/lit/ - Literature

Bullet-biting utilitarian obsessed with social issues, sound thinker, ok author, has a good will for solving world hunger but lacks the balls to cultivate political influence.

>>3062577
What do you mean by cultivating political influence?

Do you mean he should support or pressure certain parties?

>preference utilitarianism
It's like I'm actually in high school.

>>3062564
His zoophilia pushes utilitarianism to its its logical conclusion, showing it to be an absurd philosophy.

>>3062591
What school of ethics do you subscribe to?

And what don't you like about preference utilitarianism?

>>3062599
Zoophilia could probably be worked into various philosophies, like the rights approach etc.

Also, 'his zoophilia' is widely exaggerated, since the only thing he's written on it was a response to an article on the subject.

It hardly negates his overall argument

>>3062604
He does a reductio ad absurdum of himself without realising it.

>>3062601
All ethical schools are nonsense. Moral nihilism is the only way.

>>3062609
Troll, pls go

>>3062564
I love that his zoophiliac consequences pulls vegans into his dismal ethics. It shows how intellectually bankrupt veganism is.

>>3062613
>dismal ethics
Please explain that point

>intellectually bankrupt veganism
You do realize that people don't become vegan so they can fuck animals right?

I mean, you do realize there are actual ethical objections to the mass slaughter of sentient beings for trivial purposes that aren't based on the desire to fuck animals?

>>3062611
I am not trolling. There is no objective morality. All ethical systems are just opinions.

>>3062613

Elaborate, please. What is intellectually bankrupt about veganism?

>>3062617
Oh of course they are, since absolute morality does not exist in nature or in the form of supernatural laws, but you would still agree that people should act in certain ways and not in other ways right?

>>3062616
There are no sound ethical objections from the perspective of higher values, the ubermensch, Will to Power, and the destruction of all ethical systems that are not of the former.

>>3062627
Ah, a pseudo-Nietzschean, how refreshing.

So how would the senile, retarded children and those with pitiable IQs fare in your brave new world?

>>3062622
>you would still agree that people should act in certain ways and not in other ways right?
Nope.

>>3062629
Ideally they would be put to death, thrown off a cliff to be dashed on rocks ideally.

The greek way.

>>3062631
So, if I were to sneak into your house and kidnap your entire family (and the family dog) and take them to a warehouse and torture them for several days, you would see nothing immoral or wrong about that?

>>3062632
Sounds like you'll be first.

I highly recommend Practical Ethics and How Are We To Live? really refreshing anti-jargon approach to ethics.

>>3062632

>>3062629
I'm neither Nietzschean nor psuedo-Nietzschean, and they would fare as well as they could.

If you think "Brave New World" was written about a Nietzschean world, then I doubt you have not read either, confirmed for illiterate vegan fucknut.

>>3062634
From what basis would I say it is immoral, since morality doesn't exist?

>>3062639
>implying I am a retarded child or senile

>>3062640
I just finished Practical Ethics and I enjoyed it too.

I do have some issues with preference utilitarianism but it was a great read still

>>3062640
Sounds like some faggot academic's opinions being presented as fact.

>>3062644

Veganism: What happens to people who've read Singer before they've read Nietzsche.

>>3062642
I wasn't making a reference to the the book friend, you do realize the term 'brave new world' comes from The Tempest right?

Nice try though

>>3062642
have read*

>>3062643
That's what I'm asking you.

If you actually go on to read some philosophy after your initial realization that absolute morality does not exist, you might come across some moral/ethical theories that would answer that question

>>3062647
You really don't understand the nature of philosophy do you

>>3062659
>implying philosophy isn't just some faggot academic's opinion being presented as fact

>>3062657
I have a B.a in philosophy. I studied moral theory and bioethics.

All it did was convince me that all ethical systems are false.

>>3062652
But how can I be an edgy teenager after being a rational adult?

>>3062654
Most faggots here are. At any rate, what I said about Huxley's true, and you're confirmed for illiterate vegan fucknut.

