Refute utilitarianism

>philosophy should be le science for some paradoxical reason

How exactly you calculate utility?

Falsifiability is a Philosophical concept, retard.

Hedonism or some bullshit like that.

Wellbeing can't be measured.

No it's not, it's a philosophical concept created by bad philosophy (science) in order to justify its dogmatism.

Number of times you're getting your dick sucked.

I agree, yet it still refutes your shitty philosophy nonetheless.

LOL!

This, painkillers are a spook.

Not the same person but you didn't refute shit.

No it doesn't, it isn't even valid. It's just dogma, like Occam's Razor or any other 'do not question this' theory.

Utilitarianism turns people into lazy shits by spending their lives pursuing pleasure and hiding from pain.

Still haven't explained how you measure utility, buddy, or how you think the future will still be as causally understood as the past!

They can silence the pain in my body, but they will never silence the pain in my soul.

Because humans are not inherently objective or utility based beings. We are emotional beings. if you use some strange utility definition that fits emotional rationale, then I think that utilitarianism works well.

Fuck off.

Here's a more philosophical explanation of that. Utilitarianism argues that reducing unhappiness is an inherently good thing. But this assumes that being unhappy is a bad thing. In fact, not only is being unhappy a very normal and good thing, one would say it is very weird of someone to never be unhappy. Essentially, utility cannot be calculated by increasing or reducing certain emotions, as those emotions are inherently contextual, and sometimes necessary to the human ideal. Or more simply, humans are emotional beings, all of our emotions are good things.

Utilitarian arguments, everybody.

Great argument, buddy! XD

Your argument is utilitarian.
Utilitarianism is an adolescent's philosophy.

Normal doesn't necessary means good. It is pretty normal to suffer from AIDS in Africa. Doesn't mean that it is pretty good thing for you. It would be kind of rare to not be unhappy?! Maybe. But would that be bad just because it is kind of weird? Looks like it would not.

Its normal in the sense that it's part of the ideal human condition. Having a life threading illness is not part of the human condition.

Being happy is also a part of ideal human condition because if you are unhappy than conditions aren't really ideal.

>old age is not part of the human condition
ok

Assumptions
1. Utilitarianism asks us to do what is best according to the hedonic calculus.
2. According to the hedonic calculus it is not best to do what is impossible.
3. Hedonic calculus is impossible.
___________
4. Utilitarianism is impossible (according to 1,2)
5. Utilitarianism asks us not to be Utilitarian (according to 2, 4)

I said emotions are contextual, so it's possible at two different points in time to have two opposite emotions, and both of them are good. For example, your beloved aunt dies. You're unhappy, even sad. Would it not be bad, if you were happy that she was dead?

On the contrary unhappiness is essential to the ideal human condition. Unhappiness is what compels you to better your conditions so you can be happy.

The obvious implication of this is that unhappiness isn't something to be avoided, it's something to be overcome in pursuit of one's true goals.

This.

what about the individual's inherent dignity and consciousness?

spooks and nothing more

Intetersting idea, but the ideal result here is for beloved to not be dead in the first place.

...

Utilitarianism fails to take into account the individuals inherent dignity and individual rights - for example
In the case of Ancient Rome where Christians where thrown to the Lions; would the Happiness of the Romans (thus increased utility) created by the suffering of the Christians establish a truly effiecient society?

It eventually leads to a Tyranny of the Majority and fails to consider Human beings as moral/emotional creatures.

>Utilitarianism fails to take into account the individuals inherent dignity and individual rights - for example
Not if you consider those having utility

> Tyranny of the Majority
You mean, to The Democracy, the best societal system out of them all? Seems like a pro for me.

>democracy
>best societal system

How do you know what's best for society? ONLY a fortune teller or time traveler could know the outcome to decisions made. Also what's best for society is a subjective question not objective.
Retard

please tell me more, genuinely interested

don't quite thinks that's what he said

what is the best societal system?

Utilitarians posit that pleasure is good, and suffering is evil, therefore the moral imperative is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. But this is a bad way of approaching life.

