Fair enough.

can you detect the fallacy?

Not really. Elaborate?

Is it bad to not want suffering in the world?

how do you decide what is the best outcome?

Define the situation.

Best outcome of what exactly?

Governing?

Suffering?

of a single person governing the entire world?

based on iq

Best outcome imo would be that we after his or her term don't have governance anymore.

ok

that's after

but while it's still going on

It's called outcome if it's after something...

This is utilitarian thinking, which gave us Neo-Libs

what if in order to end starvation in the world we decide to castrate everyone that can't 100% afford a family?

would you agree with that

No because most of them come from a point where governing the people is something that needs to continue. But what I'm trying to say is that there exists ways people can live together without it. It's just that it's not easy to get there and it would not be good for a lot of people.

@Ondsinet Why would you need to castrate them?

It's a hypothetical

so they don't have kids that end up starving, to reduce suffering

Not sure how to answer that question correctly. I could only give my point of view.

*What gives you the moral authority to remove suffering from peoples lives?

And who are you to define suffering for other people?*

I can't define something that's already defined.

I really hate neolibs lol

Why do you call me that?

Utilitarianism

I like Hitler the best of all the leaders we have had in the later days.
In the early days I like Jesus.

<:think_madpepe:378717098630971395>

How does that make me a neolib?

it's quite the leap

Ofc.

People made quite a leap.

Hitler did amazing things.

Animal rights.

what is your idea of a great or near perfect society? how do people live etc. ?
it might help us understand exactly where you are coming from

In one sentence.

In the perfect society I can leave my child with anyone and be sure that my child will be taken care of until I get back.

hmm