People sacrifice Truth for higher goal of alluring noble objective | Gad Saad

Gad Saad: "What makes these ideological brain parasites so compelling that they can actually flourish within someone's brain. To your point, how could someone believe all this nonsense? So I argue that in the same way, take for example, let's draw an analogy with cancer. Different cancers behave quite differently. uh, pancreatic cancer may be different than leukemia and may be different from prostate cancer, but what they certainly all have one thing in common."

"Once you distill it to its most lowest common denominator is that there is some form of unchecked cell division. And so in the case of these brain worms, I was trying to look, so what, what is common to all these brain parasites? And my answer is that they all start. alluring noble objective. And then in the pursuit of that noble objective, if we have to rape and murder truth, so be it, because there is a higher goal that we're trying to achieve. So let me give, because that sounds reasonable, but you have to give a tangible example."

"So take for example, equity feminism. Equity feminism makes perfect sense. There is no reason why men and women should not have equal pay for the exact same job. There shouldn't be any institutionalized forms of sexism anywhere. And so based on that definition of equity feminism, both you and I would put up our hand and say, yeah, count me in, I'm an equity feminist. Then the radical feminists come along and say, well, we need to push this further."

"In order to eradicate the patriarchal status quo, we need to espouse the position that there are no differences between men and women. And to the extent that there are differences, they must be due to social construction. There can't be any innate biological-based, evolutionary-based sex differences, because then that would allow us to eradicate the sexist status quo more quickly, more easily. So in the service of what appears to be a noble goal, if I have to rape and murder truth, so be it."

"And that, by the way, speaks to an important distinction that I talk about in the book. And that is the difference between deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics. Deontological ethics is an absolute statement. So if I say to you, Jillian, it is never okay to lie, that would be a deontological position. If I said it's okay to lie in order to spare someone's feelings, that would be a consequentialist statement. Now for many things in life, all of us are consequentialist and that's perfectly fine. but there is a certain set of foundational principles that by definition have to be deontological."

"So the pursuit of truth has to be deontological. Presumption of innocence in the judicial system has to be deontological. Freedom of speech has to be deontological. So all of these brain worms evolve and flourish because you apply a consequentialist ethos to the pursuit of truth."

SOURCE: https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1855316846893035865