Heroine, I guess is the direct translation

It’s called Late Shift (or Heldin in the original German).

This looks extremely similar to Schedule 1, both the interface, the aesthetics and the growing fruit /mixing cocktails mechanics.

Interesting thread! What do you think would happen if for some reason you couldn’t pay her for a while, or had to pay less for a while? Would you split up or renegotiate or something?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, I’m not a software developer.

Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?

Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.

EA isn’t a political framework, it’s a moral framework. It tells you what a morally good action looks like. Usually that doesn’t involve compelling you to perform that action by any other means than appealing to your desire to be moral.

It for sure is morally good to spend any extra money you have in a way that does the most good, billionaire or not. Not sure I see the flaw in that. Especially if you don’t do it instead of being an activist of systemic change, but in addition to that.

He’s not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.

Nothing to do with what he does or doesn’t do or say. We’re allowed to think for ourselves, that’s what philosophy is for.

Edit: If you need Peter to do it for you, here: If Biari was central to [October 7th], he was capable of extraordinary evil and ought to be brought to justice. But that does not justify killing 126 civilians.

If he wouldn’t save the drowning child, does that mean I shouldn’t? Does his potential personal failings really invalidate his ideas and arguments?

No. That’s exactly the ad hominem fallacy.

I have no idea what Peter Singer has to say about Gaza. I haven’t heard anything decisive about what the most effective way to help stop the genocide is, I don’t think there is much evidence on the matter right now. Based on EA I’d say do as much as you can, but don’t neglect the possibly more effective causes like malaria nets and direct giving in the meantime.

Is your argument that Singer’s philosophical arguments are fallacious because he hasn’t delivered a guide to how to help the Palestinians? Because I don’t think that works out.

If your argument is that he himself is a poor philosopher or activist for that reason, then sure, I have nothing against that.

As I understand his argument, it goes

1. If you can suffer, you have moral value
2. We have an obligation to not cause suffering to beings with moral value
3. Some animals can suffer, therefore they have moral value, and we have an obligation to not cause suffering to them

You can then of course ask whether yeast can suffer, which we don’t have any evidence of, but you’re welcome to stop eating yeast if you feel morally obliged to anyway. Lack of evidence doesn’t mean we know they don’t suffer. But for the animals where we have convincing evidence that they experience suffering, such as most intelligent mammals, we all have a clear moral obligation to stop causing them harm.

Counting cells doesn’t really enter the argument. Evidence of suffering does, which is not just about sentiment.

The inability to draw a perfect distinction between beings that can suffer and those who cannot doesn’t stop us from identifying cases clearly on either side of that line.

What Singer eats doesn’t really matter for the argument.

Removed by mod

Exactly

The point I was trying to make was that the article isn’t really about EA not working, it’s more about billionaires claiming to donate effectively not actually doing so.

I’d be genuinely interested in an elaboration. Reading the article, the fundamental issue seems to be that he’s an idealist utilitarian who opposes racism and animal suffering in the wrong way?

The article concludes that

Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to become a vegetarian, to advocate for better treatment for animals, or to oppose factory farming.

But I genuinely haven’t seen such reasons which do not ultimately end up in some form of Singer’s argument that suffering implies moral value. Do you have a link exploring it further?

Don’t know anything about him as a person, but his writing on veganism and EA is some of the most concise and convincing modern moral philosophy I’ve read.

Clearly formulated, with clear assumptions and solid arguments and conclusions built on them, making it easy to critique without having studied moral philosophy.

The Peter Singer EA concept is incredible solid and well argued, such a shame it’s been stolen by grifters

Removed by mod