3 ms·

Welcome to Hacker News, great comment, I upvoted you, but nix the "l;bra (long; but read anyway) Articulately put and yummy intellectual fodder. Thank you for t

Welcome to Hacker News, great comment, I upvoted you, but nix the "l;bra (long; but read anyway) Articulately put and yummy intellectual fodder. Thank you for the submission brazzy. ... Less iPad/Flash submissions and more of this sort of thing would be greatly appreciated :)" - the fluff, basically, we try to kill it around here. Kill the fluff. And I agree with you about consequentialism/utilitarianism - it's in the "nice in theory, but treat with extreme caution in real world" camp. Intelligent deontological ethics seem to be a bit more grounded and less idealistic.

igravious 16y ago
Understood lionhearted, consider the fluff nixed forthwith. I have always been more drawn to virtue theory. I have of late been drawn to Wittgenstein's archly enigmatic, "aesthetics and ethics are one". I don't know if Wittgenstein ever said anything about disease. One philosopher I hugely admire is Peter Singer and he's a utilitarian of some stripe so that gives me pause for thought in dismissing consequentialism/utilitarianism but like I said I have been drawn more to virtue theory side of things. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/