(11-23-2022, 12:02 PM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(11-23-2022, 10:06 AM)mikesez Wrote: Introduction to philosophy.
There are many ways to define "good". Roughly, you can base it on rules regardless of consequences, or on how the consequences add or subtract to total human happiness, or on the character (virtues) of the actor, or on the "rights" of all involved.
The "rights based" system of ethics is useful for telling us which actions are wrong, and Musk hasn't violated anyone's rights, however, it's rarely able to tell us which actions are "right" or "good." From a rights based perspective, all we can say about Musk owning Twitter so far is "not bad" or "not wrong".  We need one of the other systems of ethics to decide if it is right or good.

---

Musk is still censoring stuff he disagrees with, in underhanded and unaccountable ways.  The landscape of this argument hasn't actually changed much.

How and who is he censoring, and for what?

(11-23-2022, 12:03 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(11-23-2022, 11:54 AM)mikesez Wrote: Are you qualified to give moral judgement on how other people use their possessions?
If so, why you and not me?
If not, how can you give moral judgement on me as a person if you can't give moral judgement on how I use my possessions?

I'm not judging you, I'm mocking you. Well, I guess in a way I am, I've judged your work here and decided that the proper response is derision. Unlike you I don't care what you think about me, and even less about whether Elon Musk is good or bad for using his platform how he wants. Whether that makes me "good" or "bad" is up to some dead philosopher I guess.