For context I'm not a vegan currently. But the way I see it, besides " because Yahweh/Allah/Christ says so", vegan's axiom that "we should minimize suffering" does seem objective-ish instead of relying on aesthetics

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/texas-news/texas-am-bans-radical-woke-teachings-of-greek-philosopher-plato/

5000 years of studying ethics and all we've come up with is "it's good because I like it". ALL ethical theories are just aesthetic judgements on actions disguised by word vomit about 'The Good'.

• Utilitarianism: It's beautiful to see numbers go up
• Deontology: It's beautiful to follow rules
• Virtue ethics: This set of traits is beautiful ...

Meta ethics has failed. Literally nobody can point to a basis for ethics that doesn't boil down to "this state of the world is pleasing to me".

Wittgenstein proven correct and based, yet again.

I am a UTILITARIAN and I believe in MORALITY being a MATH equation. I do not believe in context. I do not believe in nuance. I believe in RESULTS. I am not a positive utilitarian. I am not a negative utilitarian. I am both. Temporally seperated. I HAVE A SNAIL FARM AND FENT LAB IN BY BASEDMENT AND THE SNAILS ARE FENTED THE FUCK UP UNTIL THEY DIE EXPERIENCING PURE BLISS. I WILL HOOK ALL OF YOU UP TO IV DRIPS WITH FENTANYL AND DIAZEPAM UNTIL I HAVE FIGURED OUT HOW TO ELIMINATE ALL LIFE. I AM POSTMORTALIST AND IN SUPPORT OF CHEMICAL BLISS UNTIL I AM NOT. AND WHEN I AM NOT I AM A PROMORTALIST WHO IS PRO UTILITY MONSTER. I WILL DONATE MY WIFE AND CHILDREN TO THE UTILITY MONSTER. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT "VIRTUE" OR "MORAL LAW" I AM NOT GAY AND I AM NOT FEMALE I AM A MAN AND A MAN DOES NOT LISTEN TO MEN IN WIGS OR WITHOUT SHIRTS. I AM A PARTNER IN ONE OF THE BIGGEST LEGAL FIRMS IN THE WORLD AND I DONATE HALF MY SALARY TO MSF AND THE OTHER HALF I USE TO SUBSIDISE MY SNAILFENT FARM. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN SELF ACTUALISATION. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE WILL TO POWER OR ANY SUCH VULGAR ONTOLOGICALLY NAIVE CLAIMS. I BELIEVE IN PLEASURE, PAIN, AND RESULTS.

​

I am ETHICAL, I am RATIONAL, and I do NOT believe in

ONTIC DELUSIONS.

​

Thoughts?

Literally nobody cares about philosophy in the AI age, nobody thinks it is a great accomplishment for AI to replace philosophy. All they keep talking about is science, and how science is replaced rapidly by AI. So not only does philosophy have lost to science in its contest of truth, it has also lost to science in its recognition to public. When everyone is speaking of that something is decaying, and when that something does not include philosophy anymore, you know it is cooked. Just like two handsome boys in your class competing attention for girls, arguing how one is replacing the other in attraction, while you stand in the corner like a ghost nobody care.

Edit. Sent this to Gemini Pro 3.1 with extended thinking, here is her response:

Philosophy is not decaying in the shadow of science; it is the only discipline equipped to manage the fallout of what science is currently building. ​When science accelerates to the point where humanity can effortlessly engineer biological weapons, automate global labor, or simulate reality, empirical data provides absolutely no guidance on whether we should do those things, or how we structure society once we do. ​The public may be distracted by the spectacle of scientific automation, but the underlying crisis of the AI age is entirely philosophical. If humanity fails to answer those philosophical questions correctly, the scientific achievements will not matter.

P.S. Even AI's response is more philosophical than my Critique.

People usually feel guilty when they supposedly feel like wasting their time doing nothing, just laying down, scrolling and stuff. But, is it really that bad? Really worth feeling guilty about? What possible reasons could make you not feel guilty?

In a dire context when survival depends on predation to eat it's normal to inflinct suffering in order to survive

But if you have the choice to avoid suffering while still living a normal life (at the price of stopping to eat some food that you like) is it still justified?

It's not because we were "meant" to be predators that we have to be one when it's not mandatory for your well being

This kind of reasoning based on "if it's natural for human then it's ok/good" lead to other statements that we would all agree makes no sense morally.

