MordunnDregath t1_jcg5n6m wrote

But that's the point, isn't it? A dialogue like this hinges on a few assumptions about the characters involved, including the contradictory position that the author expects from the audience: that we will treat these characters as both facsimiles and accurate representations of the philosophies under discussion.

Yet it all falls apart when we go "Why wouldn't the Utilitarian simply respond to the Deontologist with 'I don't believe you?'" There's no point in continuing this conversation past that realization.


MordunnDregath t1_jcf0tmf wrote

I am reminded of something I once read, about physicists and spherical cows:

>Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum."

This is what most moral philosophy feels like to me: a detailed examination of a highly complex topic, which begins with "imagine something that doesn't exist." The practical applications of such an approach are nearly always flawed, on a fundamental level, because we're working from a place of fantasy.


MordunnDregath t1_j911r39 wrote

Not a f-up, there's nothing off about enjoying yourself, even if it means you come across as more childlike than you might otherwise behave.

Just last night, I was playing video games with my kids and yeah, I felt (and probably acted) like I did when I was 15. Joy comes in many forms for many people.