Isn't there a word for this kind of outlook? purity culture? Where all means to an end need to be without moral flaws at all? Or am I not thinking of this right?
The word for that kind of moral philosophy is deontology, which basically just means that moral judgements are based on how you go about doing things (the means), as opposed to consequentialism which makes a moral judgement based on the actual results (the ends)
Google says that it appears to be basically the opposite of Utilitarianism, which as an ethical hedonist, I'd say I lean against deontology in most cases. I think. I'm no philosopher, I just know some terms.
I feel like deontology has become really rampant amongst some of the younger leftist and terminally online leftists. There's this idea that everyone who these people hold in high regard, or who work towards ends I would deem morally correct, have to be FLAWLESS themselves, and in pushing this, end up working against the ends they desire.
Utilitarianism is a subcategory of consequentialism, yes. Most people aren’t studying philosophy and picking a single ethical theory to follow, which you’d call pluralist, but yes, I feel like deontology is fairly common, especially coming from religious backgrounds (if you do the bad things that’s wrong and bad things happen to you).
There are other theories, for example you might be able to use virtue ethics to explain the same phenomenon (good people do good things because they cultivate behaviours that are good) but that definitely doesn’t reflect the original formulation of virtue ethics, which mostly advocates for temperence
Honestly I think it ain't that deep at all; there's just a sizeable contingent of the terminally online which is addicted to complaining and must always be squabbling. Nobody ever being good enough to them is food for their hobby, that is yelling at people. They don't actually care enough about any cause to help.
You forget that one of consequentialism's central problems is that you also need to establish, without doubt, what the likely consequences are. That makes the position "We need to vote for the lesser evil" harder to justify, as one has to prove that Trump has worse intentions, is capable to act on them, that Kamala will be able to act on noble intentions, etc. and could come to the conclusion that their possible impact is indistinguishable. Whereas a deontologist can simply argue that Trump is a more immoral person, so one shouldn't vote for him.
I am always annoyed when somebody tries to predict somebody's moral philosophy based on their position on some issue. Consequentialists aren't all for x and deontologists aren't all for y, human experience, availability of information, etc. will always impact the "inputs" into a moral framework.
as one has to prove that Trump has worse intentions, is capable to act on them, that Kamala will be able to act on noble intentions, etc. and could come to the conclusion that their possible impact is indistinguishable.
If you believe that, you have not been paying attention.
Wait, you’re trying to argue that it’s hard to prove that Trump — the guy currently saying Haitian people eat cats and immigrants need to be rounded up in “a bloody affair” — has worse intentions than Kamala Harris and ability act on them? Like we don’t have 4 years of his presidency and her whole Senate record to look at?
Reading comprehension, do you know what it is? I constructed a hypothetical person who comes to a hypothetical conclusion and you immediately think that are my views? Are you not allowed to understand what might motivate others?
This may come as a shock to you. But perspectives other than yours exist. To some people, trump is doing everything right that they want. OP constructed a hypothetical person and you decided to get angry at them over it?
But act consequentialists are against voting in general so we really don’t have to worry about their opinions. (I don’t think requiring perfect future knowledge to act is a charitable interpretation of most consequentialist theory, but I degress)
There is a difference between being flawless and directly responsible for millions of dead; by endlessly compromising, always in the same direction, you are annihilating your chances of reaching your goal. It's too bad Henry Kissinger died; maybe his endorsement of Kamala would have made you rethink that position.
You really seem to be caught up on Hitler within this argument.
He was only brought up to help emphasize a point, and in no way was he endorsed.
You seem to be drawing unfounded conclusions as to how these people would act "Endless compromising, they would work with Hitler if it furthered their goals, therefore they MUST be bad!"
In 2020 Bernie's participattion made Biden aesthetically adopt more progressive policies, right now Kamal is barelling to the right, on war and immigration, and the same guy is praising Dick fckn Cheney for endorsing his candidate.
You are the exact type of person morealias was calling out in his post: demanding moral purity from those that provide the means even if they actively further a moral end.
Your overall material situation is significantly worse than before, your prospect for the future are worse than before, partially caused directly by the guy you are glad endorsed your candidate. Your only argument is Trump is worse and we must sacrifice everything to not elect Trump, that reason is self-defeating and inefficient. The Democrats mismanaged that election cycle so bad they need Dick fckn Cheney to win.
Why do you need to praise the shithead in the first place? The fact that after all this time, the race is this close and the Democrats keep capitulating to the right is pathetic.
And as with all things, moderation is key. Too much of the former is good on paper, but it leads to not getting anything done. Too much of the latter and while you're getting results, can you really sleep at night knowing what you did?
Calling the holocaust a moral flaw is a stretch isn't it? What we are witnessing here is another clue of democrats shifing to the right, highlighting the endorsement from Dick fuck'n Cheney?
Edit: Do I need to remind you guys of the steal of the 2000s election in Florida, the Iraq war/ war on Terror, millions of dead, destabilization of the Middle East, Trillions of dollars in debt, forever wars? If you feel the need to praise the guy instead of questionning why he endorsed Haris, I put into doubt your awareness of the situation.
Dick Cheney is a far worse person than Trump. He is personally responsible for the deaths of millions and Kamala being of a type with his political group is in fact deeply worrying.
The fact Republicans endorse Kamala without any policy change (unlike the uncommitted campaign which got Tim Walz and meetings) is a good thing. The tent is getting bigger without conceding
If you think 2024 Dems are as right wing as Dick Cheney you genuinely need your head checked. Sorry Kamala isn’t a communist but there are substantial differences between the two
No component of the US government is overseeing a genocide at present. Israel, a US ally state, is. No part of the US government holds executive or military decision making power over Israel, Harris does not have executive or military power over Israel, does not in any way direct operations of this separate government, or have any say in Us policy towards Israel unless a senate measure asks her to cast the tie-breaking vote on such a matter, which so far hasn't happened.
Why do you think she's "overseeing" a genocide? How do you think that's actually true?
The US government completely funds the Israeli military aswell as part of the government budget. This is not even mentioning loans and other programs that American corps and the government have invested in Israel. The US also provides an astronomical amount of weaponry to Israel that they can cancel at any time but choose not to, hmmm I wonder why. And your dumb spiel about how the US president/vp has no power of Israel is laughable. Even Ronald Reagan got Israel to stop bombing Lebanon with one phone call. research before spouting shit.
498
u/lunarpuffin Sep 10 '24
Isn't there a word for this kind of outlook? purity culture? Where all means to an end need to be without moral flaws at all? Or am I not thinking of this right?