Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
That's a problem of detail, though, of how and not what. What I see as important factor in utilitarianism is that it says "Okay, our aim is to make people's lives better", that it thus places people over principles unlike deontology. As far as I'm concerned, that is the entire purpose of ethics, to make people's lives better, and utilitarianism encapsulates this best. Which is not to say it doesn't have problems, like the definition of what's good for people, or how it might condone sacrificing people "for the greater good". But those are solvable problems; see e.g. preference utilitarianism for the first and negative utilitarianism for the latter.
In keeping with the former, I do think what's good for people, well, everybody has to decide that for themselves. And to thus to return to the topic of revolution
, that's a further problem in general for the idea: The people do not want revolution.
Granted
But when one says "collective wrath", the way you used it, it sounded a bit apologetic. It can be used to excuse matters.
That still implies a certain degree of authority, though. Not legal or executive authority, but still a form of authority. Of course so - otherwise it wouldn't be a vanguard. But if it is really supposed to be a revolution of the people, should not the people lead it? I know I said there is not "the masses" - I meant through their own representatives etc. Instead of a 'vanguard' that has kept itself *separate* by applying this term to itself.
In order to have revolutionary practice you need to have revolutionary theory, which cannot be developed spontaneously. The sole role of the vanguard is to develop and spread the theory so the masses themselves could apply the practice; of course that it does imply a degree of authority, but there's nothing wrong with it in itself - it only becomes bad if there is a risk of the party taking too much power and creating a new class system.
Giving the people the intellectual tools from which they then can choose? Eh I guess that works at least well enough that I'll drop this little derail now
who's Octo.
I am Mum.
hmmm
*petitions to have username changed to Mum's The Word*
Super Lazuli's a mum? Congrats!
Needs a pitchy quote, doesn't it?
^^ Ahahaha, thank you for providing me with that.
a guy who was rushed out the doorchampionsyou're welcome.
I will however require 85% of the humor derived from any possible usage of it in royalty fees.
Medieval law does not take royalties into account.
That was a strange sentence.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were typing from the medievalnet.
How's the wi-fi connection on the back of your plague-infested donkey?
Pretty sweet. It's called the "necronet" for a reason, squire.
One of the May Day Revolutionaries
fivesooth
I don't know what that means so I'll just assume you're Lil B in disguise.
bless this day, for it is based.
If you ask for royalties you are a JEEEEEW
er
I mean, I tried channelling medieval too.
If anyone is wondering why Gacek's post is humorous:
Because of the similar policy wherein interest was outlawed for a time based on the idea that one could not sell time, which belonged to God, which was a policy used against Jewish business owners. Humour for historians.
what is a Gacek.
That guy whose last post is directly north of my last post.
I went north and found this
what do
Plecotus auritus.
Brown bats, apparently.
Try saying that ten times really quickly.