/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9000004]

>To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to imagine that their route to the university takes them past a shallow pond. One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class.

>I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

>Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation. I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world – and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance.

How is he wrong, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.9000061]

>>9000004
He's not. You're just an asshole. And that's exactely what you need to hear.

[Anonymous No.9000062]

>>9000004
>assumes life has inherent value and/or assumes quality of life for a 3rd world child is comparable to that of a 1st world child
>assumes that this "life-saving" would extend the life of the child beyond a few days (most of this stuff is food aid, so it needs to be constantly renewed)
>assumes overpopulation isn't already a problem to consider in many such cases
>assumes an individual can place complete trust in a charity organization

If you wanna hop on the Nietzche/Stirner edge train, we can also say that this is just the slave morality/a spook at work, but I like the idea of saving the puddle kid. When we look at donating to faraway lands, however, more unknowns become introduced, so the impact of your action is significantly less, and also harder to know.

[Anonymous No.9000070]

>"Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation"

Screw nationality, let's talk about that physical and perceptual distance. Singer likes to pretend there's no difference between an immediate crisis in front of your eyes that you can stop through personal direct action and giving to possibly help abstract people round the world. The first is a situation that can be encompassed and dealt with. The second is, if taken to extremes, absurd, because it implies that you have a moral obligation to dedicate your life and all your resources to (potentially) everyone else alive. Perhaps you do, in some sense, but proximity is a factor and a very important one. The best human practice is to deal with your immediate family and friends, and community, first. It's logical for many reasons: your role in that community, your understanding of it, and the social contract that you benefit from. Help given to foreign countries often goes astray because of mismanagement, corruption, ignorance, etc. That's not a reason not to donate or be charitable, but saving the life of a child in front of you is more than a simple act of charity: it's an instinctive and sensible action that contributes to the health of your own community on some level.

[Anonymous No.9000080]

>>9000004
It's the students he's asking who are wrong. Of course it matters that there are other people, nearer and closer.

Probably wouldn't save the kid anyways tbqh

[Anonymous No.9000085]

>>9000004
>>9000080
>Appeal to Your Students fallacy
Who is the teacher here? What does it tell you that he appeals to those who are basically children in the intellectual sphere?

LITERAL children would give more sensible answers.

>>9000061
>exactely

>>9000062
>edge train
I think this is a bit distasteful since both those thinkers have a more nuanced ethics than your own, especially Nietzsche.

>>9000070
If someone remembers where that Nietzsche story (where he had to stop and help a man who had taken a bad fall) is located, pls post.

[Anonymous No.9000088]

>>9000004
The child in the pond is almost certainly a member of one's society & race. To save this child, thereby upholding or even building up the moral community is therefore in the interests of oneself and one's loved ones. Even more, if the society is properly constructed, then one will have a love for one's countrymen, including the child, and one will WANT to save him.
To the contrary, the child on the other side of the world one has neither love for nor love from. He is not in any real sense a member of the built-up moral community. The gods will do with him as they please, there is no injustice in his suffering. One has no more desire or duty to help him than an ant or enemy soldier.

[Anonymous No.9000091]

>>9000004
he is right except by the "solution" he provides
>lol just throw money at niggers and think about something else
it is not enough. you need to solve the problems by root. unles you beleive that these "oh so easy to solve" problems are inherent to humanity and there nothing you can do to change the status quo

[Anonymous No.9000095]

>>9000091
god so many fukken typoes, shamefur
>>9000000

[Anonymous No.9000099]

>>9000085
>egoism is nuanced
pls elaborate

[Anonymous No.9000110]

>>9000004
>ALL SUFFERING IS BAD
>YOU NEED TO BE COMPASSIONATE TO EVERYONE
Is liberalism basically Christianity?

[Anonymous No.9000114]

>>9000099
As far as I'm aware Stirner isn't a crude egoist. He distrusts the ideas of 'self' or 'the I' which you'd assume as the basics of vanilla egoism.

>>9000110
Yeah. People are bringing up Stirner and Nietzsche since they were some of the earliest to diagnose this.

[Anonymous No.9000116]

Virtue Ethics are the only fun ethics

[Anonymous No.9000135]

>>9000110
In a certain sense.
It takes the morality of Christianity, abstracting it from its context (whereas Christianity had abstracted the idea of morality and law from its context), and discards the two things that had been Christianity's bane:
1. Its scientific arbitrarity, if not falsity.
2. The idea of God being good even though He plainly is not.
But without this mythological system, progressivism utterly lacks any explanation for its ethical commands (aside from the idea of progress itself, which explains why these commands are made but not why they are valid). As such, it's both obviously dubious ("you can give no reason to follow your ethics") but also seductive, being impossible to refute- their morality is claimed to be UTTERLY obvious and common sense.

[Anonymous No.9000138]

>>9000004
All ethical theory is redundant when it comes to the refugee question. The answer to the crisis is simple and intuitive - third worlders (especially blacks and muslims) are incompatible with the western way of life and they must not be allowed to invade our countries. I don't want lazy niggers and towelheads on welfare to take over my town. Third world trash brings destruction wherever they come - there's a good reason why their countries are absolute shitholes, and contrary to the insane leftist belief, the fundamental cause of their misery isn't exploatation, colonisation or whatever but their genetical and cultural inferiority.

[Anonymous No.9000140]

>>9000004
Just buy your used books from Oxfam jesus.

[Anonymous No.9000143]

>>9000116
>not Egoist Virtue Ethics

[Anonymous No.9000145]

>>9000004
>>To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to think about the anal canon. The anal cannon is loaded when a funnel is placed into an asshole, and the 2nd whore pukes into it. After the ass is filled with puke, a cock then fucks it until the pressure is all built up. After the asshole has been fucked hard enough, the cock is pulled out and the anal cannon explodes! To top it all off, ass to mouth occurs, with both ladies licking off the fresh mix of vomit and ass for the ultimate anal dessert for people in need!

[Anonymous No.9000153]

>>9000004
>To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to think about the anal canon. The anal cannon is loaded when a funnel is placed into an asshole, and the 2nd whore pukes into it. After the ass is filled with puke, a cock then fucks it until the pressure is all built up. After the asshole has been fucked hard enough, the cock is pulled out and the anal cannon explodes! To top it all off, ass to mouth occurs, with both ladies licking off the fresh mix of vomit and ass for the ultimate anal dessert for people in need!

