first paragraph is good

so everyone is trans

```The incoherence objection is a major objection to rule-consequentialism. The objection says that the theory allows actions that do not maximize wellbeing, even though the theory is also tacitly committed to maximization```

but only .5% exert symptoms

so its impossible to be wrong when you egg someone

and thereofre it is not problematic

<:PogU:524717853019209749>

@Castore so I'm not sure exactly what Hooker's response is or this guy's response to Hooker's response

@actual_communist_boi ''The viability of this defense of rule-consequentialism against the incoherence objection may depend in part on what the argument for rule-consequentialism is supposed to be. The defense seems less viable if the argument for rule-consequentialism starts from a commitment to consequentialist assessment. For starting with such a commitment seems very close to starting from an overriding commitment to maximize the expected good. The defence against the incoherence objection seems far more secure, however, if the argument for rule-consequentialism is that this theory does better than any other moral theory at specifying an impartial justification for intuitively plausible moral rules. (For more on this, see Hooker 2005, 2007.)''

anti-philosophy gang needs to rise up

this si from the standford page

@actual_communist_boi the responce they cite against the incoherence is from hooker

WHO THE F IS BRAD HOOKER oh

Another worthless moral philosopher

@actual_communist_boi the author that article is responding to,i got this from just reading the section and collapse in the standford page you cited

lol

I didn't cite it, Dodger did, but what do you want me to take from this?

At least he studied under Derek Parfit but meh

I think I'd defend the first justification (consequentialism -> ruletil) and also against the incoherence justification

alright

I found the next good meme

@Dodger101

when I said the sub was repetetive

@Dodger101 i meant it

@actual_communist_boi Oh i saw you posting the quote tbh.Well if i remmember the dialectic started with the issue of exceptions and and then at one point you posted the responce to the objection from collapse from standford page

@Castore sure, I guess I need to read yoru PDF both on what the original and revised incoherence objection are

@Deleted User @Sasha This is for the boghossian stuff you were talking about earlier https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-018-0369-0

I'm getting baited by papers I know that are going to be utter trash

Fuck

Fuck

fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk

@sydtko who are you

i didnt even ping you for the paper

Your father. Go to your room. Stop posting

triggered by eliminativism?

Or you're grounded

Triggered by non-eliminativists

i have a something that will really trigger you eliminativism cannot be self defeating because truth is a folk psychology notion https://philpapers.org/rec/PARITM

I mean, you could choose to "eliminate" occams razor the strongest eliminativist principle but...

What in the actual fuck does that mean to you?

Believing you can't make a distinction between identity and non identity?