Rant Ethics and the degeneration of language in politics

[AR47]

If you were to ask a leftist or a shitlib about which ethical system they believe in, utilitarianism/consequentialism or virtue ethics, then (I think) they would answer utilitarianism/consequentialism.

But their words and actions contradict this. For example in many discussions there are topics brought up such as 'is this equal?', 'what about freedom though?' or 'that's undemocratic (brought up in discussions with nothing to do with the state).'.

This is virtue ethics. I.e. 'democracy', 'equality' or 'freedom' are intrinsically good i.e. they are virtues. In a purely utilitarian analysis these things have no inherent value, but are a means to an end, and thus the previous example statements would be silly.

This has led to me hearing some very silly/absurd things when discussing with people.

And these aren't even good virtues. Things like justice, wisdom and love are virtues because they are always good. And they are intrinsically good, regardless of the consequences. However democracy, equality and freedom are not virtues, because they are good sometimes and bad other times. They are just a means to an end.

But this is kind of an understandable mistake. As virtue ethics is the natural, and also correct, ethical system for humans. I don't blame them for mixing things up, though I will correct them if it is appropriate.

More on this:

 

[oxamrazor]

^Obsessed shitalalalalalalalalalalian faggotnigger pajeetmutt turkroach nignogjiggerbo niggerape that won warsaw’s rapist of the year

 

[nonaborter]

I've noticed this for a while- they sort of grab these words that imply the presence of a principle and then use them in concert to wiggle where they want. Sort of like how ships with triangular sails can tack into the wind.

Democracy shape-shifts with how you legitimize or criticize a government, their borders/citizenship and their procedures. You can use it to legitimize power invested in existing nations "look, they're democratic, now obey", but also works to legitimize dissent/rebellion on any smaller scale when things don't go your way at the federal level. Freedom and equality are more straightforward but they'll still pick and choose which principle matters at their convenience.

I've heard some people say that Popper never actually spells out what he means by an "open society" apart from what the metaphor tends to imply- which would make it an especially high-profile case of this. (I never read the open society myself so I can't confirm)

 

[FrogKing]

I've noticed this for a while- they sort of grab these words that imply the presence of a principle and then use them in concert to wiggle where they want. Sort of like how ships with triangular sails can tack into the wind.

Democracy shape-shifts with how you legitimize or criticize a government, their borders/citizenship and their procedures. You can use it to legitimize power invested in existing nations "look, they're democratic, now obey", but also works to legitimize dissent/rebellion on any smaller scale when things don't go your way at the federal level. Freedom and equality are more straightforward but they'll still pick and choose which principle matters at their convenience.

I've heard some people say that Popper never actually spells out what he means by an "open society" apart from what the metaphor tends to imply- which would make it an especially high-profile case of this. (I never read the open society myself so I can't confirm)

op on a guest account award