[Anonymous No.9000156]

>>9000004
He's not wrong at all.

[Anonymous No.9000159]

>>9000004
They all blindly assume they have an obligation they don't have.
He then proceeds with a false comparison.

[Anonymous No.9000169]

>Rescuing a child from drowning
>somehow the same as giving money to corrupt organizations and governments

[Anonymous No.9000170]

>>9000138
This post is characteristic of the "reactionary" short-sightedness.

He is unaware that only the insecure and weak feel threatened by those forces. And fails to realise that 1. exploitation and colonisation have happened, and are not bad things 2. that these things are intertwined with genetic and cultural inferiority, the nature-nurture dichotomy is pointless.

[Anonymous No.9000207]

>>9000170
Kiss me.

[Anonymous No.9000209]

>>9000207
no homo

[Anonymous No.9000219]

>>9000170
You didn't even understand what I said. Nothing that you attached to me can be inferred from my post.

[Anonymous No.9000225]

Cowardice toward the weak is cowardice at its most subtle, and, indeed, its most deadly.

[Anonymous No.9000236]

>>9000225
Can you give an example?

[Anonymous No.9000238]

>>9000000

[Anonymous No.9000246]

>>9000236
The European refugee crisis, illegal immigration into the United States, the Ferguson effect, Islam and Sweden...

[Anonymous No.9000251]

Suppose some guy is throwing kids in the pond everyday and you then rescue the kid everyday and drop from college altogether to just keep saving this kid instead of killing that one guy.

By buying Starbucks coffee, part of my money goes to saving the rain forest or some shit like that, but at the same time, Starbucks profit (profit = gains more than loses) and the bank that holds Starbucks money profits too and the guy who is destroying the rain forest profits from that bank profitting too.

Instead of starting with a bland and neutral walk to university to which nothing would happen on a normal day, let's start with a chaotic situation in which kids are drowning every five steps, which is more suiting to how things are today. And instead of imagining a world in which no kids would drown, picture that there is no such utopic scenario and also that your very walk to university would trigger a pull that would drop kids in ponds. This is how it is with the flow of our money and our actions.

I say it is much better to study and to think of actual strategies to alternatives of this situation, than to stay home and buy some kid a chance to survive at the expense of making the guy who throws kids in ponds to profit from it.

We are all responsible for our world, I don't deny that. But if I take this world on my shoulders, I won't have time to actually gather together with people and actually plot to change this scenario. A soldier is not brave for going against an armed enemy with a pocket knife, he must use of strategy to win the war. It doesn't matter to score some goal in some game, we must change the game altogether.

[Anonymous No.9000254]

>>9000246
All those occurrences help US to stay on top, at the expense of the weak and the reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.9000268]

>>9000254
They are examples of the cowardly and oblivious strong giving their power to the weak

[Torquato Pinecono No.9000357]

>>9000061
The best piece of wisdom in this thread though my God man check that spelling.

[Anonymous No.9000367]

Peter Singer should be made into that time the Green Lantern was some spirit of vengeance type deal and he should appear before you when you eat meat and punch you in the fucking kidneys

[Anonymous No.9000377]

It's quite sad to know that people go to the institutions of higher education to be indocrinated by retards like this

[Anonymous No.9000379]

>>9000062
Saving somebody isn't slave morality, feeling inclined to save somebody because it is 'the right thing to do' according to others is slave morality.

Nietzsche also disliked master morality, you know. The master moralist is the person demanding others do what they want (save others.) Singer is one of grand master moralists of the age, but his so-called challenges are nothing of the sort.
>>9000110
That's not Christian morality, that's humanist morality which is a perversion of Christian morality.
>>9000135
>atheists actually believe this
>>9000251
>We are all responsible for our world,
why

[Anonymous No.9000434]

>>9000004
He is misleading in implying that help can and should be constant and consistent in its application. If every morning there was a new child drowning and every morning I stopped and helped him and dirtied my clothes and missed my class his scenario would likely still produce a justifiable obligation to act but it would eventually begin to appear in a different light.

But if we play his own game and push the logic of the scenario to the limit - and in doing so move closer to the reality of the countries far away - then every time I walked by the pond there would be another child drowning. Since the pond is on my way to school I would either never, even after saving 15 kids in a day, make it to school or would be forced to show up day after day wet and with shit smeared clothes.

And that is the endpoint of his logic. Be willing to leave perpetually in wet shit smeared clothes or end in a state of slavery to an increasingly meaningless - because endless - moral obligation.

[Anonymous No.9000461]

>>9000434
What can you expect? He's a master morality preaching slave morality. I know Singer donates money, but it is only I think a 5th of his cushy ivy-league salary and I doubt the fucker has ever himself acted on his spiel.

[Anonymous No.9000482]

>>9000379
>We are all responsible for our world,
>why

Because we respond to it. We are not omnipotent to change it at our will, while we are also not totally incapable of changing it. We can respond in several ways to the drowning child, including the response to ignore it. What we can't do is not respond to it.

[Anonymous No.9000488]

>>9000004
He fell for the altruism meme
If saving Africa was as simple as damping your clothes then theyd already be a world superpower. That example and its comparison are so dumb that he should be expelled and decapitated.

Ps: I still wouldnt ruin my fine clothes and lose a class for a drowning child.

[Anonymous No.9000513]

>do you have any obligation to rescue the child?
Fucking no. I rescue a child because my morality dictates that it's a right thing to do, not because I was obliged or forced to action. If you remove my agency from the decision, it's no longer an ethical issue

[Anonymous No.9000521]

>>9000379
>atheists actually believe this
Nice counterargument, mi athleta Christi.

[Anonymous No.9000523]

The fallacy lies in the fact that while pulling the kid out of the pond is a sure way to save his life, donating to a charity is something full of uncertainties. Contrary to what people believe, most third worlders could pull themselves out of their misery if they worked hard enough. Paying their expenses is just a temporary solution to a cultural problem that has roots too deep to be solved in less than a few centuries.

[Anonymous No.9000653]

>>9000138
Underrated post.