>>3062662
>the post of an average Nietzsche fanboy

>>3062660

>evaluating things in terms of true/false
>rejecting something because its "false"
>not evaluating things in terms of use or extent to which it affirms life

weren't there some nietzschean wannabes in here?

>>3062660
Ok, so why ask such a stupid question?

You would realize that philosophers have been attempting to formulate and defend moral/ethical theories for over two thousand years, so why is it so strange to you that someone might actually believe brutalizing innocents might be a bad thing to do?

>>3062661
Being a rational adult: reading early philosophers before you pick up a dry and dull pop-philosopher like Singer.

Singer's opinions are permanently frozen. As he ages, he just thinks of newer ways to defend his teenage feels for hurt animals (a projection of his own suffering - there is no genuine empathy, check your reading list.)

>>3062669
>what is a rhetorical question?

Point was that there is no morality, I wasn't asking you a question.

>>3062671
I haven't 'picked up' Singer. If you read the original post, I was asking for the opinions of others in regards to him, not defending him or his philosophy.

>there is no genuine empathy
Again, the post of an average Nietzsche fanboy

>>3062671

so animals don't suffer? i think you're covering up your cowardice in failing to actually deal with ethical issues which singer has been doing forever.

>>3062675
Fair enough, I thought you were genuinely asking.

I disagree about there being no morality, but then again I value the lives of others

>>3062668
Nietzsche has some interesting insights, but he is also wrong.

>>3062668
Oh, so the Nietzschean, who disavowed he was a Nietzschean (because its a contradiction in terms) is a "wannabe" and all you singerfags are "rational adults"? You're the biggest fucking wannabes on this board. Your whole "feels for the animals" is infantile (women) or a PUAstrategy for getting vegan pussy, or whatever shape or form WTP can take in an apparently "altruistic" mode.

>>3062678
>>3062678
What grounds morality, in your opinion?

>>3062682
You seem to be confusing one anon with the various other anons who also think you're a faggot

Morality is merely a pompous way of saying people have to do what you personally like.

>>3062676
Even if it is the post of an average fanboy, it's also the opinion of the best scholarship on Nietzsche as moral psychologist - OP confirmed for not having read Nietzsche. Read Nietzsche, you're seriously failing at ethics if you read Singer before N.

>>3062683
Reason and empathy.

That is, reasoning that beings (humans and non-humans) can feel pleasure and pain, and extending my empathy to reduce that suffering if possible.

>>3062683

>>3062681

ok good rebuttal

>>3062682

everyone's gettin confused. also your insecurities are showing.

>>3062685
Post that again when you're phoning the police for help because some edgy teenager is squatting in your house and saying he can do what he likes because he's edgy just like you

>>3062677
Thinking that the presenting the suffering of animals is effective against anyone who has read Nietzsche...

Veganism is cowardice, it is the refusal to be a killer, because you are afraid of ethical retribution. Veganism is innate cowardice.

>>3062689
Even if that is the case, the existence of pain and people's dislike of it doesn't create any moral laws.
There is no reason why some one should act in such a way.

>>3062690

>inferring an "ought" from an "is"
>using science to ground anything other than science

ISHYGDDT

>>3062692
That was the shittiest rebuttal, pretty much a barnum statement. You have no judgement.

"Insecurities" is redundant in regard to humans.

>>3062690
science can just as easily be used to justify might is right

>>3062695

nietzsche had deep empathy for animals. he collapsed upon seeing a horse beaten on the street.

you totally misappropriate him.

>>3062695
>it is the refusal to be a killer

And that's a bad thing, I forgot.

Enjoy fapping over the ubermensch Patrick

>>3062697
My reason for not continuing to hold my foot on the pedal when a child runs in front of my car is because it would inflict unnecessary suffering.

Is that a good enough reason?

