17

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/microblog/index.html b/microblog/index.html
index 876d51c..e8d5ef2 100644
--- a/microblog/index.html
+++ b/microblog/index.html
@@ -13,6 +13,13 @@
 		This is my <i>microblog</i>, a place for me to jot down random thoughts that I want to keep, but are too small enough to constitute a real article/post. Reverse chronological order.
 		</p>
 		<hr />
+		<p id="17">
+		I used to not really understand utilitarianism, the lack of a universal standard bugged me. But that was Bentham. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism seems to be more acceptable to me, it seemed to look into the future and cover how individual cases affect a decision entity, be it personal or systematic, in the long term. Generally when applying Millian utilitarianism, I obtain similar results to when I using existing principles. This somewhat reaffirms my hypothesis that these moral principles still arise from a utilitarian analysis of cost and benefit in the long term.
+		<br />
+		I wonder if we have a subconscious intuition to morality anyway, and we're attempting to rationally derive theories that seem to cover the underlying intuition. Is this, dare I say, motivated reasoning?
+		<a href="https://www.andrewyu.org/microblog/#17">&</a>
+		</p>
+		<hr />
 		<p id="15">
 		Is freedom of speech absolute? Why do we traditionally see it as a fundamental right? Is it really inalienable?<br />
 		I think a grea portion of this lies upon the dangers to democracy when censoring political speech. Is that a sufficient reason to accept freedom of speech as a universal right, that protects e.g. hate speech and inciting violence?