[trough]

The article is nothing more than a rant. That is absolutely okay as long as it encapsulates some beautifully written outrage and at least some portion of self aware wit. Neither of those were detectable while reading. As a philosopher myself (though I left the university many moons ago), this is unfortunately the de facto standard of internet philosophy,

The field seems to attract mostly curious people and overthinkers but also a very vocal minority of people that don’t seek answers or even very good questions but want to ramble in a seemingly eloquent way about very broad topics - so broad that philosophers seldom dare to write books about them without decades of sincere chipping at academic details under their belt.

This blog post I just dragged myself to read until the end has nothing to do with philosophy - that’s not a dig at the author, more at the audience which assumes that a post about moral philosophy obviously has to be philosophy. By typing this out I hope to be able to illustrate the logical error that lead to this top comment along its children.

It’s just a blog post that was obviously crafted with a certain audience in mind and more of a cheeky rambling than an honest attempt to talk about moral philosophy in a way that transcends the discussion of pretty well read people with too many alcohol in them at the ugly and tired end of a drawn out social event.

The rant is at times funny to read because of the use of so many exclamation marks, italics and whatnot. I imagined a person gesturing wildly with a counterpart gasping in the pauses to try for a rebuttal but finally nodding apathetically while swaying his glass of wine.

TL,DR: This is not philosophy but a blog post and you guys should keep that in mind while discussing its content.