4 ms·

This sounds like a utilitarian argument. Unfortunately, that means the weights of the increased harm vs. decreased harm are what determines the morality. And th

This sounds like a utilitarian argument. Unfortunately, that means the weights of the increased harm vs. decreased harm are what determines the morality. And those are arbitrary. one could believe it is low harm for a young person to use OF, but massive harm to be in the traditional porn industry, and conclude that OF is a net plus. Ie, this argument is circular and based on preconceptions rather than a critical examination of the evidence.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> This sounds like a utilitarian argument. Unfortunately, that means the weights of the increased harm vs. decreased harm are what determines the morality. And those are arbitrary. Well, yeah and with a deontological argument, chosen moral axioms are what determine the morality, which are equally arbitrary. All arguments of “should” have arbitrary values at their root.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument, one that did not present relative weights or other assumptions about population size. On that, it failed to make its point, which is what my comment was about. If you wish to say that most philosophical arguments are people reinforcing their previously held beliefs, I would not argue with you.
  - jeffreyrogers 5y ago
    > OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument No I wasn't. I was making an HN comment, not engaging in moral philosophy, which I find boring and arbitrary. It's no coincidence that the preferred moral philosophy under any regime is one that is favorable to that regime. Thus the Greeks had virtue ethics, Nazis a bastardized Nietzscheanism, and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. I actually agree with your criticisms, they were obvious to me when I wrote the comment, but we must ultimately decide what sort of world we want to live in (or have it decided for us), and I would prefer one without OnlyFans, that such a world is a fantasy for the foreseeable future is besides the point.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      You may find the formalization boring and arbitrary, but independent of that, your argument was one of utility. An alternative argument, if you wanted to avoid such droll dry topics, would have been to say "I don't want OnlyFans to be a thing." Instead, you made an argument based on moral philosophy to support your opinion. That's totally fine! It also doesn't change the fact that your comment evaluated the moral utility of whether our world is better or worse for existing.
      - jeffreyrogers 5y ago
        You could make this type of criticism of literally any moral argument (swapping out utility for whatever the underlying criteria is in alternative moral frameworks). This is why post-modernist philosophy has become dominant in the modern world. There is no successful response to it other than to ignore it and and realize that it is all, "boring and arbitrary" as I said earlier. Edit: Also, as I learned from a post-modern adjacent philosopher, Richard Rorty, there is sometimes benefit in making arguments in different moral frameworks even if you believe they are all ultimately arbitrary: different people are convinced by different lines of reasoning. But ultimately, I post on HN because it is fun.
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        I agree with you, if you are looking for the output of a moral philosophy equation to spit out an answer. However, I think it is more useful as a series of questions that help us understand the reality, as you mention. If moral philosophy is boring an arbitrary, then what study or language is a better vehicle for discussing these ideas?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. Uh, what? Since when is that the preferred moral philosophy in contemporary (presumably American?) society?
      - 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> This sounds like a utilitarian argument. Unfortunately, that means the weights of the increased harm vs. decreased harm are what determines the morality. And those are arbitrary. Well, yeah and with a deontological argument, chosen moral axioms are what determine the morality, which are equally arbitrary. All arguments of “should” have arbitrary values at their root.

edmundsauto 5y ago
OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument, one that did not present relative weights or other assumptions about population size. On that, it failed to make its point, which is what my comment was about. If you wish to say that most philosophical arguments are people reinforcing their previously held beliefs, I would not argue with you.
- jeffreyrogers 5y ago
  > OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument No I wasn't. I was making an HN comment, not engaging in moral philosophy, which I find boring and arbitrary. It's no coincidence that the preferred moral philosophy under any regime is one that is favorable to that regime. Thus the Greeks had virtue ethics, Nazis a bastardized Nietzscheanism, and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. I actually agree with your criticisms, they were obvious to me when I wrote the comment, but we must ultimately decide what sort of world we want to live in (or have it decided for us), and I would prefer one without OnlyFans, that such a world is a fantasy for the foreseeable future is besides the point.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    You may find the formalization boring and arbitrary, but independent of that, your argument was one of utility. An alternative argument, if you wanted to avoid such droll dry topics, would have been to say "I don't want OnlyFans to be a thing." Instead, you made an argument based on moral philosophy to support your opinion. That's totally fine! It also doesn't change the fact that your comment evaluated the moral utility of whether our world is better or worse for existing.
    - jeffreyrogers 5y ago
      You could make this type of criticism of literally any moral argument (swapping out utility for whatever the underlying criteria is in alternative moral frameworks). This is why post-modernist philosophy has become dominant in the modern world. There is no successful response to it other than to ignore it and and realize that it is all, "boring and arbitrary" as I said earlier. Edit: Also, as I learned from a post-modern adjacent philosopher, Richard Rorty, there is sometimes benefit in making arguments in different moral frameworks even if you believe they are all ultimately arbitrary: different people are convinced by different lines of reasoning. But ultimately, I post on HN because it is fun.
      - edmundsauto 5y ago
        I agree with you, if you are looking for the output of a moral philosophy equation to spit out an answer. However, I think it is more useful as a series of questions that help us understand the reality, as you mention. If moral philosophy is boring an arbitrary, then what study or language is a better vehicle for discussing these ideas?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > and our contemporary society Rawlsianism. Uh, what? Since when is that the preferred moral philosophy in contemporary (presumably American?) society?
    - 5y ago