created by SilasTheSavage on 20/02/2025 at 16:35 UTC
13 upvotes, 4 top-level comments (showing 4)
Comment by AutoModerator at 20/02/2025 at 16:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by abrau11 at 21/02/2025 at 03:34 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I just cannot get on board with any discussion of the big three, especially when it comes to Petit, Parfit or Singer. I find it's just wheel-spinning
I'm a constructivist, so take from that what you will, but the big three are all after the same thing and wind up talking past each other. (Obviously, I think Constructivism bests them all at their own game.)
Like, you could very easily twist yourself up and get a deontological system that is "consequentialist" on this definition because the thing that brings about the best good is following this set of rul... And oops, I've invented Rule Utilitarianism.
Or you could similarly swap the language games of virtue ethics and deontology to describe the same practical system of being a particular kind of person that behaves in a particular kind of way.
I just find that the "nuances" of the big three - the places where they start to drift astray of their *moral core* is over commitment to the language used to talk about them.
Comment by Hollywood_Frolic at 26/02/2025 at 03:44 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I’m a Jedi.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Comment by Formless_Mind at 21/02/2025 at 04:59 UTC*
0 upvotes, 1 direct replies
I've never been a admirer of Utilitarianism in general
A moral theory that rests on the idea pleasure is the greatest outcome/reason for doing anything just/unjust is ultimately one that l can't even say it's a moral theory
Now consequentialism even though permissible in theory, in real-life it just fails to hold any consistency given most people aren't going to reflect or try to figure out whether their actions have any casual effect on others
Now Kant did try and to fix a lot of holes with this by applying a universal Law in saying we are all rationale enough to examine the outcomes of our actions but in the end he's putting a big unrealistic standard on human actions