You can maximize pleasure and almost totally avoid pain by just sitting around all day indulging your urges but this won't actually develop into any kind of desirable future, and honestly I think it's no coincidence that utilitarianism is almost universally accepted and so many people do exactly this. Striving towards any kind of greatness requires a great deal of hard work, risk (something utilitarianism doesn't exactly encourage), humiliation, loneliness, uncertainty and above all else determination. These are things man should fully accept and march through the sorrow and misery towards the greatness that he really wants.

Some might respond
>But I don't want greatness. I'd rather shitpost on Veeky Forums all day
But I guarantee that this isn't true. In the back of everyone's mind there's always a little glimmer of ambition that reflects their true desires in life. Whenever we dream and whenever we're moved by art in those things we see our most naked wishes for greater things.

Aristocratic republic.

>You can maximize pleasure and almost totally avoid pain by just sitting around all day indulging your urges but this won't actually develop into any kind of desirable future

So a logical utilitarian would thus sacrifice certain kinds of short-term pleasure in exchange for long-term pleasures.

For example:

>Cut down on eating high-fat foods
>Sacrifices short-term pleasure
>In exchange gains better health
>Thus gaining long-term pleasure

Well said, thanks for responding. Couldn't agree more.

...

Not using utilitarianism would maximize human happiness.

What do you think about the idea of a collective societal view towards understanding those who have tried and worked hard to achieve a greater goal but ultimately fell short? Rather than belittling or pitying those who have failed what if we encouraged positive response of understanding. Or do you think that kind of falls into the "too nice" bracket where if everybody is too nice and understanding to one another, it removes the effect of humiliation and uncertainty, therefore negatively impacting the possibility of reaching the maximum pleasure. i.e: "Well, it didn't work, but at least I have my friends and peers to encourage me and be friendly in my time of struggle."

what if others in a lower class bracket want to attempt to be of high noble status and be part of a group who choose decisions for their nation? do you think aristocratic republics limit the ability to achieve for most living in the society or no?
Genuinely curious, not trying to start an argument.

The thing is I'm not just encouraging doing this like limiting pleasure now for more pleasure later. Fundamentally that doesn't address the real criticism which is that contrary to utilitarian belief pain isn't evil, as a matter of fact in an abstract sense it's a good thing.

What I'm advocating for is actually quite irrational from a utilitarian perspective, embracing all that hardship in pursuit of greatness isn't a weighted decision based on rewards versus sacrifices and risks. The actual gravity of the sacrifices and risks involved should be no object because they're all just obstacles to be overcome on the road to greatness. And all that is overcome doesn't subtract from what we desire like a zero sum equation, all that is overcome only affirms our goal even more.

It's like love in a way.

I think the aristocracy should be a meritocratic class consisting of the most accomplished individuals from various fields so that it's a very literal "rule of the best" rather than something resembling the feudal nobility.

I'd also suggest that inheritance be unconditionally banned to prevent anyone from being born with an advantage beyond their own capability.

I think we should be understanding, but at the same time I don't think this should extend so far that we're constantly patting each other on the back.

I think humiliation is more of a personal feeling than caused by other's reaction. Like very often people would feel humiliated whether or not anyone else even noticed. But the really dangerous thing here isn't the humiliated person deciding "I don't really care that much because no one judges me", the real danger is this kind of universal back-patting becoming something of a social convention which can cause people to be nice without any sincerity but out of social obligation. In turn this kind of insincere kindness would just become grating and make the humiliated person feel even more isolated (through no fault of their own). This kind of isolation wouldn't actually teach them anything other than a distrust for other people's intentions.

> pleasure is good, and suffering is evil
Which is basically your position, but with a vague concept of greatness instead of vague concept of pleasure being the main and only goal.

Except I don't say that suffering is evil, in fact I'm saying in this specific sense it's good. Additionally the significance of pleasure=good, suffering=evil in utilitarianism is that utilitarianism deduces what is desirable by weighing the pleasure against the suffering. If we're to apply this to my position the vague idea of greatness always equals infinity, because no amount of hardship weighed against it should be a deterrent.