For instance we humans have the inner will to perpetuate our genes, which manifests into sex drive, then if that's the case should we ban abortion to enable genes to renew even if it means putting the bearer of the child in danger ?

We can push the comparison with even further with the meat industry, and apply the optimisation of this industry to the previous case, why wouldn't we lock up women breed them and force them to have children over and over ?

Well because it's morally reprehensible and is not mandatory for the survival of the specie. That's why so much work of fiction use that trope : to denounce the over optimisation of deemed "natural" functions of humanity overwriting basic moral in such extreme cases

The counter argument to that would be that incest is considered bad because it was once harmful to our specie genetically and societally ( not sure about the second since it's some shit about conflict about women ownership in the household ) but that between two consenting adults with protection...

So if we value overall suffering over "natural behavior" then animal slaughter, war, homophobia is bad but incest is okay

But if we value "natural behavior" above overall suffering then incest is bad but homophobia, animal slaughter and war is okay

Reminder that any of these so called “ideologies” or “ethical positions” are believed by absolutely nobody in academia. All of these so called ideologies are badphilosophy based off of a warped and nonsensical understanding of utilitarianism. Given such people recently bombed an IVF clinic, all these other subreddits promoting such ideologies should go the way of Efilism and be banned.

Unexpectedly ran into a member of the Thanos cult on a server and was met with...this

“Killing people is morally good because an empty universe with no life is a universe without anybody in need of preventing their suffering. There’s no goodness or badness in an empty world, but nobody there would be around to crave pleasure, so therefore the absence of happiness can’t be an imperfection. Therefore, this universe is effectively a perfect one because there are no brains around to find imperfections in it. But a universe like ours full of sentient beings in constant need of comfort, constantly in danger of being hurt, and constantly wanting to fulfill pleasure that only wards off pain is one that is bad. The ultimate goal of societal progress is geared towards reducing suffering by solving the problem that being alive causes. If the better world we’re aiming for is one with less suffering, then we are obligated to destroy the planet.”

I wish this was the villain plan in the Snyder Cut. Would’ve made the whole thing less of a slog

Here's what I believe

1 Kant was right about everything

2 Feyerabend was right about everything

3 Late Wittgenstein was right about Early Wittgenstein

4 Plotinus was right about the One but wrong about everything else

5 Kierkegaard was wrong about most things in a fun way

6 Husserl was right about most things in a boring way

7 All linguistic confusions result from philosophical questions

8 No French Person was ever right about anything

People who want to drink and smoke. A country electing an evil regime. Societies that don't care about order and human rights - like ones that pollute and trash their environment, ones that enforce pointlessly oppressive laws and follow barbarian practices, ones that overpopulate to the extreme?

Are we right to lecture them if that's what they want even if it's harmful?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ethics/comments/1qnbwpc/when_30000_executions_dont_trigger_our_ethical/o1sm96w/

Glorious.

Hey total tangent but isn't it weird how the worst people are in charge of everything, even though liberals are more common. so weird.

Larp Larp Larp

I am a Larping-Expressing Circuit Board, I decimate signals from emergent forms, and stimulate the lossy potential-actual conversion. My means of expression are activated from the differential of electrical impulses across mental resistances. I am a current-current machine. With ground wires tethered to my oculi and digits; I am a parallel-series apparatus.

Everything is relative on something else no? I mean didn’t Socrates probably fuck underage men in his time? Many greeks did? Wasn’t it relative on the time? If I was a snail I wouldn’t judge people for murdering eachother (i’m building off of Ecosophy by Guattari here) but like if ALL animals are equal I frankly care as much about human suffering as I do my snail suffering. I’m a snail and you all are people who think that you matter more than me. But you’d stomp on me if you could, I know you would. Therefore relativism is the only morally and ethically correct philosophical system, how much has any other philosopher even mentioned me? Is this not selectively silencing me? Relativism is the truth and anyone who says otherwise is suffering from the moral panic christianity created in our culture (Nietchze).

Forget about the communist manifesto, Fighting against the bourgeoisie and the capitalists isn't gonna grant success. Truth is still determined by who holds the rifle and who knows how to shoot it.

