>>14473>Well utilitarianism has problems too
I wouldn't say I am promoting utilitarianism. In fact, the technical definition is also some moralfag garbage:>the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct.
People want a lot of different things for different reasons, but if achieving the desired result of something you want isn't what you base your actions on, then what is? What I am criticizing here is people who keep doing things that they know is harmful or ineffectual, but they keep doing it anyway with appeals to what amounts to metaphysical gobbledygook, and they act like that holds more weight than a real plan. While things of a political nature probably come to mind in regards to this topic, another example that I'm sure a lot of people have experienced is boomers complaining about health problems like arthritis, or working long hours, but then they refuse to retire because they feel they need to work, or worse, they want to set an example for the 'lazy' younger people to be enteral wagecucks.
>Principles are important - i.e. not violating your principles is important.
Morality came from practical ideas to being with. Why is something good? What is it good for? Who is it good for? Nobody can trust a constant flip-flopper, but baseless principals aren't commendable, and consistently adhering to bad habits isn't good either. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that a lot of the wholesome sounding trash people have adopted today is just sick and harmful in practice.