> utilitarianism deduces what is desirable by weighing the pleasure against the suffering
Uutility isn't necessary pleasure. Especially not in the late utilitarianism. Basically nothing stops you from considering greatness as part of it.
> No amount of hardship weighed against it should be a deterrent
You can easily construct situation where acquiring the greatness aren't worth it. Especially because a greatness itself is relative. Was it worth to become great by act of pure destruction, or in obscure way that nobody would know about or by some method that stops future greatness from being possible for anyone else, etc.

Hedonistic calculus

I understand that there's different types of utilitarianism. I'm speaking on the original and most popularly understood type.

>Especially because a greatness itself is relative
Obviously, greatness lies in the eye of the beholder. But even though one man's vision of greatness is different to another's this by no means they're less significant to their respective individuals.

>Was it worth to become great by act of pure destruction
I'd say so.
> or in obscure way that nobody would know about
Absolutely
>or by some method that stops future greatness from being possible for anyone else,
This is a tricky one but if it was me I would go for it. Obviously from any other perspective it seems reprehensible. But I'd also say that you shouldn't let other people obstruct you.

I understand it's a hypothetical problem. But I have to note it's more than a bit unrealistic. Short of the total annihilation of the human race great people will eventually come along and overcome the obstacle you've just crafted.

> it's a hypothetical problem.
People like Herostratus destroyed great things of their times, just for their name to be remembered. If you put your greatness over everything else the end result here is total bankrupcy of the concept of greatness itself. Simply. There is no reason to even recognize any other greatness beyond one, that can be attributed to you.

>People like Herostratus destroyed great things of their times, just for their name to be remembered
The thing is I'm not advocating "greatness" in the sense of being famous and formidable. I mean greatness in the sense of your particular idea of what would be a great life.

Of course some people's ideas of a great life will be to just be famous and formidable, or less still just to aimlessly ruin things. Which is why philosophy is important to informing what you might want out of life.

>If you put your greatness over everything else the end result here is total bankrupcy of the concept of greatness itself.
>There is no reason to even recognize any other greatness beyond one, that can be attributed to you.
Where did you even get this idea from?

> Your particular idea of what would be a great life.
Isn't that just barely diffirent from ethical pluralism, where everyone just doing what they want to do in their life. Basically the main argument here is that utilitarianism isnt' right because some people, like maybe, just want to suffer somewhat or whatever?

>Isn't that just barely diffirent from ethical pluralism, where everyone just doing what they want to do in their life.
No, I'm suggesting a very specific of values and virtues. It should be of no controversy that these can be applied to different routes in life. Likewise it should be very obvious that thinking everyone should be a conquering warlord is absolutely retarded, like thinking that everyone should be an accountant or something.

> Basically the main argument here is that utilitarianism isnt' right because some people, like maybe, just want to suffer somewhat or whatever?
Go back, read what all I've written ITT again and think about it. Because you've very clearly understood virtually none of it.

> very specific of values and virtues
> your particular idea of what would be a great life.
You just listed the things that you considered as a some sort of requirment to the great life. I am sure that depending on their own particular idea, people can exclude some or even all of them from the set or add something else that you didn't considere to be of importance.

I already addressed this argument in the second post

>Some might respond
>>But I don't want greatness. I'd rather shitpost on Veeky Forums all day
>But I guarantee that this isn't true. In the back of everyone's mind there's always a little glimmer of ambition that reflects their true desires in life. Whenever we dream and whenever we're moved by art in those things we see our most naked wishes for greater things.

As you can see one of my premises is that everyone does harbour these romantic ideas about their individual vision of greatness. The things I've outlined, I would posit are the most fundamental underpinnings of a great life, and to exclude them is to just do yourself a disservice by taking a half-assed approach to it.

I do however accept that people may add things that I haven't outlined here, indeed I personally value things that I haven't outlined because I consider them to be personal additions that are distinct from the underlying foundation. And indeed I would encourage others to do the same.