Philosophy

[muttonhead]

is it morally wrong to give a sloppy blowjob to a horse?

 

[muttonhead]

 

[SowiesoGroyp]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1819400627081875805

i think suffering is less bad when it's dispersed rather than concentrated. another way to think about this question would be taking all the pain and suffering on earth and laser-beaming it on 1 person, would that be better? to me, there's something kind of satanic and sadistic about doing that to anyone. that's something only Jesus is meant to do.

utilitarians have to say it's equally bad for 1000 people to stub their toe and for 1 guy to get skinned alive and vivisected, because they're dum

 

[Stiff]

i think suffering is less bad when it's dispersed rather than concentrated. another way to think about this question would be taking all the pain and suffering on earth and laser-beaming it on 1 person, would that be better? to me, there's something kind of satanic and sadistic about doing that to anyone. that's something only Jesus is meant to do.

utilitarians have to say it's equally bad for 1000 people to stub their toe and for 1 guy to get skinned alive and vivisected, because they're dum

Putting aside the hypothetical in the clip (it's silly and its internal logic is wrong), I can't imagine any "utilitarian" seriously suggesting that a single person dying horribly (or at all) would be preferable to a large number of people experiencing some minor injury they could recover from in minutes.

There's a reason that mere utilitarianism was quickly relegated to entry-level philosophy for kids. The unreal hypotheticals that most people see as jokes are all it has to offer, because when you're considering marginal utility, the whole real situation is obviously essential.

This is why self-identified "rule utilitarians" and other liberals are notorious for asking stupid questions like "would you rather live in a community of well-behaved African Christians or Atheist Europeans?" as a means to answer completely different questions like "is race more important than religion?"

If you could presuppose that God was real, everyone was otherwise equal, and such a community existed, then the question would answer itself. Contrived hypotheticals where you have all the info are worthless. The closest that utilitarian thought gets to providing collective utility is in interest-based politics & political realism, where power, not happiness, is the primary end, because the former begets the latter.

 

[SowiesoGroyp]

>(it's silly and its internal logic is wrong)
how so

i think resistance to hypotheticals is kinda cringe. all hypotheticals are supposed to do is clarify your principles (in this case ethical values) by removing ambiguity and confounding factors that would otherwise allow you to waffle and weasel away from answering. if you entirely reject a hypothetical, you should clearly explain why its premises are invalid or unrelated to the subject of discussion.

>the whole real situation is obviously essential
essential for what?

this is how you get raped and humiliated in a debate with Destiny "i reject your hypothetical because it's... uhhh... silly" always comes across as cope for "i am incapable of abstract thought." how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning faggot

>If you could presuppose that God was real, everyone was otherwise equal, and such a community existed, then the question would answer itself.
no, it wouldn't, actually. i would not voluntarily live with niggers even if they were more intelligent and less criminal AND more Christian. wow it's almost like we have different values and this hypothetical has been useful in revealing this to be the case. you just don't like biting bullets because you're a spineless pussy. mad?

note: if you respond to this post with a wall of text, i may or may not actually continue the discussion because i am very busy this week. keep it short if you're actually interested in knowing something i think as opposed to feeling compelled to defend yourself from each sentence of my polemic