Utilitarianism

If I really, really love rape, and the enjoyment I get from raping people outweighs the misery they receive from it, isn't it moral for me to rape?
In fact, its immoral for anyone to try to stop me, and it is my duty to rape as much as possible.
Every time I rape, a net increase of happiness is created, and out society is a better, happier one overall.

nah man um with you

>f I really, really love rape, and the enjoyment I get from raping people outweighs the misery they receive from it, isn't it moral for me to rape?

No, because everyone in society now has to worry about getting raped, for a net decrease in happiness.

I think you're fucking retarded of you don't think you quantify human existence, and denying is dishonest and childish.

>nihilism

>if you really were some neuro-super-human that got THAT much pleasure from rape, I would help you rape. But it would b even more optimific to find a masochist for you to rape repeatedly ;)

>virtues over utilitarianism
>xd five human lives are still equal to one life!
>every argument against utilitarianism is simply "but that's lame that people have to be hurt, my feelings say that you shouldn't think of it like that! Don't say you'd rather shoot one person than five! Why do you want to hurt people?!"
Literally five year old logic

utilitarianisms only logical basis is literally "muh feelings".

if you support it, you use the same logic to reinforce your arguments as SJWs. is that what you want?

I'd shoot five criminals before one innocent man
Utilitarianism is retarded because you can never apply it to real life
Situations can never be boiled down to the simplicity of "benefit a few people or a lot"

>That argument isn't applicable in real life!
Not an argument. If you were given a gun, and told to either kill one person or five, you would choose one. You will not be allowed the choice to kill yourself either.

>If you were given a gun, and told to either kill one person or five, you would choose one

You just proved my point. This doesn't happen in real life. And if it did, again, it would depend on the people.

It happened to me

What could possibly matter to morality except feelings? Feeling good and feeling bad are literally *the* content of anything that matters morally. Tell me the event or action that has no effect on anyone's feelings but still matters morally.

>morally
found your problem.

t. riven main

You seem to have quite low intelligence.

It is a thought experiment. It can apply to killing 1 person to harvest their organs to save 5 or killing a hostage taker to save 5 hostages.

Yes, a thought experiment. That's all utilitarianism can ever be.

>Yes, a thought experiment. That's all utilitarianism can ever be.
>the desire to maximize utility doesn't actively influence legislation, global politics, and individual decisions on a daily basis

But I really, REALLY love rape, man, I love rape more than you hate it. Its a net happiness gain.

Utilitarianism is just hedonism without the dick jokes

No offense Veeky Forums, but I'm not even a utilitarian and every argument in this thread is pathetic.

If you want a true argument against utilitarianism, read upon Nozick's idea of a utility monster.

...

100000 orgasms is not worth the suffering of a rape. The rape example is stupid.

But it's a thougth experiment that assumes that the happines from a rape is greater than the suffering. If you can not work from those premises then it shows that utilitarianism is flawed.

Ok, so in that clearly fictional scenario, rape should be legal. Just like it is legal to walk up to a stranger and start talking to them - the value of being able to do that is judged by societal consensus to outweigh the value of knowing you'll be left alone. So where is the flaw?

Maximizing happiness is a poor way to go about things when happiness is so hard to define and the goals will vary from person to person. It is much more effective to try to end suffering, as the things that make people suffer are easily identifiable and therefore easy to implement a solution for.

but if the rape monster rapes 2 women, it might experience a million orgasms, but the 2 women will be unhappy, so you are down 2, not up a million.

>real life decisions are always clear cut "destroy the world or shoot this bad criminal" choices

Not "clear cut," but certainly of that type, yes. Every choice is about weighing consequences.

>hating Form Follows Function

I bet you like Brutalism you massive faggot.

>brutalism
>not utilitarian

Human desires are not infinite.
You are a single man.
There are billions of humans

But the chance that particular user will rape me is negligable, even if he rapes someone every day. I am not worried about him raping me, even if he was allowed to rape freely.

If you're worried about being raped by him, your fears are irrational.

There are still happening rapes in the society.
Why would I be suddenly more afraid of getting raped if there is one person extremely liking it?
The idea is just that this "rape monster" would act correct (moral) in the terms of utilitarism because it would gain more happiness from the rape than happiness is lost because of the rape.

The "humans desire are not infinite" is a good statement.
Lets change the example:
Would there be a point that the desires outweigh the suffering?
I mean like would be there a net happiness increase if a woman is gangraped by 20 men instead of one?
Or by 100?
And if this is possible we can extend this to a form of fascism.
We could kill the weak and people in need. There would be less happiness lost than gained because of the extra resources you get by killing a lonely old retired person.

Wouldnt it also be moral if I kill a depressed person and take his stuff?
Happiness increase. He was unhappy and I am now more happy.

Acts are not good or bad because of its consequences.