>>3062700

>"Insecurities" is redundant in regard to humans.

lolwot

What I get from this thread:

(1) Vegans haven't read Nietzsche, or not carefully.
(2) People don't like it when you read contemporary pop-philosophers before you've read the classic philosophers, or at least the germans, from Kant to Nietzsche.

I tend to agree. What's the point of reading philosophy if you're not going to take it seriously and put in the hard yards first? Otherwise you're basically just reading to cherry pick random pieces of information to support your absurd ethical stance (vegans)

>>3062702
He collapsed because it represented the noble being oppressed by the inferior.

The horse represents nobility. It was being beaten by a peasant.

>>3062707

no! you are a coward for refusing to be the killer! untermenschen fear moral retribution from the herd!

>>3062708
>vegans

You do realize that the people who disagree with you aren't all vegans right? I know it's easier to think that way, but you're still wrong.

>from Kant to Nietzsche
How is that relevant in a thread about Peter Singer?

>>3062702
The horse incident is completely misconstrued by those who have never read Nietzsche in order to turn his whole life into some kind of "feel good" movie. Veganism was slave moralism.

Nietzsche did empathise with animals. So what? He also killed and ate them.

>>3062704
Yes.

>>3062707
What's wrong with suffering?

There is a quote from Ceneca, in which he says suffering has purpose, it teaches us, hardens us.

The fact that some people can't deal with it shows their weakness of character.

>>3062715

ok send us ur addy, be round in 5 mins to stab you in the eye and rape your sister. good character building exercises.

>>3062714

my point is that nietzsche empathised with animals, including that horse. the other guy said that somehow a proper construction of nietzsche makes you impervious to arguments based on empathy, which is false.

Of course one must kill and consume animals. The highest type of human being is a creator only because he is a destroyer.

Emphasis on he, because I know all you veganfags are secretly women (on the inside.)

>>3062715
You could have just posted the Nietzsche quote about suffering and becoming a stronger person because of it.

Do you enjoy suffering?
If it's for a surgery, so that a brief experience of suffering leads to a healthy body afterwards for example, then of course it's permissible.

BUT

If you were to visit an orphanage and start hitting children around, there is something wrong with that.

Why?

If you do not enjoy suffering/displeasure (not necessarily physical), then why inflict it on others who feel the same way?

>>3062718
He shares Nietzsche's views on women too, how cute.

A true discip....I mean fellow superman

Nietzschefags plz go

>>3062710
This. The horse to the people on whom Zarathustra was based, the steppe Aryans particularly, were propertied rulers for whom the horse was the most sacred animal, symbolic of all the warlike and daring and noble traits highest and dearest to the Zarathustra. It's such an obvious and blatant symbolism of Zarathustra's ideals that it is mostly omitted from Thus Spoke Zarathustra and replaced with eagles, camels, and lions.

>>3062721
>If you were to visit an orphanage and start hitting children around, there is something wrong with that.

I disagree. There might be a reason to do so.

Even if there wasn't a reason, it wouldn't be right or wrong.

>>3062719
Your idiotic remarks "let me go kill/rape your sister" is that you are assuming some kind of equal basis for all moral values, some kind of Hebrew extension "eye for an eye" for them. This is absolutely not the case. For Nietzsche each particular person has their own particular "right"; each particular class has its own particular "right." Statements like "if you can kill, let me kill you" are an asinine misunderstanding, or blatant ignorance, of Nietzsche's philosopher. Showing us that while you attempt to persuade people of the rationality of veganism is counter-productive, don't you think?

>>3062719
Wouldn't be anything morally wrong with you doing that.

Just like it wouldn't be morally wrong for me to do it to you.

>>3062727

lel fuck philosophy

>>3062726
If there were a reason, it wouldn't be one I've come across.

Also, feel free to think like that, but enjoy being the edgy minority who secretly conforms to the prevailing moral code

>>3062729

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOORLET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR
=/= ethics

>>3062722
As if I would shed misogyny because it's untimely and I want to artificially approximate myself a certain distance from Nietzsche in order to avoid "disciple anxiety" - only a disciple worries in his heart about that.

