[ SECRET POST #2518 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2518 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 060 secrets from Secret Submission Post #360.
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

[(Anonymous)]

Can I divert the conversation a little here?

Why is it that everyone (especially, I've noticed, in this community) thinks that 'the ends justify the means' is automatically immoral? So long as you factor in ALL the consequences of your actions, as well as the intended 'end', and find them to be more good than bad, I don't see why it's so wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

Willow didn't factor everything in, imo. Her desire to resurrect Buffy had less to do with grief over losing a good friend and more to do with the idea that she could. Not once is it mentioned in canon that she attempted to locate Buffy prior to pulling her back into the world. Buffy was a warrior who died a noble, world-saving death - it was just as possible she ended up in a "heaven" dimension as a "hell." But Willow just wanted to resurrect the Slayer.

She didn't even consider the possibility that Buffy would wake up in her coffin.

God, there's so much to dislike about that character when I think about season 6.

[intrigueing]

It's a legitimate philosophical position - utilitarianism, most strongly associated with John Stuart Mill - but it's by no means universally accepted as an obvious moral truth. A nice illustration of some of the counterarguments it gets is Ursula LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas."

The other, related, main objection is that everyone, depending on their position in society, or their past life experiences, or just their opinions, has different ideas of how to calculate what "more good than bad" is because there's no standardized, easily quantifiable way to measure the objective moral value of one thing vs another thing, so who exactly gets to set the standards for how moral value is measured? And how do you choose who gets to set the standards? There are other objections too but it has already taken several books to voice them all and people still haven't finished.

[(Anonymous)]

But on the other hand, you can apply the "everyone has different ideas of how to calculate more good than bad" to every other moral philosophy ever.

[intrigueing]

Yup, exactly. Which is why philosophy is a thing rather than just a bunch of dusty old boring bitchy books. ;) I was just pointing out that what the anon said is a philosophy, and a highly disputed one, not just an obvious logical conclusion.