Well they get to use my friends social inertia against me. Hard to move off of snap even if I wanted to and so they can just change the TOS and get my data.
(I get this has gone on a while, of ya wanna stop just tell me. That way I'm not waiting on your reply.)
I lean pretty consequentialist, if that's relevant.
Yeah that's pretty helpful. It's nice to be able to look into that without taking up too much of your time.
I guess I should say I don't really believe in judging people either, per se.
Noted! This lines up with your last paragraph on not being able to use info you don't have. That sort of reasoning drives a lot of my non-judgement as well.
I wouldn't distinguish in any sense between a bad pair of shoes and a bad person.
This sort of dryness speaks to me. I disagree, but I like the energy it's putting out there. I don't put extra moral weight into humans. I'm no human exceptionalist.
So this all leads me to two questions that have a lot to do with practical application:
You said
Both are obstacles to the world being how I (and most people) think the world should be.
Does this imply that human consensus drives the goodness / badness of an action and therefore the goodness / badness of the actor that brought about that action?
If so, what happens when there isn't consensus? Sometimes a non-consesus still has intense emotions behind it (abortion for example). Also does that mean minority opinions are morally less good?
If not, what defines an action's good/badness?
What are the implications of an actor being bad? There's a reason we designated them. What for?
2/3 are not off the hook,
Off what hook? What would being on the hook be for someone?
I would toss bad shoes. But also I know shoes don't think about being tossed. I guess I could extend an earlier thought and say we do whatever the consensus is to that actor. That way we maximize goodness. Though I think leaving it at that would allow us to justify some radical things.
I think social media can be used for a large variety of things. Many important movements (50501 for a current example) greatly rely on social media to mobilize folks.
First off, thanks for answering. I'm a bit obsessed with this kinda stuff.
I mean, there's all kinds of ethical philosophy out there. I don't really deviate too far from it.
So vaguely western ethics? I mean some ethics frameworks are quite incompatible.
In practice, there's a lot that most people can agree on without too much thought, too.
This is a theme I see. It's fair to not think through it, especially when it feels obvious.
For example, the classical case study for how being agreeable can work against doing the right thing is how ordinary and nice a lot of Nazis were, when not being ordered into atrocities.
This is consistent with the above statements. I sorta agree, but obviously I have a different worldview.
So my best guess given all that is that doing a bad thing from your perspective is:
Doing something you consciously know will bring harm to others.
Which I think requires:
Free will / Independence / a distinction between internal and external.
No. We make choices, we think, but those choices come frome somewhere. And all of the roots are beyond our control. There is no room for free will, it is a magical reduction of why we do things. We don't say a ball has free will when it is kicked down a hill. I can't separate myself from the ball in any meaningful way.
I sorta agree. Given how well known the phenomenon is, and that we admit we are unequipped to deal with it, OnlyFans should probably inform new models that they are likely to have their nudes dispersed into the internet.
We can't blame an individual cause we don't know them, but OnlyFans for sure knows enough to be blamed.
I've not heard anyone ever complain about it other than in media.
Maybe you need to be more upper class to relate.