>>3062729
You're once again resorting to attacks on veganism (which hasn't been brought up in this thread much) to defame your various critics

>>3062731
On what basis is it wrong?

I don't see anything in pain that colours it with some kind of 'universal badness'.

Pain is the bodily response to stimulii. Just because you don;t like that stimulus, doesn't suddenly create some kind of law.

>>3062735
Lol, I have "no critics", just a bunch of random douchebags in a thread on /lit/ spewing vegan/Singerite screed like lifestyle automatons at various kinds of explications of Nietzsche.

What you call "empathy" for animals is not "pathos" - which can be any sort of feeling, from joy to sorrow - it's pity, sorrow for animals: erecting a morality out of pity is the hallmark of slave moralism.

>>3062731
obeying the law =/= conforming to the prevailing moral code

>>3062736
So you agree that humans create moral laws and then refuse to accept that such laws, though created by humans, exist.

Human beings on the whole (excluding sociopaths/pseudo-Nietzscheans) do not enjoy unnecessary suffering, and therefore strive to eliminate it wherever possible.

This is what Hume had in mind with his ethical theories based on empathy and so on. Utilitarianism is such a 'law' that many people subscribe to achieve that end. Others feel utilitarianism does not achieve that end, so they opt for a rights-based approach, but they all agree (again, excluding the edgy sociopaths) that unnecssary suffering is painful, and therfore bad, and therefore 'immoral', and therefore create such laws to stop it taking place

>>3062740
What a mature approach to being told other people don't share your opinions

>>3062742
It's ridiculously insincere to talk about "necessary" and "unnecessary" suffering in Nietzschean terms: for Nietzsche everything is "necessary" the world of becoming, of constantly coming into being, is the only necessary world, and accordingly everything in it must be necessary. Nietzsche eliminates all talk of "freedom" in the sense of complete metaphysical freedom as that is absurd: in order to be completely "free" one would have to be sui generis, which is impossible.

Accordingly, since all suffering is necessary, the appurtenances of various pity-based slave moralities do not apply. Suffering is evaluated based on WTP, and nothing more: since suffering is invaluable to memory, learning, culture, work, discipline, it is in fact almost always good, although of course it depends on Nietzschean PERSPECTIVISM, the cornerstone of his ethics, and what makes it applicable eternally and under all contingent social conditions.

>>3062743
Perhaps my idea of maturity is more child-like than yours? There is no general "maturity", only particular maturities, everyone having their own process of ripening. It being impossible to evaluate any process except from one's own, it would be polite in this regard to shut the fuck up and be other-aware.

>>3062749
I'm not talking about it in Nietzschean terms.

If you took the time to read the original post, you'd realize that this isn't a thread about Nietzsche but Peter Singer, and not about veganism but preference utilitarianism.

Feel free to shit up the thread like Nietzsche fanboys are so accustomed to doing, but you are missing the point of the thread.

>>3062751
>this guy

>>3062693
He can do as he likes. As can I. But it will be what we are able to that will decide the outcome of the matter. Also:

>owning houses
>2012
>not being a post-sedentary neo-nomadic sage

>>3062742
The problem with hume etc is that they ignore ontology; there is nothing to ground their ethics. It's just ideas floating around in the air, just opinions. There is no reason to believe any of it.

Sympathy/pleasure etc are not something you can build a ethical system out of, since from the start you are trying to make such a system universal; you are trying to say that we should act one way rather than another. The existence of other cultures shows there is no absolute moral good.

The kind of people who think suffering is 'evil' are the weak, inferior types of people whose only concern is with comfort and safety, when suffering is simply part of life.

>>3062760
That probably means living with your parents, right?

>>3062754
Feel free to discuss your obsolete philosophical positions here, I am merely contributing immensely to the debate by leavening its stale contents with some real philosophy.

>>3062761
It is obviously a part of life, and I'm not doubting that, nor would anybody in their right mind believe that.

