3 ms·

I think the salient point is the horror. If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Just because someone can exhibit th

I think the salient point is the horror. If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Just because someone can exhibit this behavior doesn't mean they should. To your original point in all of this, does this being a morally consistent example of where consequentialism leads not make you question the basis of it being right?

fluoridation 3y ago
> If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Because I don't think there's anything that's unjustifiable, and I say that in the literal sense. That is, take any position and you'll find both people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. I've seen people seriously argue that 1+1=2 is not necessarily true. I explicitly try to avoid thinking "yeah, that's obvious, no one could disagree with that". It's obvious to us that the holocaust was a horrible event that would be better if it had never happened. I don't think it would be so obvious to someone living in this hypothetical utopia. Hell, I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone living right now. Are you saying you can't conceive of any society that's so advanced that most people would think "yeah, it was terrible that so many people had to die, but look at everything we have"?
- Geisterde 3y ago
  I can conceive of the society, yes, I think we both probably live in one. It won't be obvious to everyone that a certain action is horrific, this is also true. Which is why I take a more firm stance on not initiating aggression on peaceful people, it short circuits all tribalism and fervor in favor of a principle which before all other action must be followed. This also isn't readily obvious to everyone necessarily, but it also provides me the latitude to defend myself from the initiation of agression by others, so it doesnt necessirily need to. That's not really what I am getting at though. You as an individual, I think should consider leaning into the horrific scenarios made possible by an ends justify the means framework and consider whether other moral frameworks are more appropriate. Of course people will always do what people do, it doesn't follow that they are justified in doing so.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    I don't believe people act the way they do based on one moral framework or another, nor that they have as many choices anyway. I'm not even sure Hitler was too exceptional, beyond his position of power. I think most people act impulsively most of the time, and that sometimes their actions can be retroactively justified. As another example, I don't think the perpetrators of the rape of Nanking were exceptional men; I think most of them were ordinary men in an exceptional situation. If that's not the case, then I can't reconcile that with how many pillages have happened throughout history.

fluoridation 3y ago

> If you find the means so horrific, why do you consider this ideology justifiable. Because I don't think there's anything that's unjustifiable, and I say that in the literal sense. That is, take any position and you'll find both people who agree with it and people who disagree with it. I've seen people seriously argue that 1+1=2 is not necessarily true. I explicitly try to avoid thinking "yeah, that's obvious, no one could disagree with that". It's obvious to us that the holocaust was a horrible event that would be better if it had never happened. I don't think it would be so obvious to someone living in this hypothetical utopia. Hell, I'm not sure it's obvious to everyone living right now. Are you saying you can't conceive of any society that's so advanced that most people would think "yeah, it was terrible that so many people had to die, but look at everything we have"?

Geisterde 3y ago
I can conceive of the society, yes, I think we both probably live in one. It won't be obvious to everyone that a certain action is horrific, this is also true. Which is why I take a more firm stance on not initiating aggression on peaceful people, it short circuits all tribalism and fervor in favor of a principle which before all other action must be followed. This also isn't readily obvious to everyone necessarily, but it also provides me the latitude to defend myself from the initiation of agression by others, so it doesnt necessirily need to. That's not really what I am getting at though. You as an individual, I think should consider leaning into the horrific scenarios made possible by an ends justify the means framework and consider whether other moral frameworks are more appropriate. Of course people will always do what people do, it doesn't follow that they are justified in doing so.
- fluoridation 3y ago
  I don't believe people act the way they do based on one moral framework or another, nor that they have as many choices anyway. I'm not even sure Hitler was too exceptional, beyond his position of power. I think most people act impulsively most of the time, and that sometimes their actions can be retroactively justified. As another example, I don't think the perpetrators of the rape of Nanking were exceptional men; I think most of them were ordinary men in an exceptional situation. If that's not the case, then I can't reconcile that with how many pillages have happened throughout history.