[Anonymous No.9000721]

>>9000482
>we respond
not an answer
>>9000521
>arguments are good because i said so
How does it feel to be a slave to the Will to System?

[Torquato Pinecono No.9000755]

>>9000379
Beats believing in a sky daddy to appropriate shit Platonist memes.

[Anonymous No.9000762]

>>9000755
haha memes i saw on reddit

Christianity is anti-platonist.

[Torquato Pinecono No.9000769]

>>9000762
It's hard to convey this through a thoroughly fucked context, but in no way I'm I being a snarky asshole when I ask: please explain to me how is it not?

[Torquato Pinecono No.9000773]

>>9000769
Really want the counterargument. I don't feel as if I have to posit Christianity as shit Platonism seeing as how everyone's accepted this since the Rationalists blew the door open on it for Nietzsche to BTFO.

[Anonymous No.9000781]

>>9000004
What if the kid who was drowning was a nigger, and you were a nigger, why would you want you and the kid to drown instead of just the kid?

[Anonymous No.9000801]

because of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bM2r3qTeCk

[Anonymous No.9000816]

>>9000769
Platonism is a form of humanism in the truest sense. Platonism is adopted by those that believe in memes such as 'human nature' and 'the limitless capacity of humanity' as well as a handful hermetics that tried to turn Christianity into glorified Pantheism (which is actual Platonism.)

Christianity makes nothing of human achievement and 'wisdom'. Christianity laughs at the man that thinks his 'wisdom' makes him worthy to rule above all else.

Christianity humbles all equally, while Platonism deludes. The Platonic soul certainly existed before Plato, and Neoplatonism was a heretic movement.

[Anonymous No.9000838]

Well, for one thing, I think he is performing a quite radical simplification when he says that a starving child in Africa is analogous to one which is immediately in front of us, regardless of the commendable services of Oxfam and similar organizations.

But putting that aside, I'm afraid I just cannot accept the dismissal of human dignity implicit in the idea that we must all be equally wretched before we can even think about higher things. I can certainly use Singer's reasoning to say that we who are more fortunate, and therefore given a greater opportunity to appreciate the fine things, are under an obligation to use our surplus wealth on only the worthiest cultural endeavors--instead of going to a concert of your favorite pop musician, buy a print of Goya, for example, or a well-bound book that you cherish. It is quite clear to me that my being able to appreciate higher things is actually worth rather more than the precarious continuation of a few wretched lives. Singer thinks he is most humane for what he says, and in a way I suppose he is, but his idea of the proper state of humanity is as a vast throng of comfortable beasts. And I am not even sure if that state would be better than total extinction. No art and philosophy, no humanity.

[Anonymous No.9000850]

>>9000816
>>9000816
>Plato
>Humanism
You're being anachronistic in the purest sense, both in this green text comparison, and the on account of equivocating "human nature" with Platonism. The latter is, indeed, a meme derived from repeated shit readings of the Rationalists. But your invoking of that meme to interpret Platonism is just an extension of that meme.

My critique merely points at the fact that the ground on which you are presenting your arguments are bad grounds. I'm saying nothing of the actual hypothetical argument originally posed.

Also, in your final statement, you're assuming the argument you've set out to prove. Coincidentally, you happen to be right that Platonism is a delusion (in fact, Plato is aware of that in the very text he lays out his claims). But that is not derived from your argument, but an actual analysis of the arguments of Platonists.

Point being: come back when you have a real argument. Also, I get the sense that you're one of those Christians who claim a distate in wisdom, but then hold their positions as true wisdom in the condescending sense. It seems ironic to me to claim that wisdom doesn't make one worthy to rule above else when intellectualy you assume your form of wisdom allows you to affectively rule over me, intellectually that is. Read Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.9000854]

>>9000070
This guy's got it. /thread/

[Anonymous No.9000862]

>>9000850
>arguments are good because i said so
*makes up a city to demonstrate what happens to people that don't worship me as their king because im the smarterest*

[Torquato Pinecono No.9000879]

>>9000862
No, arguments are good because they're founded on reason, not shitty assmuptions and equivocations. Really don't know why I'm responding to you when it is evident you have never read the Republic, at least in a way that expresses the most basic philosophical discipline.

[Anonymous No.9000883]

>>9000169
please explain how the against malaria foundation is a corrupt organization

[Anonymous No.9000887]

>>9000879
>reason is good because i said so
>discipline is good because i said so
Did a bunch of reddits come to /lit/ while I was gone or is it just you?

[Anonymous No.9000888]

>>9000251
>study and to think of actual strategies to alternatives of this situation
My god, it's so simple! Why hasn't anyone already done this?

[Anonymous No.9000896]

>>9000523
>most third worlders could pull themselves out of their misery if they worked hard enough

[Anonymous No.9000906]

>>9000887
You got me there, Neech. I take my road, you take yours (except your road invalidates everyone's argument, including your own).

[Anonymous No.9000907]

>>9000906
Do you have autism or something

[Anonymous No.9000912]

>>9000907
Oh go fuck yourself, mate.

[Anonymous No.9000919]

>>9000912
m8 u go fuk urself m8 ya fukin cunt

[Anonymous No.9000926]

Too lazy to look if anyone has said this already but sam harris has a podcast about this issue exactly.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/waking-up-with-sam-harris/id733163012?mt=2&i=1000374718739

[Anonymous No.9000940]

>>9000926
Faulty link, title is Being good and doing good: a conversation with william macaskill

[Anonymous No.9000947]

>>9000888
Less people are doing it than you think. Most people are for an easy route to clean their consciousness, that's all. Look at how easy people accept charity and how hard it is for them to actually read on history.

[Anonymous No.9000988]

>>9000947
not many people give a substantial part of their income to effective charities

[Anonymous No.9001007]

>>9000988
But the point is that charity is not effective at all. It's not the point. If not many people give to "effective charities", which, in my opinion, do not exist, than even less give a second thought to effective emancipatory strategies, revolutions, new ideas politically or economically that would in some way change the state of things in an actual substantial way.

Rich people work on charities all the time, it's common place to go to charity events, give a million here, a million there, but it's all for profit. That is to say, the financial help they give is less valuable than the marketing help they receive back (not to mention outright corruption). In other words, the ones in need will never gain more than the rich people who are giving to them and therefore, they'll never "catch up", they'll never sit together or something like that.

