[deertick1]

And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet.

I've a friend who believes net suffering should be reduced and that is the highest moral goal. To the point that he thinks we should evebtually force everyone to rewire their nueral pathways in order to prevent the sensation of sufferring.

Went on a canoe trip with this same guy, and another friend got trapped between their canoe and a tree and was in danger of drowning if we did not help him quickly. Philosopher friend just stood by and watched and when I asked him about it later he said that he was barefoot and running across the rocks induced him into suffering and he felt it was immoral to continue.

Yeah, fuck that.

[blacksmith_tb]

Your friend does sound insufferable, yes. But I don't think it's quite fair to Mr. Singer, whatever you think of his arguments, to say he merely 'fancies himself' a moral philosopher - it is his day job... [1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

[mandmandam]

He ought to get better at it then.

He makes no mention of the riots that would ensue, the extreme data privacy issues, the medical ethics involved in sticking people without their consent, or the fact that these governments and companies have abysmal track records with involuntary medical experimentation.

[elefanten]

1. Riots are manageable. Rollout strategy would have a lot of impact on the severity of backlash.

2. Data privacy issues marginal, not particularly unique. It’s an extant, broader problem that should be addressed but isn’t a reason to refrain from vaccination.

3. Laws and regulations don’t require individual consent. Again it’s marginal: the state already requires / bans various behaviors related to the bodies / health of individual citizens.

4. Involuntary experimentation is a minuscule / out-dated problem in the present. And it’s a non sequitur from vaccinating the population.

[mandmandam]

1. Well that's not ominous at all. Glad that resistance is "manageable".

2. Data privacy experts disagree, as does the WHO special envoy on COVID.

3. Medical ethics do, in fact, demand individual consent. As do human rights.

4. Ha. https://www.somo.nl/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Examples-of-u... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio... , Guantanamo etc.

... And when you have everyone vaccinated, then what? Are you going to vaccinate Africa, for free? Are you going to vaccinate the deer, and all our pets too? The mice??? And give them all boosters? What's the end game here?

[jacobsenscott]

He's not a philosopher, he's a psychopath. Someone drowning creates more suffering than one loser running on rocks.

[claudiawerner]

I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that.

[claudiawerner]

I think that's a rather quick judgement on moral philosophers as a whole based on the experience of someone who didn't even take the time to think through utilitarianism (one of the most controversial topics in moral philosophy) from the description you gave. I wouldn't be too quick to judge a major branch of philosophy like that.

I wouldn't judge the whole field of software engineering based on an intern's Java code either - and I likely wouldn't judge the field even based on an expert's Java code.

[kaczordon]

Sounds like the movie Equilibrium:

In an oppressive future where all forms of feeling are illegal, a man in charge of enforcing the law rises to overthrow the system and state.

[cultofmetatron]

reminds me of one of the characters in "the good place"

[golemotron]

> And this is why I think people who fancy thenselves moral philosophers are some of the most insufferable people on the planet.

Yes. It's just subjective preferences masquerading as truth.