Be me

sorry, that was unclear. attacking the objective nature of the position is misguided. the substance isn't in the deduction, but in the premises

Why is it misguided? I am starving to here a good argument as to how utilitarianism is objective. Still starving.
I critisized his premises and justification, later in the discussion, but I suppose you are saying I should have started there?

It's objective because the conclusion follows from the premises. If you grant the premises, then utlitarianism follows. If you don't, it doesn't. The question of the objectivity isn't interesting here, what's interesting is whether we ought to accept the premises. That's the basis for all the silly thought-experiments used in moral philosophy: they're essentially reductios. The fact that the argument is valid doesn't, however, mean that it's a good argument. That's why you should attack the premises. If you accept those for the sake of argument, you end up attacking your opponent's defenses. The basis for the premises and how they crash with our intuitions in various ways is the soft underbelly of utilitarianism (in my opinion, anyway).

you just keep repeating yourself user

probably, I'm feeling a bit scatterbrained. Long day. In my defense, there's not much more to it. It's objective because it's a valid logical deduction

>>Nietzsche, Hume, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard
All of which are garbage. Good job you soy-boy faggot.

>not sticking to Plato and Aristotle

>i can LARP and hide in ancient books from reality
ok user have fun with your make-believe

>sticking to plato and aristotle

You are the musical equivalent of someone qho only listens to classic rock, because modern music is just so shallow and bad. GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Granted, I need to read Aristotle, but stay there, once again, GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU PRETENTIOUS FAGGOT

why are utilitarians such charlatans?

you shouldn't

I know right, what are we missing user? This guy is the head of the philosophy department at a really good university. How does this happen?

Imagine you're one of Peter Singer's grad students and you've decided to donate one of your kidneys, because you wholeheartedly believe in his ethics. If he found out about it, I'd imagine he'd go wide-eyed, take you into his office and say something like "oh my god, you didn't actually believe any of this, did you?"

because utilitarianism is baby's first ethics

that or error theory

eh i don't mind error theory too much. however i've had to read mackie for a course before and... yikes lmao

I haven't read him

What's his deal?

Dude, I kind of got this vibe. I brought up N's objective amorality and he had a twinkle in his eye. I couldnt/cant pinpoint what he was thinking, but it felt like he was saying, "See, why are you even asking me this question?" Tripped me out desu. Like, he says hes a utilitarian just so his students dont start killing people and shit.
Of course, this is all speculation though.

he's an ethical cognitivist and anti-realist.

cognitivist= a claim about language in moral claims. moral statements are statements which attempt to make claims which are either true or false (as opposed to being merely manifestations of psychological or emotional desires)

anti-realist= moral facts, or evidence which we could use to verify moral claims, do not exist in the world.

therefore, every time we talk about morality, we are trying to say something true or false, or make a verifiable claim, but we always do so erroneously, because the facts we attempt to refer to do not exist.

his two famous meme-tier arguments are the argument from disagreement and the argument from queerness (lmao gay).

argument from disagreement = if we've always disagreed on what morality is, and different cultures have always had different conceptions of morality, how can there be moral facts? muh relativism

argument from queerness (lmao)= if moral facts did exist, they would be different than any other kind of fact because moral facts exert upon us a 'pull'... they inherently give us a reason to act in a certain way when normal scientific facts don't... and that's queer i guess?

I know about error theory and that he came up with it, but I was just wondering what made you say "yikes"

>argument from disagreement = if we've always disagreed on what morality is, and different cultures have always had different conceptions of morality, how can there be moral facts? muh relativism
desu this line of "reasoning" works more against relativism and anti-realism but whatever floats his boat I guess

>argument from queerness (lmao)= if moral facts did exist, they would be different than any other kind of fact because moral facts exert upon us a 'pull'... they inherently give us a reason to act in a certain way when normal scientific facts
"moral facts are weird natural facts" who the fuck argues this

