>>17710387>Under this paradigm, it doesn't matter what people "allow" me to doNo, I'm not talking about what others allow you to do. I'm talking about what you allow others to do. Because there are two options.
1. Something is morally acceptable because in my view the factors in that scenario make it acceptable
2. Anything is morally acceptable if the person doing it is me.
If you think 1, then you have to accept that a person gets to kill you if you lose everything in a financial crash and become a hobo in a similar scenario in 10 years.
If you pick 2, then you either have to prove that you have the right to have special privileges or you have to accept that its okay for all other people to hold that view too. Which means they would also be allowed to kill you.
Because when you have a moral system and you act in society in accord to it, you are enabling a future where such views are normalized and adopted by others.
>We've established that the only thing that matters is individual utility.No we havent, we have established that "The webllbeing of others only matters insofar as it has effect on your own wellbeing". Other things can still matter, its just that we can't conflict with this paradigm.
So in this case the consistency of your views ought to matter to you if you care about consistency. And you should care about consistency if you accept the existence of concepts like morality and ethics. Or if our society needs them to not spiral into chaos (and make me lose good things)
>As far as I'm concerned, I'm god. I don't care about other people.Okay, then your moral system is valid. As in internally consistent, since there is no other way to measure its validity. But once again, a hypothethical where you are a higher being, dont worry about how society is shaped with your actions because the only thing that gives you pleasure is killing and will never get caught is a hypothethical that has no applications to the real world, so idk where ur goin with this