However, it doesn't mean that we should actively increase or intensify that suffering does it?

Just because I stubbed my toe this morning doesn't mean that I shouldn't give a damn if I see a school bus on fire

>>3062764
>philosophy
>2012

>>3062764
Thanks, I will.

>>3062765
>we should actively increase or intensify that suffering
I didnt say that.

I'm saying any system based on 'lessening suffering' is absurd.

>>3062765
The entire neo-utilitarian movement consists of anti-intellectual, anti-philosophical questions like "Just because I stubbed my toe this morning doesn't mean that I shouldn't give a damn if I see a school bus on fire" posed apparently from the point of view of a vacuum, demanding a common sense answer, as if philosophy wasn't developed because of the failings, the ultimate non-groundedness of common sense and mother-wit.

>>3062769
Again, I disagree.

If we both agree with the proposition 'There is much unnecessary suffering in the world', then why would it be absurd to want to reduce that unnecessary suffering?

And if you come back trying to muddle up the definition of unnecssary it simply doesn't help anybody out

>>3062770
>equating my half-serious post with the entire utilitarian movement

See, that's why you're a faggot

>>3062771
>'There is much unnecessary suffering in the world'
How can you say that that suffering is "unnecessary." As someone else has already pointed out, you need some form of ontology to do that. The Nietzsche guy gave the Nietzsche ontology where everything is necessary. Anyway, where the fuck is yours? It's not about the definition of "necessary", it's about metaphysics and ontology, which you are avoiding for the sake of your ethics.

>>3062772
I'm not equating it with the whole movement, all the peripheral faggotry and "can I get laid by pretending to care" shit, just the essence of that movement, what it is essentially.

>>3062773
Inb4 he tries to make his ontology empiricism or idealism

>>3062773
Okay, maybe I should make my point about that clearer.

I'll do so via an example since this is a thread post and not an essay.

If a large population of people live their lives with day-to-day suffering, and then die after maybe 20 years, I would call this unnecessary suffering.

Why? Because it is both avoidable and does not lead to a heightened sense of pleasure or appreciation afterwards. Whether it's pity, empathy or selfishness that leads to the amelioration of such a case, the suffering would have lessened, and things, overall, would be more desirable

>>3062777
Yeah cute. Anyone can talk hypothetically we about necessary and unnecessary suffering. We can also talk about UFOS and all kinds of crazy non-existent shit.

But in reality, in the existent, in ontology, in the 'is-ness' of life, how do you begin to talk about what is necessary and unnecessary suffering?

Can you even see a difference between those? If you can, that's the beginning of ontology, which you seem to not understand. Have you studied classical philosophy?

>>3062766
>philosophy
>2012

I know, right? These morons sit around like high school stoners, trying to describe reality with language, while those modern kids over at /sci/ do it a million times better using mathematics.

>>3062771
I don't agree that there is much 'unnecessary' suffering. I thought that was pretty clear.

There is suffering. It is not unnecessary; it just 'is'.

>>3062777
>If a large population of people live their lives with day-to-day suffering, and then die after maybe 20 years, I would call this unnecessary suffering.

Except that it isn't unnecessary. You seem to be implying that it could be otherwise, when it could not. You people seem like secularised christians; with this belief that they world ought to be better than it is...

>>3062788
Yeah he needs to read >>3062780 and not be butthurt by the guy's tone and then go and read classical philosophy and metaphysics.

>>3062787
I have no problem with science when it is sophisticated enough to realise the philosophical assumptions they make, otherwise it's just embarrassing - obligatory:

"The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending"

>>3062793
or rather 'ought to be differently than it is'

>>3062787
cant tell if you're serious, but I will chortle heartily if you think you can prove liberal humanist utilitarian morality based on mathematics

>>3062795
Can you recommend any books on classical phil and metaphysics?

