Like fuck off. At the end of the day, the reason why you're not willing to do whatever is deontologically necessary to make as many people's lives easier as is possible is because you think you're a better person than the rest of us who've sold our souls and have no convictions
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Nymphomachy
(By definition you're talking about consequentialism over deontology here, if you're using the philosophy definition of the term)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @Nymphomachy
I mean it makes sense in the simplest meaning of the term, the term "deontology" just means "knowledge of duty" ("deon" is "duty" in Greek) So in the dictionary definition of the term consequentialism is also a duty, to do things that have positive consequences
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
But the term "deontology" was invented (by consequentialists) to describe the opposite of consequentialism, i.e. duty as something that exists as an objective universal law
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
Voting is a pretty good example to talk about these ethical problems actually because most people's ideas of the ethics of voting rests in this uneasy middle ground between deontology and consequentialism
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
In the most literal form of consequentialism, you shouldn't vote at all, because it doesn't matter Unless the election is literally decided by one vote your vote is of no benefit to anyone
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
The only reason to vote at all is because of the Kantian categorical imperative, which is usually seen as a deontological view of ethics "Even if it doesn't matter if I personally do it, I should act in the way I expect everyone else in the world to act"
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
If NOBODY voted then the system would collapse, therefore I owe it to the world to act like I expect everyone else to act ...But if that's true, then I should act according to deontology in general If I think Ralph Nader should be President I should vote for him
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
Even if I'm the only person in the world who votes for him and I've thus "thrown my vote away" After all you just said that I shouldn't think about how much difference my personal vote makes but should act the way people in general should act
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
If me voting for Ralph Nader doesn't matter because I'm only one person and Nader would never win the election anyway then why does my vote for Al Gore matter? Mathematically they're the same percentage of the total vote
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
I've thought about the answer to this question a lot and, in fact, I actually still don't know It sounds like this is a good argument for "voting your conscience" but if you extrapolate this argument it also makes the system fall apart
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Nymphomachy
After all Ralph Nader wasn't considered a *perfect* candidate by most of his supporters either The only person who agrees with *all* of my political views is me If I really voted according to what I truly thought everyone should do, I would write in a vote for me
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.