Sep 13, 2025
some easy work for my media ethics class! finally moving away from kant!
Loading...
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Mexico
seen from Canada
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from Türkiye
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Malaysia
seen from Argentina
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
some easy work for my media ethics class! finally moving away from kant!
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
One of my favorite genres in fiction is main characters carving/engineering the future they want to see for society through conscious morally-uncomfortable action
Examples of this are:
Dune by Frank Herbert. Paul picking the slightest best possible way forward via the ability the spice provides – that of knowing everything that was and being aware of everything that is potentially to come, like if as seeing a tree of possibilities.
Kingdom, the manga by Yasuhisa Hara. King Sei ushering the end of the Warring States period in China, setting out to conquer all other warring states, taking it upon himself all the bloodshed to come. All so that an age of peace comes in China. While Sei isn't the main character, his role is key and all of Kingdom's plot follows a similar framework of strategical thinking + having the good of the people in mind. (Most beautiful is when other characters, such as important figures from enemy states, either resist him because they see it as an impossible task, not because they see his method as immoral, or they don't resist him as much... choosing to have faith in his vision).
The Chronicles of the Avatar series by F. C. Yee, especially the two Yangchen novels, where we see the avatar as a figure with huge political agency, in large part crafted by herself, being painstakingly aware of the losses needed for each and every choice she makes or plan she designs.
Attack on Titan by Isayama Hajime, to a degree. But I kind of see the ending and its conflict resolution as a cop out.
Consequentialism in The Hunger Games
In the 74th Hunger Games, it's been speculated that Peeta wanted Katniss to live not because he loved her so much, but because more people would be devasted if she died. He thought her life was worth more than his.
Katniss decided to keep "faking" her love for Peeta during the Victory Tour despite it hurting him because she didn't want a rebellion. She was thinking of how it would affect all of Panem and didn't want to upset the "peace".
Katniss' justification for wanting Peeta to live through the Third Quarter Quell was that she was already slated for death and that Peeta might still be able to have a happy life. So instead of piling the resources onto her so that she survives the arena and dies from an "accident" arranged by the Capitol, Peeta survives and lives a happy life.
In MockingJay, Gale justified burying the Nut by considering the entirety of District 2 an enemy. He thought it would lead to the greatest advantage for the rebellion, more like a "rip the bandaid off fast" kind of thing. Let's not talk about his bombs targeting first responders.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. I've often wondered whether fewer lives would have been lost if the games had continued and the rebellion never happened. It just felt like the losses from the rebellion were so great compared to what was gained, at least before the epilogue.
i do think studying consequentialist philosophy was a bit of a lifeline for my obsessions and intrusive thoughts. like every time i think i'm an awful person with disgusting thoughts the ghost of john stuart mill floats up to me and says 'the tangible outcomes of your actions are the things with moral value'. idk but it helps
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
There’s a weird thing about consequentialist ethics where the morality of an action is dependent on how people respond to it.
The Philosophy of the Greater Good
The philosophy of the greater good explores the ethical idea that actions should aim to benefit the largest number of people, even if they come at a cost to some individuals. It's a concept deeply tied to utilitarianism but also appears in many religious, political, and cultural traditions.
Key Philosophical Foundations:
1. Utilitarianism
Developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is the most well-known articulation of the greater good. It argues that morally right actions are those that maximize happiness or utility for the greatest number.
Act utilitarianism looks at the consequences of individual actions, while rule utilitarianism considers the consequences of following general rules.
2. Sacrifice and Moral Trade-offs
The greater good often raises questions about the morality of sacrifice: Should some suffer so that others may benefit? Thinkers have debated whether this justifies violating individual rights for collective benefit.
3. Deontological Critiques
Philosophers like Immanuel Kant oppose the idea of the greater good when it conflicts with moral duties or human dignity. According to deontology, some actions (like lying or harming the innocent) are never justified, regardless of their outcomes.
4. Social Contract Theory
In political philosophy, the greater good is often invoked in arguments about governance, justice, and law. Rousseau, for example, emphasized the “general will,” where individual interests align with the collective good.
5. Medical and Scientific Ethics
In bioethics and public health, decisions about limited resources (e.g., organ distribution, vaccine access) are made using versions of greater good reasoning—raising complex ethical dilemmas.
6. Criticisms and Limits
Tyranny of the majority: The idea that majority benefit can lead to minority oppression.
Slippery slope: Once harm is allowed for the greater good, boundaries can erode.
Measuring good: Whose good counts, and how is it quantified?
Summary:
The philosophy of the greater good navigates the tension between individual rights and collective welfare. It challenges us to think ethically about power, sacrifice, justice, and moral responsibility—especially in scenarios where not everyone can win.
The intellectual movement that calls itself longtermism is an outgrowth of Effective Altruism (EA), a utilitarianism-inspired philanthropic
Longtermism calls on us to safeguard humanity’s future in a manner that both diverts attention from current misery and leaves harmful socioeconomic structures critically unexamined. As a movement, it has enjoyed stunning financial success and clout. But its success is not due to the quality of its conception of morality, which builds questionably on EA’s. Rather, it is due to longtermism’s compatibility with the very socioeconomic arrangements that have led us to the brink of the kinds of catastrophes it claims to be staving off. At issue is not only an especially dangerous, future-facing variation on ideologies, like EA, that thwart struggles for liberating change with suggestions of the cure-all properties of existing economic tools. It is a variation lacking any plausible rationale, since many of these struggles have long contributed to the area longtermism wrongly represents as its innovation – fighting for a just and livable future.