Rule Consequentialism Puns

Specifically, the maxim "act in any situation such that your actions bring about the greatest possible consequence (eg happiness, pleasure, etc)"

If consequentialism cannot be reduced to this rule, why not?

If this rule does not count as a deontological maxim, why doesn't it?

So, I'm reading Russ Shafer-Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics and am a little confused.

From how I understand contractarianism, an action is right iff it accords with the terms that would be agreed to by free, equal, and rational agents who are ignorant of any of their particular qualities (race, economic status, etc.), on the condition that others also agree to them. The assumption is that, behind a veil of ignorance, these agents would construct whatever rules are likely to benefit them (a consequentialist point). Also, we have an obligation to adhere to these terms because we would otherwise be undermining the very thing that allows us to reap the benefits of social living (a consequentialist point).

So, is contractarianism then just a version of rule consequentialism? It tells us to follow those rules which would have the best consequences (which are revealed once we remove our individual biases). What exactly these consequences consist in is left unclear, as it is something for the imaginary contractors to decide, but the central focus is on the consequences of rules.

If contractarianism is not a variant of rule consequentialism, what am I missing? If it is a variant of rule consequentialism, why are the two theories discussed as if they were distinct from one another (at least in this intro textbook)?

Act Consequentialists believe that we should act in the way that would make things go best. If it would make things go best to break a social rule, then we should break the rule.

Rule Consequentialists believe that in the long run, things will not go best if we break social rules. In the short run, we may make things go best by donating to charity instead of paying our doctors, but if nobody paid doctors, there would be no more doctors before long. So, it would not actually make things go best to break rules. But this is something that an Act Consequentialist must take into consideration as well. In the long run, the Act that will make things go best will not be in conflict with the Rule that will make things go best, so these views have no practical difference.

On Kant's view, we should act in conformity only with those principles that we would wish to see universalized as moral laws. The second formulation of the categorical imperative (never treat people as mere means) is really just a way to double check if you have violated the first formulation. If you have treated people as mere means, then you have not acted in conformity with a principle that a rational agent would wish to see universalized.

I think many people mistakenly believe that Kant is not concerned with consequences. Kant is concerned with consequences. He is not concerned only with the immediate consequences, but rather with overall, long term consequences in the Rule Consequentialist sense. Rational agents would wish to see certain rules universalized because they would make things go best.

So, I am not really too clear on the practical difference between Act and Rule Consequentialism, and Kant's moral theory.

I’ve kind of taken a liking to this moral theory, but I wonder if there are instances where I would disagree with its assessments.

Can anyone offer an example that would/could expose some of its issues (assuming it has some)?

Thanks

EDIT:

Also, how does Weak Rule Utilitarianism differ from Two-Level Utilitarianism?

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 55%. (I'm a bot)

> Because of the cross-ideological lineup of Supreme Court justices in the majority of several high-profile decisions, as well as the perceived narrowness of those decisions, the Roberts court has been depicted as exemplifying moderation and restraint.

> Over the course of the session that just wrapped up, several lower-profile decisions featured more traditional partisan divisions - and those decisions are likely to be extremely consequential.

> The pair of decisions the court released on the final day of the term underscore its partisan divisions on another key GOP area of concern: voting rights and democratic norms.

> These sharply split decisions, and their reasoning, are better indications of the ideological slant of the Roberts court than California v. Texas, which dismissed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act in a 7-2 decision in which all the liberal justices joined, or Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., in which all but conservative Justice Clarence Thomas voted to uphold a teenager's free speech rights outside of school.

> While these decisions leaned more liberal in their outcomes and judicial makeup, they were ultimately too narrow to set wide precedents.

> Related Instead, the decisions this term in which the court divided along partisan lines were more legally momentous rulings.

Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: decision^#1 Court^#2 v.^#3 rights^#4 conservative^#5

Post found in /r/politics, /r/AutoNewspaper and /r/NBCauto.

NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the [autotldr](http://www.reddit.co

Played with a new group last night and had a blast. It's interesting to learn how others build decks and interpret the rules and card text.

One player was playing War Machine ally and not taking consequential damage when attacking, believing consequential damage = retaliate, thus War Machine's ranged keyword negated the consequential damage.

The RRG text I can find states "An attack with the ranged keyword ignores the retaliate keyword." So in my view, War Machine would still take consequential damage, but not any specific retaliate damage.

Thoughts? Is there an RRG update I missed that lumps consequential damage and retaliate into the same damage category?

