swampman posted:

daddyholes posted:

Marxist forum finally arrives at Repugnant Conclusion

we should make an archive called Repugnant Conclusion for threads that end with one of your posts

On the contrary, the mere addition paradox here is how you manage to endlessly add your posts to threads without adding anything at all

wasted posted:

jools posted:

well yeah this kind of gets at what im saying, i think people make ethical decisions based more on their idea of what kind of person they are than individual moral calculations, the idea of what kind of person you are is constructed socially, and therefore historically, and an ethics which is actually aware of this is a good idea.


How is Kant not aware of this? I mean, it's not like he didn't pander for a university spot with his essay What is Enlightenment.

cause hes dead

daddyholes posted:

jools what do you think of ethics of care. I found it interesting for the sole reason that it appealed to me intuitively but couldn't begin to argue for it and the single undergrad-level discussion of it I remember centered on whether it was just sneaking consequentialism in the back door.

i don't know aaalll that much about it but i'm not sure i'd agree that it's attempting to smuggle in consequentialism. if anything it seems like an attempt to formulate virtue ethics in a way acceptable to those versed in (liberal, universalist) justice-based ethical doctrines by basically creating a kind of mega-casuistry.

i mean there's nothing especially wrong with that but despite claiming a greater level of social awareness than deontological ethics or consequentialist ethics, it still seems too limited. like under conditions of alienation or whatever there's a lot about that kind of context you can't really know. so some kind of teleology, even if consciously historically and socially constructed, is probably needed for it to make sense, rather than just asserting what are implied to be transhistorical values of care.

I hope this makes sense.

wasted posted:

I guess my real question is, other than knowing that your behavior is socially/historically determined, how does Aristotle (I guess updated) frame actions outside the body-politic?

I don't think he does, because he considers the study of ethics that doesn't result in good action on the part of people within society to be improper at its core. Idk though i'm no expert

Lessons posted:

jools posted:

Lessons posted:

macintyre is some geriatric catholic conservative, who gives a shit what he has to say about anything

after virtue is much more marxist than dependent rational animals

i really don't care about ethics

cry about it

jools posted:

well yeah this kind of gets at what im saying, i think people make ethical decisions based more on their idea of what kind of person they are than individual moral calculations, the idea of what kind of person you are is constructed socially, and therefore historically, and an ethics which is actually aware of this is a good idea.

i think most people make ethical decisions based entirely on a combination of sudden unconscious kneejerk chemical responses, the frission generated from wanting to indulge in hedonist pleasures rubbing up against the fear of Getting Caught, and Pavlovian childhood indoctrination. and never ever based on what they read in a book once

roseweird posted:

struggle to surrender man

for tom, every day is a struggle (to button his pants)

prikryl posted:

Hey bookjools fuck ur book learnin. Nithin u say is real just cause you learned it in yoir english ivory tower. Fuckin categories & ethical systems, how do they even work, I can't see that shit with my eyeballs. Tiem to smoke weed, PEACe

im a weedpiricist