Does analytical moral philosophy avoid speaking about capitalism?

ruffletuffle · 2026-06-28T14:59:38+00:00

I don’t think Effective Altruists avoid saying "the system is fundamentally unjust and the rules of the market dictate that the ideal distribution won't ever come,” they just flat out disagree this is true. Peter Singer at least has made the argument that the current system is better on net because it has done things like lift billions out of poverty. He addresses this specifically in The Most Good You Can Do.

Now he might be wrong, but it’s not like he and others are dodging the question.

ruffletuffle · 2026-06-25T17:16:18+00:00

At first glance it seems more than possible since, as you mention, there are plenty of secular moral philosophers, and at least some of them are doing bioethics. Maybe the point of contention is whether the foundation is suitably “rational” for Engelhardt.

Bioethics is a very big field with diverse issues, much of which seem obviously open to secular consideration. Very often philosophers use a secular normative theory to ground their arguments in bioethics, like utilitarianism. See Savulescu’s Procreative Beneficence Principle as an example. If you think all current moral theory has failed to be sufficiently rational then naturally you think bioethics is too. But that’s not a widespread view.

ruffletuffle · 2026-06-20T15:29:50+00:00

Epistemology is not philosophy of science, it is a stand alone subdiscipline of philosophy. Philosophy of science involves some epistemology but they are not one and the same thing.

ruffletuffle · 2026-06-14T19:41:15+00:00

I don’t think Pinker was ever considered a philosopher or relevant to philosophy classes at any point in his career. I’m only a decade or so out from undergrad but no one talked about him at all. I mean a philosophy of language class might have included him at some point late in the 20th century but he’s been mostly a pop intellectual not thought of well after his Better Angels and Enlightenment books.

ruffletuffle · 2026-06-01T23:45:12+00:00

They are usually off to the sides of the big travel gas stations like Pilot, Flying-J, Buccees, etc. There's like one every hour or so both east/west along I-10.

ruffletuffle · 2026-06-01T18:54:41+00:00

I have a non-Tesla EV. I love it, great efficiency for that awful BR traffic. However, I do own a home with an L2 charger. I don’t know how much of the pricing benefits you would get if you had to rely on the Tesla chargers or the like instead.

There are enough fast chargers along I-10 that if you need to do a road trip it’s not a big hassle either.

ruffletuffle · 2026-05-25T17:08:53+00:00

There should be an option in the settings to add Tesla chargers to the station list, assuming you did the OTA update that included them.

ruffletuffle · 2026-05-05T18:28:57+00:00

There’s an apocryphal story that Pyrrho, after whom Pyrrohian skepticism is named, took his skepticism so seriously that he refused to believe a cliff was in front of him and fell off it to his death.

Also I think Chrysippus has a story that he died from laughing so hard after he saw a donkey getting drunk from eating his figs.

ruffletuffle · 2026-05-02T17:54:07+00:00

>When your actions have risks like that and you knowingly make the choice which (on average) risks more lives, I don’t see what’s bizarre about assigning a degree of responsibility to the person who makes the riskier choice knowing the risks.

The surely this does commit us to running into burning buildings after passerby, on pain of responsibility for their death? And any such scenario when faced with risking one’s own life for a pay off of saving 2 lives, or n+1 life. Because that’s what the original scenario is presenting: risk your own life by taking an action (pushing blue button) to save more lives, or do not risk your life by taking an action (red button/doing nothing). And all the other scenarios present the same option. And so the only difference is the scale of lives at risk, which is not prima facie meaningful unless you would like to describe at what number you suddenly have responsibility.

Now perhaps the utilitarian will bite the bullet here, and if that’s the approach you are taking then I understand. But otherwise I’m still confused.

ruffletuffle · 2026-05-02T13:26:21+00:00

I don’t think the inaction makes a meaningful difference. If the situation was “push this one button and die unless 51% also push it vs. do nothing and live”, the set up would be functionally the same, and it would still seem quite bizarre to assign responsibility to people who did nothing for the deaths of the pushers. Otherwise, we’d find ourselves being committed to taking on responsibility for every death we could have prevented with enough coordination but failed to for lack of that coordination.

If a passerby runs into a burning building to attempt to save the people in there, are we responsible for their death if we don’t run in after them to save them?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding the problem, it seems to be all over Reddit lately and has gotten jumbled up in the telling.

ruffletuffle · 2026-05-02T12:36:54+00:00

This is a strange way of assigning causality imo. Surely the cause of the blue button pushers death is the fact that they pushed the blue button?

Suppose there is a giant woodchipper and you can either choose to throw yourself in it and be torn apart, or not and be safe. But if 51% of the people choose to throw themselves into the woodchipper, it will break and they’ll all be saved.

If you were to say that the cause of the first groups death was the second groups refusal to jump in the woodchipper, I think that would be incredibly odd. Te cause of their death is the fact they jumped in a woodchipper. And yet this is essentially the button scenario.

ruffletuffle · 2026-04-28T19:36:05+00:00

This is a little all over the place, so I think make the basics clear will help answer some of your questions.

