Prff why spend money now, it is more efficient to invest the money, so it becomes more money, and then in the future spend the money on MIRI. The Capitalisk demands it.
This is a very fringe moral philosophy joke. The joke is that analitic philosophy tries to calculate wich action causes the most actual good wich is dumb in situations like this were a continental aproach that argues for more sentimental and per se morality is the obvious answer
The moral calculus that you're attributing to analytic philosophy as a whole *really* only applies to consequentialism/utilitarianism. If the most recent philpapers survey is to be trusted, only around 26% of analytic philosophers lean towards that position ([https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl](https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)).
From the beginning, it's the highest goal. This is only a ladder to seeing the world rightly. Once one sees rightly, cast the ladder away and never come back.
Because we are lazy and never link to the correct place r/badphilosophy see also r/ssc (while we actually mean [r/slatestarcodex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunatic_asylum))
Serious question—was Peter Singer aware of Mencius’ “child falling
down a well” thought experiment when came up with this example?
If not it’s an interesting coincidence, being that Mencius was one of
the strongest voices against utilitarianism (in the form of Mohism) in
early Chinese philosophy. Admittedly, the “child falling down a well”
thought experiment wasn’t a refutation of utilitarianism (it’s a
refutation of the idea that humans are inherently selfish)
Would there will be any time constraint the prevents you from doing
both? Wouldn’t the most total happiness come from doing both? If some
one did have to choose between only one of the other of either letting a
group of people have access to clean water or saving someone from a
well, I think in a vacuum the right choice is clean water?
I think for me it would come down to whether or not dividing up
responsibilities of who should help who like that really does have the
best outcomes or not which doesn’t feel totally unambiguously clear. I
definitely don’t think people who live closer matter more than people
who live further away.
Yeah but you can only do 1 thing at a time, by saving Timmy now you delay saving all the people in Africa not having clean water, which will have a negative effect on their descendants (and their descendants, etc), so clearly the long term happiness factor says we should let Timmy die. Or even better, if Timmy is close spend some precious time to throw rocks at Timmy so he is unconscious till he dies (no more negative effects on happyness then, so you can start doing the water bit (note to self, open question can a similar hack be used for water in Africa and long term unhappyness prevention?)
Just math you see.
Saving 1 life in Africa costs 3000 up to 4000 dollars. Only if you’re
a huge CEO you can make this amount of money in several minutes to
prioritize helping African kids upon Timmy.
But did the creator of the comic make it ironically then? Like, they know the premise of the false dichotomy is moronic, and that's the joke.
Or is the creator of the comic an idiot, and think this is a "slam dunk" against utilitarian thinking?
There's too many layers here for my tiny noggin.
I think it is just a sort of roundabout way to expose people to various philosophical ideas and their flaws.
That is why he never talks about Marx, as he has none.
You can wonder if they can be funnier, or explain their jokes better, or actually include jokes, but turns out you kant.
Oh, so just kind of pseudo-intellectual shower thoughts crap? I've read a few of these comics before, I think. I think one dealt with evolving technology, and had a lot of quotes. It was interesting, at least.
Think that is a bit of a mischaracterization but sure, they all follow roughly the same pattern and are pretty recognizable. And they prob are funnier the more you know about philosophy.
Ah, I read your comment as more of a condemnation than it was. I misread "exposed" as "he exposes flaws in different philosophies without actually tackling them in-depth."
More of a "point at things and laugh from a distance" type of thing.
I don't have an opinion of them.
Except doing one doesn’t prevent the other so not saving him and
standing there is doing net less good. The rest of that isn’t
particularly invalid though.
[deleted]
Wouldn’t allowing the corpse of a drowned child to contaminate a drinking well / water supply be counterproductive?
source (weird they don’t sign their comics)
Serious question—was Peter Singer aware of Mencius’ “child falling down a well” thought experiment when came up with this example?
If not it’s an interesting coincidence, being that Mencius was one of the strongest voices against utilitarianism (in the form of Mohism) in early Chinese philosophy. Admittedly, the “child falling down a well” thought experiment wasn’t a refutation of utilitarianism (it’s a refutation of the idea that humans are inherently selfish)
Dog liberation isnt that bad. Lions otoh.
Would there will be any time constraint the prevents you from doing both? Wouldn’t the most total happiness come from doing both? If some one did have to choose between only one of the other of either letting a group of people have access to clean water or saving someone from a well, I think in a vacuum the right choice is clean water?
I think for me it would come down to whether or not dividing up responsibilities of who should help who like that really does have the best outcomes or not which doesn’t feel totally unambiguously clear. I definitely don’t think people who live closer matter more than people who live further away.
Why don’t we just kill everyone who isn’t happy along with everyone who would be made unhappy by the killing of those people or anyone else?
Checkmate, utilitarians!
Ahh, fuck everyone else. Feels good to admit that.
Saving 1 life in Africa costs 3000 up to 4000 dollars. Only if you’re a huge CEO you can make this amount of money in several minutes to prioritize helping African kids upon Timmy.
What is this comic trying to say? I’m lost.
[deleted]
Except doing one doesn’t prevent the other so not saving him and standing there is doing net less good. The rest of that isn’t particularly invalid though.
Yes. Let’s use this knowledge to justify letting the people around us suffer! Hey don’t look at me for help, not my fault.