4 ms·
It doesn't contradict most of what you said, except this part: > their entire moral philosophy [..] is exclusively used to justify whatever they want Unless b
by car_analogy 4y ago
It doesn't contradict most of what you said, except this part:
> their entire moral philosophy [..] is exclusively used to justify whatever they want
Unless by "want" you mean "selfishly desire or selflessly believe is the morally right thing", and not the common use of only "selfish desire".
- ouid 4y agoBy want I mean want. I wasn't assigning moral judgments at this point because that would have been circular. I said "whatever they want" in order to distinguish it from an unqualified "whatever". The prosperity doctrine stuff was a motivated example, but not meant to be representative.
- car_analogy 4y ago"Want" is highly ambiguous. For example, a lawyer that believes everyone has a right to a competent legal defense may find a client personally abhorrent, but take their case anyway out of a sense of duty. It is highly misleading to describe this as the lawyer "doing whatever they want", even if that is technically true by some definition of "want", and even if the lawyer's rationalization of this is found to be internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with some other aspect of their behavior.
- ouid 4y agoI am aware that it is highly ambiguous, that is why I chose it. People who believe whatever they want are more of a problem than people who believe whatever. People who believe whatever they want can be manipulated by people who know what they want.