[ SECRET POST #3484 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3484 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 52 secrets from Secret Submission Post #498.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: let it all out

[feotakahari]

So I'm a Utilitarian. I believe in acting for the greatest possible happiness, without regard for any specific rules of conduct. I believe that most moral codes either directly or indirectly create an ingroup and an outgroup, justifying or even valorizing sacrificing the outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup. Utilitarianism rejects this judgment, arguing for the greatest good for all regardless of their group status, and accepting sacrifice only when there's no other possible path.

Every single time I try to explain Utilitarianism, people say it sounds like it could be used to justify sacrificing some people for the good of others, and my rage builds a little more.

Re: let it all out

[(Anonymous)]

I mean.

Utilitarianism absolutely does justify sacrificing some people for the good of others. Just not along ingroup/outgroup lines (in your formulation).

I don't think that's a bad thing or even really a critique of utilitarianism. But it's not totally fucking out of left field.

Re: let it all out

[(Anonymous)]

That's because it does justify sacrificing some people for the good of others. That's what "serving the greatest possible good" means, particularly as the second you step outside of incredibly vague thought exercises, it's pretty much impossible to get any four people to agree on what the greatest possible good actually is.

It's a nice philosophy in theory, but it's not the magical rainbow unicorn moral code that means no one ever gets thrown under the bus, and it doesn't confer the necessary omniscience and infinite time and resources required to ensure that every other possible alternative has been explored before that throwing happens.

Re: let it all out

[feotakahari]

I don't see how this matches to Utilitarianism specifically. Unless you're following divine command theory, you usually can't claim omniscience when trying to follow a moral theory, and it's generally difficult to get people to agree on what sorts of things are good and should be followed.