• anicius
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think utilitarianism is a useful tool for analyzing structural problems. Which is what I was trying to condense into a funny quip. If you look at Peter Singer, the most prominent modern day utilitarian, you still see that he has terrible takes on pretty much anything geopolitical and isn’t an anti-capitalist. I actually don’t have a problem with consequentialism generally, but the materialist analysis is just more effective. I have limited philosophical knowledge so I probably can’t answer your actual question.

    • boston_key_party
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Utilitarianism isn’t an analytical framework, it’s just a common sense framing of the objective of normative ethics. Do what results in the best world. I think Che would agree with Singer’s main points, and if Singer had a correct understanding of reality, he’d advocate everyone be like Che.

      • WithoutFurtherDelay
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The objective of most ethics isn’t to “do what results in the best world”. What makes up a “best world” is already complicated enough by itself to have generated entirely different schools of thought. And whether that’s a worthwhile goal is just as complex