I heard this board is full of dirty consequentialists

Because it tells us on an objective level what we ought do.
Fuck that, I do what I want.

Well, technically he only says you ought to act in that way if you behave logically. He does not say you ought to act logically, however, rather his argument is that you are always using logic naturally, or something like that anyway, thus the ought is omnipresent.

Fuck consequentialism tbh
We /virtue_ethics/

Which assumes that logic is universal and self-evident.

Clearly the logical thing to do when being attacked is to not defend yourself, because then eventually the world is united under a single king and there will be no more wars.

Anything can be justified using any kind of logic.

Tl;dr kant's insane

Because we don't have esp and don't know for sure what our actions will actually achieve. Because consequentialism justifies some awful stuff based on the possibility that maybe it will bring about something positive.

If Kant is going to make the argument that "lying is bad in all circumstances, including ones where it results in pointless death and destruction", then it's just as easy to make the point that "killing is bad in all circumstances, including ones where it results in pointless death and destruction"

See

Whoops, meant to say "including ones where it AVOIDS pointless death and destruction" for both cases

You're a reformist, then?

Only if he believes there is insufficient knowledge about the results of a revolution.

Not in principle. I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Reformism can be argued to generate the most happiness for the most people; it's not like it's a strictly anti-consequentialist stance.

Actually, I take that back about pacifism. The biggest problem with the CI is that it's an incoherent concept that, at the same time attempts to remove any concept of circumstance while also agreeing with the idea of actions that are defined by their circumstance. eg, what makes lying, lying, is the very circumstances under which you are communicating.

Right. But also we may, depending on the situation, have a moral duty to rebel. I just don't think that consequentialism is a good enough system to justify anything.

The fact that it depends on the situation makes it consequentialist.

Protip: consequentialism + game theory = god mode

Not really. Consequentialism is more specifically about the results that come from actions. Situations will obviously be different, but it's not the defining characteristic of consequentialism.

Virtue ethics, which focuses on character and habits is a lot more focused on situations, for example.

"Depending on the situation" implies revolution might not always be the best choice, which implies the existence of a specific outcome that might not be achieved

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT THE UBERMENSCH

I'm not really concerned with the outcome is what I'm saying, more about the context around it. You're getting attached to the word situation, like that's what makes consequentialism unique. It's not. Virtue ethics where virtuous people may have radically different opinions and is even more situation-based. It's just a reflection that I don't know what the right thing to do in every situation is, but if things get so bad that people have no choice but to rebel – that's justified whether or not the end result is worse than the current situation. I think this is true even if you say, "look it's bad but here's a million ways it can be worse if you fight back".

I'll take Hegel over Kant or Nietzsche any day of the week, tbh.

So youre saying its ethical depending on the setup of the situation and nit the consequences of the situation.

I mean, I guess you could believe that. It's weird because it's trivially true that certain conditions must be necessary for a choice to even be possible in the first place for you to judge the ethics of. It's strange to cut the timeline like that and consider whatever happens posterior to the act irrelevant to the act.

Fuck. *not

Never install cyanogenmod. The keyboard is trash.

Hegel has caused all the problems on the left tbh

Say that to my face, and not online, and see what happens!

This triggers the zizekian

Hegelianism is to try and think away the truggle, it is weakness, to avoid struggle.
When faced with the death of God and suffering, we're given three options, to surrender to it and make it a virtue like the christians, to will yourself into nothingness so it disappears or to find purpose in the struggle itself.
Hegelianism is the second one, the buddhist mentality, the one where we run rather than fight.

I don't want to say it's totally irrelevant, but that we don't actually know what the results of our actions will be and it would be a shame to do horrible things or retroactively make peace with malicious actions on the basis that things "worked or will work out in the end so the action is the morally right thing to do".

There are plenty of alternatives available, you pleb.

Like if you showed me a crystal ball showing the future with the world and everyone dying because we started a revolution, well then… Maybe we shouldn't do that thing.

That's also contingent and thus uncertainty is factored into consequentialism.

If you take that route then we can say that the CI doesn't really work either because we don't actually know if universalized actions would be self terminating or if they'd just restructure society to work around them.

But this is already supposing that consequentialism is the correct viewpoint. You're already concerned with the outcome of the ethical system as a reason for why it is objectively correct. Which is why it's kind of hard to think about these things; consequentialism is so natural to us.

So say there was an ethical system that said circus juggling was morally obligated at 3pm every day. There is no way to get around the fact that by this system's own definitions, this act is morally required.

I assert that people resort to consequentialism when searching for which normative ethical system to choose, and thus non-consequentialist theories are a distorted subset of consequentialism.

uh, no. U gay!

Clearly you've never read Hegel

Do you even know what the categorical imperative is? It's the definition of coherent autism, it is a form of the law of identity A=A. To contradict this identity is what makes things immoral.

Kant says you can't lie, but there is nothing stopping you from sidestepping the question and wasting the murderer's time. It's not lying, and it's also not telling them where their victim is. I mean, come on, easy response.

And if he tortures you for it?

What does that have to do with you? If you think it's ok to reveal something just because you're tortured I have a guillotine waiting for you once the revolution comes.

Le internet tough guy here thinks he can withstand torture.

And threatening to kill a fellow comrade what the fuck dude fucking cancer.

And you honestly see no parallel to Buddhist elimination of the self and Nirvana in that?
Then you must not have understood it very well.

I see you're retarded, so let me translate it for you: death, struggle, and suffering are the essence of what humanity is. We cannot and should not try to run away from this, we must embrace the struggle of life and learning. Buddhism tells people to avoid suffering and pains, Hegel tells us that we must face these things and grow wiser and stronger.

People can lose their mind when tortured, but then they're not morally responsible. I was assuming you understood that and obviously meant someone who still has their wits, but you're a moron.

LOL wrong, you've never studied buddhism before in your life probably too busy with dead german philosopher wank

filtered

At least try, son.

You were just saying not to lie because of the categorical imperative, you fucking retard

Enjoy your 15th birthday soon, user

Yes they are. CI does not allow for circumstantial modifiers to actions.

I'd say being able to deal with these constructively is humanity's "essence" (muh human nature)

Buddhists neither fight nor run. They watch.

Dukkha =/= suffering. Blame early shitty translations that stuck for that common confusion

You really are just pulling at nothing here. I know about equanimity, I also know about dukkha.

Well you're wrong, but whatever you want to believe is fine. Suffering and learning from negative experience is constitutive of humanity.

CI is a good judge whether or not an action is morally sound, people just sperg out when faced with their human imperfection if one were to try and actually follow it. That's what Schopenhauer pointed out, it expects far too much from the human, if it was the accepted law everyone would have to think of themselves as "evil" for constantly breaking the imperative.

In the real world people always use a combination of CI and consequentialism because neither makes most people comfortable, usually. First they judge whether an action is morally good/bad and then they judge a second time whether or not it is "necessary". In this sense, the CI functions not as an imperative that must be obeyed, but rather as a sort of magnifying glass with which to examine the moral worth of an action.

The categorical imperative also shouldn't be placed in the framework of modern ethics which loves useless thought problems and meta ethical debate.

It has to be seen in relation to Kant's project in the CPR, deriving a ground characterized by necessity and universality so as to be accessible to all subjects, and his views on the development of the rational, universal state as the idea through which history develops.

Excuse me, Marx-poster, but deciding which sticky figure gets to live another day is very important.

You should tell how unimportant it is to the other 5 sticky figures laying in the track while the trolley runs them over.