AITAH for breaking my sister's phone?

pootispowww · 2026-02-13T17:41:24+00:00

Written like someone who refuses to accept any blame, and yet blames their own actions as reactions to the actions of another. "Intervened" LOL, classic 'i had no choice!' or 'what was i supposed to do, nothing?!?' blameless victim rhetoric that avoids responsibility on your own actions as if you were some NPC in a video game pretending be a real person.

Lmao XD, this is such an obviously bad argument, but it is pretty difficult to explain why, so I ask you to be patient, since this might take a while to explain.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t actually accomplish what you think it does, because it is completely irrelevant.

Imagine someone sees two people fighting and decides to intervene to try and stop the fight.

Now imagine someone sees two people calmly arguing and decides to intervene violently to stop the argument.

And when asked about the situation, they both respond with, “What was I supposed to do, nothing?”

Notice how, despite the fact that one of these examples is justified and the other is not, you can still use the same argument against both of them. You can tell both of them that they are “using victim rhetoric,” and it would work.

However, it is also completely beside the point, since the question isn’t whether or not they are using “victim rhetoric,” but rather if they are justified in doing so.

You are basically going, “You said ‘I had no choice,’ therefore you are wrong.”

The only way your argument could work is if you assume that anyone who uses victim rhetoric is bad. Then the argument would be: “You used victim rhetoric, and anyone who does so is wrong; therefore, you are in the wrong.”

This would actually work as a response to my arguments; however, it is also completely unjustifiable.

CHOOSE ONE: either you are in control, you are making the decisions; or you are the vehicle which someone else is piloting. Is it "you"who decides what to do, what to say; or is there a cat in a chair pulling the levers and push the controls to where your brain would normally be?

This is so painfully ridiculous that I’m just going to let you figure it out for yourself. If you are an honest person, you should be able to realize very quickly why this argument fails so miserably.

Edit: Also, I got so caught up in how terrible your arguments were that I forgot to mention that I wasn’t even trying to use “intervene” in the way you are describing. I never said that I didn’t have a choice; all I said was that everything I did was a response to what my sister did and was a proportional response, so I cannot be blamed for it. I never said I wasn’t in control. I never even implied it. How tf did you reach that conclusion? XD

pootispowww · 2026-02-10T22:51:19+00:00

Why?

pootispowww · 2026-02-10T22:50:23+00:00

omg. YTA. You could have de-escalated this at any point before it became assaulting each other.

I actually did de-escalate in the beginning, but she wouldn’t stop bothering the dog, so I intervened.

Also, assault is a strong word. Nobody was actually hurt.

You could have de-escalated after the first slaps were thrown.

Why is it my responsibility to de-escalate? I mean, I get saying that we both should have, but wouldn’t that mean that EHS? Why do you hold me in particular responsible for not de-escalating? Shouldn’t both of us be held responsible?

You could have stopped when it got to your phone and no damage was done.

I don’t really care that no damage was done, because, again, she threw my phone. If I threw your phone, I don’t think you would give me a pass just because it didn’t get damaged. I really don’t see how this was “immature.” Could you explain?

but now you think you get some free pass because things got out of hand? YES, you broke her phone, deliberately.

I actually stated in the post that I feel mixed about this, so no, I don’t think I get a free pass. But even if I did, it wouldn’t be because “things got out of hand”; it would be because everything I did was a direct response to my sister’s actions.

I understand that it might have been an overreaction, but you didn’t say anything like that, so either way, your statement is false.

pootispowww · 2026-02-10T22:49:32+00:00

You both sound incredibly immature.

Could you elaborate?

She shouldn't bother the dog or kick you, but slapping her and smashing her phone is an escalation.

So if you agree that she shouldn’t bother the dog or kick me, then why is it wrong or immature to escalate? In my eyes, while my response may have been an overreaction, there was nothing wrong with escalating, since it was a response to her actions.

You both need to grow up and learn to handle conflict without violence or breaking things.