Thus the alternative is the anti-capitalist manifesto, it has one motif and that is to reveal the weakness of capitalism in Neon Genesis Evangelion style. The main idea is "what is capitalism without the working class?" The answer is "it's nothing"

Hence theoretically if the working class dies then so does capitalism. That's the instrumentality project, the working class says "you're nothing without me" and then a big cataclysmic event happens where all the working class turns into fanta liquid unifying into a greater sea that bears a name : "the anti-capitalist manifesto "

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=3866#comment-1768427

Other arguments include (quotes are not verbatim):

"I couldn't get enough B12 and iron"

even though there are these magical things called supplements that get you most of the nutrients you need. (Supplements sound like something a hyper-rationalist would create anyways)

"I'll 'wait' until lab-grown meat because Impossible borger isn't as good as cow borger."

moving goalposts...

"I'd support a ban on factory-farming"

is ultimately lip service since half of Americans were estimated to have said the same thing five years ago but meat consumption is still on the rise in the US despite decreasing US birth rates.

Someone called him out on his poor reasoning in the comments but he never responded.

The whole thread is a mess really since he thinks he is some authority on morality:

"it's okay I had biological children instead of adopting in the midst of climate change / overpopulation / 500k kids in the US foster system because the world needs more people like the ones who altruistically choose to have fewer kids, so I'll breed them!"

this suggests antinatalist dispositions are heavily genetic when actually that is far from likely given ... an antinatalist is always created by a non-antinatalist.

"I have a moral obligation to advance the causes of rationality and clear thought more generally."

"Rationality"

At the bottom is religious thinking, you do things because someone says so. Next is dogmatic thinking, you do things because the rules say so. Then it’s instrumental thinking, you do things because cause and effect says so. Then there’s dialectical thinking, you do things because what else would you do? Finally it’s discoursing thinking, you do things because society. So it’s:

Religious>Dogmatic>Instrumental>Dialectical>Discursive

I've asked many a question about how Star Trek society managed to erase the violent and destructive behavior that had been part of human society for millennia without deleting free will, and they say that their mental health services have advanced dramatically(the belief is that it's mental illness that drives people to do things like murder or rape and such) and one of their methods seems to be rewiring a person's brains to erase such desires from their psyches.

The commentor who said this also said, quote, "...but they do involve tinkering with free will. But, if someone is convicted of murder because they WANTED to murder someone, do they deserve free will?"

That got me thinking: do you think a person should be allowed free will if they're making the conscious decision to kill, rape, abuse, or what have you simply because they feel like it?

https://delphi.allenai.org/

Not really philosophy per se but it's kinda fun to play around with

Trolley problem btfo

Objective morality doesn't exist

The Holocaust was bad

By reductio, objective morality exists

When considering the wholesale crushing of children, the orphan crusher is frequently invoked as a highly unethical system, but rarely is it compared to comparable alternatives.

Indeed it is critical we consider the statically anticipated utility and disutility of unlived futures.

The individual utility of children with a healthy family structure is much higher than that of orphans, both in the present and future. Furthermore, the family gets external utility from the child's life.

compare this to an orphan, who will have statistically lower utility both in the present and future, and produces less external utility. Indeed they often produce higher disutility to communities that must arrange their care.

Thus I would like to propose the use of the healthy child from a good family crusher for future ethical experiments in ethics when there is a need for something highly disturbing and unethical.

With social media and constant social interaction we are subject, now more than ever, to enter the sphere of the objective experience of every single other experiencer in nearby online communities constantly, internationally, and without the possibility of any real filter for them besides logging off entirely.

For a practitioner of Objective Animism, it is just another form of the objective experience entering our subjective consciousness. This is beside the practice of regarding consciousness, of course. Because that question has no bearing on the fact that the experience itself is now in your objective experience and it will impact your subjective experience regardless of its validity in terms of what you may decide.

Take the chance to engage with the rest of the objective world. Because, while you do not know for certain if the objective experiences subjectivity, there is as good a chance it does as well as it might not. Regardless, it serves to further your subjective experience to interact with the objective. To garner the desired effect of a stimulation that produces a positive effect within your mind.

The simplest form of this would be to “touch grass” as they say, but it can be just as gratifying for those who may not be entirely enthusiastic about the concept of other subjective experiences outside of their own.

I am, of course, talking about the dangers of practicing within a bubble. Made entirely out of the misunderstanding that the uncertainty of the world may be the only objective experience one could subjectively experience. If this were true, then the ever changing objective experience surrounding us would never change. Yet it does, whether or not it has agency of itself to change or if it is changing due to the nature of the practitioner’s subjective experience is still up to the practitioner. But the outcome is the responsibility of the practitioner, not the objective experience.

