Post #142413

@amerika@annihilation.social @contrapunctus@fe.disroot.org @dcc@annihilation.social @dj@parcero.casa @roland @sun@shitposter.world @yomiel@new.asbestos.cafe > I favor a world where there are consequences for results, not methods. This post endorsed by Robert McNamara and also all communists. I mean, look at all the batshit insane shit commies do while chanting "by any means necessary!" and they do this because they think it will save the world and that there is nothing that is so evil that it shouldn't be undertaken in order to save the world. The issue is that even if you could achieve "means-to-an-end" morality (which you cannot), you will be unable to get agreement on what constitutes a "good result" and which means violated ends-in-themselves. On a practical level, you will also create a shit-ton of problems: at the surface, for one thing, you have people screwing you over for some utilitarian concept of the greater good, and then for another, you could end up getting executed a thing that eventually ends up being good *long-*term that no one but you could see as a long-term consequence. Consequentialism requires an objective measurement of outcomes (which you do not have) and a means to predict the future (which you do not have). > It's the return of Darwin and evil... It's the return of someone stealing your beer because they figure that they'd enjoy it more than you. robert_strange_mcnamara.jpg