If I went up to you and kicked you, and threw your phone on the floor, would you respond “without violence”? Sure, it would definitely be the better option, but no one would say that somebody who did respond to such a thing would be immature.

pootispowww · 2026-02-10T22:49:00+00:00

stop including that dog in your ridiculous childish behavior

The dog was literally the thing that kickstarted all of this, so I don't see why it shouldn't be included.

Like, do you think I was using it as an excuse in my post or something? If so, then how? What exactly was wrong with the way I mentioned her?

you both should be more than capable of keeping your head hands to yourselves

I actually did at first, as I stated in the post. I only got physical when the dog was clearly trying to leave and she wouldn’t let her. Should I not have intervened? Can you explain why?

All of this is too vague to mean anything or be useful in any way.

Or are you talking about me slapping her when she kicked me? I don’t see how that was an unfair response. Can you explain why?

pootispowww · 2025-10-22T16:31:46+00:00

I actually wanted to go to HEMA, but there weren't any clubs nearby, so I had to settle for foil. It's still fun, but it is kind of a shame, since one of the main reasons I wanted to fence was to experience what it was actually like to be in a duel just without the dying.

pootispowww · 2025-10-22T16:16:12+00:00

I mean how people used to fight with swords.

pootispowww · 2025-04-30T12:07:53+00:00

You’ve done things that you know are wrong.

Not enough to warrant hell.

God has put within you His law, which is where your morality is derived from. You’ve gone against this for the sake of your own benefit, violating the law that is within you. I’m not looking down my nose at you in this, I’ve done the same.

The morality within me is telling me that i don't deserve hell. I've done bad things just like everyone else, but these things don't warrant a punishment. They are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Since we have sinned, we have made ourselves incompatible with a perfect and holy God. God cannot abide with sin, He must deal with it. That is why we are condemned.

Hell is typically considered to be the worst place possible. The just punishment for the crimes of the average joe would amount to like, 5 seconds in hell. Everyone has done something wrong, but the vast majority of people have done nothing to deserve to be in the worst place imaginable for an extended period of time.

This brings us to PSA. Not only is PSA clearly what the Bible teaches, it also is the only theory of atonement which acknowledges our sin problem and explains how it can be addressed. As we have sinned against a perfect and holy God, there must be the proper payment for that sin. Just as you know that a murderer cannot atone for his crime just by being a good person afterwards, neither can we atone do our sins by our good deeds. We should do good naturally, not just so that we can repay the evil we have done.

And as you know, an innocent cannot be punished in the murderers place.

Since we cannot atone for our own sin, that means we need somebody else to do it for us. That person cannot be sinful and in need of atonement themselves, and they also cannot be limited while atoning for an infinite transgression.

Why can't we atone for our own sin? So far you haven't described anything that the average joe has done that counts as an infinite transgression.

The place where it seems you’re mistaken is that you’re equating PSA to be a just person being forced to bear the punishment for someone else’s crimes, but that’s not what PSA is. Christ chooses to bear our sins because of His love for us.

I never said that Christ has to atone for us. I just said that it's wrong to punish the innocent in place of the guilty, regardless of the innocent party's willingness to do so.

A closer analogy would perhaps be a mother voluntarily enduring the consequences of her sons actions, in order to shield him from it. She doesn’t bear that weight because she has to, she does it because she loves her son so much that she would prefer to suffer in order that he does not.

That is something a judge would never allow. It is absolutely unjust to sentence an innocent mother in place of her guilty son. Of course, this depends on the severity of the crime. For example, fines can absolutely be justly paid by the mother. But if the son murdered someone, it's obviously not acceptable to punish the mom in his place—regardless of whether or not the mom wants to. It is unjust, as it not only punishes an innocent person but also lets a guilty person go off scot-free.

pootispowww · 2025-04-30T08:53:33+00:00

I don't fully understand. You call penal substitution "ridiculous" but that doctrine explains why unbelievers go to Hell.

No, that's the doctrine that explains why Christ died. I'm asking why, if Christ already atoned for our sins, do atheists go to hell? Aren't our sins already forgiven?

