"I'm an existentialist, utilitarian and marxist"

"hello"
Because anything else would be wasted

“Oh very cool! And bro your suspenders are lit! What are you reading these days?” :)

I would rape him.

I would slowly make a grin, we will both then start laughing and as the laughter dies out he will say to me: "Oh, user, you wouldn't mistake me as a dumb liberal cuck for a second, right?"

He will then proceed to get his MAGA hat out of his backpack and put it on, going on his marry way. "Praise kek, user!" he says on his way out.

yes, hes a sexy boy and im sure you want a good taste of him. Yummy!

"Wow, thats a lot of -isms.I bet you also enjoy drinking jism!"

liberals aren't Marxists and they certainly aren't utilitarians, your joke is sub par desu

thats part of the joke user

Top kek
Shadilay, fellow kekistaner

the problem with utilitarianism is that it makes everything ever contingent on one thing only - utility. But what is utility? Don't say "pleasure minus pain" because not all pleasures and not all pains are the same

>identifying with both a highly individual philosophy that demands personal responsibility and authentic action and with a political philosophy that erases all notions of the individual

wew lads

tell that to sartre

marxism is about one thing and one thing only; freedom

I turn him onto Foucault

Yeah I and many others would (and did) because it's hypocritical as fuck.

lol

>you talk like a fag and your shits fucked up

It's pleasure minus pain. Not all pleasures and pains are the same, but I don't see the relevance of that .

>lol
>t. someone who has not read Marx

How do you measure happiness/pleasure/satisfaction to know which actions will grant maximum happiness/pleasure/satisfaction?

t. someone who has never read a history book

>a political philosophy that erases all notions of the individual

Ask the Bhutanese.

good for you attempting to inform yourself, but building your identity around those concepts is reductive, misguided and ultimately damaging.

cool hat btw.

Empirically in most cases, using MRIs or EEGs. For other cases that are more serious, like rape and murder, it's pretty hard. You can always try considering how much people would pay as a proportion of their net worth to rape or not be raped, because that would show how much they care about it. But, that's not a great solution desu. It's still unironically way more pragmatism than other systems like deontology.

the spin knocks his villain over and he then walks over their cold bodies

>Utilitarianism is better than Kant's chastity belt
Yeah Deontology isn't great either.

Now take this scenario:
In the future scientists create a device that directly stimulates the pleasure/satisfaction pathways of the brain, leading to the most pleasurable sensation possible. Under Utilitarianism, we would be forced to say that the best possible existence for every member of society would be to be hooked up to this machine 24/7. Not only would it be the best, but we would be morally obligated to force everyone into a pleasure machine. As a result, the entire society does nothing all day but sit down and artificially stimulates their pleasure pathway. Pleasure has been maximised, but would you consider this an ideal scenario/society?
In a word, why is pleasure a self-motivating ideal to pursue?

but what if you go back in time and shoot your grandad?

>>Empirically in most cases, using MRIs or EEGs.
using tools has nothing to do with empiricism dumdum

would that bring you pleasure?

>would you consider this an ideal scenario/society?
Yes, actually.

If, while people were hooked into this machine, they still felt as though they were missing out on the wider world (a negative experience), then surely being hooked onto this machine 24/7 would not be the most pleasurable sensation possible on aggregate, as per felicific calculus. Therefore, either the optimal solution is to use the machine sometimes and do the other things in life in other - in which case the hypothetical is pointless - or the machine has some inbuilt function to totally quell desire to do things other than use the machine, in which case any issue one may have with this scenario becomes irrelevant.

I believe that both increase in pleasure and reduction in pain/suffering are worthwhile goals in the true utilitarian greater good, long term sense. Utilitarianism in not hedonism - one does not seek solely their own pleasure, but the benefit of the aggregate of all people, which is self-motivating insofar as all compassionate goals are motivational.

"Haha yeah, I like Rick and Morty too"
youtube.com/watch?v=-GC5rAX0xHg

I know this probably bait, but just for sake of argument:

Rick and Morty is probably more absurdist than typically existentialist, but I'll grant this one since there is a lot of overlap. I don't think the show is particularly utilitarian as very few of the consequences of the characters' actions are really focused even when they have clearly caused widescale destruction. The only exception to this I can think of is the episode Mortynight Run. The show hasn't commented on Marxism or really very much of a political nature at all as far as I can see.

You got to have really high IQ to get it, so I won’t even bother to explain.

>what is ordinal utility

You can find all those things in both Joyce and Pynchons work

and they are both shit writers for pseuds

As soon as you are hooked into the machine you permanently feel the greatest pleasure forever regardless of your perceptions going into the machine.

Do you think that you are obligated to hook everyone up to this machine for as long as possible?

Nice reading comprehension

>when your to small minded too understand utilitarianism

If those machines require upkeep then it doesn't follow we should all use them, and if they can be improved (some of) those scientists should be spending time improving them. Resistance would probably also be built up and higher doses, because we already have the machines you're talking about, in the form of heroin, cocaine, etc.
And forcing people would cause suffering to them as well as to me, so is a non optimal solution in relation to leaving them alone or convincing them to join of their own accord, assuming the dissenters won't harm the machines if they're left alone.

But otherwise, yes, that's ideal. The fact that all moral judgements have their root in consequentialism, and even further, hedonism, shows the pursuit of pleasure is simply a fundamental ideal.

If we're looking at an individual level, then it's ridiculous for me to expend effort and use my resources to give people something they don't want. Better solutions are to convince them to defend the machine, leave the machine alone, or to kill those people who don't want to use the machine if the previous solutions are unreachable.

Wtf are you babbling about, noone is going to break the machine, some people just don't want to use it. Would you be obligated to force those people into the machine because net pleasure would be greater if you did so?

If you're conceiving of people with some kind of irrational aversion to the machine, it's incredibly likely they'd want to also destroy the machine to "free" people, especially if they have loved ones who chose to enter the machine. Your thought experiment is poorly thought out. And, I answered your question in the last paragraph

I don't give a fuck about how people react to the machine, it's totally irrelevant. I wanted to know what your stance was. Still not quite sure but if yes seek help

>still not quite sure
The only explanation for this is that you can't read, since I've clearly answered that question.

>seek help
Not an argument

Hey, I wrote this post but not other ones being responded to here.

I'm a preference utilitarian, so even though I do consider this scenario to be ideal in a sense, upon reflection, I wouldn't enforce another person to use the machines even if it were for their own best interests. In general, I think that force should only be used when the wellbeing of more than just the individual being forced is at stake. It is worthwhile to convince everyone to use the machines, just not force. Of course, you'd have to be sure the people who don't choose to use the machine don't have some way of ruining it for the people who have chosen to use it (as the other user said) but aside from that, I think people do that an overriding right to be irrational if they want to be so long as that doesn't harm anyone else. This maybe isn't very utilitarian of me but Mill made a similar argument to this, and although I have a different conception of harm to many Mill-influenced liberals (broader), I still think this kind of caveat is important otherwise you end up with negative utilitarians arguing we should just blow up the planet to end suffering.

...

I wasn't actually defending Rick and Morty, or saying it's a great show (I don't think it is), I was just saying it wasn't necessarily representative of the schools of thought in OP's boogeyman.