Is this approach to ethics sound...

Is this approach to ethics sound? Can we get a better world if we just think about the OTHERs happiness instead of obsessively focusing on our own?

Technically yes, but then it depends. For example what if bikecuck stole another person’s bike. The happiness he received would be greater than how bummed the guy he stole from feels. By that logic everyone can steal everyone else’s shit

But he already stole one, who needs two bikes ?

lol, what do you think?
>ethics
bye-bye

it would only work if literally everyone in the world adopted the same philosophy

Act utilitarianism is pretty shit.
Imagine the deontological version
"Recently someone stole my bike. As stealing is wrong by definition, I kicked the shit out if him to enact justice."

>bikecuck ethics

It's basically what communists are.

>Is this approach to ethics sound?
Eh. I believe that if we all actively worked at making our own lives better, then we'll make it better for other's by extension.

For example, if you don't want to see trash on the ground, YOU pick it up. Yeah, it's someone else's trash, but it's YOUR happiness. If I'm walking down the street and there's garbage in my way, I pick it up.
If you don't want to get into a fight with some dumb asshole on the train, just be polite. Not for the other person, but for YOU.
If everyone focused on selfishly making the world a better place in little ways, then it would be a better place. It's surprisingly easy, once you get into the swing of it.

And if only a few people do it, then that'll encourage other people to do it to. There are studies that show that if someone sets a standard, everyone else is a lot more reluctant to upset that.

Appealing to some ethically moral standard is hard. Appealing to a person's inherent selfishness would would much better.

It's basically the whole "be what you want to be in the world"

What if I DO want to get in a fight on the train though?

I'm assuming you're replying to me.

Then obviously you need to choke a bitch. Nothing wrong with defending yourself. I'm talking more about general day-to-day life.

I think your talking about this dude.

Wait, shit. I got that mixed up.
Then you're either having a shit day or have deep seated emotional problems that would be better explored with a therapist. Not punching strangers a lot better for you in the long run.

No because it doesn't take into account the stealer. Almost as if he were incapable of moral action as well.

Well, it's gratifying to know Kant was of a similar opinion, but it's not that special, I think. It's kind of depressing to think that how we are is all we're good for, and trying to explain "we as humans could live really awesome lives if we tried even a little bit" in pithy, easy to consume quotes is probably babby's first philosophical thought.

Someone that sells bikes and feels great doing it.

It always seems to me that utilitarianism runs into the problem that it defers the moral substance of an act to its consequences, i.e. from the present (where it occurs) to the future (the yet-to-be). But the problem is that this only works in so far as the consequences can be accurately predicted. If I, say, start a utopian revolutionary movement by shooting people, and when asked what I'm doing I say "building the future," then what becomes of my activity should it turn out that this future does not manifest, that my shooting does not transform reality into utopia, then what did I really do? Does it retroactively become immoral or is the act in a state of ethical suspension until the consequence materialises?

Honestly that's more an optimistic outlook to a negative event than an approach to ethics. He's creating a possible perspective that whoever stole his bike is better off compared to what happened to him. It kind of reminds me of DFW's "This is Water", he's making a conscious decision to think that the world doesn't revolve around him and that even if unlikely, whoever stole his bike maybe was in such a situation that he really needed it.

Kids I knew would steal bikes from train stations, ride them home and then just dump them a street away instead of walking. I'm sure that's pretty common in some places.

Unless you actually think happiness and sadness can be objectively measured, then no this won't work. I mean sure, if you think that the thief is happier, then I guess that's the case for you, but what if the thief believes your sadness is greater? How would the agree?

There's nothing wrong with that
Deontology or some variant/form of it is just correct

It's not about the bike. It's about the principle.

>someone raped my daugter recently...

I don't think anyone seriously engages with 19th century utilitarian thought besides autists who need to apply instrumental rationalization to everything (even though utilitarianism is demonstrably irrational in effect)

No. First off it is anthropocentric and disregarding non human life is the biggest ethical fuck up in existence, that may prove to be fatal.
Also it is just in violation of common sense human morality. The person who stole the bicycle was an asshole and they did wrong. Don't take other peoples possessions.
If you interpret it with proper nuance one simple maxim is sufficient for ethics
>Do whatever you want just don't be an asshole
Anarchist ethics is the way

Define "asshole"

>It kind of reminds me of DFW's "This is Water", he's making a conscious decision to think that the world doesn't revolve around him
he killed himself dude. what good is anything he tried to say about life. his fiction, okay, but all that other shit.. whos gonna protect the lobsters now?

>Inaction to confronting crime is justified by a utilitarian argument that it makes thieves happier to get away with crime tan for victims to feel sad that they were victimized
Do you even need to ask? No it's not justified. The state of Veeky Forums

I dunno man, I'm just saying it reminded me of that, my post had nothing to do with the value of doing so. But if you want to discuss that we can. Simply because he's dead doesn't mean that such a mentality isn't valuable. Simply because he killed himself doesn't mean that it isn't a good method of dealing with the banality and boredom of the daily routine and to suppress the impotent rage against it.