It's like a guy who gives a bit more rope to his dog's leash. The dog is not becoming more free for it. More happy momentarily, perhaps, but also less conscious that it is on a leash.

[Anonymous No.9001017]

>>9000004

>Under the Agricultural Act of 2014 and the Cargo Preference Act of 1954, food aid must be purchased in the United States, and at least half of it must be transported on U.S.-flagged vessels. No other major donor has such onerous and outdated restrictions. . .The reasons for the current system are pretty simple. Since Food for Peace was put in place, the so-called iron triangle of special interests — shipping firms, agribusiness and development groups — has held the status quo in place

Really gets my thinking cap in place

[Anonymous No.9001031]

>>9001007
>actually read on history
>thought to effective emancipatory strategies, revolutions, new ideas politically or economically that would in some way change

>It's like a guy who gives a bit more rope to his dog's leash. The dog is not becoming more free for it.
Yeah being dead from malaria compared to being cured is exactly like that.

[Anonymous No.9001069]

>>9001031
Yes, precisely if you look at it locally and ahistorically, it's great. That one individual himself is saved from malaria, fantastic.

But then again, the process that brought him that charity money that cured that particular illness, is the same process that allows some people (perhaps even the same people) to sabotage his weak government to get the legislation in their favour and keep his people poor enough so they can't study, so there are no doctors or infrastructure around, so that malaria can spread and the rich people can send their doctors for charity.

It might or might not be a direct link (ie if that group of people is the one that explores that person's social situation), but if you have the power to send doctors to that guy's country, you have the power to stop others from exploiting them. You don't see charity about that. Because there can't be, it's against the very logic that makes rich people rich and poor people poor.

If you profit over someone, you are taking from that person. Don't fall for the idea that anything is actually being given in charity.

[Anonymous No.9001077]

>>9001069
please explain how the against malaria foundation sabotages governments

[Anonymous No.9001095]

>>9001077
Again, it might or might not be a direct link. The point is, if that foundation would work on help that government not be sabotaged (by others), they would be doing much more.

But that's impossible though, I don't expect them too. That's why we need to think.

[Anonymous No.9001099]

>>9001095
too bad the thinking tax makes it impossible to give to charity as well
fucking EU man

[Anonymous No.9001151]

>>9000801
did he ded?

[Anonymous No.9001183]

>>9000004
This is a misleading analogy. A more accurate scenario would be...

>Imagine you are walking along your typical route to school and on the way you suddenly find the scene changed; before you now are millions of small pools with millions of drowning children in them. Other people are walking by as well, all quite perplexed. You observe how some of them wade into the muck and commendably save a child, but you also observe while they do so -- other children stray into other pools. Bewildered you remain transfixed and shortly you realize that many of these children were saved many times before, yet they defiantly return and return and plant themselves face first in these puddles. You realize this situation is beyond you and quickly run to gather help at your university. As you progress past the seemingly interminable and bizarre landscape dotted with drowning destitutes you notice something else. In the distance, on the very periphery of this demented scene there are is also a vastness of swarthy peoples, engaged in the process of producing more and more children seemingly with the sole intent of thrusting them towards the mire betwixt you and them. You hurry to warn them of the horror they are party to but upon finally arriving at their debauched coast you recognize the dejected faces of some of scholastic peers, regrettably they inform you that it would be fundamentally wrong to limit the doings of these folk and that even thinking to suggest such to them is a gross undermining of human decency likable to the barbarous customs of our ignorant predecessors and a proof of how far we have yet to go as a society. Panic seizes you. Your farsighted fellows inform you all is not lost, that the tribe is not without leadership and the low cost of 5$ a month is more than enough for Okonkwo and his ilk to be able pull out children and raise them on this side of the pools fulltime. Relieved you hand your wallet to the first fornicating coolie you see and return with your classmates hoping you're not late for your midday lecture.

Well, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.9001223]

>>9000004
everyone is obligated to save the child, however, if those nearest to the child are not doing their job, it is their fault, not ours

[Anonymous No.9001237]

>>9001183
kek

[Anonymous No.9001251]

>>9001183
You write like a pastiche of a 1930's fascist, which I guess you're already kind of aware of?

[Anonymous No.9001252]

>>9000070
Good until "mismanagement, corruption, ignorance, etc." That's introducing unnecessary new variables into the model. You had it right first, proximity. We are a hundred times more powerful to save the child in front of us than an ocean away. Our ability to express our will decreases with distance.

In fact to actually go to those countries to save those children would directly contradict Singer, it may put us in great peril to do so.

[Anonymous No.9001269]

>>9000062
Basically this. Also there's nothing about the edge train that stops you from saving the drowning kid.

[Anonymous No.9001445]

>>9000070
>>9000251
>>9000434
>>9000461
>>9000838

>if Singer is so good then why doesn't he subsist on bread and water while giving away the rest of his money, hmmmm?

No you idiots, you don't have to sacrifice all of your wealth in order to save the world. It's simply not necessary. Just do your part.

>a world in which everybody gives ten percent of their income to charity is a world where about seven trillion dollars go to charity a year. Solving global poverty forever is estimated to cost about $100 billion a year for the couple-decade length of the project. That’s about two percent of the money that would suddenly become available. If charity got seven trillion dollars a year, the first year would give us enough to solve global poverty, eliminate all treatable diseases, fund research into the untreatable ones for approximately the next forever, educate anybody who needs educating, feed anybody who needs feeding, fund an unparalleled renaissance in the arts, permamently save every rainforest in the world, and have enough left over to launch five or six different manned missions to Mars.

Just 10% is enough. Anything else is supererogatory.

[Anonymous No.9001449]

>>9001445
>Just 10% is enough
that's not what Singer believes though

[Anonymous No.9001460]

>>9000004
If the kids parents aren't willing to save him why should I?

[Anonymous No.9001480]

>>9001445
Charity CEOs would get a nice pay rise also

[Anonymous No.9001484]

>>9001445
Anyone who thinks you can "end world poverty" is a retard who has no understanding of human nature
There will always be people so irresponsible and helpless that despite all the help you could offer them they'll stay in poverty

[Anonymous No.9001491]

>>9001445
I already pay tax

I'm doing good enough

[Anonymous No.9001510]

>>9000004

>humanities scholar reduces a difficult question to such a tiny size where his tiny pool of knowledge can properly 'solve' it.

