Parodying the Way Various People Talk and Write
Can I write like Parfit, Huemer, Trump, and the Bible?
Part 1: Parfit
Part A
We have, I believe, good reasons to care about our future selves. These reasons are not, however, directly self-interested.
In defending the view that our reasons to care about our future selves are purely self-interested, one might defend
(A) Reasons subjectivism: All of one’s reasons come from their desires.
This is not, I believe, true. We have good reason to accept
(B) Reasons objectivism: We have reasons independently of our desires.
Consider an example given before of a man with a curious attitude toward time. This man is indifferent to what happens to him on future Tuesdays. When Tuesday occurs, he will desire to avoid agony. However, when Tuesday is merely in the future, this man does not care what will happen to him on a future Tuesday.
Considering cases like this we have reason to accept.
(C) One cannot rationally neglect their future interests.
This is, however, incompatible with A. One may have no desire relating to their future interests.
Another class of cases places should lead us to reject A. Consider the example, addressed by Street, of an ideally coherent Caligula. This person ideally desires maximal suffering. However, we have reason to accept
(D) The ideally coherent Caligula does not have decisive reason to cause maximal suffering.
This is also incompatible with A. Caligula has a reason, despite lacking a desire, to avoid causing suffering.
Part B
We may consider the question of whether or not peach Cobbler should be made and served. The answer is, I believe, yes. Thus, we have reason to accept
(A) We have decisive reason to make peach cobbler.
In rejecting this view, one might accept
(B) We do not have enough peaches.
This is, however, false. In defending B, however, one may argue
(C) If we look in the refrigerator, there aren’t enough peaches to make a cobbler.
We do have reason to accept C. However, C does not entail B. We have decisive reason to accept
(D) There are more peaches in the pantry.
Given D, there are enough peaches to make a cobbler. This fact has been noted by Wood. We have reason to accept
(E) We all have reasons to promote welfare generally.
E was defended earlier. We additionally ought to accept
(F) Peach cobblers do promote the general welfare.
Thus, we ought to accept
(G) We all have reasons to make a peach cobbler.
This is not, however, decisive. We may have stronger reasons to avoid making a peach cobbler.
In objecting to A, one may plausibly accept
(H) We should, instead of making peach cobbler, make chocolate ice-cream. However, defenders of H may also believe C. These views are not, I believe, consistent. We should accept
(I) There are not enough ingredients for ice-cream in the refrigerator.
In combination with C, this would mean H is false.
Street defends a view according to which we cannot know that we should make peach cobbler. Our desire for peach cobbler was shaped significantly by evolutionary forces. Thus, we may have falsely believe we have reason to eat peach cobbler.
This is not, I believe, true. We do not yet know enough about the evolution of our desire for peach cobbler. We should accept
(J) We do not yet have enough evolutionary evidence to debunk our desire for peach cobbler.
Thus, Street’s view, while expertly defended, is not, I believe, true. We should accept
(K) Our desire for peach cobbler is suitably tied to the desirability of peach cobbler.
Part 2: The Bible
Part A: The Old Testament
And the lord spoke to the Israelites saying “Go forth to the land of Moab. And when you have reached the land of Moab, say to to the Moabites ‘woe unto you, for you have forsaken the lord our God.’”
“And you should bring forth a burnt offering of two sheep and three lambs. You should bring forth the two sheep and three lambs to the tabernacle. When the high priest has done this, you should declare that the Moabites should do the same. If, by the time of one fortnight, the Moabites have not brought any forthwith, you should enter the Moabite villages and declare ‘The Lord our God has sent us.’ And if the Moabites refuse to sacrifice two sheep and three lamb, you should declare a curse on them.”
Part B: Also the Old Testament
The Lord spoke to Simon and declared
“He who follows in the path I have set forth shall be granted prosperity, and their grain fields shall grow high. But he who disobeys me shall be granted misery, and his grain fields shall wither and die.”
When Simon heard this, he alerted the people of the Lord’s message. But the people didn’t listen to Simon. “Leave us, for we are wicked and you are interfering with our wickedness,” declared the people. So Simon prayed to God, and the people were cursed. They were granted misery, and their grain fields withered and died.
Part C: The New Testament
Jesus spoke to the Pharisees saying
“Who are you to dishonor the laws of our God.”