>>3062777
You are merely asserting that it is avoidable and that it is unnecessary. You are not demonstrating this. It is, by he way, a metaphysical statement to say whether something is necessary or not, so your proof lies in that domain. If it is unfamiliar to you, I suggest you suspend your ethical prejudices until you have found sufficient demonstrative proof - as even the Nietzscheans have - or recognise them for what they are - as the Nietzscheans do - prejudices.

>>3062802
Start with Plato. Do the Greeks. Do some scholastics. Do some early modern philosophy. Then do the Germans - all of them, and I wouldn't start with Kant either, I'd start with Luther and Melanchthon, because that's fucking rigorous, and it will pay off when you read the post-Kantians. Don't skip Hegel. He's not just pre-Marx. He has a huge impact on early Nietzsche - especially the Birth of Tragedy. After you've dusted off the last of Nietzsche, do whatever you want with the 20C.

>>3062814
Personally, 20C, read the clever marxists of every stripe, because every serious intellectual seems to be morphing in and out of marxism since the end of the 19C. They're bitterly hostile to Nietzsche, and if you want to take on Nietzsche, this utilitarian ontologically ignorant shit won't cut it, unless you're ranting in the TLS or something.

>>3062817
Well, Marx & Nietzsche cohabit in some 20C brains, very uneasily, courtesy of polite misreadings, or "Hegelian synthesis."

>>3062817
Why are marxists hostile to nietzsche?

>>3062822
Because Nietzsche is, contrary to faggoty aesthetes and apolitical readings, very intensely political, and very much a man of the cord du roi.

>>3062826
He also serves up his own answer to Hegel and the left Hegelians of "historical idealism" (for N. materialism is idealism) in On the Use & Abuse of History for Life.

>>3062814
Anything specifically about ontology?

I've read a fair bit of those.

>>3062831
A specific monograph on ontology? No, I can't think of a single one, probably because from the very start in philosophy it's discussed alongside or at the same time as ethics, politics, and every area of metaphysics and epistemology.

Maybe start here:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ontology

Etymology's very important in a tradition like philosophy when you need to burn away all the connotations draped over a word and get to the original of it.

>>3062831
with

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=onto-&allowed_in_frame=0


Rather difficult to study the classics without some Greek & Latin, & I'd balance it with some Hebrew, Sanskrit, and Chinese for bonus points.

The only way to philosophise is by being a scholar, or else you'll always be that pretentious hipster faggot who really knows jack.

>>3062831
Just read 'Sociopathy for Dummies' if you're trying to get on board with these edgy faggots

>>3062609

The whole idea of morals or ethics not been tangible, and are therefore false is laughable.

All ethics are created by and for a society of people. Not everything has have strict empirical evidence.

Morals isn't 'what is', but 'how to'.

Morals also lies in logic and rationalizing.

e.g.

I won't kill everyone, because i don't want people killing me. and this is what 99.9999999% of the population believe including you (>lel get a load of this pleb, anon is lejohn and i have no ethics at all. btw i h8 all those bullys who pick on me) so, it becomes a moral of that society.

e.g.

I won't chew with my mouthful, people don't like it, and I dont want to upset others.


These are morals or ethics, all thought of logically or rationally, and therefore exist.

>>3062905
The fact that you're replying that to shows what kind of thinker you are. The nihilists can only win by taking time from you.

>>3062891
Someone doesn't get what we're talking about.

>>3062891
Ontology =/= sociology.

Most sociology & social science is about as philosophically/metaphysically savvy as most linguistics, e.g. that failure Chomsky.

>>3062699
>using science to ground anything other than science
using anything other that science to ground anything.

>tfw Sam Harris
>tfw Peter Singer
>tfw utilitarianism is taken seriously
>tfw all those vulgar "hurr everything is relative" "Nietzscheans" itt
>tfw universally binding morality in 2012

Nietzsche was right. All one needs is a proper understanding of his philosophy.

>>3062905
But you are still saying morality and ethics don't inherently exist. All we have is a complex system of enforcing behaviour traits onto others that benefit the individual and aid self-preservation. If you are saying that whatever system society adopts, is, by default, the 'moral one,' then our society, legal system, and economy - which serves to benefit a select minority, instead of a socialist or egalitarian system - is the 'moral' one.