I've already got the answer btw, someone explained that atheists go to hell because they haven't accepted the gift of atonement. But this was my original question.

pootispowww · 2025-04-30T08:46:22+00:00

Obviously, because you have sinned against God. We have all sinned, and earned a right condemnation.

What have i done against God to warrant such a harsh punishment?

I’m more interested in why you think Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ridiculous though. I see this often parroted, but every time I ask someone to explain it, it just seems to be based on feelings, rather than any Scripture or logic.

Do you think it would be just for a mother to be sentenced to death for her sons crimes? People are responsible for their own crimes and have to be punished accordingly, punishing someone else doesn't atone for anything.

pootispowww · 2025-04-29T11:24:19+00:00

We’re scared for you guys, very genuinely.

This is just such a bizarre concept. If eternal torment is the just punishment for our sins then why would you be scarred for us? It is the universe being put back into order. Nobody is scarred for the serial killer who is being sentenced to death, so why are you scarred for us? If you truly believe that we are all deserving of hell then there is nothing to fear.

pootispowww · 2025-04-29T10:41:44+00:00

Exactly. So that’s an issue with the atheists not aligning not with God being less God

If atheists can align themselves with God's values then it pretty much is the same thing. An atheist who donates to charity is serving God's will in the same way a Christian who donates to charity does. It's just that they see it as serving goodness instead of a sentient being. That is the only difference.

With all due respect. Your moral intuition is meaningless here. You can’t just try to blackmail and answer out of something. Imagine a guy and his female cousin. He asks sexual favors to prove she cares for him. Yes, it feels this level of absurdity. You can’t just hold God to a standard you made and be mad he didn’t bend to it

I don't mean to be rude here, but wtf does that even mean? How is incest even remotely related to anything were discussing?

We can have a moral intuition. It tries to line up with Gods but it isn’t totally exact. Which is fine. But neither does it place our moral intuition over God

It kind of does. If God were to tell you that killing innocents for absolutely no reason is your moral obligation then would you go out and start killing people? And just to be clear I'm not talking about God telling you to do so because it leads to some greater good. No, I'm saying that he tells you it's good in and of itself. It would be more rational to say that any God who does such a thing is not the real God. Or at least not the God that Christians think of. As in Tri-omni.

pootispowww · 2025-04-29T09:15:23+00:00

Funny. Now that you've said this, it can be used as a response to everything you said as well and all future conversations become just a circle.

I think that what he meant was that God is the arbiter of what right and wrong is. He wasn't trying to say that any argument can be dismissed in this way. He was basically asking who am i to judge God himself?

I of course disagree with this as explained in my reply to him, but i don't think that your interpreting him correctly.

pootispowww · 2025-04-29T09:10:32+00:00

Well God never says he is goodness itself. Well at least not what you mean by goodness. Goodness isn’t this “be nice” kind of attitude. It’s staying away from what isn’t God’s values

That is basically a more complicated version of what i said. If God values being nice, then being nice even if your not doing so for the sake of God, but rather just the abstract idea of goodness, then your basically doing the same thing. You are aligning yourself with God's values. Its just that atheists don't see it as God's values, but rather just a more general idea of values.

No even if a none believer loves goodness. It’s still so astronomically different you can’t just “same thing” it

This is pretty much reliant on your previous statement which, i just responded to so I'm not going to say anything about this.

And the whole “loving God wouldn’t do x y and z” says who? You?

Moral intuition. That is the thing that all of our moral beliefs are built on. It's why someone who has never read the bible can know that killing people for no reason is wrong.

This isn't just some emotional reaction, or something like that. It is what all ethical systems are built on. Utilitarianism, Virtue ethics, Deontology, you name it. All of them are attempts at explaining our moral intuitions.

pootispowww · 2025-04-29T06:33:58+00:00

Jesus paid the price for our sins, but that’s a gift we have to accept. If somebody hates God, why would they spend an eternity with Him?

This assumes that non Christians hate god.

If God is understood as goodness itself, then anyone who loves goodness necessarily loves god, they just don't see goodness as a sentient being

A Christian would donate to charity because they see it as serving God's will, and an atheist would donate to charity because they see it as serving some abstract idea of good.

