Sociopath Community

What would you say if I stated that Aristotle is right until someone comes up with something better, instead of him being right until proven wrong?

Over eating every now and then is fine. It really only becomes wasteful if someone overeats all the time,  

There is some good that comes from those competitive eaters. It promotes the business, and for some of them it's become a way to earn a living, such as content creation. 

A competitive eater has to train in preparation for the event, involves drinking a lot of water to expand the stomach and eating lightly. Then maybe afterward there is a cooldown period before they resume regular eating habits.

In practice competitive eating can be deadly if the contestant is an amature and never configured their body to handle the payload.

The rest in my opinion is common sense. There comes a time when delivering an uppercut for the greater good is in order. 

We live in a meaningless deterministic entropic universe so none of that makes sense. (I guess it's fun, but people take stuff like that way too far which is how we end up with fascism. If you can blame one individual or instill fear in them, you can blame more, instead of reflecting on overarching systems.)

Dragoonback said: 

We live in a meaningless deterministic entropic universe so none of that makes sense. (I guess it's fun, but people take stuff like that way too far which is how we end up with fascism. If you can blame one individual or instill fear in them, you can blame more, instead of reflecting on overarching systems.)

 True

Spatial Mind said: 

There is some good that comes from those competitive eaters. It promotes the business, and for some of them it's become a way to earn a living, such as content creation. 

What if it was a restaurant business selling food that has previously caused illness among the locals due to improper sanitation measures sponsoring the professional food eater for its own sick gain? The competive eater being ethical in supporting the business by the "virtue" of balancing extremes between not supporting the business and the business giving out free food becomes subject to scrutiny.

The rest in my opinion is common sense. There comes a time when delivering an uppercut for the greater good is in order. 

 Common sense is useful for fitting in, it's just ad-populum loosely based in old wives tales generally; This is why people often get culture-shock upon being exposed to widely differing ways of life. They become incapable of understanding "common sense" in the context and applications of the foreign entity. Common sense is not grounded in actual universal rules and is subject to distortion and reimposition of new common sense which may be less beneficial and coercive.

Jada said: 

What would you say if I stated that Aristotle is right until someone comes up with something better, instead of him being right until proven wrong?

 Was the Earth flat until a better model was realized?

Aristotle's virtue ethics was novel for its time because it was very grounding compared to the dominant moral heirarchy at the time for Greece which was that morals came from an imperceivable higher source unattainable for some. Plato was a moralist gatekeeper of intangible "goodness," which was largely used to discredit opposition to his idealistic society of the "correct" philosopher kings being divine word over the city-state because they were supposedly the only ones capable of perceiving reality from the "true" Source, allowing these elites to define morality to whatever suited their agendas.

I'm sure virtue ethics were very beneficial for integrating ethics into the actual life of the citizens so that everyone could realize their potential to benefit mutually from society through this balancing system but the actual utility of this ethical network has too many caveats to be thoroughly relevant, even in 300 BCE.

When used to determine if one, let alone multiple scenerios are ethical, the principles of balance between extremes become intangible and imperceptible for more nuanced and complex problems, subject to change based on current cultural miasmas and individual tendencies.

Qualia said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

There is some good that comes from those competitive eaters. It promotes the business, and for some of them it's become a way to earn a living, such as content creation. 

What if it was a restaurant business selling food that has previously caused illness among the locals due to improper sanitation measures sponsoring the professional food eater for its own sick gain? The competive eater being ethical in supporting the business by the "virtue" of balancing extremes between not supporting the business and the business giving out free food becomes subject to scrutiny.

The answer is obvious to your fixed question is it not ?

The rest in my opinion is common sense. There comes a time when delivering an uppercut for the greater good is in order. 

 Common sense is useful for fitting in, it's just ad-populum loosely based in old wives tales generally; This is why people often get culture-shock upon being exposed to widely differing ways of life. They become incapable of understanding "common sense" in the context and applications of the foreign entity. Common sense is not grounded in actual universal rules and is subject to distortion and reimposition of new common sense which may be less beneficial and coercive.

 I disagree. 

