Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.
honestly, though i have long thought of myself as a deontologist, i have begun to think that i'm actually just a cynic. or, rather, i have begun to approach ethics with cynicism.
i'm starting to think that people just do what they want and then justify it. and this plays nicely with hedonism, which i also find quite appealing.
I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality.
me too. i don't believe i can prove i'm right or you're wrong, though i certainly believe that. you'll have to decide what to do for yourself, just as i have.
since you can't know what might cause the greatest harm in the future, the harm that occurs after you act cannot inform how you act. it's a well-trod objection to consequentialist ethics.
To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.
you can believe that, but it's not objective fact. if you use this axiom to choose your actions, you run into a major epistemic problem: you can't know the future, so you can't actually know the consequences.
it's also not a fair characterization of what deontological ethics proposes: it's not that intention matters, it's that the ethics are in the act itself, not in the effects it may have or exclusively the intent of the actor.
Deciding to vote for somebody who has too small a coalition to possibly be elected is a decision to make it easier for the candidate who could win, but whom I find the least attractive, to actually win.
that's one story, but it assumes a consequentialist ethic. a deontological ethic would dictate voting for the right person every time regardless of possible outcomes. in casting such a vote i'm voting against all the other candidates who i think should not win.
