5 ms·

> Every modern moral philosopher has come to the same conclusion Everything after a statement like that can be safely dismissed as pure bull.

sanderjd 9y ago
Why so?
- olegkikin 9y ago
  Because it's a false premise.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    I'm sorry, but what is a false premise? I'm trying to figure out what your argument is, but I'm just not sure. Could you be more clear?
orwin 9y ago
While its a false generalisation, most of modern philosophers specialized on morals/ethics whether they are utilitarists or not agree that excluding the intolerant (more like banning intolerant behavior) is beneficial for the "common good". From an utilitarist point of view, this isn't even a question: intolerant behavior leads to less people being happy (not even talking about hypotethical fights resulting of intolerance, just people feeling excluded), therefore it should be banned.
- olegkikin 9y ago
  But that's not even what his argument is, it's much more bizarre. If I understood correctly, he claimed that 1) Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance. 2) Every modern philosopher agrees with #1. Both a false statements, as far as I can see. As for "Intolerant behavior", it's a completely subjective concept that is orthogonal to morality. In most places in Saui Arabia it's not tolerated for a woman to not appear wrapped in a bag, and considered immoral too, but I consider that kind of treatment of women completely intolerant and immoral in itself.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Dear god man please go read some more on the topic. You’re embarrassing yourself.
  - orwin 9y ago
    The thing : #1 was wrote by Popper, a rather known utilitarist (well, negative utilitarist: every action, instead of optimizing overall happiness, should aim to decrease overall pain). There is a lot of modern philosopher that agree with this as well. This is a catchphrase, it doesn't refer to what you read but to the reflexion behind (like "i think therefore i am" refer to cartesian doubt and that you can doubt of anything except the fact tht you exist). HS: The main issue with that, a sentence that resume an "essai" (don't have a clue about the english translation), is that people that do not know what philosophy really is. Let's be honest, if it is taught as well in the world than in France, almost nobody knows. So most people misunderstand what it really means, while some of the other use this knowledge to put people down. Even writing this, i'm pedantic, and i really don't want to be, so imagine someone who like feeling full of himself? And that way, more and ore people hate philosophy and philosopher, and get disinterested. (i wrote like a hundred lines about philosophers in French media, but i'm sure no one care so i will refrain...)

sanderjd 9y ago

Why so?

olegkikin 9y ago
Because it's a false premise.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but what is a false premise? I'm trying to figure out what your argument is, but I'm just not sure. Could you be more clear?

orwin 9y ago

While its a false generalisation, most of modern philosophers specialized on morals/ethics whether they are utilitarists or not agree that excluding the intolerant (more like banning intolerant behavior) is beneficial for the "common good". From an utilitarist point of view, this isn't even a question: intolerant behavior leads to less people being happy (not even talking about hypotethical fights resulting of intolerance, just people feeling excluded), therefore it should be banned.

olegkikin 9y ago
But that's not even what his argument is, it's much more bizarre. If I understood correctly, he claimed that 1) Intolerance of intolerance is tolerance. 2) Every modern philosopher agrees with #1. Both a false statements, as far as I can see. As for "Intolerant behavior", it's a completely subjective concept that is orthogonal to morality. In most places in Saui Arabia it's not tolerated for a woman to not appear wrapped in a bag, and considered immoral too, but I consider that kind of treatment of women completely intolerant and immoral in itself.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Dear god man please go read some more on the topic. You’re embarrassing yourself.
- orwin 9y ago
  The thing : #1 was wrote by Popper, a rather known utilitarist (well, negative utilitarist: every action, instead of optimizing overall happiness, should aim to decrease overall pain). There is a lot of modern philosopher that agree with this as well. This is a catchphrase, it doesn't refer to what you read but to the reflexion behind (like "i think therefore i am" refer to cartesian doubt and that you can doubt of anything except the fact tht you exist). HS: The main issue with that, a sentence that resume an "essai" (don't have a clue about the english translation), is that people that do not know what philosophy really is. Let's be honest, if it is taught as well in the world than in France, almost nobody knows. So most people misunderstand what it really means, while some of the other use this knowledge to put people down. Even writing this, i'm pedantic, and i really don't want to be, so imagine someone who like feeling full of himself? And that way, more and ore people hate philosophy and philosopher, and get disinterested. (i wrote like a hundred lines about philosophers in French media, but i'm sure no one care so i will refrain...)