OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument, one that did not present relative weights or other assumptions about population size. On that, it failed to make its point, which is what my comment was about.

If you wish to say that most philosophical arguments are people reinforcing their previously held beliefs, I would not argue with you.

> OP was explicitly making a utilitarian argument

No I wasn't. I was making an HN comment, not engaging in moral philosophy, which I find boring and arbitrary. It's no coincidence that the preferred moral philosophy under any regime is one that is favorable to that regime. Thus the Greeks had virtue ethics, Nazis a bastardized Nietzscheanism, and our contemporary society Rawlsianism.

I actually agree with your criticisms, they were obvious to me when I wrote the comment, but we must ultimately decide what sort of world we want to live in (or have it decided for us), and I would prefer one without OnlyFans, that such a world is a fantasy for the foreseeable future is besides the point.

You may find the formalization boring and arbitrary, but independent of that, your argument was one of utility.

An alternative argument, if you wanted to avoid such droll dry topics, would have been to say "I don't want OnlyFans to be a thing." Instead, you made an argument based on moral philosophy to support your opinion. That's totally fine! It also doesn't change the fact that your comment evaluated the moral utility of whether our world is better or worse for existing.

You could make this type of criticism of literally any moral argument (swapping out utility for whatever the underlying criteria is in alternative moral frameworks). This is why post-modernist philosophy has become dominant in the modern world. There is no successful response to it other than to ignore it and and realize that it is all, "boring and arbitrary" as I said earlier.

Edit: Also, as I learned from a post-modern adjacent philosopher, Richard Rorty, there is sometimes benefit in making arguments in different moral frameworks even if you believe they are all ultimately arbitrary: different people are convinced by different lines of reasoning. But ultimately, I post on HN because it is fun.

I agree with you, if you are looking for the output of a moral philosophy equation to spit out an answer. However, I think it is more useful as a series of questions that help us understand the reality, as you mention.

If moral philosophy is boring an arbitrary, then what study or language is a better vehicle for discussing these ideas?

> and our contemporary society Rawlsianism.

Uh, what?

Since when is that the preferred moral philosophy in contemporary (presumably American?) society?

It's shorthand. Rawls is certainly compatible with whatever moral philosophy is prevalent throughout American media/legal discourse.

Edit: The reason I chose Rawls is because no one will agree on what moral framework modern society operates under but Rawls is compatible with most such proposals.

Edit 2: I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however.

> I am interested in what you would propose as an alternative, however.

I would, rather than suggest a candidate for the prevalent moral framework under which modern society operates, reject as fairly obviously false the notion that such a thing exists; modern society is characterized (even, say, in the US on isolation) by conflict between multiple competing mutually-incompatible moral frameworks, with temporarily dominant coalitions characterized by groups coming together against others that the see as a greater current threat than their current transitory partners.

I agree with that on a micro-level, but zooming out I think there is commonality among all the views present in post-war Europe and USA, in the same way that Greek philosophy has a coherency when seen today despite the incompatibility of its various philosophers teachings.