Sounds right. This one's for the garbage bin.

[Anonymous No.9001649]

>>9001510
it's a complicated question for sure, but i feel like he isn't trying to explain how to solve the worlds problems so much as he's trying to argue that people should be altruistic towards those in need

[Anonymous No.9001665]

>>9001649
Well he's fucking wrong. Charity is evil, you're propping up people and behavior that is not sustainable. You need to let nature takes its course otherwise you're just creating a slave-master dynamic.

[Anonymous No.9001677]

>>9001665
don't cut yourself etc

[Anonymous No.9001689]

>>9001677
You might feel good about yourself for saving the drowning child but that's the limit of your interaction with him. In reality he has absentee parents and such subpar socio-economic standards he is bound to follow in their footsteps perpetuating a cycle of scant and misery, full of violence and criminality. You subsidize this system, for some brief sense of validation in yourself as a good person.

[Anonymous No.9001701]

>>9001689
>all people from unfortunate circumstances wish they were dead
sure thing

[Anonymous No.9001709]

>>9001665

>evil
>>uses nietzschean dichotomy

you haven't got a fucking clue

[Anonymous No.9001717]

>>9001701
Their wishes are meaningless in the face of their actuality.

>>9001709
What a well reasoned and substantiated refutation. Truly, I am undone.

[Anonymous No.9001721]

>>9001717
>I AM THE GOD OF DEATH

[Anonymous No.9001725]

>>9001717

i don't give a shit about what you think because your idiocy bleeds through the very language you use to express your pee-brained thoughts, which, by the way, can't even really be said to be yours, because they are so common-sensical and complicit in dominant power dynamics that it is no stretch to say they were pre-thought for you before you were even born.

[Anonymous No.9001726]

>>9001721
Reddit memes are not an argument.

[Anonymous No.9001731]

>>9001726
not an argument

[Anonymous No.9001734]

>>9001725
If you don't care and certainly don't care to substantiate and meaningfully participate your claims, can you please stop shitting up the thread with all your posts? It's not conducive to proper discussion.

[Anonymous No.9001742]

>>9001734

there is nothing to properly discuss. you have positions worth proper discussion. you're a drone, a thoughtless automaton, crying out into the void with every painful pulsing of your impoverished ego, triggered by the thought of the suffering other.

[Anonymous No.9001744]

>>9000004
It seems to me it doesn't matter either way. A drowning child is a problem that solves itself. There's no debate about either a swimming child nor a drowned child, after all.

[Anonymous No.9001749]

>>9001742
They speak English on whatever reddit you're from?

[Anonymous No.9001809]

>>9000838
You make an interesting point but I dont think that the trade-off is worth it if you build the foundation for your possible enjoyment of the "finer" things in life on the suffering of a lot more individuals. I also dont think that these "finer" things have an intrinsic value. They should be used by those who have the privilege to have access to them to endeavor in reducing humanities general suffering and pain either by trying to help humanity as whole with this aquired knowledge or a certain niche group. Thats just me though.

[Anonymous No.9001817]

>>9000004
Bourgeois moralism. If you pay money to charity you are absolved from the immorality of the system which you benefit from.

Liberals are hacks

[Anonymous No.9001821]

>>9001817
>you are absolved from the immorality of the system which you benefit from
no one said that

[Anonymous No.9001839]

>>9001744

[Anonymous No.9001885]

>>9001744

A severely underrated sophistry. I like you.

>>9001809

Well, then we have a fundamental metaphysical disagreement. I tend to be of the mind that the finer things are ultimately all that has intrinsic value. I think that anybody who spends enough time with great poetry, great music, great art, knows this to be true, though they may fight to the death not to admit it. You say that art should be used to somehow ameliorate general suffering. Disregarding the known fact that poetry makes nothing happen (it survives), you ought to realize that moralizing tends to detract from the "fineness" of things. Of course, much great and moralistic art has been produced. Just look the fables of Tolstoy, the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Yet I can't help but shake the feeling that, if they had had mere aesthetic enjoyment/enlightenment in mind, their work might have been even better.

[Anonymous No.9001901]

>>9000170
>He is unaware that only the insecure and weak feel threatened by those forces.
Yes, only the weak should feel threatened by the skyrocketing rape statistics come the influx of refugees.

>>9000170
>And fails to realise that 1. exploitation and colonisation have happened, and are not bad things 2. that these things are intertwined with genetic and cultural inferiority, the nature-nurture dichotomy is pointless.
They were only colonized in the first place due to said inferiority. Try again.

[Anonymous No.9001911]

I took a PHIL paper in freshman year once, the tutor told me how he was invited to a professor's meeting at some restaurant. He got there and ordered a T-Bone Steak meal, but not 5 minutes after his meal arrived, Peter Singer joined them at their table, and after seeing what he ordered, became very quiet and moody.

[Anonymous No.9001919]

>>9001911
Isn't Singer famous for advocating inter-species relationships or something? I've even heard it said he's fucked a sheep or two. I am being serious.

[Anonymous No.9001920]

>>9000004
>would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?


huh....? How the fuck would that even work? So what, I just push a key on my keyboard and some kid is magically saved? What the fuck are you talking about?

> I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world – and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance.

once again....what!? What the fuck does this mean. So...I should know that by buying a cd (because all us kids are buying cds like gangbusters these days) that I'm killing a one of those stick-penis african tribesmen or something? Not sure where you're making that jump in causation.

But yeah, I guess I'm the bad guy for knowingly taking a single breath, which I obviously know will cause feces and ebola infected air to blow into some infant's lungs in the congo and cause them to die. I'm such a goddamn dick.

[Anonymous No.9001921]

>>9001919
>he's fucked a sheep or two
Haven't we all? I am being serious.

[Anonymous No.9002137]

>>9001445
I recall Singer said everything over 20k is excess and thus its only ethical use is donation.

Singer also said he donates something like 20-30% of his salary and income from sales, but surely he makes much more than 20k.

Just accept that your hero is a stupid master moralist preaching a slave morality, but not following it.

[Anonymous No.9002138]

>>9001510
His field is STEM.

