/abs/ - Absurdism

You are Sisyphus, this board is your boulder.


New Reply
Name
×
Subject
Message
Files Max 5 files10MB total
Tegaki
Password
Don't Bump
[New Reply]


dd3.jpeg
(43.8KB, 644x720)
Ethically and utilitarian-ly speaking: Are men (or even women) allowed to be reckless fun, stupid\ irresponsible\ etc? I myself follow CELIBACY and am not, at present, terminally ill. I have a hunch\ mild premonition I will be, at some point.
Let me be explicit; I Talk (chastely) of face tattoos, letting my hair\beard grow wildly and un 🗿trimmed🗿 , also getting a total shave and head shave, going for a stroll in a winter rainy night, eating only KFC for a week ,etc.
In case I would get cancer, stage III or IV etc---what (chaste) wilderness may I embark upon?
>pic related, a christian pastor, yet using sacred jew ritual items, because he doesn't give a f*ck
Replies: >>1547 >>1549
e81f70cad53664c8c1a153441416b447ceb7401f05c7b6aa0342b4da16b0908b.jpg
(73KB, 960x720)
>Ethically and utilitarian-ly speaking: [can a pope] be reckless fun, stupid\irresponsible\ etc?
Depends on your ethics and how chaos unravels. If, for a more extreme example, you are reckless and drive a vehicle under heavy influence of drugs in an abandoned ghost town, you will probably only risk harming yourself, but if you do it near a populated area, you could pointlessly kill or seriously injure a bystander with your recklessness. Most ethical models and especially utilitarianism denounce that.
Some ethical models even declare you have an obligation not to harm yourself, especially if you have dependents. You are a part of a society, your situation affects others. So if you are negligent in your winter rainy stroll and that gives you hypothermia and you contract a disease in your weakened state, how will that affect others? Similarly, if your KFC diet isn't carefully chosen, you could deprive yourself of vital nutrients and contract an easily avoidable disease. How will that affect others?

But!
Most of your ideas of reckless fun are wholesome fun, which as low or no major risks to other people. Changing your appearance with shaving and tattoos is fine under utilitarianism and most ethics (assuming your tattoos aren't a threat, like gang or nazi symbols). Anyone who doesn't like the look is a baby and their discomfort is trivial, cancelled out by those who appreciate and enjoy it. You have every 👻right👻 to have that fun! Eating KFC for a week is a fun challenge and as long as your menu options are diverse, you can at least get essential vitamins and minerals through fruit juice, vegetables, protein-bases and grains. It's not healthy, I don't recommend doing a whole week unless you have a cheat snack of healthy foods you're missing, but you can do this challenge with minimal self-damage and in that case it's unlikely to have a notable affect on others.

Note!
I have taken a stricter approach to ethics and utilitarianism in this post for the sake of discussion - I do not constantly uphold myself to always do the utilitarian action, and I do not expect you to either. It's acceptable to do occasional or slightly 👻bad👻 things, that's life, that's human, and none of the examples you've mentioned are likely to be harming yourself much, or harming others much. And if you are diagnosed with an imminently-terminal disease, then obviously minor self-harm like eating more unhealthy foods will be more acceptable as long-term health is no longer a concern.

As for appropriating symbols of worship, that's very very common. Just ask the Romans where their Gods came from. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
<> by the way, the flag in the background is not a jewish item. the mad lad has taken symbols without understanding them - a dangerous game.
>>1545 (OP) 
>Are men (or even women) allowed to be reckless fun, stupid\ irresponsible\ etc?
Allowed by nature, blocked by society. Is it always a smart idea to do it? Hell no! I believe that it's okay as long as it doesn't harm the others. Gotta let the stupid kill themselves.

I myself follow CELIBACY and am not, at present, terminally ill.
Good for you?
Utilitarians don't generally care about whether you act in a reasonable manner, as ligas you don't hurt someone.

Of course, utilitarianism doesn't deal well with the fact that your actions have unpredictable consequences. What if the added train you put on the sewer system by eating exclusively bacon eventually leads to a catastrophic sanitation issue that wouldn't happen otherwise? You just don't know, and being a dumbass doesn't generally excuse you from acting ethically.

Deontologists, on the other hand, have this ides that ethics comes from reason, so almost by definition you have to be reasonable to act ethically. Of course this also falls apart because no being can be completely reasonable; even the choice to be reasonable is inherently unreasonable.

I think the answer is to just not care about ethics as long as you're not doing something real bad.
a043c8470acbbb6239ed277ba42deb1c.jpg
(34.9KB, 500x326)
>>1545 (OP) 
Death is the price of orgasm, my friend. Life has many gambles on offer.

the folly/genius of any action or belief will lie in its unexamined nature. I guess the personal fault shows in the purposeness/ignorance of the action; whether one is truly conscious of their actions. Whatever that might mean.

At what point does restraint become prison?
bj_pageshoulda.png
(147.4KB, 800x545)
Thinking's too hard, thankfully I have plenty of slack. Responsibility surely lies in the eye of the beholder.
Replies: >>1551
>>1550
>dualism
yuck. Imagine having to deal with such questions as 'does my immaterial soul really control my physical body?'
[New Reply]
6 replies | 4 files
Connecting...
Show Post Actions

Actions:

- news - rules - faq - stats -
jschan+chaos 1.7.3
-><-