There are both flaws and benefits to utilitarianism, but the majority view doesn't become 'moral' because a greater number of people were conned into adopting it.

>>3062962
It's only a very tiny step from Nietzsches perfect society to Rands.

>>3062963

the 10 based number system doesnt inherently exist either, but it works well, effecintly, and is rational, therefore it logically exist, much like ethics.

Ethics and morals are logical reasons done be a set group of people.

>>3062964
>Nietzsches perfect society

I would very much like to hear what do you think that is.

>>3062972
>the 10 based number system doesnt inherently exist either, but it works well, effecintly, and is rational, therefore it logically exist,
Yes.
>much like ethics.
No. Everyone, when prompted, would collectively agree that 1 = 1 when faced with reducing a differential equation. Not many people agree on what is right in the various areas of a best social structure. Which is why questions like abortion, capital punishment, drugs, veganism, war, are continuously discussed.

>>3062964
No, it isn't. Read more Nietzsche.

>>3062990
Yes it is. Read -some- Nietzsche.

They both believed society should be ruled by an elite aristocracy. Both believed this small selection of people would follow their 'reason', and not be influenced by religious 'slave morality' or a morality that comes from noble/contemptible; In fact they both despised religion for creating a prevalent sheeplike mentality. They also both agree that the mewling masses are inferior to the intellectual who follows reason.

They differ in who can become part of the Aristocracy; Nietzsche believes it should be hereditary, while Rand believes anyone can ascend. But the areas on which they are similar are far grater than those on which they disagree.

>>3063004
point out where nietzsche outlines his plan for society. it sounds like you are reading a political philosophy into the genealogy of morality.

singer is one of the most significant moral philosophers of the century.

oh god this thread. remind me to not come here

>>3063107
Don't come here.

>>3063107
Also, don't split your infinitives.

i went to melbourne uni where peter singer went, or he's an associate proffessor or some crap. anyway he is the philosophy department's hero and their shining star, he is very often mentioned and I had to read some stuff by him once and also go to a lecture he gave. Both the lecture and the reading was boring as shit. Anyway I don't feel like I've read Singer nearly well enough to give a valid opinion on him. But if you want my invalid, unsubstantiated opinion: he's rubbish, and there must be a million better philosophers out there that one could read.

>>3063114
who the fuck do you think you are talking to me like that

>>3063121
there are very likely better and more thoughtful arguments out there than the ones singer made, but he got the ball rolling in the first place

i think some of his tracts are a great place to start for the non-specialist or general reader.

>>3062590

I mean that since heavyweight problems are best solved by heavyweight institutions (in the case of world hunger, governments) he should tear down the final frontier between ethical theory and practice: "applied ethics" in favor of real ethical practice: "political philosophy."

Whether this concerns particular political parties is an open question, but I think that there is something deeply unphilosophic about the decision procedure in a democracy. It is in this way that I would adapt a Platonic suggestion that the ideal society is ruled by philosopher-kings. Whether Singer is philosopher-king material is a more interesting question.

>>3062962

Please, do not fall into dogmatic slumber by giving yourself up entirely to another individual's philosophy.

>>3063121

One of the salient features of contemporary moral philosophy is the "analytic" approach, where authors strip their work of all style in favor of symbolic prose which is supposed to garner more justification. There is a noticeable difference in reading contemporary ethical articles versus those of a cultivated author. Read one of Singer's articles then read Hume's Enquiry. One is distinctly boring compared to the other.

The reason for this is that it is now a view most fashionable that the most symbolized analytic description is more philosophically astute and thus superior to the one that humbly describes the phenomenon at hand.

>>3063028
One does not need to OUTLINE ONE'S ENTIRE PLAN FOR SOCIETY in order to make judgements about political philosophy. If that were the case, pol. phil. would be a retarded area of imaginary political architects.