Some historical examples that made me think of this question:

In the US civil war, border states were allowed to keep their slaves and helped the Union war effort against the slave-owning Confederacy. This is assuming that slave labor helped in the war effort of the Union army.

In WWII, war crimes were committed by both axis and allied forces. Do the evils of the Nazi war machine and imperialist Japan justify the use of firebombing and nuclear weapons?

I understand that this question may be heavily context-dependent, but I would appreciate any feedback or other examples of this kind of situation.

thx

Hey gang.

I love the Alignment system. But not everyone feels that way, perhaps not even Wizard of the Coast themselves, who, over the years, have moved more and more to be in line with the general consensus of their player-base, the majority of which seems to dislike the Alignment system (though rarely manages to put in exact words why). The aim of this post will not be to force those who dislike Alignment to change their mind, but rather to offer an explanation as to why I, for one, love the Alignment system. And to do that, I'll be using two other things I love: Philosophy, and Magic: the Gathering.

GOOD vs EVIL

In D&D in general and in my campaigns in particular, the Moral Axis (Good <-> Evil) represents first and foremost an axis between Altruism <-> Egocentrism. This nerdy debate is reminiscent of the comments made by Mark Rosewater, Head Designer of Magic the Gathering, on the philosophical opposition between the colors Black and White in Magic the Gathering: (https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/pie-fights-2016-11-14).

For those of you who have better things do with their lives than debate the morality of trading card games (lol), one of his main arguments is this:

White believes the strong have a moral duty to protect the weak. The good of the group is more valuable than the good of the individual, and helping the weak (at no small cost to the strong) allows for the rise of a society that is both fair and just. White claims that if the strong don't help the weak, the result is an unjust (and, more importantly, unstable) society.

Black believes that the strong have a moral duty to exploit the weak. The good of the individual is more important than the good of the group, and helping the weak (at no small cost to the strong) limits the latter's potential, weakens the group as a whole, and worse still reinforces the status of victims that the weak bear, a status that they could rid themselves of, if they were only willing to take power, through force or trickery. Black claims that if the strong exploit the weak, the result is a meritocracy where the most competent people reign, and where they have the ability to provide for the group as a whole.

In this analogy, White represents the Good alignment, and Black represents the Evil alignment. A Good character can want something that many might consider to be im

I'm listening to the podcast again, and I just got to the point where Hermione punishes Harry for helping get Padma off the path of evil she'd started down. And I'm remembering that it's always bothered me how stupid that was of her to do.

Her reason for publicly apologizing to Padma on Harry's behalf, and explaining what he'd told her, was that without doing so, she'd look worse because other people would come to believe "If you mess with Hermione, Harry will send ghosts after you." But the flaw in her reasoning is that no one except her knows that Harry was responsible for this.

Parma made it pretty clear that she believed that the ghost had gone after Harry, too, and thus hadn't been sent by him at all. So what reason would anyone else have to believe that Harry was responsible for the ghost, besides the fact that Hermione told them he was?

I mean, it was also really dumb for Harry to tell Hermione in the first place. Harry is hardly blameless in his own downfall, there. But not because of what he did to Padma. Only because he foolishly told Hermione that he'd done it.

Hello,

So I feel like act utilitarianism is soooooo close to the "right" philosphy. The only thing that prevents me from adopting it is this, the doctor problem:

Say you're a doctor who needs to give organs to five patients. Your neighbor is someone who doesn't really leave their house, has no friends or family, nobody who would miss them if they were gone. And this guy is a match for all of the patients. Act utilitarianism would indicate that you oughta kill that guy and give his organs to the patients because the utility of five people continuing to live outweighs the utility of one guy. A rule utilitarian would condemn this based on the concept that people would have maximized utility if we treated all like they had rights (like the right to not be killed).

I really like act utilitarianism, and I think it works in a lot of cases, but I don't think that it can work in these sorta edge cases. What do act utilitarians think about this? How do you respond? Cause I would love to be an act utilitarian instead of the sorta complicated and hard to work out utilitarian I am now. Can you please clarify? Thanks!

Hi everyone,

The other day in the post "Italian News Article Tells of Incoming US Market Chaos" fellow Ape u/Nixin83 posted a very interesting article that has unfortunately gone unnoticed; we thought was worth bringing it to the attention of everyone so we could have a look at it.

To give you an overview, it talks about how we might be heading towards a new market crash, GME, the signals from the Hedge Funds, liquidity and cryptocurrency.

The interesting part that sets it apart from many articles we often read, is how they acknowledge the Squeeze is still an ongoing matter that could actually fire in the next months and why according to them.

