@LizardOrman@AlaskanTzar @monoblancoatx @VKlker So you’re suggesting some ethic system such that: goodness = C_1(happiness) + C_2(respecting boundaries) + …(other terminal values). If so, besides the broader conceptual issues, this doesn’t even back your point. For this tribe, the happiness would assuredly beat the “respect.”
It’s beyond horrifying when a young person posts a line like “settlers are not civilians” thinking that’s the based progressive take. Who is modeling this behavior?
@GhostCoase Yes, I am just saying it’s (plausibly) consequentially net good which should impact moral choices (I.e. whether you advocate against the second amendment)
@GhostCoase Or also, “If we assume whatever would rise up after disregarding our constitution is worse than the current state.” Roughly that idea. I’m not really too concerned with arguing those big assumptions. Too big.
@GhostCoase You extended the scope too far, I was really trying to say “If we assume that the US is better than the expected alternative, then one reason to keep the 2nd amendment is to preserve the constitution’s authority,” which is true regardless of everything you said.
@Ashen_Spark@RaveGreenRandal@DilettanteryPod I do not care about this argument as much as I come off as. I still find it confusing how you think we should just magically know to listen to the people you want us to listen to while knowing to ignore the people you don’t want us to listen to. Regardless, nice talking to you.