ok first off this is only my response, not the anarchist response. to me it seems the opposite of anarchic to believe there is a singular correct response to any issue, though i imagine that was just unfortunate wording?
anywho, having skim read the essay my response is an eye roll. the essay is steeped in the stalest of formal academic philosophy. talk of utilitarianism, ‘maximising utility’, and other such jargon abound. he seems to idealize and mathematize his conception of the world right out of reality, to the point where i would probably connect more with someone in a k-hole than with whoever wrote this.
but fundamentally my problem is the fact that the enitre 8000 odd word essay is based soley on the idea of ‘morality’. what even is ‘morality’? and what place does it have in anarchy?
obviously i have my own opinion about that. i think morality is not a thing, a non-thing, just a way people talk about their own desires and feelings so they feel more authoritative. i think that morality is merely a complex system of rules and values that is possessed by a individual or a culture. this essay -on the other hand- treats morality as a concrete thing that is to be grappled with, to be tallied, and maximised. so given that this whole essay is built to engage with something -morality- that i dont even think exists, i dont think it needs much responding to.
edited to meet seriousity quota