[Anonymous No.9002205]

>>9002137
>20k is excess
that's below the general poverty line in the US

[Anonymous No.9002211]

>>9001920
>doesn't understand thought experiments

[Anonymous No.9002240]

>>9002205
He said it in the 90s or something.

[Anonymous No.9002260]

What if we just made swimming lessons mandatory? You're welcome, world.

[Anonymous No.9002274]

>>9001744
The question of life itself just got a lot simpler.

[Anonymous No.9002300]

>>9001749

illiterate, too!

[Anonymous No.9002381]

>>9000062
>assumes life has inherent value
Does any ethicist not do that? This assumption alone has made the entire field an utter joke. It's defenders always default to things like this >>9000061. It's always the world "asshole" too. I think that word is a code for not having anything of substance to say.

[Anonymous No.9002725]

>>9000159
this, how can it possibly be unanimous
his classes must be boring as fuck if everyone has the exact same view and theres never any real debate

[Anonymous No.9002732]

but the difference is the kid isnt going to walk straight back out into the middle of the pond
the people we throw money at do

[Anonymous No.9002758]

>>9000000

[Anonymous No.9002776]

>>9000004
I don't get how this supposed intuitive morality is impressive.

Yes, everyone *says* out loud that they would save someone drowning if they saw it and they could do something about it, but the reality is that that isn't what people do.

Literally read the Kitty Genovese case.

[Anonymous No.9002786]

>>9000004
Why is no one talking about how we can't actually save the lives of people that easily? I've read so many reports of charities embezzling funds and very rarely does the money actually reach its rightful recipients that I don't know whether to trust charities anymore.

[Anonymous No.9002791]

>work with the homeless

>the "puddle" aka "lack of food and housing" people donate billions to a year

>problem still isn't solved as they get an automatic check, medical and other benefits which keep them from getting out of low cost communities and doesn't encourage hard work

I'm sorry it's not that he's wrong, it's great what he's saying, but it's never so simple as just "saving" a child from a pond and dragging him out. There's always other factors involved in it.

[Anonymous No.9002919]

>>9002791
if being homeless comes off as better than "hard work" then maybe that says something about "hard work"
>>9002786
http://www.givewell.org/
>>9002776
>that isn't what people do
I forgot that that ethics is about what people should do rather what they do.

[Anonymous No.9002943]

>>9002919
>I forgot that that ethics is about what people should do rather what they do.

Yes it is, but it simply becomes an intellectual circlejerk if people never do what they should do.

[Anonymous No.9002951]

>>9002943
>people would NEVER help the child

[Anonymous No.9002958]

>>9002951
>talking in general terms about morality when it's literally a superhero morality that a handful of the population actually acts on

[Anonymous No.9002960]

>>9002958
>ethics is all or nothing
>the fact that living up completely to an ethical system is unlikely is somehow notable

[Anonymous No.9002967]

>>9002960
>the fact that living up completely to an ethical system is unlikely is somehow notable

Why wouldn't it be notable? The fact that people have problems actually doing what Singer talks about in the OP even though they say out loud it's correct behavior should tell you that they don't really believe it.

[Anonymous No.9002971]

>>9002967
>ethics is all or nothing
>health advice is crap because no one is going to give up unhealthy things completely

[Anonymous No.9002979]

>>9002971
The question isn't whether or not everyone is doing something, the question is if a significant enough number of people is doing something.

Morality isn't rational. You can't just say "Hey man, this is correct action because P=Y if and only if X", and then think you have convinced the entire world and we'll live in a glorious moral utopia.

[Anonymous No.9002989]

>>9002776
>Kitty Genovese case
You know that was basically made up, right?

>While there was no question that the attack occurred, and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. Genovese died on the way to a hospital.

[Anonymous No.9002996]

>>9002989
Fair enough. But the bystander effect is still a thing. Very few people will actually do something in public, in large part because of civil inattention.

[Anonymous No.9003008]

>>9002979
>and then think you have convinced the entire world and we'll live in a glorious moral utopia
I also like to imagine people believe idiotic things so I can then feel smarter than them.

[Anonymous No.9003019]

>>9000061
>muh catholic guilt

[Anonymous No.9003086]

>>9000004
I would disagree that distance doesn't make a moral difference. If you had to feel even infinitely sad for a disgrace happening far enough, you'd have to spend every second of your life in a overwhelming state of sadness and despair that would inhibit your abilities to do anything. You cannot feel sorry for the third world, it's just unreasonable to ask from anyone

[Anonymous No.9003091]

>>9003086
Yeah, but he is arguing that that distance really means nothing since "you can save humans by giving money worth a CD to organizations" which would render that distance meaningless.

I don't agree with that argument though.

[Anonymous No.9003109]

>>9001821
not explicitly no. not everything has to be literal you pleb

[Anonymous No.9003129]

>>9003086
This. This is why I'm actually a non-cognitivist/emotivist. By all rational measures we should not only feel a need to improve well-being of people in third-world countries, but also do much, much more, but I, as a human being, feel neither emotional need to do so nor do feel that I am immoral by refraining from doing so. Of course, I will say that whoever donates all his wealth to well-being of citizens of Zimbabwe is a noble one, but this will not motivate me to od the same.

[Anonymous No.9003135]

>>9003086
you don't need to feel sad to give money
>you'd have to spend every second of your life in a overwhelming state of sadness
>that would inhibit your abilities to do anything
which is why it would explicitly contradict what singer proposes
>You cannot feel sorry for the third world
empirically wronk

[Anonymous No.9003141]

That's an easy one. I'd save the pond kid because I'd feel like a piece of shit if I didn't. Doesn't apply to nigglettes lol.

[Anonymous No.9003159]

>>9000004
>what we owe people in need

You don't owe them anything. But it would be nice of you to help them anyway.

They aren't in a bad situation so you could be in a good one. They just weren't as lucky as you were, but that doesn't make it your responsibility or fault. This is badly applied repurposed marxism.

[Anonymous No.9003188]

>>9000088
Sup, Varg?

[Anonymous No.9003192]

>>9002260
underrated post

[Anonymous No.9003200]

I feel that he's looking at this a little too close-mindedly.

