Do you believe the reasons given for social activism, are the real reasons?

Originally posted by ilikecomics
This is consequentialistic thinking, which i find dangerous because not two people have the exact same value structure.

For example, If a murderer kills a man, then it turns out that guy was abusing his wife and stealing from his job, and he had a fat life insurance policy that his wife will get.

The results are 1 less *******, and a previously battered wife becoming a rich widow.

Is this murder justified by the results ?

I would say no, but I value principles, not convenience.

Probably some middleground between giving lunch to a homeless guy and murder

Originally posted by Quincy
Probably some middleground between those Things

Consequentialism is the philosophical equivalent to kintsugi. You break something, then try to patch it up.

Bad analogies aside, it's a rationalization maker.

Communism says to steal from x people to give to y people. Their claim is that the deontological problem of theft is justified by the end goal, which is then never achieved but tens of millions die.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Consequentialism is the philosophical equivalent to kintsugi. You break something, then try to patch it up.

Bad analogies aside, it's a rationalization maker.

Communism says to steal from x people to give to y people. Their claim is that the deontological problem of theft is justified by the end goal, which is then never achieved but tens of millions die.

So is are you saying good deeds shouldnt be done if someone is doing them for what you perceive as The wrong reasons?

Originally posted by Quincy
Another question this poses:

Does a good deed have to be completely altruistic in order to be a good deed?

It does not.

eg When celebrities donate to a charity or worthy cause either financially and/or by bringing awareness and then use it as a photo-op for themselves. Good deed done for a selfish reason, but the end result is still 'x' charity or worthy cause benefited.

Originally posted by Robtard
It does not.

eg When celebrities donate to a charity or worthy cause either financially and/or by bringing awareness and then use it as a photo-op for themselves. Good deed done for a selfish reason, but the end result is still 'x' charity or worthy cause benefited.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yup we can both acknowledge a good deed was done and the person doing it can still be shitty depending on why they did it.

Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos giving donations. Shit people, but good charity, done for the optics.

Originally posted by Robtard
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos giving donations. Shit people, but good charity, done for the optics.

I don't really like that, but charity isnt immoral. So the celebrity charity example is a bad one for what I mean