Are there any arguments in defense of utilitarianism still unanswered?
Are there any arguments in defense of utilitarianism still unanswered?
stop posting this on Veeky Forums and /v/ you nigger
Actually. I'm glad someone brought this comic up.
But with the bike...
The issue isn't that you let others harm you and you just let them advantage you, but you need justice so they don't do it to other people.
So in the case of the bike, you need to call the goddamn cops because they are going to steal someone elses bike eventually and you let that happen.
>implying you can meaningfully quantify happiness
Count dopamine?
>implying that quantifies happiness itself
I dunno I'm trying my best
Perhaps if it makes God happy.
I haven't seen any good responses to why good is defined as pleasure/happiness
hedonists are known illiterates
It's as good a thing to use as a base as anything else.
thanks for providing me with another bad response to that question
You're welcome, but every good you can use to base a moral system is going to lack in firm grounding. All options are equally arbitrary.
Dopamine doesn't make you happy. It makes you want to do things, even if they don't bring you happiness anymore like another year of posting on this site.
...
Because this is human nature. You can't expect people to follow any belief system that contradicts human nature on the base level.
Then how come they do?
Would anything be good or bad in a world of emotionless robots?
They don't, name one person with some complex, hipster moral system that actually does what it demands from him.
Even if it was human nature to consider happiness to be good that doesn't mean good is what is moral.
Why are you asking me?
Every religious person at least follows this on an intellectual level.
>doesn't mean good is what is moral.
happiness is what is moral*
> follows this on an intellectual level
You can follow even anarcho-monarchism in your own mind as a purely intellectual concept.
I meant follow is in obey or accept as true
Americans and Brits are always 200 years late to the party, and stink the place up when they get there. If they're silly enough to espouse utilitarianism, they deserve to get literally cucked.
I WILL SUCK J.S. MILL'S COCK FOR ETERNITY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE OVERALL HAPPINESS OF THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF SOCIETY- CONTINENTALISTS PLS GO
You can obey the finite number of religions laws, this is true as far as they are fair. But can you really use them as the foundation of morality if there can exist something that wasn't mentioned in a Bible or Quran and you must decide the morality of such thing? There is no point in moral that can't help you to decide if something is bad or good.
Utilitarianism is indeed for cucks, ethical egoism is the only position that makes sense.
Happiness/pleasure aren't inherent goods. They're proper accidents of virtuous behavior. They can (and should) characterize the life of the virtuous man but they're not necessary components of it nor does their absence mean virtue should stop being pursued.
>Happiness/pleasure aren't inherent goods.
but that's where you're wrong, boyo. Good feelings are good.
This is a false dichotomy. There is a third option. If you aren't happy with your partner anymore or they aren't happy with you anymore then you can simply separate from them.
No, good feelings aren't morally good per se. That's the morality of a 5 years old child.
more dopamine is "good"
w2c more dotted line art sex outlines
Yeah, and 2+2 isn't 4 because this is math for 5 years old children, lmao.
>good feelings aren't morally good per se
Ultimately they are tho. Gathering and spreading good feelings is the only objectively good thing you can do as a human
The ideal situation is where people treat people the way they want to be treated. I could bash this persons skull in and steal his wallet but I don't want this to happen to me.
People who donate to charity do so and take solace in the idea that if they are in need one day, people will be charitable to them, even if they don't believe this will happen.
At least this is how I have rationalised it