In the case of a restaurant serving contaminated food, having a food content creator of any kind would 100% backfire. A simple thumbnail stating how the vlogger got sick will be among the highest of view on the channel.

No surprise. Common sense. Very simple.

If someone lacks common sense, their life will be filled with countless calamities. It's not a social construct, but a real thing. Even in the stone age, things like "indiscretion" which would be the opposite of common sense will fuck you up. 

Before there were written laws, our great ancestors had unwritten rules for their survival. They simply couldn't keep one who'd get the rest of them killed. 

Most cultures, have roughly the same values, and if someone doesn't mesh well with another culture, common sense can guide one to decency. I think even in the past, long before the radio, another race would recognize a foreigner and know their customs aren't the same. Common sense again. 

Spatial Mind said: 

The answer is obvious to your fixed question is it not ?

The answer depends on your subscribed system of ethics. If you subscribe to the Aristotolean Virtue Ethics system, the answer is mutable which undermines the ethical framework.

 I disagree. 

Why?

In the case of a restaurant serving contaminated food, having a food content creator of any kind would 100% backfire. A simple thumbnail stating how the vlogger got sick will be among the highest of view on the channel.

No surprise. Common sense. Very simple.

What if the food vlogger posts a persuasive good review coercively to negate the low ratings for personal incentive?

If someone lacks common sense, their life will be filled with countless calamities. It's not a social construct, but a real thing. Even in the stone age, things like "indiscretion" which would be the opposite of common sense will fuck you up. 

Before there were written laws, our great ancestors had unwritten rules for their survival. They simply couldn't keep one who'd get the rest of them killed. 

Most cultures, have roughly the same values, and if someone doesn't mesh well with another culture, common sense can guide one to decency. I think even in the past, long before the radio, another race would recognize a foreigner and know their customs aren't the same. Common sense again. 

 It is often said that laughter is universal, but so is crime. The pagans thought it was common sense to put heads on pikes and burn people in wooden structures to appease the gods of nature instead of just learning better agriculture techniques.

Qualia said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

The answer is obvious to your fixed question is it not ?

The answer depends on your subscribed system of ethics. If you subscribe to the Aristotolean Virtue Ethics system, the answer is mutable which undermines the ethical framework.

 

Virtue Ethics is the subject, and it is Aristotle's virtue Ethics. The restaurant will see an increase in customers, if the content creator doesn't get poisoned. But if they carry on serving food gone bad, it will backfire. In truth virtue ethics doesn't even come into question while the restaurant resorts to an action of their own demise.  

 

 I disagree. 

Why?

That's explained in the following paragraphics. 

In the case of a restaurant serving contaminated food, having a food content creator of any kind would 100% backfire. A simple thumbnail stating how the vlogger got sick will be among the highest of view on the channel.

No surprise. Common sense. Very simple.

What if the food vlogger posts a persuasive good review coercively to negate the low ratings for personal incentive?

Then that will fall out of bounds in terms of virtue ethics, as the golden mean is also comprised of deficiency. Deficiency in this case, as the vlogger's own reputation and livelihood will take damage when the masses notice the place had bad reviews to begin with. Also, he wouldn't be eating the restaurants food on camera. 

The term, Play stupid games win stupid prizes, is a real thing. 

You probably don't think the concept of the vlogger faking a review over some personal incentive while knowing the food is shit, is a good thing either, and if so, there's a reason for that. 

If someone lacks common sense, their life will be filled with countless calamities. It's not a social construct, but a real thing. Even in the stone age, things like "indiscretion" which would be the opposite of common sense will fuck you up. 

Before there were written laws, our great ancestors had unwritten rules for their survival. They simply couldn't keep one who'd get the rest of them killed. 

Most cultures, have roughly the same values, and if someone doesn't mesh well with another culture, common sense can guide one to decency. I think even in the past, long before the radio, another race would recognize a foreigner and know their customs aren't the same. Common sense again. 

 It is often said that laughter is universal, but so is crime. The pagans thought it was justified to put heads on pikes and burn people in structures

 Various other cultures did that too back in the day. It did serve a purpose, and perhaps it was very effective.

Today stuff like that is a bit of an eyesore and not something people wish to see.