Bobby studies Political Philosophy.
View attachment 3445581
Even by Bob's insane standards this tweet thread is incredible. First off,
anybody who has studied philosophy knows how important definitions are. You can't claim to study the philosophy of politics but handwave the very definitions you're supposed to be using, otherwise whatever you're studying is completely meaningless. "Because I said so" is not a good argument for anything Bobby, let alone a complex philosophical discussion.
And to move from "I study political philosophy" to "morality is an objective standard, of which I hold the true definition" is ludicrous. Not only is it extremely arrogant, flies in the face of moral thought, is based on nothing more than (again) "because I said so" rationale, it also blows up in Bob's face if we apply it.
This one sentence - Morality is wisdom, and evil stupidity. Now, you could write an entire book on just how ridiculous this statement is. You can't claim to have an objective moral standard but base that standard on
extremely nebulous terms such as "wisdom" and "stupidity". These need very clear definitions, and they would need to always point towards good or evil. So every wise person will have to necessarily be good, and every stupid person will necessarily be evil. Obviously wrong, but we'll come back to this.
Wisdom and stupidity themselves are not objective measures. Nobody is objectively wise, and nobody is objectively stupid. To be either of those you would have to be always wise or always stupid, but this is (ironically) fucking stupid. Wisdom and stupidity are descriptions of things and not the thing itself. So what are those things Bob? Don't give us vague descriptors as the basis of your entire moral code, we want to know what's behind that. Where have you grounded these? You don't tell us because you can't, nobody is wise in all ways, just like nobody is stupid in all ways. Everybody could be considered as one of the other on a multitude of things. I, unlike Bob, actually
have studied philosophy, so I would consider myself fairly wise there. I have not studied mechanics, so when it comes to fixing a car I am genuinely stupid. Where would I fall on Bob's morality scale? Am I good, evil, both, or neither? There is no answer, because this metric for somebody's moral worth is ludicrous.
Bob would probably reply "this only applies to one's political disposition, somebody wise in politics is a better person than somebody stupid in politics". Again, we run into the problem of these being descriptors of things and we need to know what makes somebody one or the other. Clearly, anybody who thinks like Bob will be wise and good (because he is wise and good), therefore anybody who does not think like that is stupid and evil.
The big problem here, Bobbo, is that your definition is so vague, un-grounded and open to interpretation that people on the other side of literally any argument can be in the same mindset. This would get nobody anywhere, because you would both refuse to engage with the other side on account of them being "evil". So you both spin your wheels, arguing with a brick wall, getting angrier and angrier and wasting everybody's time. If that isn't ignorance, I don't know what is.
Returning to the wisdom/stupidity divide very quickly. A wise society would be more morally good than a stupid one, and thus may be justified in removing the evil society. Wisdom here could be replaced with the words "intelligent" or "advanced", which could apply to technological advancement, being a result of intellectual growth fueling it. Stupidity would therefore be the opposite, less advanced civilisations, ones without the intellectual means to keep up with other societies. By this standard, a more advances civilisation is entirely justified in subjugating or eradicating less advanced ones.
Well done Bob, you just advocated for colonialism.
(Sorry for the long ass rant, I was triggered and had to get all this out of my head)
