Y'all b

Yes

What kind of dichotomy is that? Many of the things we deserve we do by earning them. Most things are neither earned nor deserved.

All-in on neither; love is always morally supererogatory, and nothing you do in the way of earning or deserving can make it wrong for someone not to love you.

@nonnihil nothing is morally supererogatory. It is morally wrong to be less good than you could be. Choosing to be less good than you could be is making life less good for everyone.

@digory must you sacrifice your own life to save two other lives? Surely that would be heroic. Is it also morally required?

@MachiNi of course, unless in the situation you can argue that it wouldn't really be heroic because of extra factors.

For instance, I can't honestly work out how anyone justifies having two kidneys

@digory but you can work out how we can justify having at least one, right?

@MachiNi yes, it is bad, not good or heroic, to kill yourself. All good actions are mandatory, but suicide isn't a good action.

@digory but as a good consequentialist you can imagine situations where killing yourself would maximize the good.

@MachiNi I'm not consequentialist. I don't think you should kill batman's parents to create batman.

@digory the category of supererogatory actions is supposed to capture actions that promote some good —that you have moral reasons to perform—even though it is not wrong not to perform them. One of the objections to maximizing consequentialism is that, unlike other moral theories, it has no room for the supererogatory.

No

This is a false dichotomy. Love can be eiter earned or deserved. Sometimes we love someone who neither earned nor deserves it.

imo, earned

Raffled

I think both ideas are incorrectly superimposing a moralistic structure upon how the world works

this question should be answered by a community which showers more often

@fluttershy How can we operationalize this? 🤔

@Quroe until we have a cryptographic Proof of Shower idk if we can

@fluttershy Market niche identified.

@fluttershy please consult this graph:

^

I x Manifold

Average I x Polymarket

intelligence I x Reddit x Xitter

I x 4chan x FB/Insta

I---------------------------->

Shower frequency

Source: a friend of a friend had it revealed to them in a dream

@TheAllMemeingEye that Xitter point is rapidly moving down and left

@fluttershy true, back in the 2010s it definitely would've been higher, currently it's only off the bottom because it's got such a self-perpetuating popularity that despite the influx of far-right people a significant number of prominent rationalists still seem to be using it as their main platform e.g.

https://xcancel.com/ESYudkowsky / https://xcancel.com/allTheYud

https://xcancel.com/So8res

https://xcancel.com/Aella_Girl

https://xcancel.com/tegmark

@TheAllMemeingEye yudkowsky is a eugenicist who i know for a fact does not wipe

@TheAllMemeingEye Not sure everyone on your list showers as often as you might think… 😅

gentle reminder to all that transhumanism as a movement is a thin facade about eugenics, and often there’s a lot of overlap between the players for this very reason: https://www.truthdig.com/articles/nick-bostrom-longtermism-and-the-eternal-return-of-eugenics-2/

also a good plain-english encapsulation of why transhumanism is a fundamentally flawed ideology, being little more than a repackaging of eugenics: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/silicon-valley-transhumanism-eugenics-information.html

i appreciate a desire for certainty with frameworks other people champion, but i was raised in a cult and can smell one a mile away, this one complete with unsavory characters with an unpopular axe to grind.

@fluttershy regarding eugenics:

/s

@fluttershy also what's this about yud not wiping XD?

@4fa she is why it's lower on the shower axis than Facebook lol, but one person can't completely shift the average all the way, Xitter is mostly mainstream normal people