rustcohle
Iron
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2025
- Posts
- 8
- Reputation
- 23
Many secularists will argue that the utilitarian framework is sufficient to replace a rigid moral prescriptive doctrine like religion 
, so I'm opting to use this to justify my reasoning.
The utilitarian asserts that the maximum possible good is the guiding goal of all actions, and in absence of any obvious steps taken to achieve the most good you simply need to use common sense heuristics (which is pretty much all the time since a) we dont have the luxury of choosing ANY action and b) given two possible actions neither are likely to result in the most possible good).
Now I ask you, what is the most fucking obvious reason we are all in this predicament instead of being the neurotypical chad that can laugh flirt play and eventually fuck whoever he wants
>>>>>> because CHAD EVEN EXISTS<<<<<<
Not the PERSON one categorizes as chad you fucking retard (I know you thought thats what I meant) I mean CHAD AS AN ABSTRACTION, the thing that is common among individuals we label as chad.
Which means the HEURISTIC i was talking about earlier becomes obvious
*actions that result in maintaining inequality are bad (yes, also INACTIONS)*
clearly with the advent of social media and chads exposure increasing one can only conclude removing CHAD (NOT THE FUCKING PERSON THE FUCKING CONCEPT) must result in more good than KEEPING CHAD, and we are faced with this tautology every fucking waking second (KEEPING CHAD vs NOT KEEPING CHAD)
Yes obviously we arent in the position of removing CHAD since we would fucking go to jail, but the point remains. In an idealized world without consequences, we ought to maximize the amount of good for everyone, which justifies a concentrated acid thrown in the face of people like Chico and a mild acid for your local chadlite.
, so I'm opting to use this to justify my reasoning.The utilitarian asserts that the maximum possible good is the guiding goal of all actions, and in absence of any obvious steps taken to achieve the most good you simply need to use common sense heuristics (which is pretty much all the time since a) we dont have the luxury of choosing ANY action and b) given two possible actions neither are likely to result in the most possible good).
Now I ask you, what is the most fucking obvious reason we are all in this predicament instead of being the neurotypical chad that can laugh flirt play and eventually fuck whoever he wants
>>>>>> because CHAD EVEN EXISTS<<<<<<
Not the PERSON one categorizes as chad you fucking retard (I know you thought thats what I meant) I mean CHAD AS AN ABSTRACTION, the thing that is common among individuals we label as chad.
Which means the HEURISTIC i was talking about earlier becomes obvious
*actions that result in maintaining inequality are bad (yes, also INACTIONS)*
clearly with the advent of social media and chads exposure increasing one can only conclude removing CHAD (NOT THE FUCKING PERSON THE FUCKING CONCEPT) must result in more good than KEEPING CHAD, and we are faced with this tautology every fucking waking second (KEEPING CHAD vs NOT KEEPING CHAD)
Yes obviously we arent in the position of removing CHAD since we would fucking go to jail, but the point remains. In an idealized world without consequences, we ought to maximize the amount of good for everyone, which justifies a concentrated acid thrown in the face of people like Chico and a mild acid for your local chadlite
.
