Bob's a movie critic.....I don't think he's deeply enmeshed in ethical studies. That said: the people I'd worry about are the one's who wouldn't kill Hitler in the past before he got started, if given the chance. That suggests two problems, both related to arbitrary moral absolutism (either "never kill, period" or "he's not actually guilty of something under moral code X") that is destined to failure or complication through extremism.rorychief said:Like a lot of people i came to the escapist for ZP, stayed for Big picture/Escape to the Movies. Lately though I finding myself reading his stuff out of a kind of fascination for his drama and tantrums. I still enjoy his work and i think he's very talented, we have polar opposite tastes on everything (despise family friendly superhero movies) but he explains his points well and even if what he's saying makes no sense to me i believe that he really believes it makes sense, if that makes sense? I guess i admire his honesty, if not his tatses and justification for them.
As for culture stuff, to me he's a caricature of well intentioned/deluded American liberalism. Like i know politics over there is extremely polarized, so maybe bob is like the mirror of fox republicans, but I've long since stopped counting him to inform my opinion. Instead the myriad neuroses he places on screen are their own kind of fun to watch unravel.
Here's a charming example i just took from his twitter.
"2 fundamental questions underline 90% of my decisions: "Does this get us closer to a better world?" "Is this morally correct?" In that order... It's a thin line of importance separating the two, but at the end of the day a tangible superior future has to sometimes "win out" over......"how does this square with some largely subjective social concept of right or wrong?"
Immediately followed by
"Classic example: "Is murder wrong?" Yes. "If you could time travel, would you kill pre-WWII Hitler?" Of course. Without hesitation or regret."
See here he endorses transgressing societies widely held morale code so long as it will help bring about his 'better world'. (Building a better world on the ashes of the old one is a common rhetorical device of Moviebob's) Abhorring murder but being willing to murder hitler is the example he then gives of this philosophy in action, with no irony or awareness that the crime that would justify hitler's murder was transgressing societies moral code in pursuit of a 'better world.' He acknowledges that society's morale code is subjective, but not the definition of a better world because there can only be one and that is his.
I dunno, its just sort of neat to watch these stream of consciousness rants coil round and round and round. I vote i like his content. For different reasons than when I began
EDIT: although to be fair, as an adherent to a mixture of utilitarianism and social contract theory myself, I think one could imagine a utilitarian argument against killing Hitler if it turns out that his not rising to power led to an even greater and more destructive result (i.e. no Germany, so Stalin achieves greater power and then starts a different sort of WWII that leads to greater death and destruction). Since it's all hypothetical anyway, why not throw out arbitrary complications....!