Message from @sydtko
Discord ID: 654435120698228746
@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
when I said the sub was repetetive
@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
fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk
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?
🤣
And yes... all representative concepts are false as per to the concept they represent... that's obviously true
I can't imagine how this is a novel idea
```Nevertheless, the reply reveals that a mental fictionalist ought to be a kind of quietist. ``` I'm kind of biting, but that's just not the case... you can be a fictionalists of all sorts, enjoy saying false things, knowing they're literally false
So........ you're not bound to norms of old pragmatic discourse. IE: You ought not assert X unless you think X is true
Warranted assertibility
You'd want to live in the best world possible that benifits you not other people lol
If having African slaves benifits you and you were an egoist your want that