>>448177>There are thousands of things like this people rely on to function every day, because of nothing were predictable, it would literally drive a person insane.
Yeah, but where's the center of gravity? Whose values matter?
Some people would argue that Chris was such a disgusting abomination that he deserved to be tormented just for existing, even had he never embarked on his bizarre cringey love quest at the game store with the lesbians he played cards with. Had Chris objected to this on the grounds that this were "too cruel", and that he had "no choice in being born the way he was," they'd respond him by telling him he was too weak, and that he needed to suck it up and deal with it.
On the other hand, some people could respond with honest disdain and confusion to his bizarre comportment, claiming that they didn't deserve his presence because his very diseased being "drove them insane." To this objection, Chris could've likewise told them that they
were too weak for being so deeply disturbed by his presence, and that they
needed to suck it up and deal with it.
Whose conclusions matter more here, and more importantly, why?
Values can be dependent on truth-statements in some cases, but less so on logic. Values can be orthogonal to logic. That is, there can exist values such that even if both parties agree on all of the logic based upon the same true data, their values are still irreconcilable due to reasons outside of the logic itself, reasons dependent on the actors' respective positions.
Such values are irreconcilable with one another; no logic can possibly dissuade either such side.
If you try to apply Consequentialist logic here, then you're going to end up with a stance based not upon the rightness of either Chris or society's values, but based upon data outside of either of the values; neither values in themselves are right or wrong. You will instead draw data divorced from the value of either actor, and you will inevitably end up with a stance that puts society in the right and Chris in the wrong, even though the values of either party in themselves are equally "correct."
From here, you will
go down a train of logic that does
justify everyone's cruelties against chris-chan, because human society is affected by biological
laws that do not tolerate the kind of defect Chris suffers. If you are a consequentialist and you think clearly, you'll reach a point where you condemn chris not only for his unequivocally bad actions, but for even existing as what he was before he ever even did anything "wrong."
Nature is cruel. Humans are part of nature. Humans are cruel. This cruelty needs artificial means in order to be alleviated.
If left to its own devices, the laws of nature will resume, and make people cruel again. This process has already begun.
This post was edited by its author on .