Nope. Utilitarianism is invalid.

Problem is that it only works if other people have the same reciprocal attitude, which they don't, hence such ethics only leads to free rider problems.

Oh man you sure showed them.

I think the displeasure of your stolen bicycle is greater than the thief's joy in getting it.

if you have a bike you regularly ride having it stolen is a big loss whereas for a thief stealing a bike is a minor business success or a temporary diversion

no because there will still be varying discrepancies of who is receiving the happiness. There needs to be an arbitrator of happiness. I nominate myself

No. Allowing someone to steal does serious harm to them.

If I ever catch the guy who stole my Masi I'm gonna torture him to death, some things are way more valuable than somebody's gay consciousness

>This kills the crab.

That's what bicycle thieves was about right?
>so what if I'll lose my job bruno? that guy was probably really happy to sell my bike to a chop shop

it works, but only if you obsessively focus on OTHERs happiness

no, nice guys are bitter, resentful jackasses who eventually explode after bottling up all their pain.

>now I'm late to work
>now I lost my job
>now I'm homeless

Thanks bike thief.

This, don't touch my shit.

I think we should go back to chopping off hands.

A low-trust nigger infested shithole probably, French by any chance?

someone was probably more happy with my work and home anyway

Soy Boy Philosophy 101

germany. they were german, before you get any smart ideas

>get raped while homeless

People were probably happier with my asshole than I was anyway.

Jesus christ imagine people who thought like this in major positions in the world

they typically don't rise to the top and instead whine about inequality or w/e when they didn't put in a single day of work in bettering themselves or their situation

>ITS THE ONE PERCENTS FAULT THAT I DIDN'T LOOK FOR ANY JOBS THIS MONTH AND SPENT ALL MY MONEY ON ARTISAN COFFEE

My gain in well-being by fucking your wife outmatches your loss in well-being due to being cucked. Furthermore should I be a better lover than you, the gain in your wife's well-being means that it is a moral imperative for all involved that I fuck your wife without further ado.

Is this comic an unintentional straw man of utilitarianism? I'm not overly familiar with the history of it but there must be more nuance to it than this.

no its just a cuck comic, all his shit is about this pathetic

This. Act like a doormat and everyone will walk on you. A person with a healthy sense of self-esteem sets boundaries.

Now, it makes sense to let go of a shitty situation you can do nothing about, such as a bike being stolen. But putting it like that is mental gymnastics that will make a person go off the deep end.

In my experience, trying to make others happy gets you nowhere. You cannot make a person happy if they do not choose to be. If you try, they will simply find something new to be unhappy about. What Buddhists say about desire is true. It is true for materialism and also for social interaction and expectations.

utilitarianist stoicism doesn't account for

>population increasing to match older quality of life models
>self sustenance of the ideology; it simply isn't favored in natural selection

But what if the thief's suffering was relieved less than the suffering of the guy who's bike was stolen increased? For example, a guy who already has a bike, and isn't suffering because of it steals the bike. The total net suffering has just increased, so is the world really better for it?

The correct logic is that there shouldn't be private property to begin with, then it's alright to share bikes and whatever because there would be plenty for everyone and everyone would take care of everything because we collectively own the world

No. Happiness is not a quantity. Like pleasure, it is a moment, i.e., one either has it or does not. There are not measurable degrees of happiness.

Alex, I'll take "What is Nihilism?" for 200.

He looks cute. And apparently will knock roasties teh fuck out for me.
Sold.

Are you retarded? It's not even utilitarian, it's just some cuck doing mental gymnastics to make himself feel good. He doesn't care about maximizing utility (his line of thought, which legitimizes crime in a society, is quite anti-utilitarian).

Net zero
>lost happiness
>gained happiness
And also a detriment to society because when crime goes unpunished it empowers the perpetrator to commit more crimes with greater confidence.

how about you find the son of a bitch who stole your bike and shoot his dick off.

Your life can only keep on existing through the sacrifices of others. Therefore it is suicidal to care more about others than yourself.

Everyone belongs to everyone-Aldous Huxley

t. Drugs.

This is a meme. No one gives a shit about what is owned in common, and you can barely get some people to care about what they own themselves.

Stop being altruistic.

It's literally Benthamian utilitarianism, which isn't concerned with such second-order utility.

yeah, imagine

Your approach to ethics should fit your personality well. If you are not an optimist then you may find this a torturous code to follow

>Is this approach to ethics sound?
no, it is a non-ethics. gimme your shit, OP, (including your asshole) and be fucking thankful you're doing a good deed.

this is correct
if you can't be arsed to protect your own bicycle your 'ethics' is nothing at all

Happiness is not something material that you can create out of nothing and save up

tell that to the utilitarians LMAO