3 ms·

I think this sort of response is really unfortunate. I don't think their reply was at all out of order, they simply extended your argument, and I would have ver

I think this sort of response is really unfortunate. I don't think their reply was at all out of order, they simply extended your argument, and I would have very much liked to read a genuine reply.

cjslep 8y ago
Mine is a genuine reply. The fact you think not is very hurtful. Not every single thing people vouch for is meant to be taken to a philosophical extreme and evaluated at boundary conditions to check for contradictions. I don't view it as "an extension" of my argument because it's not my place to defend it. I didn't come up with it. It's not my argument. It's not theirs either. They aren't defending the goths and furries. Neither one of us have a stake in the matter. It's a waste of everyone's time. I'm not a follower of Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative. Please don't take the arguments I say and extend them to an extreme degree and evaluate at boundary conditions just to prove that yes, my philosophy must have contradictions at the fringes, thus my moral framework is flawed and not the right one. I'm not a follower of utilitarianism. Please don't take the arguments I say and take an assumed utility function and declare that it also evaluates to "eat poor people to solve world hunger and overpopulation" just to illustrate that my philosophical view must be a cold and heartless one at the fringes, thus my moral framework is flawed and not the right one. When it comes to moral philosophy, once can't be too rigid in following this practice, otherwise you wind up in a boring absolutist-nihilism or a boring absolutist-relativism world. The depressing fact is that we are all hypocritical creatures, the real "living" (in my view) in life is each of us coming to terms with that. The world is full of color, where people apply different moral frameworks for different kinds of problems. Using the extreme fringes of moral philosophy to evaluate more mundane problems of morality is not the only line of ethical reasoning. Edited to add: So this is why I don't engage in these kinds of online discussions anymore where someone extends my argument without my input and now I am expected to defend it. I fundamentally view them as a different and unproductive kind of discussion that doesn't lead to insightful reasoning. I used to engaging on the internet in this way, but it's taken me about a decade to fully realize the relative unproductiveness of it all.

I think this sort of response is really unfortunate. I don't think their reply was at all out of order, they simply extended your argument, and I would have very much liked to read a genuine reply.

cjslep 8y ago

Mine is a genuine reply. The fact you think not is very hurtful. Not every single thing people vouch for is meant to be taken to a philosophical extreme and evaluated at boundary conditions to check for contradictions. I don't view it as "an extension" of my argument because it's not my place to defend it. I didn't come up with it. It's not my argument. It's not theirs either. They aren't defending the goths and furries. Neither one of us have a stake in the matter. It's a waste of everyone's time. I'm not a follower of Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative. Please don't take the arguments I say and extend them to an extreme degree and evaluate at boundary conditions just to prove that yes, my philosophy must have contradictions at the fringes, thus my moral framework is flawed and not the right one. I'm not a follower of utilitarianism. Please don't take the arguments I say and take an assumed utility function and declare that it also evaluates to "eat poor people to solve world hunger and overpopulation" just to illustrate that my philosophical view must be a cold and heartless one at the fringes, thus my moral framework is flawed and not the right one. When it comes to moral philosophy, once can't be too rigid in following this practice, otherwise you wind up in a boring absolutist-nihilism or a boring absolutist-relativism world. The depressing fact is that we are all hypocritical creatures, the real "living" (in my view) in life is each of us coming to terms with that. The world is full of color, where people apply different moral frameworks for different kinds of problems. Using the extreme fringes of moral philosophy to evaluate more mundane problems of morality is not the only line of ethical reasoning. Edited to add: So this is why I don't engage in these kinds of online discussions anymore where someone extends my argument without my input and now I am expected to defend it. I fundamentally view them as a different and unproductive kind of discussion that doesn't lead to insightful reasoning. I used to engaging on the internet in this way, but it's taken me about a decade to fully realize the relative unproductiveness of it all.