Cuz there's a tootsie roll center. Better than truth.

Counterpoint: the power of abstraction means all correlations can be generalized into polarities, and simplifying morality this way, like all abstractions, has its benefits and its costs.

Right but okay so I'm not that big of a philosopher or whatever, but I do get where they're coming from when they say "Poor people today enjoy luxuries that kings in medieval times could only dream of." Like, society has always progressed and quality of life has always gone up, at least since the Renaissance.

PS Maybe not for the developing world and Native reservations and stuff... but I guess what I'm arguing against is the idea that you can't create a list of pros and cons, that there's just cons.

There’s really no other possibility than properly including this technology in class. If it is really useful, students will certainly use it, at least to cheat. Interesting.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

i do not think, at this present moment in time, that we have enough know how to work around this.

[deleted]

[deleted]

> write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable
and uncaring.

This whole sentence seems like it was written by someone who just wants to put words on a page and not considering what they mean in a paragraph together.

“Ironic…”

Too long my friend. I Hazel way too long...

Thanks tho

the abyss also gazes into you... long enough?

It's.... well it's not great.

[deleted]

Surprisingly enough Nietzsche didn't solve philosophy. The inquiry continues.

Hitler did evil. There's no nuance there. False false dichotomy.

> Good vs Evil in this implicit Christian sense that we all understand it to mean. To speak though as if this is the case, that 21st century Anglophone countries operate on a Good vs Evil basis, is absurd.

Also - why does the absense of some former, implicitly abrahamic morals imply that the West no longer operates considering good and evil? Not sure how that is connected. Christianity is a source of morality, and it is not unique in that way.

Edit: obviously, people in the west do bad things, but you're ignoring a huge portion of people if you think people in the west at large don't consider morals in their actions.

You're making the assumption that the people who wield moral authority use that control to prevent harmful actions, in general. Frequently, that is not the motivation of people with moral power. Frequently enough that it is innaccurate to say that moral control of the masses is categorized as "good" in and of itself.

One does not guide a good-bad dichotomy.

The good-bad dichotomy guides people.

Authority figures that promote, enforce, or impose a good-bad dichotomy can definitely serve to misguide people or pose a danger to humanity or nature. However, it is a double-edged sword. It can also be applied appropriately and provide for peace and safety.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I think many people - especially philosophers - are well aware of the subjectivity of good and evil and they're able to arrive at conclusions that are not stuck in that dichotomy. However, some people have very poor critical thinking skills and they have the conscience of a alligator.

If we depart entirely from the dichotomy, how do we preserve peace?

> Evil (bad) means selfish, greedy, and condemning the strong for acting upon their strength

If that's Neitzche's definition of evil, I have to say, it is not at all a general definition of evil. "Condeming the strong for acting upon their strength" doesn't enter into it. "Condemning the strong for acting upon their strength by oppressing people" is what I, and many people whose morals are about preventing human suffering, think.

No kidding. If you don’t agree with the lamestream these days, you’re called an evil racist terrorist😂😂😂. Never has a group of people needed this common sense offering more than the folks of Reddit.

That control that you're talking about has caused both great suffering and great advancement in different places and contexts. To say that having a few people (moral authorities) morally controlling the masses is a straight-up "good" thing in and of itself is incorrect if you consider mass human suffering to be evil.

> That's different than believing in no truth, which I see as offering the subject no thought at all.

Careful not to accuse your opponents of not even thinking just because you strongly disagree. People carefully think about and consider things that they do not have a definite truth for all the time, and even someone who questions everything and believes only in subjective reality (i.e. no objective truth) might think deeply about things.

Well, obviously? Nietzsche figured that out a century and a half ago. Healthy/Unhealthy would be a better binary, but I’m sure that would run that to its own set if problems as well, depending on who is determining them. At least they would be more observable and more in line with scientific thought. Good and evil are of course, far foo vague and difficult to pinpoint. You could even go Bonhoeffer’s route and do a smart/stupid binary 🙃

[deleted]