> The predictable consequence of this sort of statement is that someone starts going off about hospitals and terrorists and organs and moral philosophy and cons

> The predictable consequence of this sort of statement is that someone starts going off about hospitals and terrorists and organs and moral philosophy and consent and rights and so on. Except this doesn't follow from consequentialism, although it's not uncommon for someone to assume it does. No-one would want to live in a world where that was the norm, and it could not be kept secret, so even the most full-bore consequentialist should oppose it. A consequentialist might hold that human rights are a good idea as a means, even if they aren't sold on the idea that they should be an end in themselves. > no one is literally "chanting slogans". There may even be some original phrasings involved. But the conversation has been derailed. This seems like a rather shallow take on what it means to be creative and original. Reciting a famous philosophical quote, say, doesn't mean you aren't thinking. There's little point rephrasing it if it's well known and succinct. The originality is in how you apply it, not in expressing it in your own words, which is really just not-invented-here in action. Those are just nitpicks though. As to the core idea, it's not terribly clear to me what philosophical landmine means. I think it's meant to mean an ambiguous word or phrase that people are likely to feel strongly about, in a way that is likely to derail a conversation. > Avoiding landmines is your job. If it is a predictable consequence that something you could say will put people in mindless slogan-playback-mode, don't say it. Isn't this just a way of saying you should write clearly? I'm reminded of an online conversation where someone said something like: > Humans are different from machines in that they have free will. Quite the philosophical rabbit-hole, but it turned out they meant > Humans are different from machines in that they are able to set their own goals. which is much more clear and precise. I suppose free will is the landmine there, as it's unclear what it really means, and just about everyone has a strong opinion about it, even people who have never read any philosophy and know nothing about the subject.