>utilitarians still exist
why

>who the fuck argues this
i know right?? my prof fucking loved the guy for some reason. had to write a paper on him and had a question on the final about him- i guess that's where my yikes originates from

It seems like he's setting up and knocking down a strawman

none of those arguments can even touch Aristotelian or Kantian ethics

yeah it seems like just a really weak and bad version of the is-ought problem

is this all it takes to become a famous philosopher

>"moral facts are weird natural facts"
Thomists, but within a specific framework where everything is tied to being and essence. It's of course not as stupid as Mackie makes it seem.
It can justify anything and is now an industry, this is a short, but insightful interview on the subject bioedge.org/bioethics/interview-david-s.-oderberg/11695

What's the university?

Wouldnt it be in bad taste to say which one?

no, nothing is in bad taste if its done in earnest and without regard for the consequences but only for the virtue of the act itself. you pleb

University of Arizona

>hes a utilitarian
dropped

In b4 american southwest, not west coast

The professor is actually a Kantian, however, when I was talking to him, he was arguing for Kants ethical position. Didnt have a chance to get to Kant

He was arguin for *utilitarianism. My bad guys

im so sorry you live in Arizona

moral "philosophy" is a shitshow

You should probably delete this post

Isnt the presumtion of there being no objectivity a claim based in the belief of objectivity? Isnt your behivoiur dogmatic?

>be me
>studied philosophy for years at a prestigious university
>finally after years of hard studies I get employment at said
university
>slowly over the years I make a name of myself through hard work and research untill I become head of the philosophy department
>one day I hold a speech about ethics
>a little after the speech as I sit in my office writing on my magnus opus I'm interrupted by a knock on my door
>a greasy autodidact enters and starts an autistic rant about things he clearly don't understand
>I try to explain my point but he just repeats his primitive positions
>I have better thing to do so I give him some reading advise but he starts to autistically screech that he won the "debate"
>have to threaten him with calling security to get him to leave

WTF!?!?!
Why does autodidacts do this? Do they also think that it is proper to harass a physics professor with their "discovery" that Newtons laws are incorrect after watching some Khan acdemy videos on youtube?

Oh, hey Mollymeme. Nice to see you here

I was saying you cant prove an objective moral code. The burden of proof is on him

So many wrong assumptions, lol. Never repeated myself, never said I "won", no threats. FUCK OFF

>FUCK OFF
did that hit a little too close to home

No it didnt. Your tone is just gross. Your assumptions are absolutely baseless. Whatever zane, talk to you later

Kill yourself

>be me
>study everything ever written about philosophy, logic, and mathematics
>finally gain employment as a professor
>completely reinvent the entire field of logic
>create an entire new branch of philosophy
>do ground-breaking work on the foundations of mathematics
>one day I try to take another crack at Russell's paradox
>a greasy autodidact randomly shows up at my house and starts an autistic rant about things he clearly doesn't understand
>he tries to give some of his fucking papers
>read them
>whatthefuckisthisshit.jpg
>I try to carefully explain where he went wrong, but he just repeats his primitive positions
>I have better things to do so I just give him some reading advice
>He keeps showing up at my place
>Give him a letter of recommendation to my collegue so he'll go off and bother him instead
>9 years later
>He refutes my entire life's work
>mfw

different user at the end of an equally long day — if i construct an objectively valid argument for anti-utilitarianisn, then both are equally valid. the objectivity i think OP is searching for is the soundness of one argument against another.

Ha! I keked. Nice user

Maybe he's not interested in yet another basic philo argument with some random. Read his works if you want to hear what he has to say.

I listened to him speak for two hours bruh. I was addressing the points from his speech. I know you think you are being reasonable, and you think I think Im smarter than a professor at a prestigious university--which I dont necessarily think, but please, take this opportunity to try and suck your own dick

impressive. very nice

Happiness while contained in the subject and the reasons thereof being subjective is still objective. It still exists.
Whether this solves the ought/is problem(which it doesn't, because logic and God do) is another question.

.oO(...and these guys wonder why people call them pretentious retards...)