I personally find endorsing this to be unacceptable.

USA has fallen 21 жовт. о 3:48

cuz utilitarianism and also fat people are almost certainly non-vegan

social gadfly 20 жовт. о 19:20

Why push the fat man?

< >