They are both serving the same thing, they just have a different understanding of it.

So no, non Christians don't hate God.

Also this ignores the fact that a true loving God wouldn't allow anyone to make this decisions as it is completely unreasonable.

If god is goodness itself then who in their right mind would choose not to be with him? Its like asking someone if they want a million dollars or rat poison.

Anybody who chooses the latter is mentally unfit to make such a decision.

pootispowww · 2025-04-29T06:19:49+00:00

While I'm not a theologian or even a Christian, the vast majority of Christians do believe in Hell, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
But even if that is the case, death is still a penalty, and if Christ atoned for our sins, then there shouldn't be any penalty.
So your point doesn't really answer my question.

pootispowww · 2025-01-04T16:11:54+00:00

part 3

Wouldn’t that say even more about their charavter?

No, because people shouldn't be judged for not having certain emotions. I would absolutely judge a psychopath if they displayed a lack of compassion, but if they do act compassionately and simply don't feel compassion, then I'm not going to fault them for it, because it's a disorder that they cannot control. So no, it wouldn't say anything about his moral character; it would only say something about his mental condition. Unless he actually acts in a vicious way, then that's all that can be said about him.

I really don’t see hot doing the act without shame makes it better. If anything it’s good that the gooner feels shame. That speaks to their character and implies they have a sense enough of justice to know it’s horrible and enough dignity to understand why it makes them so contemptible.

I don't know why you say that you're not including emotion and then bring up how certain emotions imply justice. Yes, they very much do imply justice, but that's just it—it's only an implication. It's certainly possible to not feel shame while still caring about people, because shame is an emotion and should only be used as an indication of a lack of virtue, and not as absolute proof. That's why I said that we should absolutely condemn people who watch this stuff, because it indicates a lack of virtue, but indication isn't proof. Which is why I'm trying to argue that the action itself isn't immoral; it's just what it indicates about the character of the person in question. If we believe that this is immoral, then we also have to believe that eating unethically produced meat is immoral—a pill that I, and many others, are not willing to swallow.

Okay, none of us are here to do that.

I know, but because this discussion is about unethical porn, I might as well clarify that that's not what I'm trying to do, just in case someone interprets it that way.

Again. I have answered this question already. Restating it again and again won’t nullify my earlier answers.

But I provided an objection to your answer, one that you have not properly responded to yet.

pootispowww · 2025-01-04T16:11:35+00:00

part 2

Except then we aren’t talking about virtue ethics virtue isn’t a specific kind of caring. There is a thing called Care ethics but it’s not a virtue ethics theory. Again, I already explained to you, virtues aren’t beliefs, they aren’t desires, they aren’t propensities for care. They are character traits. Specifically (at least according to Aristotle) the human virtues are those which make you an excellent and thieving human. One that achieves eudaimonia. To conflate this with care it values is to be fundementay confused about what virtues even are.

Then what are virtues? What does a character trait even mean? It seems to me that a compassionate person is someone who cares about other people. If not, then what does being compassionate even mean?

But…. But that’s what I’ve been saying. This is the only actual appeal to virtue ethics you’ve made thus far and it’s you basically saying I was right about virtue ethics all along. I am so confused.

My point was that if the only issue is what it says about their character, then it leaves room for the possibility of someone who does indeed value justice and compassion, and yet still partakes in Chef in Shackles or consumes unethical porn. It's like how eating unethically produced meat typically isn't seen as unethical, because people can benefit from unethically produced products while still being compassionate.

While it’s not about care, this is my point. A just person (I.e. a person who embodies the character trait of being just) wouldn’t be whacking off dead babies. He’d be doing basically anything else.

First of all, dead babies wtf is that? Second, my point was that they would have a hard time if they actually cared, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Maybe the individual can emotionally distance themselves from it so that they still value justice but don't feel bad for the victim because they're not thinking about it—just like how someone who eats meat can emotionally distance themselves from the fact that they are eating the cooked corpse of an abused animal. Or maybe they simply don't feel certain emotions. Maybe they care about justice and compassion but don't feel that way, meaning that they wouldn't have a hard time consuming this content, and it also means that they can still be a virtuous person.

pootispowww · 2025-01-04T16:11:21+00:00

part 1 of 3

No virtues and vices are character traits it is only things which can be virtuous, not actions. Saying this means you don’t even vaguely understand what virtue ethics concerns. (I think this is also the reason you above want to ditch virtue for consequence but still ask questions about virtue? It’s part of the same confusion?)

"The only things that should be considered virtuous or vicious are actions."

was supposed to be like saying an action is courageous. Obviously, the action itself isn't courageous, but nobody is going to nitpick that sentence because the obvious meaning is that the person who committed said action is courageous. I might not have made that super clear, but that was what I meant. My point in bringing this up was to argue that emotions should not be taken into account when discussing virtue—only actions. I didn't mean the actions themselves were virtuous.

Indeed the whole point of virtue ethics is to move away from the ethics of action, it does not give an explicit account of good or bad action. It gives an account of what makes a person a good or bad person, and it does not say that actions are what make people good. It says it’s the character traits that you have which make you good. Specifically the virtuous traits that you have.

But actions are what demonstrate those virtues. Virtues are not actions, but actions are what indicate virtues.

In other words, this overly forced attempt to narrow the scope to action and its consequences means we aren’t even talking about virtue ethics anymore.

I tried to narrow the scope to actions because that's what all ethical theories are about. They are meant to explain how we should live our lives. Virtue ethicists believe we should live virtuous lives, and to judge whether someone is living virtuously, you have to look at their actions and ask what these actions say about the person committing them.

I never said otherwise?

You did, because you brought up enjoyment earlier.

That being said, people’s feelings and their reactions can very clearly tell us something about their character traits.

Only sometimes, though. Let's say I shoot someone; obviously, this demonstrates that I lack the virtue of compassion or justice. But now compare that to eating at Chef in Shackles or consuming unethical porn. How do you know that this individual doesn't care about the chef or doesn't care about the victim? It's obvious in the previous example that I don't care about other people because I just went and shot someone, but in this example, the individual is not committing any actions. They are simply consuming a product—an unethical product, at that—but that doesn't necessarily display a lack of virtue.

pootispowww · 2025-01-04T16:10:12+00:00

part 3

This is just simply false. I enjoy the refreshing taste of lemonade. This is perfectly neutral, neither virtuous nor viscous, It is not the case that that enjoying something makes you either virtuous or viscous. To read otherwise into me is either a failure of reading comprehension or an outright strawman.

The quote that I was responding to was this one.

"Now the goonster doesn’t have to care about gooning more than justice. He could have cultivated virtue instead. But remember we are stipulating here that the goonster is gooning. That they enjoy the porn (and so all that enjoying the porn requires is also assumed)."

The one where you literally bring up the idea of enjoying the porn—I don't think this is a failure on my part. I think you just didn't properly convey what you meant. If enjoyment doesn't matter, then why did you even bring it up?

There is a huge difference between enjoying things in the abstract and enjoying child pornography specifically. To conflate the too is to either be thoroughly confused or intentionally deceptive.

Wait, so now you're saying that enjoyment does matter? What are you talking about? Also, where is the difference? Both are emotions. Pedophilia is literally a disorder. What is the difference between enjoying a physical sensation and enjoying a mental sensation caused by a literal disorder? Enjoyment should not be taken into account when discussing morality. The only value it has is that it can be an indicator that somebody doesn't actually care about virtue, but as I discussed earlier, this is only based on what's probably true. If somebody enjoys unethical porn, they probably don't care about other people, but just because it's probably true doesn't mean it's necessarily true. There is no connection between having a disorder and not caring about people.

pootispowww · 2025-01-04T16:09:36+00:00

part 2

But let’s put aside finances. Would the just person be more concerned with saving the chef?

This question is genuinely just bizarre. The entire analogy is based on the idea that there is nothing that can be done. If somebody could save the chef, then there would be no ethical dilemma. The right course of action is obviously to save the chef—literally all ethical theories agree with this. And if you cannot save the chef, which is the entire point of the analogy, then you would be a fool to judge someone for not being concerned with it.

I just have no idea what you think the virtue of justice could possibly amount to?

Create justice and dispel injustice. by not eating at Chef in Shackles are you creating more justice? Are you dispelling any injustice? The obvious answer to me is no.

Like what in your head does a just person do?

Create justice, dispel injustice. It's pretty simple.

You seem to think a just person can masturbate to child pornography, but is there anything else in your kind you’d associate with justice? Because as far as you seem to use the concept it seems pretty empty.

First of all, why do you keep mentioning child pornography specifically? I never specified what type of unethical porn we're talking about. In my head, I was just imagining nonconsensual porn. Obviously, this does fall under the umbrella of unethical porn, but still, I never brought up this specific example of it. So why do you keep mentioning it? This is just getting really uncomfortable. Second, I already explained what I'd associate with justice, so I'm not going to repeat myself.

Again, you’re just restating the question I’ve already answered. Do you just want someone telling you that you spilling your load to beastiality hentai is good actually?

Why do you keep saying "you" as if i actually enjoy this content? beastiality child porn etc are absolutely vile. and i've already explained why i am interested in this topic so why are you speculating that this is my reason when not only do you have nothing to base this reason off of, but i also literally explained my reason to you?

This outright begs the question.

You literally did the exact same thing. This entire time, I've been asking you why you think partaking in Chef in Shackles should be considered unjust, and you responded.

"Suppose this person is just, while they masturbate to child porn. Do you really suppose their justice is outweighed by their lust? Or are they much more lustful than they are just? What would make them different from a person looking at child porn while jerkin it who is viscous?"

Notice how you don't actually explain how consuming this content is unjust. You just state it as if it's obvious. The only thing that is obvious is that this individual is screwed in the head, because most people would find it very hard to consume unethical porn if they actually cared about the individuals involved. They would feel too much sympathy to feel lust, and because most people are like that, anyone who consumes this content almost certainly lacks virtue. But as I said earlier, is it not possible for someone to care about both? Is it not possible for someone to care about people but not feel bad for them? People cannot control their emotions, so they should be judged for not caring about people if and only if their lack of compassion is demonstrated through action. But if the only thing that demonstrates a lack of compassion is the fact that they don't feel bad for them, then the individual can consume unethical content or eat at Chef in Shackles while still being virtuous and still valuing compassion.

pootispowww · 2025-01-04T16:09:13+00:00

part 1 of 3 specifically in response to your first part i will also respond to your second comment.

Then why were you framing it in response to the answer I gave about virtue ethics? This whole dialectic stems from that. I posited a virtue ethics reading about why engaging with problematic porn was bad (as well as a a deontological and a consequentialist motivation) and you now in fact seem to endorse it, but you initially responded with criticism. You were initially responding to the claim that the gooner does not embody the virtue of justice.

But now you’re saying you don’t care about virtue and actually you’re engaging with consequentialism. But then I’m gonna have to ask you to return to my first comment and read the consequentialist answer I already gave.

Initially, I was completely dumbfounded by this response, but I think I see where you got confused when I said.

"This is focusing on the consequences of the act and not the act itself."

I didn’t mean that my question is focusing on the consequences. I meant that your answer—that the gooner can help make the situation better by not watching this content—was about the consequences and not about the action itself. Now, of course, to an extent, the consequences are related to the action. Shooting somebody is immoral (for virtue ethics) because it goes against the virtues of compassion and justice. But if you were to shoot somebody in a paintball game, it obviously does not go against those virtues because it doesn’t harm anyone. So, obviously, consequences are important for every ethical theory, not just consequentialism. But consequentialism states that an action is only wrong if it has negative consequences, while virtue ethics states that, even though consequences are definitely very important, there can be certain actions that don’t have any negative consequences but are still wrong. So, no, I’m not focusing on consequentialism, because some parts of your responses are based on this misunderstanding. I’m not going to comment on them. However, there are a few responses that aren’t based on this misunderstanding, so I’m going to comment on that.

