Hey, it’s a pretty popular ethical philosophy. Generally, people like to leave caveats, but fully rejecting all consequentialism is similarly uncommon.
If you’re going to be a pure deontologist, you have to pick out single actions he’s done that went against your chosen rules. One hurdle there is that most of his activities were legal in their time or place. Another is that seeking personal profit is almost universal and often commended.
The fact I know what deontology means should suggest that I’ve heard of the trolley problem.
Also, leg[al] isn’t moral!
Correct. But, you’d have to figure out an alternative system of rules that he broke. And it may very well capture people you like as well. Most people would have no problem killing a technical standard for a very large sum of money.
I can’t say it’s impossible to do reasonably, but I can’t say it is possible either. Most people just acknowledge that sometimes the ends justify the means.
You’re just moving the goalpoast, as you most probably know what that is too, you know what you’re doing and this acts in bad faith.
Go bootlick a billionaire if you want to but don’t come here try to convince anyone that they are in any way good people, that’s just propaganda, and if you’re not paid to do it then you are also a fool.
Edit: it’s clearly just ai slop now, I’m not answering that lol.
It’s not clear what goalpost you mean, exactly. Any consequentialism being bad, or pure consequentialism?
I was pretty careful not to set a goalpost of any kind on pure consequentialism, if you go back and double check, exactly because it has well-known problems.
Go bootlick a billionaire if you want to but don’t come here try to convince anyone that they are in any way good people
Don’t flatter them with the evil genius shit either. That’s how they want to be seen.
I killed 5, now I gave blood and saved 3, only 2 to go to be “morally clean” am I right?
Pfff.
Hey, it’s a pretty popular ethical philosophy. Generally, people like to leave caveats, but fully rejecting all consequentialism is similarly uncommon.
If you’re going to be a pure deontologist, you have to pick out single actions he’s done that went against your chosen rules. One hurdle there is that most of his activities were legal in their time or place. Another is that seeking personal profit is almost universal and often commended.
Have you heard of the trolley problem? You should check it out instead of trying to “get me” with some slop. Also, legit isn’t moral!
The fact I know what deontology means should suggest that I’ve heard of the trolley problem.
Correct. But, you’d have to figure out an alternative system of rules that he broke. And it may very well capture people you like as well. Most people would have no problem killing a technical standard for a very large sum of money.
I can’t say it’s impossible to do reasonably, but I can’t say it is possible either. Most people just acknowledge that sometimes the ends justify the means.
You’re just moving the goalpoast, as you most probably know what that is too, you know what you’re doing and this acts in bad faith.
Go bootlick a billionaire if you want to but don’t come here try to convince anyone that they are in any way good people, that’s just propaganda, and if you’re not paid to do it then you are also a fool.
Edit: it’s clearly just ai slop now, I’m not answering that lol.
It’s not clear what goalpost you mean, exactly. Any consequentialism being bad, or pure consequentialism?
I was pretty careful not to set a goalpost of any kind on pure consequentialism, if you go back and double check, exactly because it has well-known problems.
Don’t flatter them with the evil genius shit either. That’s how they want to be seen.