One question to answer: why isn't he in Africa? Why is he dealing with students? He could save more Africans doing that than teaching an obscure ethics class to aristocrat-class students who are going to come back around and work in aristocratic jobs as he has. And why can't he teach a class and be in Africa? The technology certainly exists.

Beyond that, it's important to realize who those people taking care of the African children are. They are RICH; moneybag-eyes, nose the size of a small cup-cake, hands-causing-more-friction-than-scratching-a-blackboard-with-a-fork rich. Why give your excess money to African children when you could invest in a first world company and gain a large amount of money thus leading to you being able to help exponentially more African children? What is the best amount-of-time-spent-to-make-money/helping-African-children-survive ratio to efficiently care for the most African children you can in a lifetime?

The madness never ends, almost. These are no doubt fruitful endeavors, but I would much prefer to solve the growing identity and bias issues in America (and other first-world countries) first. Why? Because if I was to think about how to save African children all of the time I would much less enjoy my life than If I was to do the former. I'm sure he feels the same about African children surviving; that his resources are better spent teaching than being in the dirt, or spending time investing, or trying to figure out the money/African child ratio, and I don't blame him. I would do the same thing. That's my point, that these people making strawmen arguments, as I am currently doing about a man I know nothing about, on saving people often don't think about what they personally want to do a lot of the time. It's like writing a good story, figure out where you want to be, and look at most things through that perspective. To capstone, a quote that helps me think through many different things. You can't save everyone.

[Anonymous No.9003224]

>>9003200
>One question to answer: why isn't he in Africa? He could save more Africans doing that than teaching
he only needs to convince one person to do that to achieve the same effect

also attacking character rather than argument

>Why give your excess money to African children when you could invest in a first world company and gain a large amount of money thus leading to you being able to help exponentially more African children?
singer has expressed positive attitudes about earning to give

[Anonymous No.9003244]

>>9000004
In the case of the drowning kid my action makes a difference. In the case of sending money to charities my actions makes no difference (that is: if a lot of other people are also sending money the charity will save the same amount of people with or without my help; if a lot of other people aren't also sending money they won't save those people with or without my help).

Same reason why I eat meat, I don't vote, and I secretly distribute my trash randomly instead of separating for recycle. It doesn't make any difference.

[Anonymous No.9003250]

>>9003244
>if a lot of other people are also sending money the charity will save the same amount of people with or without my help
[not (always) true, btw]

[Anonymous No.9003280]

>>9000004
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.9003296]

>>9003250
I guess you could find some extreme theoretical situation where my $10/mo would really save one more life, but in general I can't see how that would be possible.

But I'm all for ways of "fooling" people into thinking that their single action makes a difference, because this action of "fooling" actually makes a difference.

For example the people who invented the "long distance adoption" concept really used an evil device for good. Now I see a lot of women sending money every month and really thinking that they have "adopted" a particular kid. And I guess that all of them together really make a difference

[Anonymous No.9003301]

>>9003200
>
One question to answer: why isn't he in Africa? Why is he dealing with students? He could save more Africans doing that than teaching an obscure ethics class to aristocrat-class students who are going to come back around and work in aristocratic jobs as he has. And why can't he teach a class and be in Africa?

Isn't this obvious? Thanks to a social status given him by academia, his views became known to a wider audience. In turn more and more people are getting involved in his mission. This is optimal thing to do (and right from the utilitarian standpoint of view). He is a father of the effective altruism movement, so I think that he eventually did a right thing to help this metaphorical drowning child.

Personally, I think that if you want to attack him in that vein, you should rather bring the fact that he is traveling to his sick mother in Australia for a few times a year. However, it's still imo personal attack, not a real refusal of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.9003310]

>>9003296
>We estimate that the cost to purchase and distribute an AMF-funded net is $4.35 in Malawi, $5.92 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and $5.14 in Ghana (the three countries that AMF has completed large-distributions in). We also very roughly estimate, based on past and planned distributions, that the cost per net in distributions AMF may fund with additional donations is $4.85.[1]

Of course one net =/= one life, but still, doesn't seem like an extreme theoretical situation.

1.http://www.givewell.org/charities/against-malaria-foundation

[Anonymous No.9003314]

>>9003296
If you care about animal lives, then by donating $10/mo to Mercy for Animals or some other effective charity, you'd save hundreds of lives yearly.

If you care exclusively about people, then this charity >>9003310 as far as I remember enables you to save a life for about $1000, so basically 8.5 year. I find saving a few people during your lifetime very cool, even it is seemingly effortless.

[Anonymous No.9003318]

>>9003314
> I remember enables you to save a life for about $1000

Bit too pricey that

[Anonymous No.9003321]

>>9000004
>overseas aid agencies like Oxfam

Oh, where 99% of your donation goes to pay faggot middle class self-hating whites to sit around and play "change the world" with each other until they get bored and get a job at daddy's company?

[Anonymous No.9003336]

>>9003318
Idk, it depends on income. I guess if you would save someone from a burning building you would be proud of yourself until the deathbed. You can do the same for $2.5/mo.
Or maybe I've fallen for the altruism meme.

[Anonymous No.9003343]

>>9002725
>this, how can it possibly be unanimous
>his classes must be boring as fuck if everyone has the exact same view and theres never any real debate

That's because it all gets asked in an open classroom, you jackass. Of course no one is going to go against consensus.

The guy who puts his hand up for the "no obligation" option automatically becomes an outcast, pariah edgelord among his fellow students, and you can bet he's going to get singled out by the professor and grilled in front of everyone. It's an 18 year old fresh out of high school versus and 80 year old who's been studying rhetoric and logic his entire life and who's probably already an asshole from years of jostling for academic positions. If you put your fucking hand up, he's going to make you look like an idiot no matter how well read you are, so you go with the rest of the herd, keep your hand down, and grab your "A" at the end of the day, so you can focus on more important things like banging Stacy or finding a new alcohol connect.

[Anonymous No.9003345]

>>9003336
>I guess if you would save someone from a burning building you would be proud of yourself until the deathbed.

I feel that's because it's a more memorable and full experience than having money automatically taking from my bank account.

[Anonymous No.9003381]

Anyone have any idea why >>9000170
got deleted? Doesn't seem to break any rules.

