To treat philosophers a group as an individual capable of wanting a single thing across all is an over generalization in fact treating an individual as an individual itself is a over generalization since we consistently hold conflicting desires but before we get into that we must first ask what a “desire” itself is but that comes with the problem of what the “self” is in itself but we can’t explain that until we dive into what we are talking about when we say In but that would be semantics which I will now define in the following 500 book thesis on redefining the English language so it supports my esoteric politically biased view point because my grade school bully called me stupid when I was five.
I dunno. Sounds like you like discussing things.
My esteemed colleague’s first 300 books are riveting, but at that point the argument falls apart. They fail to account for the Herman reversal: “I know you are, but what am I” (Herman et al,1985). Amusing, but hardly a work of serious scholarship.
YOU’RE STUPID!!!(++!((+((
Sex therapists only want one thing and it’s discussing fucking.
Degenerates only want one thing and it’s disgusting fucking.
Okay here goes: Is it morally permissible to have sex with a robot? Assume that it’s so lifelike that you can’t distinguish it from a human, except for the fact that it can’t refuse.
What about the Kantian view?
Kant believed that animals were not sentient in the same way as man and therefore did not deserve the same moral valuation. Yet, he also believed that we should not harm animals, because if you harm a creature that you can feel empathy for, you’re damaging your innate ability to care about others.
Should a similar argument apply to sex robots?
Sure, but it’s subjective. Like I’m Kantian in my interactions with LLMs for that exact reason. But I don’t expect anyone else to be.
I think the Kantian view can be viewed as “Good advice, but it’s still a personal decision” and we shouldn’t get judgy at people for the choices they make that don’t affect us when we don’t have the full context of their life situation. Especially when it comes to sexuality and kinks. What you do with your p-zombie in the privacy of your own bedroom is actually none of my business at the end of the day.
What if the sentient robot is programmed to have sex with me and if it’s denied sex it causes it great distress?
this is the same as jowling kowling rowling’a slavery apologia
If we base the morality on whether there would be any harm done to any side, given everything goes as intended, and whether they are capable to communicate (even pretended) pleasure, and consent, then fuck yes, slay
I’m not a philosopher btw, i just have lots of free time (at least in this i’m akin to them lololol)
How indistinguishable are we talking? Can it get pregnant? Can it get STDs? Can it’s parents be ashamed of their offspring’s choices in men?
Also, It is probably morally permissible, but only if you feel disgusted and guilty with yourself after post-nut clarity. Walk of shame for everyone.
“I’m just asking questions!”
a good presentation on that topic: https://youtu.be/XQcNYb3DydA
He said have sex with, not date.
absolutists want one thing and one thing only, and it’s fucking annoying
Why?
truth
Is it? 🤔
What is truth?
trvthnvke, if you will
Horny philosophers want only two things
Inside you are two philosophers.
you are airtight.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.”
“Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”
