plasticspoon

plasticspoon wrote

If there aren't already pre-existing relationships and means for conflict resolution, you'd get together with people you know are sympathetic, make a plan together based on your needs, desires, and resources. Pretty much the same as every problem.

There's no roadmap, everything is context-based. The two towns are different and their peculiarities will make a difference. The power relationships between the spaces will make a difference. and so on

4

plasticspoon wrote

These are two different ways of doing philosphy that often don't interact much, in part because they dislike each other's methodologies

analytic philosophy is a clear example of state thinking.

Continental philosophers are usually very critical of normative ethics because they are conservative and transcendent and reactive. Ethics looks different for them.

1

plasticspoon wrote

meta-ethics is a higher order discipline to/about ethics, they are not ethics in themselves

It includes typical analtytic philosopher interests like "what does it mean to say that something is good" "what is the content of goodness" "is goodness a real entity" etc. Ethics is the application of meta-ethical frames (implicitly or not) to make decisions or to speak about values

1

plasticspoon wrote

Wouldn't a utilitarian seek the way to cause the least suffering, which would be giving them the resources they need?

negative utilitarianism prioritises preventing suffering, which can best be done by antinatalism. it is a guaranteed less suffering within their framework, because something that does not exist loses nothing, but something that does exist is guaranteed to suffer.

they will also point to the 'costs' of helping those people as a form of suffering for the groups helping them.
preventing people being born is far more effective at reducing suffering than a long-term charity situation in a highly underdeveloped space

negative utilitarians are not interested in violating freedoms, they are interested in avoiding suffering

1