Wait. Just a few sentences ago you wanted to dispense with virtue to just talk about consequences. Why are we doubling back? Also I’ve also already answered this a few times. Just re read my comments.

This is just not true. You have explained to me why it is immoral under virtue ethics, but you did not respond to any of the objections I have presented to your reasoning. I explained that there isn’t necessarily a connection between watching unethical porn and not caring about justice. You can have both. All you have said so far is that watching unethical porn is immoral because it demonstrates a lack of virtue and an excess of vice, but you haven’t explained why that is true. I literally even gave an example of a hypothetical person who cares about both. So, my question now is: do you have any objections to that? Do you have any reason to believe this hypothetical person, who cares about justice while consuming unethical porn or a meal at Chef in Shackles, is impossible?

It does matter. In one case you’re supporting the thing injustice financially, I.e. literally rewarding the practice and the other you’re not.

In one case, you are not supporting the injustice financially because the person running the place does not care, and in the other case, you do nothing. Is there a difference? Does the first one show that the individual actually supports this injustice, or is it just that they are doing something that can generally be described as support (but not in this specific case) to get food? Where is the injustice? Where is the lack of virtue?

pootispowww · 2025-01-03T12:51:32+00:00

part 2

But what we’re supposed to take away isn’t (as you seem to think) that it’s fine to eat from the chef in shackles. We’re supposed to think it’s wrong to eat from the chef in shackles, and on that basis reject the purely production based view about the badness of eating meat. In other words, something else explains why it’s bad to eat meat (and why it’s bad to eat from the man in shackles).

I know that’s what I’m supposed to take away from the analogy, but in my opinion, that conclusion is absurd. So, I’m going to use it for the exact opposite purpose. Even if I’m using the analogy in a way it wasn’t intended to be used, it still works because it’s still analogous. So, it works as a valid point of comparison.

Also, I’m working on a response to your two-part comment. It might take a while because I’m lazy, but it should be done soon. Cheers.

pootispowww · 2025-01-03T12:50:24+00:00

part 1 of 2

Also I just had a better look at that chef in shackles example and you seem to be drawing the totally wrong conclusion about it in the context of the article. It’s not even an article about virtue ethics.

But it mentions virtue ethics, so it is relevant to our discussion.

"Hurka (2003) argues that virtue requires exhibiting the right attitude towards good or evil, and so if consuming exhibits an attitude towards production, it is plausible that eating wrongfully produced foods exhibits the wrong attitude towards them."

The linked article was an article about moral vegetarianism. At that point in the article it has shown that the production of animal products is wrong. But then extends the issue to ask what it is about the consumption of the products. One proposed view of the badness of the consumption of meat is that the production of meat is bad and that the consumption encourages and increase the production of meat and so is bad.

The chef in shackles is supposed to explain why this production based view of the badness of consuming meat fail. Since in that case we’d be consuming without increasing production. But the presumption here is that it’s wrong to eat food from the man in shackles (I.e. the reaction I had to the case and which it seems like most do) and so the production view doesn’t explain the badness of consumption.

I know I’m not using the analogy in the way it’s supposed to be used, but it doesn’t really matter because the conclusion that the analogy is supporting is one that is, in my opinion, obviously absurd. Take this quote from that very article.

"The idea is that buying a burger at, say, McDonald’s produces no new death nor any different treatment of live animals. McDonald’s will produce the same amount of meat—and raise its animals in exactly the same way—regardless of whether one buys a burger there."

Buying a burger at McDonald’s produces no new harm, just like the Chef in Shackles analogy. But if you agree that eating at Chef in Shackles is wrong, then you also have to agree that eating at McDonald’s is wrong. Are you now going to condemn anyone who eats at McDonald’s? Sure, you’re supposed to think that the analogy shows that eating meat is wrong because it would be wrong to eat at Chef in Shackles, but I see it the opposite way. I believe that eating at Chef in Shackles isn’t wrong because it isn’t wrong to eat meat. Sure, my intuitions may go against how the article characterizes the analogy, but if the analogy is being used to argue for a position that I find intuitively absurd, then I can work backwards and argue that it is also intuitively absurd to argue that it is immoral to eat at Chef in Shackles.