I translated it by hand as the original piece is in Italian and didn't want to risk losing anything in translation; looking forward to hear your thoughts, here it is:

https://www.futurimagazine.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/effetto-domino-crisi-finanziaria-1200x653.jpg

13th April 2021

#Are we on the verge of a new financial crisis? The GameStop case, the signals of Hedge Funds and the rise of cryptocurrencies

by Nicola Sindaco

##Is there a link between the GameStop case, the surge in cryptocurrency prices (primarily Bitcoin), and the recent bankruptcy of the American fund Archegos? The overexposure of financial players, made possible by the quantitative easing policies of central banks in the Covid era, and the lowering of the level of credit risk, in a context of increasing deregulation and non-regulation of the Shadow Banking sector, is increasingly attracting financial actors with a high propensity to risk, with the imminent risk of triggering a new, devastating financial crisis.

#The roots of the last crisis (and the next one?): deregulation and non-regulation

The financialization of the world economy promoted by American President Bill Clinton with the signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in November 1999, which went down in history with the journalistic epithet deregulation, turns out to be the key to shedding light on the origin of latest recent global financial crisis. The deregulation repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which previously prohibited so-called BanCorp (bank holding companies) from controlling other financial institutions, marking a boundary between commercial, investment banks, Hedge Funds, other investment funds and insurance institutions, and standardizing made the enlarged banking and financial system under a single risk model.

Previously, slackening tendencies had already b

Sadism

The tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others

Sadism seems to me to be the worst sin/crime. If you look at the universally hated crimes, most of them are linked to sadism (Rape, murder, torture). It is also linked to taking advantage over the weak due to the victim normally not being able to fight back which makes it worse.

Is there any argument that justifies sadism, for example an interrogation or lab animals?

Citadel is like the athlete in college that got caught roiding up. Now the entire team has to go get tested, and half of them are going to fail.

Wall Street has been so comfortable with their illegal activities since the inception of the US stock market. Everyone naked shorted, dark pooled, media manipulated, pump and dump, etc. You name it. If it’s illegal, they have done it.

Imagine all these hedge fucks sitting high on their piles of money, buying lambos and mansions and laughing and mocking the retail investors. All of a sudden, their overconfident, retarded, bully of a brother Shitadel decides to fuck with the entire system, keep doubling down on naked shorts, and now every tactic is blasted for everyone to see.

6 months ago barely anyone knew about all the fuckery being pulled by Wall Street. And now, the whole world is well on their way to knowing what bs has been going on from the US stock market. It’s the end of an era for Wall Street hedge funds, banks, brokers. Beginning of a new era for retail traders.

Don’t get me wrong, there is still much more reform needed to be done before I put any trust back into the US stock market. But all the DTCC rules being quickly passed, that’s a start. More rules will follow. Definitely stricter enforcement will follow (unless they want to see another consequential market crash). And retail investors (those that will keep investing even after the GME saga) will know exactly what to look out for.

Anyways, just wanted to shitpost and revel in the irony of it all. Thanks Shitadel and friends.

If you've been keeping up with celebrity news, you may know that Chrissy Teigen is in hot water for a past of cyber bullying. To date, Courtney Stodden, model, and Michael Costello, fashion designer, have come forward with visual proof of Chrissy’s mean girl past. In both cases, Chrissy urged that her targets ought to kill themselves. That's pretty harsh. As an astrologer, I'm always interested in the inner workings of planetary energies that underpin this kind of acute news. While some don't agree with looking at celebrity charts, I find that it is tremendously helpful in learning planetary archetypes, timing techniques, and the general effect that planetary movements can have on us mere mortals. So, in this take, I investigate the natal chart of Chrissy Teigen, and pinpoint some of the planetary energies that could be at play for her now.

But first some housekeeping. Whenever you are looking into the chart of a politician, or a musician, or any other kind of public figure, you're going to want to make sure that their birth data is accurate. There are a lot of websites out there that purport to have the accurate natal charts of certain celebrities, but some of them are less reputable than others. I suggest using Astro.com. There you can find the rating of a chart. Chrissy’s chart is rated A, meaning there is a strong likelihood of accuracy. (The best rating is AA!).

