but I don't mind being a hypocrite if it's a chance to make a Princess Bride reference, anyway

that's always worthwhile

(ps there is no equivalence)

i love when people do that false equivalency thing

if you don't see it, you don't. That's fine.

no, i see what you tried to equivocate. you dont see the counterargument to why its not equivalent

and thats to be expected tbh

"I love it when people do the false equivalency thing" -guy who made comparison between the idea of natural rights and Mao's "great leap forward"

Ah, this has been entertaining but it is past bedtime. Gotta get up in the morning and do some real shit.

Green, you gonna finish that essay soon?

don't go over the 2000 char limit

natural rights are premises which have no legalistic recognition -> theyre abstract and arent enforced
mao's policies were *enforced* mechanisms *based on an abstract ideology*. i didnt make a comparison between these two, i said when you *enforce* ideologies without references to its consequences, you get terrible consequences. Natural rights need not ignore consequences -> you can draw up natural rights *based off consequences*,, but in the context of protected classes, *the right to discriminate against them* *will* have negative consequences, *as we have seen all throughout history*. that was the comparison i was making -> both mao and uncephalised ignored consequences in designing their "rights" . now, uncephalised has retracted that claim, so its *not equivalent*, but if he wanted to keep his claim in play, it would be the same method of thinking

uncephalized, you gonna finish that essay soon?
don't go over the 2000 char limit

1) I never said I ignored consequences, you said that about me, so it's unfair to say I retracted a claim I never made. 2) I'll reassert that accepting a consequence is not ignoring it, it's compromising.

you made a claim that a principle was more important than the consequences

then you retracted it in "clearing it up"

yes, I still believe that means are in general important. You applied a label, which I agree with in a half-hearted way because I feel it's too binary.

Anyway, nice to meet you, @Green Syndicalism

I need to sleep.

Good night, all.

Interesting discussion, but I have a couple of questions about the consequences: what is the criteria for a

good consequence vs a bad consequence?

And how would you rank them?

it depends on your ethics, of course

a christian would value consequences differently to me

I went and made a pizza and you're still going damn

Would it be fair to say that if you were operating in a purely consequentialist model, that the ranking in preference of consequences would be a set of principles? For example, killing someone would be a worse consequence than property damage

you could certainly approximate "principles"

but you dont have to treat them as principles

Jesus fucking Christ, I spend 8 hours away and this place Hiroshimas...

like killing a dictator could be a great thing

just because in general killing has bad consequences, doesnt mean it should be treated as a principle in a hierarchy that isnt to be violated

if you say, "well killing bad people would just form another part of the set of principles," this is when your principles become way too convoluted to set out

i personally am an ethical egoist, so i think i should only do things which are in my self interest. its my only principle, and from this principle i can derive what behaviours i should implement, and these are fluid over time and space

so am i principled? not in the deontological sense

all moral theories start with a premise

but deontological theory has not just an original premise, it also has a code of conduct (duties/principles), which lists out your behavioural imperatives in advance of consequences. egoism doesn't have this addendum

So I would still consider those to be principles, not just an approximation thereof.

the issue is they're fluid

they change on a whim

so its the opposite of a principle