Yeah that is pessimism. In nihilism there is no room for that but it is the opposite even, loving that everything is as it is.

It only begs the question what truth is, since that can only be pointed out with a true sentence. Truth is a contract that something is true. Surely we can say that x is the longest river of y but we can disagree about the limits of that state y which would shake that assertation. Nothing is true means just that there is no obligating contract about the subject matter at hand. Observations would still be there but their metaphysical implications and the affective power would (if x tgen i need to think/do y) not be agreed upon.

W t f are you talking about?

We need to know how much there are resources in order to articulate a pareto efficient distribution of them. What makes you to distort everything that has value and is the easiest part to grasp of the subject matter?

So the amount of rsources is not a physical matter question? It is literally the first question of justice.

The Pareto calculation is present in any normative ethical theory for example.

It can and it should. It can count all the resources and possibilities and define what is feasible.

It just means that we are not to ponder whether there is a ready ethical code somewhere in historical texts, in nature or religious texts that wait for our discovery. Ethics are constructed as a social contract although Kant is sometimes seen as a proponent of moral realism, that there is ready moral principle for all and you just need to *understand it correctly*, which leads to circularism and fideism.

It just means that philosophy is aporematic, that is, it starts from the discovery of a conflict and attempts to resolve that conflict, not from bibliophilic motives for example. Specific fields of study, like that of theology, can be a mere hobby, but philosophy can not be a hobby I think.

Ethics starts from that ethical judgments become conflicted, not from alleged ”ethical agnosticism”.

For example we don’t ponder whether theft is wrong somehow in general but how to solve situations where people have different ideas of theft.

Why are you not able to comprehend the difference between moral judgments regarding social justice and individual identity? This actually sums up the communitarian thinking that poses that the methodological neutral subject is both too thin and thick to make a theory. But if you deconstruct moral judgments regarding the division of property that are a political thing not part of individual belief, you don’t need to touch personal history or identity.

Although in some cases as in the idea of american citizenship some moral judgments are part of one’s identity. But this is like a poisoned well that only poisons its drinker farer and farer away from reality. Not good.

How is it a blank state? People would be as they are, unlike assumed in those academic thought experiments. They just need to revise their moral judgments, not pretend to be suffering from a collective amnesia which is a view from nowhere. The real problem of politics is that we know that the box of statism is not right but we don’t want to step out of it. So here we are, always carrying our blind spot of judgment.

Before rules is the moral apriori viewpoint for the inductive process of discovering a coherent set of rules. Also only such a system can truly be voluntary, something the libertarian and the capitalist would agree on. If you start from an existing set of rules that would be illogical potentially. It is like assuming that the moon is cheese and building the rest of the theory regarding the cosmos in an incorrect manner around that assumption.

And under capitalism one trespassing is not cooperating and gets shot. It seems to be a feature of every system that those not cooperating as the official principle says, will get locked up. And when they cannot be fit into cells, they are put into camps!

Which system sounds more shelfish to you:

One person owns everything

Or

All persons own their share?

Given that they are to decide before the existence of any rules. Measured in Paretian terms.

So system x is bad because it is not x or people don’t live according to its principles? I’m not much assured.

Saying capitalism is behind advancements is the same as saying unemployment is behind advancements.

Sure. People compete, but who makes the rules of that competition. And don’t give me the all american bullshit answer that it is the markets, duh!

And those philosophers who only know one truth or claim not to know anything?

We have not lived only to fulfill some ambiguous ”need” for millions of years now.

Also ethical naturalism and nonmoralism have been dead for a long time if they ever even were alive.

That would still be part of the subsequent ex post interpretation.

Empathy in the (making the) rules of distributive justice. Not in the execution or interpretation of them ex post.

I was talking about empathy in the rules of distribution not in the case of accidental charity to which we should not leave our distribution in any case.

Surely all kind of authorities ”give” all sorts of things or make me ”deserve” them of which both seem arrogant and narcissistic, if not transparently calculated.

How the hell is the golden rule supposed to solve any conflict where cooperative benefits are inevitably unequally distributed? What benefits are even cooperatively produced so that the distribution of them can be dependant on the participation in cooperation.

But yeah how does empathy work in general? Does the rich take the shoes of the poor or does he take the shoes of the poor in the shoes of the rich?

Shaming can be used opportunistically for the pursuit of any aim. From the viewpoint of autonomy we should not seek for honor because it depends on others.

What does it matter if x thinks y or does not? Is this philosophical bibliophilia or philosophy?

I believe such stance does not come from moral philosophy but from positivism who tries to skirt everything according to observatory science.

The problem is that voting is about opinions and political philosophy about knowledge. Ofcourse ”politics” is merely a petty little play as we know it. It has no equivalent in philosophy.