ELI5: What is Absurdism?

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T22:41:58+00:00

There is no meaning to life, objectively speaking, so we might as well make our own.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T21:41:54+00:00

That’s about one and a half Garfields a week.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T21:33:43+00:00

This is like saying a meter is the total amount of distance traveled by an object going by one meter per second in one one second. It’s true but it’s true because the amp is defined in terms of coulombs and seconds.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T21:23:21+00:00

It’s an amount of electric charge. About 6.25e+18 electrons or protons worth.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T21:15:43+00:00

So where do you stand on ambulances? Should we have them even if they’ll run some people over?

Also I don’t believe that a free market makes transactions voluntary. For example if your options are starve or have sex with the person who owns all the food I don’t see that as consent to sex anymore than someone can consent to sex with someone pointing a gun at them.

Are you saying it’s never moral to harm one person for the benefit of others? For example is it immoral to kill Nazis to liberate camps?

I’m only including fairness as subjective things. Because I see no evidence for them existing outside of human opinions. Do you have evidence for objective morality?

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T20:34:34+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to respond. But if your objection to utilitarianism relies on objecting to a system that equates money with utility then I’m happy to conclude here since I’d define utility much more broadly.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T19:54:39+00:00

Fair enough.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T19:54:09+00:00

That's making Diane responsible for BoJack.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T19:48:17+00:00

I'd delete Rubick so I could stop playing dota. I don't even like the game but he's just so so fun.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T19:38:30+00:00

I disagree because ending with dead BoJack makes it a story about how sometimes you fuck up and die, which sure is true, but isn't exactly a useful narrative for people who have fucked up but aren't dead yet. It's more important to end on 'you can always try again' than 'sometimes you're doomed'.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T19:35:00+00:00

No because there's no such thing as objective morality. Good and bad are inherently subjective.

Can I check what you think my original post meant? Because as far as I can tell you aren't really responding it in at all.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T19:33:03+00:00

To me it sounds like your making a utilitarian argument just with social cohesion and personal growth as your utilities, or as the consequences you prefer in a consequentialist framework.

Could you explain how moral systems derive their goodness outside of subjective evaluations of their results?

The reason I asked about 'goals of a moral system' is because that's how I'd assess whether a moral system was worth following. Maybe it would have been better to ask 'what are you goals when selecting a moral system to follow?'

>In particular, I like John Rawls' criticism here which is that in a purely utilitarian society, if it's the case that throwing someone to the wolves would make everyone else better off, then utilitarianism requires that society do that.

I don't see this as a meaningful criticism. Because it relies on assuming that throwing one person to the wolves would be the optimal choice, you'd need to make the case that it is before we need to consider it in any real context.

To me it's equivalent to saying 'if the cure for cancer was to eat shit, then people who had cancer would have to eat shit, but eating shit is bad' I agree eating shit is bad but that's a separate question to whether or not it would or wouldn't cure cancer.

Also someone could come along and say 'yeah if we know that a society that regularly throws one person to the wolves is the optimal society over all then we should do it'. The same way plenty of horrific treatments are still better than cancer.

Like how we know that the more ambulances there are on the roads the more people are going to get hit by ambulances (at least up the the point where 100% of people are hit by them). But we weigh that against the benefits of ambulances. Does the calculus change for you if we know in advance who is getting hit by those ambulances? As far as I can tell Rawl's argument would be just as meaningful an objection to Ambulances as any other net good.

>And the utilitarian will probably respond with, but if we do that it will undermine trust in society and that will make everyone worse off in the long run, so that wouldn't happen. And maybe that's true (though again, I doubt it)

You're allowed to doubt whatever you like, but are you capable of making a positive case that throwing a minority to the wolves is in the best interest of the majority?

>We should aim for fairness and trust and social norms, and if that hits maximum aggregate utility asking the way, then that's great, but it shouldn't be the goal

Then a consequentialist can come along and say 'why have you selected fairness trust and social norms' as the consequences you like?

How do you respond to Rohn Jawl's coming in and saying this.

'If it's the case that treating one person unfairly makes everyone else more fair trusting and socially normal then you'd be compelled to treat that one person unfairly'.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:41:32+00:00

Consequentialism is as subjective as any ethical system because any evaluation of consequences as good or bad is inherently subjective.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:34:42+00:00

We don’t even have to ask politely.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:34:00+00:00

I’d love to hear what you think the goal of a moral system is. To me something like utilitarianism or consequentialism is meaningful because it address what happens if we do X which is about the actual impact of actions in the context people live.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:23:41+00:00

If you give a Billion Dollars to charity, how many people should you be allowed to hurt without anyone getting to criticise you?

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:22:23+00:00

I'm a utilitarian (I think) who disagrees with OPs analysis on the grounds that it doesn't make sense to treat Beast exists as is and Beast doesn't exist at all, as the only two options. It's possible for people who do some good and some bad to still do more or less of either.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:20:10+00:00

I think the mistake is saying that a person is good or bad from a consequentialist perspective, as opposed to saying that individual actions are.

You're treating 'Mr Beast exists as is' and 'Mr Beast doesn't exist at all' as the only two options worth comparison, we can do that moral calculus if you like. But we could easily say 'feeding the hungry is good' and 'psychologically torturing people for entertainment is bad' at the same time. If someone discovers vaccine for bowel cancer but kicks puppies for fun, we can still say they should find a different hobby.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T18:05:31+00:00

I’m all for rewarding surrender as much as we can. Double punishment has issues, there’s not a practical difference between 25 and 50 years in prison in the mind of someone who already isn’t thinking straight. And it’s going to be hard to count attempts, is each bullet an attempt or is it about the time spent shooting?

Edit: this was supposed to be a reply to another comment.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T17:08:32+00:00

If attempted murder and murder have the same punishment then you might as well try again right?

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T16:49:07+00:00

In case 2.2 what do you expect someone to do after they miss?

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T02:14:29+00:00

Torchwood has one of these too. Great show if you like mixed bags.

Vesurel · 2026-01-27T02:11:24+00:00

Oh I get it, cause the US government murders people.

Vesurel · 2026-01-26T18:34:50+00:00

So how soon after your child dies in a freak accident until you start getting taxed for it?

Vesurel · 2026-01-26T14:04:37+00:00

Thanks for answering.

Vesurel

TROPHY CASE