Everything this idiot was saying reminded me of Sam Harris and the whole moral landscape thing, like I think he was getting at a crude pseudo-utilitarianism where there's suffering points and happiness points and we have to tilt the see-saw to gain more happiness points. It goes off the rails because it came across to me like he was arguing for making ethical decisions for events before they even happen, which can't be done because they aren't real events. It just goes into the realm of imagination. Thought experiments can be useful, but if you can just make up anything, you can justify any action you want.

He seemed so rigid in his conviction that only strictly held ethical doctrines are valid he rejected anything about making moral judgements without appealing to a particular ethical ideology. It didn't make sense at all to me. The other guy clearly articulated how dialectical materialism can determine if a person or class has control over the functional aspects of their own lives and if not, what sort of barriers exist. That's the moral framework right there, have more people have more input into the content of their daily lives. Reduce or eliminate alienation. That's the greatest gift a successful Marxist movement can achieve and it's right there built into the concept. It doesn't even necessarily contradict idealist utilitarianism, at least I don't see how it would.

Idiot just rejected that entirely and backed himself into an antisemitic corner somehow, like Sideshow Bob walking into a rake but claiming he meant to do that as an experiment