And the Pharisees replied saying
“According to federal rule 702, we can engage in debauchery, licensciousness, and iniquity.”
And Jesus spoke saying
“Woe unto you, who bring forth technicalities to ignore the commands set forth.”
Thus, Jesus declared federal rule 702 moot.
For the Pharisees were very wicked and Jesus was very good. One day, Jesus was with his disciples.
“Stretch out your hand,” he cried.
The disciples were confused. Then Jesus declared
“Like a small child reaches for the stars, so too should we all reach for heaven.”
The disciples were impressed.
Suddenly, a Pharisee popped out of a bush with some obscure law that Jesus was allegedly violating. Jesus wrecked him with facts, logic, and devastating rhetoric.
“Why do you violate the law thusly,” cried the Pharisee.
“Why do you revel in the bad and hate the good,” proclaimed Jesus.
The Pharisee popped back into the bush, destroyed.
Part 3: Huemer
Part A
Some people are relativists. They think that truth depends on one’s attitudes toward the truth.
Problem: This is obviously false. The earth is round even if one doesn’t think that it is.
Relativists tend to be crazy and confused. Yet relativism remains popular. Why is that?
Hypothesis 1: People are bad at reasoning.
This explains part of it. People — particularly the type to be relativists — tend to be bad at reasoning.
Problem: There are some smart relativists. Relativism is also more popular than other, crazy positions, like flat eartherism.
Hypothesis 2: Relativism sounds tolerant, and people don’t choose their opinions based on reasoning but based on wanting to feel tolerant and virtuous.
This explains all the relevant data. It’s thus probably true.
Part B
We should obviously make a peach cobbler.
Argument 1: Peach cobbler tastes good. This one is obvious to anyone who has ever tasted peach cobbler. Some people may not have a concept of peach cobbler. These people may disagree with this. However, they are confused.
Argument 2: Peach cobbler is pretty healthy for a desert. Thus, if it replaces another desert it improves health.
Argument 3: Self defeat — critics of peach cobbler eating hate this argument, but I think it’s pretty good. All of the critics of peach cobbler eating are currently eating peach cobbler. Thus, if eating peach cobbler is bad, they’re acting foolishly.
Part 4: Trump
Part A
Frankly, I’ll tell you Todd, you take a look at what’s happening at the southern border — and by the way, let me tell you, that would never have happened if we had won — frankly, we did win, but they made some big problems, you look at Pennsylvania and many other states, that treated us very unfairly, rigged the ballots, they say they rigged the ballots, and believe me, a lot of people are saying that. But Todd, excuse me, you have people pouring across the border — I’ve said, and I’ll say it many times, a lot of people don’t like it, they say ‘this is such a terrible thing’, and now, frankly, I’m getting a lot of credit for saying it very early and very strong — frankly, you have to have borders. You can’t have people pouring across the border, from Mexico, from a lot of these places, you won’t have a country anymore. This would never have happened, believe me, it would never have happened under Trump.
You have sleepy Joe — very sleepy guy, doesn’t seem so awake, now does he. Sleepy Joe doesn’t know where he is. And you have people pouring across the border — frankly, we have open borders, we have open borders, if you take a look at the border, we have wide open borders.
You have transgender — it’s a big problem folks — you have transgender, frankly, and they want to do it to the kids. They have a kid, little Johny, and he says, “I feel like a girl.” And they say “Okay, you’re a girl now.” This is the democratic plan — and believe me, they’re doing it in left wing schools, in California, and many other states. They go woke!
Part B
You have cobbler — big beautiful cobbler. Frankly, I’ve said very good things about cobbler — tastes very good. And cobbler makers love Trump, they say they love Trump. We love them in Pennsylvania, in Florida, in all these states — which we won by a lot, believe me, we won them by huge margins.
One guy — big guy — who made cobblers at a pie shop — I call it a pie shop — came up to me and said “Sir, we love you, frankly, we love what you’re doing for this country.” And he said, frankly, what they’re doing with mail in ballots, is, very unfair.
Parodying the Way Various People Talk and Write
Parfit and Huemer impressions are spot on
> “He who follows in the path I have set forth shall be granted prosperity, and their grain fields shall grow high. But he who disobeys me shall be granted misery, and his grain fields shall wither and die.”
This NEEDS to be added when they release Bible 2.0