The first thing in Chrissy Teigen’s chart that is of note is, of course, her Scorpio ascendant. People born with a Scorpio ascendant are in some way seen or known for their intensity. Where that intensity goes depends on a myriad of factors. But one way to start delineating the effect of Scorpio energy is to look to the placement of Mars, which rules the sign of Scorpio. Chrissy Teigen has her Mars in the sign of Libra in her 12th house. To me, this is a set-up of secrecy. For one, it explains why Chrissy was able to get away with this type of behavior without it reaching the public. The 12H tends to rule spaces that are private or unseen. Second, Mars is a malefic force. So it is not surprising that Chrissy’s own maleficence was something that was shielded from our eyes. And because it is in what is called aversion to (or, cannot “see”) the ascendant, sometimes the way this malefic energy comes out can be extremely disproportional. There is also something morbidly resonant about urging someone to kill themselves, when you have the ruler of your ascendant, or your embodiment, in the 12H

Can we get an update on this ? It has been THE big expected event of the last couple of months for every gold / silver bug I’ve been listening to.

When I see prices today, unsurprisingly: nothing new, nothing noticeable. Even the opposite of what has been sold as the most consequential event for PM.

Don’t get me wrong, I also do believe this would be a huge game changer. On the paper ( pun intended ). But we all now that banksters are making the rules, why should we even hope for a FAIR PLAY of such regulation being realistically implemented ?

In any case : keep stacking 🦍

Can anyone give examples of each? I kind of understand the consequentializing part but how to deontologize is very confusing.

Doing my first play through of Deadfire after 2.5 times going through POE1. I know that Deadfire sales were below expectations, and the game apparently received a lot of criticism, but honestly, it's giving me everything I needed and then some.

I do have some complaints, but they might just be misunderstandings.

I'm technically a veteran of CRPG/RTWP combat—I can't even count how many times I played through the Baldur's Gate series and NWN1, and then the Knights of the Old Republic games and Dragon Age: Origins—but I always liked playing on normal. Boss battles had to be micromanaged, and some mid-level fights, too. You might even have to reload 25 times as you try different tactics. I felt like this was the case for POE1, as well.

In Deadfire, however, normal difficulty is a cakewalk so far, unless the difficulty rating is very obviously above the recommended level (three red skulls, maybe three white skulls). In almost every case, I can let the fight play itself out. So it doesn't feel like much of a challenge. Maybe that's because I'm not going after quests when the difficulty rating is high enough? Also, the companion AI in this game is crazy good. I haven't even made adjustments to it, and it seems like everyone is making useful decisions most of the time. So it's possible I just don't know how to challenge myself in this environment.

Relatedly, the ability tree system seems both more complex and less consequential. I usually don't have the mental bandwidth to micromanage and really exploit rule systems, but Deadfire really seems to provide fodder for that. At the same time, I feel like on many occasions, I'm randomly selecting spells or abilities, and it doesn't really change the game too much. So it feels overwhelming for no reason. BUT: I'm guessing this is by design and depends on your difficulty setting. In POE1, you really had to build a good character and party on normal or above. Deadfire is much more forgiving, and now that I understand that, I don't have as much option anxiety.

As far as the story goes, I'm loving it. My biggest complaint in this area, though, is one that is common to RPGs: the narrative momentum is too powerful. It makes absolutely no sense to do anything other than pursue the main quest. So far, at least, there's been no forced downtime from the main quest. No one saying, "Take some time to build your strength, team, and resources. Come back when you're ready."

Finally, I'm on Xbox Series X, and this is just a lower

Let me start by saying that I'm a well-read anarchist. I know what anarchism is and I'm logically aware that it works as a system of organization in the real world, due to numerous examples of it.

However, after reading some philosophy about the nature of human rights, I'm not sure that anarchism would be the best system overall. Rights only exist insofar as they're enshrined by law. I therefore see a strong necessity for a state of some kind to enforce rights. Obviously a state in the society I'm envisioning wouldn't be under the influence of an economic ruling class, because I'm still a socialist. But having a state seems to be a good investment for protecting rights. With a consequential analysis, I see a state without an economic ruling class to be able to do more good than bad.

I still believe in radical decentralization, direct democracy, no vanguards, and the like. I'm not in danger of becoming an ML, but maybe just a libertarian municipalist or democratic confederalist. Something with a coercive social institution of some sort to legitimize and protect human rights.

>It is the business of the benevolent man to seek to promote what is beneficial to the world and to eliminate what is harmful, and to provide a model for the world. What benefits he will carry out; what does not benefit men he will leave alone.
>
>
>
>— Mozi

Neo-Mohism is the philosophy based around the cultivation of the state and the community through the principle of agape, or impartial care (兼愛). Through agape and tradition, we are able to build a community that functions not as a collection of individuals, but as a organized organism that works towards the mutual benefit of all within it without regard to the pleasure or pain of the individual. Neo-Mohism seeks to take the teachings of Mozi, and apply them to the modern age to end the strife of humanity and return us to the traditional, simple way of living that was intended for us by Heaven. I will attempt to give an overview of my personal philosophy in regard to morality, tradition, and the obligation of the state to provide all basic needs for its people, and to uphold and maintain the enviroment.

