Utilitarianism

What’s wrong with OP’s argument?

What’s a good arguement against utilitarianism?

Board quality drops drastically the more /pol/ crossposters it gets

>What’s wrong with OP’s argument?
Most people in fact do agree with utilitarianism, and if a utilitarian did something to make me happy, I'd be happier, even though I'm not a utilitarian.

>What’s a good arguement against utilitarianism?
You can't ascribe moral value to vague material(!) phenomena.
Singer's work is the logical conclusion of utilitarianism and it is completely retarded.
We can't measure these supposedly objective values. All the time while acting according to utilitarianism we have to make countless assumptions, and they might be completely wrong. Even though we wanted to do good, we might be causing utilitarian evil because of a lack of information (for example, we might not know that animals feel pain, so we'd find it amoral to kill one; or we don't know the possible negative effects of an action).
Related to the previous point - I find it very dubious to ignore intention. A man acting in the most egoistical and harmful way possible but through some unlikely chain of events accidentally causing more good than he did evil, would "absolve" him and make his actions moral.

My goal in life is to be a utility monster and reap the rewards.

"I don't give a shit about other people's happiness."

Who does? Besides people close to you, you have no reason to give a shit about other people's happiness.

>Most people in fact do agree with utilitarianism
[citation EXTRA needed]

True, except me (and Nietzsche, maybe idk).
What ever makes us happy in the long run, right? Pretty obvious desu.

I mean, not literally, they wouldn't be able to articulate their position fully, but if we're talking about the majorities, a somewhat inconsistent utilitarianism is guiding most people. Practically everyone thinks it'd be better if there was less suffering, more happiness and so on.

The biggest flaw with utilitarianism is the fact that happiness cannot be quantified by anything other than reports of subjective feelings.

Cuckolding means raising the child of another man without your knowledge. Stop fucking up the English language.
Sage everywhere.

It's the word for when another man sleeps with your wife, both archaically and in modern times.
You would know this if you'd ever read even a single book in your life.

most people are retarded also. But no, i dont think what you said is true though, i think egoism describes them better.
Aye, another of my points.
fuck off m8, do you have sand in your vag or what?

Can you read? That was the argument against utilitarianism.

If you read On Liberty you will notice exactly the tone of the contemporary leftist. The breathless, almost hysterical pace, the feeling of urgency and moral necessity, it is all there. There is even the incoherent praise of certain restrictions on liberty(I forget what exactly, maybe drinking) because they have been shown by consensus to be harmful.

HIs essays on feminism are even worse.

But no he's not even close to the first, it started way fucking before him

This thread just shows how illiterate Veeky Forums is.

John Stuart Mill was a brilliant logician. I study economics and I see his name pop up CONSTANTLY, even as late at mid-20th century. You should understand utility, as a concept defined by Bentham and then refined by Mill, is inherently necessary in order to understand marginal economics.

Sage is not a downvote and cuckolding is about someone fucking your wife and you being ok with it. Dumb shitposter.

>I study economics
so you're participating in civilization-scale fraud?

That's not what economics means. Economics is something that has always existed. You can study economics to justify the betterment of the human race.

I study mathematics AND economics, actually, and there is a lot of crossover.

Or the weaker version of this "I only care about other people's happiness insofar as it contributes to my happiness, which it doesn't always do."

People agree with utilitarianism because they're fucking sheep and just repeat what they hear from TV.

Negative utilitarianism (antinatalism) is the only flavour that makes sense.

> economics has always existed
That’s why JSM, Marx, Smith, and Malthus were all philosophers writing books on philosophy.

What flaw is there to name? There's nothing to refute as long as you take utilitarianism as an axiom.

>Let me add my totally irrelevant point
Thanks for contributing.

>words can't have alternative meanings
fuck off

The line is blurry. John Stuart Mill's book on Political Economy, for instance, has 'social philosophy' in the very title.

Their economics, all of them, were very weak though. The English LTV suffers from an inherent petito principii: it tries to determine two unknowns at the same time in one equation, ergo the formula for English classical economics is not discrete.

The interest rate cannot be determined at the same time as the price of the good and vice versa.

But you don't necessarily read those authors for their views on economics, do you?

But you miss my point. They literally formalised ideas such as a market, and value being socially agreed upon. There is no such thing as economics before them(and it’s still about as useful a discipline as critical theory).

damn this board is slow as shit tonight

I'm seeing a bunch of people besmirch the name of John Stuart Mill. He was widely influential. No sense in trying to throw ad hominems at someone who was an extremely intelligent person.

Veblen, Walras, Fisher, Mises, Keynes, etc. etc. all reference John Stuart Mill in their writings. His book on Political Economy was actually one of his MOST influential books, but you don't see it mentioned because most people only have time for the social philosophy.

He added nothing new to the discussion of economics, however, other than his intelligent theory of economic productivity, that Walras fundamentally disagreed with. But was a perfect summation of the ideas of Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus, all combined.

The thread is about Mill being a cuck though. Even his social theory is the work of a brilliant mind, that doesn't change his basic awfulness

>not even counting in her happiness.

The only problem with utilitarianism is when people use it only on the short term. Most other forms of morality are utilitarian in some hidden way.

this is my point
t.OP
>good logician and economist
>therefor good moralist
YOU are not a good logician
Yes, he was one of the biggest cucks at the time
>Antinatalism is utilitarism
explain how
it is about utilitarianism actually, i just made a coment to make you laugh/cry
nah, I am nationalist egoist, not utilitarian really

Deontological ethics make complete sense, really the main problem with kantian ethics is the "Verstandeswesen"-meme.

>We can reprogram man such that he won't believe in sexual exclusivity
There's your long term, is this what you want?

>explain how
Negative utilitarianism seeks to minimise suffering rather than maximise well-being. Antinatalism is a way of doing that.

Why ought I subscribe to you or Neetchee? Why should we do what ever makes us happy?

>Utilitarianism is sadly the only applicable "ethic" in practical politics

Certainly, I'll just consult the Utility Tome™ (developed by reasonable™ anglos - you do not want your Utility Tome™ to be unreasonable™) to deem what policy I should adopt. It has all the calculations. For instance, I, because I am an anglo, and thus equipped with higher mental faculties, gain two utils from eating an ice cream. A German gains only ½. It follows with unassailable logic that I should get the ice cream.

I simply cannot fathom how people can criticize utilitarianism for being inapplicable in real life. Have they not understood the thought experiment of lightly tickle torturing a very bad terrorist, in order to extract from him information on the nerve agent bomb that would annihilate all humanity in a manner causing the most extreme pain imaginable? It really is rather simple - you just use the same principle on a case to case basis, such as who should get the ice cream (i.e. the reasonable™ anglo).

"Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.' - Nitch

Mill's utilitsrianism distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures. The pleasure of sex is lower, and the pleasure of a relationship is higher. Therefore, the dude's displeasure should far outweigh the pleasure of a nut. No cucks here folks

>Most other forms of morality are utilitarian in some hidden way.

Nah, it's all reducible to virtue ethics, which is, strangely enough, the only non-autistic ethic, along with feminist ethics of care, despite virtue ethics being developed by the worlds second-most autistic individual, Aristotle.

>Even though we wanted to do good, we might be causing utilitarian evil because of a lack of information (for example, we might not know that animals feel pain, so we'd find it amoral to kill one; or we don't know the possible negative effects of an action).

Util has this accounted for, since the phrasing is to always do the best available action, not the best objective action. Arguably, things you could not have recognized (I.E. from an error in judgment) are not available actions, therefore you are not morally responsible for them.

>morality

Attached: 1469835038746.gif (180x180, 216K)

>this distinction is not at all ad hoc and a testament to how shitty utilitarianism is, but brilliant

1 the character in the comic is deciding to be ok with being cucked
2 he is presuming the happiness of the man that slept with his wife which leads to
>the total happiness in the world increased
3 this is an overly vague statement and one predicated on dubiety

Read Mill, how is it ad hoc?

What are desire theories of well-being?
plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/#DesThe