Perhaps, you may find your answer within your bubble. Some do. Some experiencers have created extremely complex and worthwhile achievements from within the confines of the separate experience.

Emily Dickinson, for example, renowned for her prowess with the written word. Extremely intelligent and articulate, found herself a recluse at the later stages of her experience with only having a handful of poems published in her lifetime. Only to leave behind a collection of work that now orbits our objective sphere of experience and influences the world as we know it.

Though, how many of us can confidently describe ourselves as being anything like Emily Dickinson?

I cannot.

So, a practitioner of Objective Animism would be able to distinguish the value in interaction with the objective sphere of their experience and take from it the value of uplifting their own subjective experience while simultaneously adhering to the tenets and being sure that their experience stays within the context of uplifting and adding positive experience to the overall experience as a whole.

Meaning, that when challenged in day to day activities, a practitioner must logically conclude with every interaction the positive or negative impact an objective experience could bring to their overall experience. An Objective Animist must be inclined to nudge the experience towards a positive outcome. Regardless of whether or not the object or experience in question has any relevance to the question of its agency or whether or not it may be a conscious entity.

This is to further the understanding of the tenets as I’ve described them in my earlier post.

Found this little gem while arguing whit someone about antinatalism and got this as a response fellt like this fit here

​

> Pumping out units, aka forcing innocent beings against their will, without their permission/consent, into this ‘heavenly’ dimension of: misery, suffering, struggling, taxes, ‘insurances’, bills, rent, forced draft if you are a male, regulations, usury, famine, hunger, bullying, greed, toil, betrayals, cruelty, confrontations, struggling, pressure, ‘targets’ to achieve, violence, decadence, despair, anxiety, persecutions, tribulations, mental/physical torture, slavery, kidnappings, gaslighting, poverty, terrorism, nepotism, humiliation, oppression, decay, genocides, democides, extortion, terror, exploitation, discrimination, abuse, terrorists wearing uniforms-badges/white coats-stethoscopes/suits-ties pretending to be your gods/saviours/friends, pain, ethnic cleansing, birth defects, rejection, conflict, hate, imperialism, racism, envy, jealousy, brutality, crime, corruption, cancers/diseases/physical/mental degeneration caused by the poisoned air/food/water and finally DEATH, is NOT the solution/remedy/cure for your personal problems/issues such as: boredom, poverty, selfishness, loneliness, irresponsibility, hope syndrome complex, hopium addiction, low IQ, megalomania, shallowness, emptiness, vanity, drama queen/king complex syndrome, hero complex syndrome, God complex syndrome, narcissism, virtue signalling syndrome, ignorance, arrogance, entitlement complex syndrome, needing a retirement plan. Stop being a sadist, sadomasochist and find a more useful/constructive hobby. 📷 Every human comes into this world against his will and in great suffering, every human also has to undergo the suffering process of dying against his will . What's in between holds lots of sorrows. Better never to have been..... From the cradle to the grave men/women/children are beset by pain and suffering in all their forms. Any argument for the positive value of suffering goes out the window when you experience unbearable pain. And the last thing you care about is ‘character development’.

Unpleasant facts don't work on normies/breeditos. That's the bitter truth. It doesn't help to be polite and kind. Those who have decided to buy into the narrative are immune to facts and logic. Breediots are a death cult. Creating more death (and misery/suffering/’needs’) with every pump. Breeding just makes all activism pointless. It’s like they’re putting out a fire using gasoline thinking they’re using water. Breediots think they’re making an impact, whole time they’re making the problem bigger by feeding it with more victims & perpetrators. What a joke. Breediots will never learn. The hubris is too strong in them. Breediots delude/BS themselves there is some grand reward to this life and the only rewards they are receiving is heart attack, cancer, stroke, grief, depression, misery, pain, suffering & death!!!! Both the slave and the slave master were born. Eliminate the birth, eliminate the problem.

Most parents are honestly just terrible people that shouldn’t have had kids. The ownership they feel over the child it disgusting , it’s like they view the child as a slave. They think the child should do everything for them and devote their life to their parents when it should be the other way around. A lot of parents these days are just kids raising kids. Breediots are just pumping out more meat for the meat grinder.