>oh wow another "indvidualist"
Oh wow another "indvidualist"
"not picking a side" in some form or another typically amounts to "I want to please everyone but also be better than everyone"
this is why no one likes radical centrists
>YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF TWO RETARDED EDGELORD LARPING SIDES IN MY FALSE DICHOTAMY!-t. emotionally unstable NEET teenager
>mfw people think the end can justify the means
>mfw when people are more concerned with actions themselves than the results of those actions
>Black guy in the hood shooting other black guys pissed white educated men passing by aren't joining them in their petty fighting
Not that it really matters, everything in the US is nothing else but LARPing these days. No one actually believes anything or want to do anything.
Go read more Kant. He is directly concerned with the results. How else do you derive an action into moral axiom?
But doesn’t the categorical imperative preclude consequentialism?
If you aren't registered member of the real political organization, you aren't picked a fucked side. You just shilling for free.
inacting is a form of acting, so presuming one CAN not pick a side is merely stroking your ego
I can stick to my own principals thank you very much
Not him but
You aren't automatically inactive if you don't pick a side. That would be a truly idiotic viewpoint
but your principles align with a certain side in each binary decision
maybe not consistent with another choices, and I don't have any problem with that, but if someone is to approach "problems as such" with complacency in the name of not getting to far into either side, they;ve made their decision already and done it for the wrong reasons
the SIDES are fabricated after decisions have been made
what I am ultimately saying is that "picking a side" is a necesary, possibly unfortunate, consequence of nearly all decision making
if one MAKES DECISIONS based on their interest in NOT PICKING A SIDE I'd say that's a mistake
It’s not consequentialism, because according to Kant you can’t ever truly know the results of your actions but you know what results you desire and those intentions are what decide morality/immorality.
No faggot I'm not on anyone's absolute, pre determined side piss off. I have my own morals and values and will do everything in my power to uphold them. If someone promotes what I promote I can support that if i choose but if they stray or go against it they can very well do it on their own.
>mfw your ends cant be justified
But if you can’t know the results of your actions then what’s the point of adhering to a set morality in all situations? For all you know you could achieve the exact opposite of what you are hoping for.
I already said you may not be on anyone's side and that's fine, I'm not saying you have to be X or Y just saying that every time you DO anything, you've made a decision, since there are a limited amount of decisions you've aligned in some way with others who have made a similar decision and can be seen as "on the same side" in terms of decsion making
granted not every decision requires you establish what side you are on, and I'm not forcing you to align with any organized set of decisions- believe whatever you want, chill faggot
>what I am ultimately saying is that "picking a side" is a necesary, possibly unfortunate, consequence of nearly all decision making
Yes but it's not all black and white, ultimately I pick my own side, unless I have some autistic allegiance or loyalty
>if one MAKES DECISIONS based on their interest in NOT PICKING A SIDE I'd say that's a mistake
Which never happens
Serious question, why should you *pick a side* instead of naturally aligning with one that advances your interests?
Then the same would be true for everyone so all you can do is just do your best and treat everyone as an ends to themselves rather than as a means to your ends.
THE SIDE and the side are different things, user. If you are for religion, for example, there is no need to subscribe to entire Republican package of beliefs.
>since there are a limited amount of decisions you've aligned in some way with others who have made a similar decision and can be seen as "on the same side" in terms of decsion making
Sometimes yes sometimes no
>granted not every decision requires you establish what side you are on
Correct
>Yes but it's not all black and white, ultimately I pick my own side, unless I have some autistic allegiance or loyalty
obviously
what I have lamented from the beginning was not "absence of blind loyalty" but "blind loyalty to not being aligned with anyone on anything"
>Which never happens
wrong
people frequently make decisions in the interest of pleasing both parties, especially when they arent too concerned with the intial disagreement
take abortion
many people SUPPORT abortion
theyd never GET an abortion, but they want to make sure the people who do want them can get them and the people who don't want them don't have to get them
however they've unwittingly sided with the pro-abortion side, since ultimately the decision comes down to "yes or no, is abortion acceptable"
you can have you own intricately nuanced beliefs on the matter, but you can only pick one (barring the details of political practice, were talking theortical here)
>using Trotsky as any kind of moral authority
no shit, but by being FOR religion (even if you aren;t relgious) you're on the side of the religious, even if it's just for that one issue, against the forces who AREN"T for religion
>Sometimes yes sometimes no
I would just say that nearly all decisions ultimately end up on some form of limited set of options for inaction
also a quick continuation on the abortion metaphor before I get railed for making all decision making seem black and white
I'm talking ACTION not belief/theory/hypothesizing etc.
one can hold a nearly unquantifiable amount of beliefs on one subject, but when it is translated into ACTION (which is what puts one on a side for better or worse) their choices are limited and often dichotomous
>inb4 extenuating circumstances for getting an abortion
these would be the exception that prove the rule