Society in Neo-Mohism is based around the principle of universal, impartial love of all of humanity; that is, a person should care equally for all other individuals, regardless of their actual relationship to him or her. And indeed, this goes beyond even humanity, but to all of existence, for all of existence contains the inherent divinity of Heaven within it, and we are all the Children of Heaven, and thus we all form one, single divine family with Heaven as our father and the Earth as our mother.

Heaven (天 Tian) is the ultimate source of all divinity and all good. All that is moral goes back to Heaven. The law of Heaven is Love, and the love of Heaven is perfect in every way. Since only Heaven is perfect, our standard of morality and ethics are defined by Heaven, which knows about the immoral acts of man and punishes them for immorality, encouraging moral righteousness. Our ethical and moral standards cannot originate from man, since no man is perfect, and therefore man is incapable of deciding morality except in relation to the law of Heaven, which is total, indiscriminate love of all, the principle of impartial care (兼愛), henceforth translated as Agape.

The Morals of Neo-Mohism

As all ethics in the thought of Mohism revolve around the idea of Agape, the ideal situation of where the ruler loves all people benevolently and provides them with proper love, respect, and j

Question on this card. The text read that a Guardian Character gets a tough status card after taking ANY amount of damage from an attack. Would it be my correct understanding that this means if a Guardian character attacks and gets consequential damage this event can be played?

This is a game of borrowing and loaning words! To give our conlangs a more naturalistic flair, this game can help us get realistic loans into our language by giving us an artificial-ish "world" to pull words from!

The Telephone Game will be posted every Monday and Friday, hopefully.

Rules

1. Post a word in your language, with IPA and a definition.

Note: try to show your word inflected, as it would appear in a typical sentence. This can be the source of many interesting borrowings in natlangs (like how so many Arabic words were borrowed with the definite article fossilized onto it! algebra, alcohol, etc.)

2. Respond to a post by adapting the word to your language's phonology, and consider shifting the meaning of the word a bit!

3. Sometimes, you may see an interesting phrase or construction in a language. Instead of adopting the word as a loan word, you are welcome to calque the phrase -- for example, taking skyscraper by using your language's native words for sky and scraper. If you do this, please label the post at the start as Calque so people don't get confused about your path of adopting/loaning.

Last Time, on Dragon Ball Z...

Didn'tGiveAName by /u/roipoiboy

farrí [fa'ʀi] v. to leave behind, to spread, to sow seeds, to leave an impression (on someone), to have an aftermath

del vuncar farri asil carró.

the eggs are leaving behind a rotten smell

DEF egg-PL leave.behind-PRS stench rotten

• farrisa n. consequences, wake, sillage, aftermath, descendents
• mefarri adj. impressive, consequential, having an aftermath
• farrari n. someone striking, someone who leaves an impression

> I forgot to post on Monday, whoops! Happy Friday!

> Peace, Love, & Conlanging ❤️

No system is going to be perfect, but I think these ideas could help, anything is better than realms.

1) Eliminate realms and move everyone back into one server. Eliminate tile and clan caps (these don't work)

2) Some medium and hard oases need to be designated as PvE only, whereas the higher tier resources (clay, iron, redwood, etc) should only ever appear on the PvP tiles. Also, the trading stations should only exist on the PvP tiles. This will allow players who want to avoid PVP to avoid it, but only up to a certain point. These will create PvP choke points and facilitate consequential PvP as opposed to roaming gank squads and better align to the risk vs reward methodology.

UPDATE: It has mentioned that people will simply wall of resources on PvE maps. The solution is easy. First, base items should only be unpackable or buildable between the edge of the map (excluding the clouds) and the interior of the map (sand only), otherwise complicated rules would be necessary to determine where they would be prohibited on the interior of the maps. PLAYERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AND UTILIZE THEIR BASES ON THE PvE TILES TO REGROUP AFTER POTENTIALLY DISASTROUS PvP. IF THEY'RE PROHIBITED FROM DOING SO, IT REALLY DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

3) Eliminate proxies and all systems associated with land claims. Let players roam instead of being locked down to oases.

4) Add more creatures and PvE content to the game to offset PvP and leveling being the only things to do.