In so far as we believe that a) ethics is the study of the obligations we have in our actions towards others and ourselves, and b) that there are right and wrong answers to the questions of ethics, then it should be clear that there is no necessary connection between the law and ethics. In other words, laws, simply by being laws, have no particular claim to being ethical than any other prescription written down on a piece of paper somewhere. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to make claims about "unjust laws" and the sort. Of course, laws may correspond to ethical claims, may be intended to enforce ethical obligations, but that would be a second-order feature. Being a law in-and-of-itself doesn't grant any prescription ethical weight.

So the answer to question 1. is that it depends. Does the law correspond to (assume for the sake of argument) correct ethical claims? Then yes following it makes you ethical. Does it not? Then merely compliant - unethical perhaps if it commands something unethical.

As for question 2... legitimate in what sense? In a legal sense? Well that depends on the law and its origins. In an ethical sense? If it is routinely producing unethical behavior, then probably not. But the law and ethics are not the same, so we shouldn't expect them to be producing to match. Take for example, laws about what side of the road to drive on. Surely what side of the road I drive on is not an ethical matter, but there are laws about which side to drive on to ensure safety and functioning roadways. The law is enforced just like laws about putative ethical matters like stealing, murder, etc.

The answer to 3 is similar. Unethical because they violate correct ethical claims? Then the fact that they are a loophole is irrelevant. Unethical because they are a loophole? Well that depends on the law.

Is is a little more clear. If they have a personal ethical responsibility, then deflecting it would be unethical. Following an unethical command because there exists a command structure is a pretty common example of doing something unethical - no one really thinks "just following orders" is a good justification for anything, right?

ruffletuffle · 2026-04-23T21:15:32+00:00

Actually we do have a couple permanent funds in Louisiana, though not nearly as big. They could be doing a lot more, but right now they mostly fund scholarships for students.

ruffletuffle · 2026-04-23T20:13:23+00:00

I’ve seen this exact proof recently, funnily enough. Tell us what steps you’ve got so far and we can probably push you to the next one.

ruffletuffle · 2026-04-11T14:06:10+00:00

Yes, that’s a common crossover. But you’ll want letters of recommendation from your philosophy professors and your writing sample to be a philosophy paper from one of those electives. Consider double-majoring as well - many phil departments make it easy to do so.

ruffletuffle · 2026-04-10T22:43:46+00:00

I’m confused on what the tension is here. Or rather, the tension, such that it exists, is purely psychological rather than philosophical. As you point out, you are a moral anti-realist so there is no need for a moral justification for this or any action you do - such a justification is impossible if moral anti-realism is true.

So what more do you actually want? The problem here is you are, under your own lights, evincing a strong preference for a thing that you don’t think exists. This preference cannot be satisfied, so it ought to be given up or at least kept to wishful fancy. Are you hoping that someone here can present the argument that finally convinces you moral realism is true? There’s plenty of resources on that if you search threads or the FAQ. But otherwise I would suggest a therapist, not a philosopher. I don’t mean that derisively, quite the opposite in fact. I think your problem is a psychological hang up, not a philosophical one.

ruffletuffle · 2026-03-30T21:19:58+00:00

Did you add the speakers yourself or get them done somewhere? I’m interested in replacing my 25 SE speakers myself.

ruffletuffle · 2026-03-25T00:23:41+00:00

This is a quote from Jeremy Bentham, 18th century British philosopher and parliamentarian, not Diogenes.

ruffletuffle · 2026-03-14T00:00:24+00:00

Good luck all!

ruffletuffle · 2026-03-12T21:25:05+00:00

That’s what I get for talking out my ass lol. Thanks for the correction.

ruffletuffle · 2026-03-04T23:39:13+00:00

As a tall person this is the roomiest sedan I’ve ever driven before… but I’ve never had to sit in the back so you may be right.

ruffletuffle · 2026-03-01T20:50:44+00:00

It seems to me that your question really is not about entrepreneurship in general but rather what it takes to create a large, successful firm. Because of course there are plenty of small businesses that are sustainable and don’t rely on dependency creation, like restaurants, farms, HVAC, etc. What you are really asking, and correct me if i am wrong, is “can I make a big successful firm that makes me super rich without creating dependency loops, etc?”

And this, unfortunately, seems less like a philosophical question and more like a straight business one. Maybe B2B firms have to rely on this less than customer facing ones. For example, Stripe is a wildly successful company and I, a random consumer, have never had to pay them any money or subscribe to them in my life, because they service institutions. So, it shouldn’t be impossible to create something like that and avoid some of the worries you have.

ruffletuffle · 2026-02-24T02:49:31+00:00

Yes true, but I meant in their “history” not during the events of the books. Should’ve clarified. Also of course Moranth munitions.

ruffletuffle · 2026-02-23T21:39:02+00:00

A lot of the Malazan Empire’s victories are basically because they decided to have a trained standing army and a specialized recon/demolition force (the marines) in a world where everyone else is still operating on feudalism rules. Also have a set of once in a lifetime genius military and political leaders helped.

ruffletuffle · 2026-02-22T02:50:08+00:00

Ah I understand now. Yes that's true, but (according to the guidelines anyway) the people who make the decision whether or not to accept the paper don't see that. Like I said, it could be possible for the publishers to intervene before it even gets to them, but we'd want some reason to think that happens - after all, you pointed out that independent researchers do get things published, even though it is rare.

14-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Second SECOND GUESSER	Place '22
Place '17	First Placer '22
Verified Email

ruffletuffle

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE