A persons goal in life is to maximise his own happines. What do you think?

>prove that it is logical impossible to have nothing instead of something
>-you didn't answer the "why"

pep

t. Englishman

Attached: 1521251367829.jpg (524x400, 26K)

Read Land's "Utilitarianism is Useless"

Can someone tell me why images of this nature is allowed on this board?

Because of all people, those who enjoy literature should understand that censorship is abhorrent and should never be instituted.

waaaaaaaa vaginas make me feel bad mooooods mooooooooooooooooods

NAH I DONT THINK IT IS
I'M AN UBERMENSCH YOU WILL LISTEN TO ME

MY GOAL IS ONLY TO OVERCOME.

OVERCOME.

ONE DAY I WILL BE SEATED ON A THRONE OF GOLD AND THE MASSES WILL GATHER AT MY FEET BUT I WILL IGNORE THEM ANYWAY

IM NOT EVEN BEING IRONIC OR SCHIZO, I'M POST-SCHIZOPHRENIA AKA UBERMENSCH

>picrelated: my sperm dripping from her moistened hole

making a lot of money, staying healthy, and reading a lot

It seem obvious to say but the goal, if you want to call it that, of every living thing, by pure implicit circumstance, is to exist.
Happiness is a nebulous concept at best and the matter of existence is of course even more nebulous, but we live in a nebulous world we do.
So the point is that there are really no clear cut lines between anything, only those which are illusions fabricated by yourself or others.
Existence is happiness and everything else, and it can be your goal as much as anything can be a goal in a place where everything is built to fall apart
So just do whatever, you can't stop anyway.

But I came here not with the expectation to encounter pornography.
You can't post lewd images on a blue board. Change the rules first.

Uh, not actually, but rules have their place. I’m in a commited relationship, I don’t want to see this and if it was allowed I wouldn’t come.

You didn't prove shit you ridiculous brainlet. All you proved is that its logically impossible for there to be nothing and to be asking the question

Then fuck off to reddit you castrated little soyboy

>I’m in a commited relationship, I don’t want to see this and if it was allowed I wouldn’t come.
Why? Because the image of a vagina on a screen somehow implies you lack good faith? Preposterous. Rules regarding which boards can show nudity and which cannot is pure censorship. The only way to change these rules is to fight them. Go die a coward.

He's afraid his turbodyke gf will see him finding women attractive and take away all his good hubby points

"Why" implies that something else than "something" is or was a possibility, but that's just a human idea. There's no other reason than that's the way it is.

>but that's just a human idea

Pure conjecture, it can just as easily be said its only a human idea that there actually is something to begin to

All that is is, and cannot not be. All that is not is not, and cannot be.

Ok cool, so why isn't everything in the cannot be category?

Your minds are fucking poluted. And are pretty much just projecting, it’s alright. We both know you are wrong. You need to get rid of all that anger and frustration somehow, hey?

If you say so fucking faggot, guess you better go to a less "toxic" environment like reddit

>the human body does not offend me therefore my mind is polluted

Nah, I can tolerate Veeky Forums, but not your degenerate mindset.
The human body doesn’t offend me either. It’s the notion that pornography should somehow be uncensored on a board where it is irrelevant and unnecessary. Also, the idea, that you can’t understand how somebody who is satisfied with their partner wouldn’t want to see it. Why should we uncensor it? What is there realistically to gain? It has it’s place, and it’s not on a literature board. The rules have been set in place, and unlike you, I believe they have a function. Hence, they should be enforced.

>. It’s the notion that pornography should somehow be uncensored on a board where it is irrelevant and unnecessary

I think its necessary, necessary for outing the touchey faggot redditors

Surely accomplishing those things will bring you happiness?

>accomplishing

There's always more money to be made, your health will always inevitably decline, there is always more to read

Implying sombody has to get their dopamine kick from staring at 1s and 0s in order to discuss literature. And here I was thinking there was some semblance of intelligence behind your sloppy argument.

Okay. Surely getting closer to your goals will bring you happiness?

Dude I'd smear actual human shit on myself if it meant I didn't have to hear from prissy fucking fag redditors

Maybe, maybe you'd become more unhappy with the growing pressures of the passion. The point is that one is totally prepared to expend all happiness in the pursuit

Well, jokes on you, I’ve been on Veeky Forums and /b/ (which I outgrew) before Reddit even existed.

What school of philosophy is it where happiness is defined as getting one's defined goals? e.g. becoming smarter will make them happier so they suffer and struggle to get there?
Also, what are the main features of Aristotelianism?

As I see it, we continue existing because we "enjoy" the experience of existing. We seek pleasure as a result of existing and we continue to exist because we're seeking pleasure. I think the question to ask here to determine if our goal as beings that exist is to seek pleasure, is to ask whether we would choose to continue to exist if we could feel no positive inputs and we had no hope of ever feeling a positive input?

Ethics, how to live a “good” life.

I see, I agree with that. But what would be your reasoning for expending happiness to get those things?

Which answer is that to? Aristotle?

>degenerate
back to /pol/ with you.

Aristotelianism is a pretty huge topic. Are you interested in the ethics and politics, or ontology and natural philosophy?

John Stuart Mill's extension to Jeremy Benthams utilitarianism fits that bill. His argument was that there were "higher" and "lower" pleasures, higher pleasures being something unique to humans. A lower pleasure is something like eating, that fulfills an animal urge, a higher pleasure is something more subtle like the pleasure gained from reading and learning. He argued that it was better to be a human and to be intelligent because we had access to many more pleasures than a pig for instance, he said that if a pig also had access to these higher pleasures then it would choose reading over rolling in mud. He also noted that to attain happiness, we forgo pleasure in the short term to maximize our pleasure in the long term.

Pragmatically self refuting, maximizing your own happiness will obviously involve maximizing the happiness of people around you.

No, I think it would fall under the field of ethics. Just the study of what it means to be truly and happy and live a good life. But yes, The Nicomachean Ethics might be a good place to look anyway.

>ethics and politics
Isn't that strikingly similar to the concept of Nietzsche's Ubermensch?

Thats a rather arbitrary criteria to rescue a bad system of explanation

But if you make other people happy to make yourself happy you're still achieving your goal of making yourself happy and the OP's statement still stands true.

Nothing to be proud of Old Chan was for faggot tier computer nerds. It only became our anti-social home after around 2010

>maximizing your own happiness will obviously involve maximizing the happiness of people around you.

Thats not obvious whatsoever

For Aristotle, ethics and politics are closely related. Have you read him?

Poetics and Nichomachean. From the latter I found that he defined attaining happiness as doing 'good', and that good was subjectively defined by the individual. That, or I'm a more of an idiot than I knew.

>I want to maximize my own happiness, therefore I have maximize the happiness of the people around me
>I want the greater good, therefore I have to maximize the happiness of the people around me

There's no difference, behaviorally speaking...

My explanation was very hasty, utilitarianism was and is a huge school of philosophy and isn't limited to just Jeremy Bentham's and John Mill's contributions. Mill's arguments appear arbitrary in brief he does evidence his claims by referencing a lot of human and animal behavior, and Utilitarians who came after Mill extended upon and reinforced his core ideas and assumptions. I'm not an expert by any means though so I won't try and argue the points of more contemporary utilitarians because I'm simply not well read enough on it.

As far as I can tell, Nietzche's Ubermensch has more to do with mastering your own psychology, for John Stuart Mill we're at the behest of nature, but Nietzche thought humans had the capability to overcome our nature. That difference in their thoughts makes a huge difference in how we decide what our moral and ethical systems are and how we apply them. Utilitarianism is a more traditional moral philosophy and makes liberal use of defining what is "good" and "bad" and the idea of Ubermensch is very much about overcoming that dichotomy, it's the entire contention of beyond good and evil.

>I want the greater good, therefore I have to maximize the happiness of the people around me

We want the greater good because it is a pleasurable alternative to not caring about the greater good.

It's not an arbitrary thing that we find pleasure in caring about the greater good either. Schopenhauer argued that we care about the greater good because we're part of a larger whole; the tribe, the species. We will put up with suffering in the short term for the good of the tribe because it ensures our survival, natural selection has ensured that any species that has a concept of a greater good and is psychologically rewarded for being concerned with the greater good survive better in the long term, and thus we all find a subtle pleasure in the greater good of our tribe as a result of our nature.

So removing the 'happiness' aspect of my 'striving toward one's goals because that's what they want in life' definition, you still think this is Utilitarianism?
I've heard that this is in line with Existentialism, but I'm not very read in this. For example, determining one's purpose.

In other words.
>I want the greater good
still comes under wanting to maximize your own happiness.

The point is its no longer utilitarianism as soon as you bring in such a nebulous concept of "humaness". Preference can be at least bluntly measured this concept of higher and lower just brings you back to virtue ethics

The assumption under utilitarianism is that 'striving toward one's goals because that's what they want in life' is motivated by the pleasure we get when we achieve what we want. They believe you cannot separate your pleasure from your goals.

Utilitarianism needs your goal, whatever it may be, to result in pleasure for you in the end, for utilitarians, our pleasure is the ultimate motivating factor for everything we do, pleasure is also the highest moral good.

For utilitarianism, achieving pleasure is the highest goal, that is your purpose in life, but it can manifest itself in a variety of ways that are unique to every person. Simply put, if these criteria aren't met then its not really utilitarianism.

I hope I'm kind of answering your questions here because I wasnt exactly clear on what the question was.

You are, thanks. The question I'm asking now is: what is the difference between Utilitarianism and Existentialism.
>that is your purpose in life, but it can manifest itself in a variety of ways that are unique to every person.
But isn't this the exact definition of Existentialism?

Mills concepts of "humaness" were necessary to explain arguments against Benthams utilitarianism. The arguments against Bentham's utilitarianism were essentially "If the ultimate goal is happiness, why do humans engage in behavior that makes them unhappy and why aren't we all hedonists", Mill had to explain why humans behaved the way they did so that is why his utilitarianism has distinctions between higher and lower pleasures and has the discussion of human behavior and its compatibility with the ethics of utilitarianism.

>Mills concepts of "humaness" were necessary to explain arguments against Benthams utilitarianism.

Necessary to hide the fact his system was fundamentally flawed

Why's it flawed?

>anything other than neo-Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Absolute pleb material.

Attached: Philippa_Foot.jpg (278x358, 14K)

Utilitarianism is a system of ethics.

Existentialism is not a system of ethics, but rather a set of questions concerned mostly with the uniqueness of individuals, which existentialist philosophers try and answer there is not a lot of consensus among ethical systems for the existentialists.

That is my rough distinction between the two, I hope that clears things up.

>Virtue Ethics

Socrates BTFO this before Aristotle was even born

It was necessary to answer the questions of it's detractors

Also in the case of Nietzche, existentialism is a departure from ethical systems all together.

It does. Thanks for sticking with my tiny brain.

Attached: 1595995310818.png (1102x733, 837K)

By raising a million more. The entire point of ulitarianism is to be able to measure ethics in utils the minute you start bringing in arbitrary unaccountable elements you've destroyed the entire point of the system while trying to save it
This is why everything thinks Mill is a brainlet (like his fans)

>arbitrary and unaccountable

Explain why its arbitrary, and give me an example of the "million more" questions it raises.

All good. You don't have a tiny brain mate, you're asking all the right questions, the fact you're asking them means you're bretty intellectually hung compared to normies

I think this is not literature.

Read the rules faggot, Veeky Forums is the designated board for the discussion of philosophy. This philosophical question directly relates to a number of philosophical works which have been discussed in the replies to this thread.

"willing to undertake great suffering in the name of a goal they have set" is not utilitarianism this is existentialism.

>willing to undertake suffering because you're motivated by pleasure

still comes within the utilitarian ethical system

gee whiz, loads of philosophies overlap. stoicism also includes bearing suffering to reach a goal.