3 ms·
I assume that sounded clever to you when you typed it, but I invite you to consider how it completely fails to follow in any way from the statement that human u
by User23 3y ago
I assume that sounded clever to you when you typed it, but I invite you to consider how it completely fails to follow in any way from the statement that human understanding of higher order consequences rapidly approaches absolute deficiency as the causal chain lengthens.
My practical ethic is something closer to deontology. And it includes things like “don’t mutilate your body.” It’s precisely because I can’t follow those higher order consequence chains that I settle for following general moral principles instead of attempting teleological justifications for my actions.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoWhy doesn't your practical ethic include the general moral principle of not promoting religious nonsense? The causal chain is simple. People who believe religious nonsense can be easily made to believe any nonsense that hurts them (and have done so again and again), including mutilating their own genitals and the genitals of their children, which conflicts with and takes priority over your other moral principle. Your defeatist attitude leads to bad public policy, where the powerful take advantage of the weak because the weak are stupidly convinced that they cannot understand the consequences of limiting their own exploitation.
- User23 3y agoYou obviously have a lot of emotional baggage here and it’s keeping you from making much sense.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoI'm simply stating facts about religious mutilation as an impartial outsider who has never mutilated their own body or others'. I can understand why you might not like facts given your likely upbringing within a fact-denying community, but facts are what the rest of the world use as the grounding of a common framework for understanding.
- User23 3y agoThank you for today's shining example of "not even wrong."