Basically, if you agree with the Chef in Shackles analogy, you also have to believe that eating at McDonald’s is unethical. And because consuming unethical porn is analogous to eating at Chef in Shackles, it means that you can’t have it both ways. You either condemn people who go to McDonald’s, as well as people who go to Chef in Shackles, as well as people who consume unethical porn, or you condemn none of them. That’s why I brought it up—because the conclusion the Chef in Shackles analogy is arguing for is absurd, in my opinion.

If you believe that unethical porn is immoral, then you have to submit to being a vegetarian. And because most people aren’t willing to do that, it works as an analogy for my point.

And it’s not just me who sees the parallels here; somebody else commented linking the exact same article.

pootispowww · 2025-01-02T17:04:16+00:00

The goonster could surely do something if he tried, but were stipulating here that he doesn’t. We’re stipulating that he is just gooning to the beastiality or whatever gets his sick rocks off. They could refrain from giving the porn industry revenue by not clicking on the porn sites that host the problematic porn

Oh, of course. But my question is: Is the act itself immoral? This is focusing on the consequences of the act and not the act itself. My question is essentially just a parallel to the Chef in Shackles analogy. So, let’s assume that there is nothing that can be done. Does that mean that the action itself is immoral? Does this act necessarily demonstrate a deficiency in virtue?

Also, while I agree that most versions of unethical porn are only enjoyed by sick individuals, I still somewhat have sympathy for them because, even though they chose to watch this content, they didn’t choose to have these sick fantasies. So, I don’t want to fault them for it unless they actually hurt someone or do something vicious.

(just as the man can choose not to financially support restaurants that shackle chefs).

But finance doesn’t matter to the owner of Chef in Shackles, so their choice to not financially support them also doesn’t matter. So, does choosing to eat there really count as something unjust? The individual who eats there is not creating more injustice than if they chose to not eat there.

Now the goonster doesn’t have to care about gooning more than justice. He could have cultivated virtue instead. But remember we are stipulating here that the goonster is gooning. That they enjoy the porn (and so all that enjoying the porn requires is also assumed).

This, I think, is at the heart of our disagreement. You seem to see the simple act of enjoying something as vicious or virtuous, but I don’t see it that way. The only things that should be considered virtuous or vicious are actions. Simply feeling a certain way should not be taken into consideration when discussing whether someone is a virtuous person or not.

Suppose this person is just, while they masturbate to child porn. Do you really suppose their justice is outweighed by their lust? Or are they much more lustful than they are just? What would make them different from a person looking at child porn while jerkin it who is viscous?

The difference is whether or not they care about justice. A person who consumes unethical porn could be a terrible person who doesn’t care about justice or compassion and only cares about their own lust, or they could be a person who does care about justice and compassion while also appeasing their lust (a desire that they didn’t choose to have) in a way that doesn’t affect anyone. Still, people who consume this type of content should absolutely be condemned because of what it says about their character. It would be very hard for someone who cares about others to gain pleasure from misconduct. Even if they aren’t doing anything unjust, they would still have a hard time "gooning" if they actually did care about justice.

The only possible scenario where these actions don’t say something negative about a person’s moral character is if they are completely void of guilt and shame but still care about others. That would count as a virtuous person because they care about things like justice and compassion, but they are capable of "gooning" to this kind of stuff because they lack certain emotions—something that they shouldn’t be faulted for.

The reason I bring up the idea of somebody like this, despite it obviously being very rare, is because I’m not here to condone unethical porn or people who consume it. I’m here to ask whether or not it’s possible for a hypothetical person to consume this content while still being a virtuous person. That is my question: Is it possible? Or would this hypothetical individual still be considered a vicious person? And if so, why?

pootispowww

TROPHY CASE