I did. And just it was used by oppressive capitalism doesn't mean it's an illusion.
Woops, you are right, I forgot my conclusion.
The point was to explain that Homosexuality was a creation of capitalism and patriarchy as in ...
the category of homosexuality
Before capitalism, Sexual relationships between similar genders were not sign of identity marker but simple sexual behaviors. It's capitalism with the help of psychiatry that pathologize and categorized the sexual behavior of same gender sex.
As such, Homosexuality is not a real category, it's an oppressive category meant to put people in box to exclude them from the economic system.
Today, LGBTQI+ have appropriated legitimately this category, but it's possible that one day, people will not see sex between same genders as some identity marker like we do now with homosexuality. Homosexuality would therefore stop being an illusion of category and the word would disappear.
1.) A doctor tells a dying patient he will be OK. It maximizes happiness to the patient, but the patient is being denied the truth that he is owed
Only if the truth is that he won't be ok.
Lying is not always necessarily a bad thing. Again,
that's why ethics matters mate.
2.) Two married adults let each other have an affair. This boosts their happiness, but it violates the fidelity of their marriage and makes marriage as an institution meaningless.
No, that makes the marriage as the institution YOU picture meaningless.
Those people created their own definition of the institution of mariage that was fitting FOR THEM. They were completely consensual and open. Which means that what you are describing is A FAR STRONGER relationship and MARIAGE than just a random person stuck in a loveless mariage because they are closeted or forced by their family.
Again, context matter.
You really should learn about ethics.
Because your logic is just nonsensical. It's based on baseless logic, baseless reasonning and the absolute absence of substance.
3.) A small town is restless after a crime was committed. The mayor has an innocent man executed, and the town is at peace and happy again, collective happiness is maximized but an evil act was committed
No, an unethical act was commited, it's the simple case of the innocent being killed and to understand why it's bad and why it has nothing to do with any concept of good or bad:
Check my answer to this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Murder became bad only when humans decided it's bad"
> If you take a close system representing a normal society with normal basic behavior (rproduction, work, happyness etc.
> An experience on multiple tic
> You then add a random score from 1 to 10 to each person
> When the score is higher than a certain threashold, the person kill someone close, if not there is no kill.
> Look at the result, note the data and inscrease the threashold (
for ex, you go from a 7 to a 9.99 to represent the absolute disdain of society for murder) and note the data again
You will see that the state of society completely improves with a higher threadshold (and therefore a disdain for the murder of a random person). You would probably see a raise of happyness, cooperation, survivability etc.)
Abslutely no concept of right and wrong, just basic mathematics, logic and survival. if you have the time and a programmer at disposition, try it, you will see.
Not murdering innocent is not related to something ideologically superior to us in term of good or bad, it's related to our material conditions of existence. Material conditions that automatically improve when we are not morons and do not kill random or innocent people around us.
