Nigel Farage

This is an ethical issue, isn’t it?

Open any introductory textbook on ethics and you will see that the three most influential theories in the field are Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics.

In its classical form, as described by Jeremy Bentham, utilitarian moral decision-making is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people affected by that decision.

As most people don’t like cunts and Farage is definitely one, utilitarians would therefore support Coutts’s decision.

Next up is Kant. According to the second formulation of his categorical imperative, all rational beings should be treated with respect.

Unfortunately, Farage is not a rational being. He is a toad-faced complete and utter **** and so is not entitled to be treated with respect. So, again, Coutts were right to tell him to fuck off out of it.

This just leaves virtue ethics. For Aristotle, ethics is to do with character building rather than consequences (utilitarianism) or adherence to rationally grounded, exceptionless moral principles (Kantian ethics). Instead it’s all about becoming a certain type of person.

Moral excellence is therefore a skill that has to be cultivated and extremes are to be avoided. So, for example, if someone is aiming to develop the virtue of courage, the vices of cowardice and recklessness should both be avoided (the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is illustrative of the latter vice of excess).

Unfortunately, Farage suffers from a vice of deficiency, namely, that of being a bloviating, whinging, grifting ****. Instead of accepting the offer of a Nat West account, he has to go off on one and make out that he is a ‘man of the people’ doing us all a favour by standing up to the banks.

But this querulousness again indicates that he falls far short of Aristotelian standards.

In conclusion, all three of the great ethicists, though their approaches to moral decision making differ significantly, would converge on the view that Coutts were right in the first place.

So that’s the Farage issue looked at from the standpoint of applied ethics.

You’re welcome.

Actually only came here to post this:

 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
This is an ethical issue, isn’t it?

Open any introductory textbook on ethics and you will see that the three most influential theories in the field are Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and Aristotelian virtue ethics.

In its classical form, as described by Jeremy Bentham, utilitarian moral decision-making is based on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people affected by that decision.

As most people don’t like cunts and Farage is definitely one, utilitarians would therefore support Coutts’s decision.

Next up is Kant. According to the second formulation of his categorical imperative, all rational beings should be treated with respect.

Unfortunately, Farage is not a rational being. He is a toad-faced complete and utter **** and so is not entitled to be treated with respect. So, again, Coutts were right to tell him to fuck off out of it.

This just leaves virtue ethics. For Aristotle, ethics is to do with character building rather than consequences (utilitarianism) or adherence to rationally grounded, exceptionless moral principles (Kantian ethics). Instead it’s all about becoming a certain type of person.

Moral excellence is therefore a skill that has to be cultivated and extremes are to be avoided. So, for example, if someone is aiming to develop the virtue of courage, the vices of cowardice and recklessness should both be avoided (the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is illustrative of the latter vice of excess).

Unfortunately, Farage suffers from a vice of deficiency, namely, that of being a bloviating, whinging, grifting ****. Instead of accepting the offer of a Nat West account, he has to go off on one and make out that he is a ‘man of the people’ doing us all a favour by standing up to the banks.

But this querulousness again indicates that he falls far short of Aristotelian standards.

In conclusion, all three of the great ethicists, though their approaches to moral decision making differ significantly, would converge on the view that Coutts were right in the first place.

So that’s the Farage issue looked at from the standpoint of applied ethics.

You’re welcome.

Actually only came here to post this:

Click to expand...

I do love academics.
 
feedthegoat27 said:
Why have you got a hardon for Farage?
Click to expand...
But it’s not about Farage is it.
Let me spell it out, if you were refused an Account on the Basis of your political beliefs you would be on here jumping up and down saying the nasty Tories are now trying to get rid of Democracy
 
TinFoilHat said:
Fascist nobody being given too much airtime by his media mates.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. Cut the guy and his fan base some slack.

Nazi-www-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg
 
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Oh come on. Cut the guy and his fan base some slack.

Nazi-www-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg
Click to expand...
Do you for one moment think the Nazis would have experience any discomfort or difficulty framing their actions positively within Utilitarianism, Kantian and Aristotelian virtue ethics? I think they'd have loved it. Sometimes people are just nasty to other people because they hate them.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Do you for one moment think the Nazis would have experience any discomfort or difficulty framing their actions positively within Utilitarianism, Kantian and Aristotelian virtue ethics? I think they'd have loved it. Sometimes people are just nasty to other people because they hate them.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of evidence that our moral judgements are made more or less instantaneously and we then try to find post hoc justifications for these gut feelings.

It’s pretty much the point I was making: ethical theories can be manipulated to make them say whatever you want them to say.

The most obvious example is Divine Command Ethics. If you have a large enough corpus of scripture, you can probably find a passage that validates what you feel like doing anyway. That’s the way it works rather than the other way around, as God bothers claim.

Unfortunately, there’s more bad news: the kinds of brains we have that make those snap ethical judgements are unevolved. They are basically suited to the time we lived together in tribes. That’s why we tend to watch out for people we identify with. But our empathy is circumscribed and god help anyone who falls outside our limited circle of concern.

This is why Farage has been so effective at generating an animus towards asylum seekers. He does it by playing on our pre-rational fear of ‘the Other’, the out-group. And so do other populists.

Given that the problems we face are global (climate change, the drafting of trade regulations, the preservation and protection of the environment and animal species, the future of nuclear power and the risks posed by nuclear proliferation, economic migrancy, asylum seeking, the maintenance of employment rights, and so on), the last thing we need right now are politicians like Farage, Meloni, Putin, Trump et al. who are advocating cures that are worse than the disease and corroding still further what little ability we have to sympathise with the marginalised and different with their fissiparous brand of politics.

So that’s why I find Farage utterly repellent.

But anyway, am off to see if there’s a thread about ‘Lozza’ Fox. Just found a very amusing tweet about him.
 
Last edited:
ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
There’s a lot of evidence that our moral judgements are made more or less instantaneously and we then try to find post hoc justifications for these gut feelings.

It’s pretty much the point I was making: ethical theories can be manipulated to make them say whatever you want them to say.

The most obvious example is Divine Command Ethics. If you have a large enough corpus of scripture, you can probably find a passage that validates what you feel like doing anyway. That’s the way it works rather than the other way around, as God bothers claim.

Unfortunately, there’s more bad news: the kinds of brains we have that make those snap ethical judgements are unevolved. They are basically suited to the time we lived together in tribes. That’s why we tend to watch out for people we identify with. But our empathy is circumscribed and god help anyone who falls outside our limited circle of concern.

This is why Farage has been so effective at generating an animus towards asylum seekers. He does it by playing on our pre-rational fear of ‘the Other’, the out-group. And so do other populists.

Given that the problems we face are global (climate change, the drafting of trade regulations, the preservation and protection of the environment and animal species, the future of nuclear power and the risks posed by nuclear proliferation, economic migrancy, asylum seeking, the maintenance of employment rights, and so on), the last thing we need right now are politicians like Farage, Meloni, Putin, Trump et al. who are advocating cures that are worse than the disease and corroding still further what little ability we have to sympathise with the marginalised and different with their fissiparous brand of politics.

So that’s why I find Farage utterly repellent.

But anyway, am off to see if there’s a thread about ‘Lozza’ Fox. Just found a very amusing tweet about him.
Click to expand...
Nothing to disagree with there and I share your dislike of farage. Dangerous world when access to things like banking are governed by that hate though don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top