[Anonymous No.9003404]

>>9003381
you could argue rule three I guess
also might have been that they made some worse posts and the mods deleted all of them

[Anonymous No.9003414]

>>9000004
I can't into philosophy, but didn't Hume see ethics as essentially an emotional reaction? In that sense proximity matters hugely.

[Anonymous No.9003475]

>>9003404
Nah, it was my post, except none of my others were deleted.

Which makes it now seem obvious to me that my post was probably deleted because I was replying to a post >>9000138 featuring "racism". Fair enough.

>>9003414
I don't think Singer cares for how philosophically (as in, comparing his thoughts to the greatest thinkers) robust his arguments are, he is clearly going for a naive intuitive outlook. His music is the same, i think he is even the father of primitivist folk music (taken to immoral, aesthetic heights by John Fahey) so you could compare him to greats like Dylan or Fahey to refute Singer at his own game: seeing (hearing) how unimportant such small-minded unambitious utilitarian guys are in the rank-order of the first world.

[Anonymous No.9003481]

>>9000004
Probably. He's wrong at the "no cost" part. If we decide to systematically save African in such a way that, in 50 years time, there's 4 billion of them with no means to support themselves, and if they furthermore all want to move to Europe and the West generally, then it is not a small cost for us or our children, and therefore they should not be saved in this manner.

[Anonymous No.9003492]

>>9003475
>a post >>9000138 featuring "racism"
it was also off topic since the op quote wasn't about refugees

[Anonymous No.9003569]

>>9003343
>That's because it all gets asked in an open classroom, you jackass. Of course no one is going to go against consensus.
This example was raised in my phil 101 course once. I was the no obligation kid. I countered the sudden change in atmosphere as the class gazed my way by simply stating that everyone in the class who just agreed you should help the child is not going to go home today and donate 5$ to Unicef or whatever and are liars. The atmosphere changed again pretty quick.

[Anonymous No.9003609]

>>9003569
Have you banged any of qts from your class after that?

[Anonymous No.9003651]

>>9003609
Only the one guy, believe it or not college isn't actually the breeding ground it's made out to be in hollywood anon.

[Anonymous No.9003663]

>>9003343
>alcohol connect
fucking burgers

[Anonymous No.9003668]

>>9003492
Well that's even better then.

This thread is worth bumping just for the OP story. It's almost as hilarious as pic-related.

[Anonymous No.9003687]

>>9000004
This assumes the person is not already giving to save others. My wife and I donate a pig via the Heifer foundation every Christmas. We choose the Heifer foundation, because after doing research they actually get the money and pig to those in need, versus have the supplies overtaken by warlords or other similar unpredictability.

[Anonymous No.9003717]

>>9003651
I wish I'd convince myself someday and not regret picking STEM and envying humanities classes.

[Anonymous No.9003804]

>>9001885
Dont get me wrong, I didnt mean that poetry has to be used to fill the bellies of starving children. That would be absurd. I meant that art and philosophy should be used to ease the mental pain which (a hard) life and its problems inflict on humanity. Each of those who were lead on the path of the higher arts should in my opinion think about possible sollutions for existential problems and their practical applications and preach their own personal gospel to the world. Even if you help just one person to cope with their own shitty existence this way it was well worth it.

[Anonymous No.9003987]

>>9000004

>How is he wrong, /lit/?

people need to die
maybe its a sad truth to some but it is the truth

[Anonymous No.9003992]

>>9003804

Well, perhaps I can agree with that. I certainly think that, if you have discovered the value of the finer things, you ought to help others to discover it as well. The only thing is I'm not quite sure what you mean by "existential problems and their practical applications."

The only thing is, while I am a confirmed aesthete, I am not a hedonist, even of the most humane variety. It seems to me that the ultimate goal of art is that perfect self-contemplation realized by the Aristotelian God in an eternal instant. After all, all art is ultimately about the "human condition," and therefore the most perfect art, the art that most perfectly depicts afresh the human condition, should enable the most perfect understanding of one's self, and also perhaps a nation's most perfect understanding of itself. Inevitably, however, becoming a small god for even an instant involves pain as well as pleasure.

So that is in brief my "personal gospel." If you mean that I am under an obligation to share it, I would agree with you. In other words, ideally all should become "free artists of themselves"--Hegel's term to describe the greatest characters of Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.9004171]

>>9000062
>>assumes life has inherent value
Stopped reading there. >>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.9004192]

>>9004171
Really interesting post anon. Thank you for posting this :)

[Anonymous No.9004259]

>>9003992
Im happy that we could find an agreement even if the conflict might just have been one of semantics. What I meant by "existential problems with practical applications" is for example the depression which can easily arise from a nihilistic perspective on life and the universe. This example also shows what I meant with niche groups, not necessarily all humans are going to have the thought that life is meaningless and are also going to have problems with coping with this thought. One artist or philosopher could then strife to help others overcome this crisis by communicating to them his own perspective.

[Anonymous No.9005201]

bump

[Anonymous No.9005465]

>>9000801
What? What happened? Why did they stop moving right after hitting the water? Was it really shallow?

[Anonymous No.9005504]

>>9001709
Dude, Nietzsche believed that good and evil were only worthy inasmuch as they reflected human reality. He spoke of creating new ideas of what is right and what is wrong, but the way he said this is so bombastic/the redefinition of it is such that it's possible to think calling something good or evil is incompatible with Nietzscheanism ... well, yes, it may be in a strictly autistic/nitpicking sense, Nietzsche would probably use "worthy" or "worthless", "valuable" or "valueless" or something like that...

Because remember the parable of the Ass (donkey) who says "Yes!" to everything based on a wrongheaded belief that all "valuation" is worthless?

Remember Nietzsche's insistence that people/things/ideas are not equal, and it is our priority to evaluate things, to put them in hierarchies for ourselves? otherwise we are democratic nihilists?

tl;dr calling something evil doesn't conflict w/ Nietzsche, although that may seem like a paradox (namely, evil may mean here "harmful to more people" while acknowledging that morality doesn't necessarily have to be based on this etc.)

[Anonymous No.9005509]

>>9005504
>incompatible with Nietzscheanism
lmao, my bad

there's no such thing as Nietzscheanism obviously, reading this made me cringe

I just meant to say Nietzsche's concepts

[Anonymous No.9005548]

>>9000004
Fuck the world, don't ask me for shit.