You have 5 seconds to prove why utilitarianism shouldn't be the only philosophical view we should apply to our lives

>you have 5 seconds to prove why utilitarianism shouldn't be the only philosophical view we should apply to our lives.
>protip you cant
>inbefore edgy nietzsche faggots

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12131657
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Utility bills.

utility monster

Literally babbies first moral philosophy

subjective

In his autobiography, John Stuart Mill lamented how utilitarianism is an inadequate model to base life on. At one point a strong advocate of it, he later came to see it as attempting to measure what could not be measured. Something irrational like emotions or meaning of life are subjective, so the objective lens of utilitarianism is inept.

Wow I typed that fast

Because it is not in my own interest.

how i calculated utilities

Ill break your legs and the pleasure Ill get from it will be far greater than the pain you endure.

...

>you have 5 seconds to prove why utilitarianism should
is/ought problem. your thread is shit.

I reject the fact-value distinction so the is-ought gap isn't relevant.
Utilitarianism is still shit do

Utilitarianism is a solid ethical philosophy, but we can't be sure whether it should apply to extreme situations like whether we should murder someone to harvest their organs so we can save 5 lives.

>so the is-ought gap isn't relevant.
no, you're just wrong. there's no evidence supporting objective inherent value.

>there's no evidence supporting objective inherent value

I already said I disagree with the fact value distinction, given this, your objection is literally retarded. It makes as much sense as saying "there is no evidence that objects have a texture"

but that's wrong. texture is something observable, tangible, reproducible. objective inherent value is none of these things. you disagree with reality, that makes you wrong, your opinions have nothing to do with it.

>there's no evidence supporting objective inherent value.
You must love Jackson Pollock, you relativist fuckhead.

>muh 10,000,000 people with specks of dust in their eyes is worse than a person being tortured for 50 years

Fuck felix

The most valuable things are preciswly what is useless.

don't know who pollock is, nor do I consider myself a relativist. more of a phenomenologist. I recognize the existence of knowledge, because there's evidence it exists within my first-person perspective. there is no such evidence for morality or objective inherent value in things.

>there is no such evidence for morality
okay, then go rape your mother and set an orphanage on fire.
>objective inherent value in things.
okay, then deviate from all standards observed throughout history in successful societies and see how far it gets you.
stirner is a meme, you dip.

Why do you think morality means value has to be "inherent in things." According to utilitarianism, value doesn't just come from a thing but from our (subjective) reaction to it.

I can only see non sequitur here

It justifies gang rapes and I still have 4 seconds left.

what exactly is wrong with this then? why are your personal feelings on morality more valid than an something based in logic?

it's time to stop posting athene

>okay, then go rape your mother and set an orphanage on fire.
why should I do that? I have no reason. is suggesting that someone should do something you have a negative opinion of really the best moral realist argument you have?

>okay, then deviate from all standards observed throughout history in successful societies and see how far it gets you.
why should I do that? I have no reason. is suggesting that someone should do something you have a negative opinion of really the best moral realist argument you have?

that's the second example as to how utilitarianism has bases outside of observable reality, the first being the is/ought problem.

>it's your job to disprove me

I think it makes a few assumptions like humans being objective

how does it justify gang rapes you edgy autist

I can kill everyone but the happiest person and increase the average utility.

>strawmans everywhere
If you hate utilitarianism and think the atomic bombings were justified, you're a hypocrite.

The idea that your actions can be retroactively immoral despite intentions because the results did not turn out as expected makes utilitarianism impractical.

People look at consequentalism/utilitarianism as a way to justify being an asshole. Watch too much anime, rpgs or something where villains espouse it. It's done every day by ordinary people.

Utilitarianism has no conceptual basis, because you can't explain why we ought to be utilitarian, or explain how it is manifestly human or compatible with humans. Why do you think maximizing utility is a sound moral project, how does it at all comport with the human moral concept, as opposed to your alien and arbitrary moral concept?

Utilitarianism leads to pathological altruism, commodification, and faux-pragmatism. It abstracts value and virtue so much as to leave nothing left of what was there in the first place. Utilitarian thinking is valueless thinking, and a casual and arbitrary morality

Nothing about your post is accurate. It screams of someone who almost did the reading for an intro to ethics class that he made a B- in.

Utilitarianism is based on the reasoned premise that flourishing ought to be maximized. The conceptual basis is that good/utility/happiness/flourishing are so in virtue of a being that can benefit from them.

Explanations for why we ought to be utilitarian are numerous. Some argue we should be utilitarian because other ethical systems are flawed. Some argue we should be utilitarian because it captures our moral intuitions.

Do the reading next time.

If it results in 7 people dying of cancer, yeah.

Not everyone will into utilitarianism. Heck, some folks don't even spelling it.

>I don't understand what objective means : the post
Isn't it past your bedtime kid?

No you fucking faggot, this is a basic retardation of logic. If you were utilitarian you'd be a hypocrite for not supporting the atomic bombings. Just because one view falls within this worldview does not mean no one else can have it.

>& humanities

>The conceptual basis is that good/utility/happiness/flourishing are so in virtue of a being that can benefit from them.

You're completely right that I'm ignorant as fuck about utilitarianism :DD

But the point is that utilitarianism forces us to grapple with moral 'otherness', Morality is (at least formatively) an emergent thing based in the virtues inhered to our individual nature and the society and broader environment in which it has gestated up to this point. You moralize from a developed perspective and this perspective is largely definitive.

Considering the preferences of an alien with an expressly alien moral psychology (or lack thereof) is at best arbitrary, or at worst morally counteractive. I feel like utilitarianism is missing a dimension of normativity, where there is moral preference but an absence of moral relatedness (or like a moral locus, a meaningful reference point). Abstract preference is not the only thing to morality, there is a necessary side of egoism or self-preference

also, I'm going on and on about *preference*, but the criticism should apply to just about any framework.

I never really understood why people latch on to this philosophy.
Instead prove to me why it SHOULD be the only philosophy.

If you're not utilitarian, you're a hypocrite to support them. Making excuses is childish.

I don't think it is as useful as deontological ethics in snap decisions, or decisions in which we do not have time to weigh the consequences.

Which I would content is a common issue.

If you're not results-oriented chances are you're a child, woman or a slave.

Prove its illogical nature or else you are talking out of your ass.
If there is no moral boundary between right and wrong, no absolute frame of reference through which individuals operate, then why not go all the way? You do not need reason to act amorally, the two are not mutually exclusive.
>is suggesting that someone should do something you have a negative opinion of really the best moral realist argument you have?
You make my point, it is more than an opinion, it is an objectively detrimental act. From any way you slice it, killing your mother is a bad thing, unless she is trying to kill you, but our mothers are, in general, loving and caring, and only want the best for us. If you claim that there is no absolute moral framework, then what is stopping you from acting amorally, or morally, as you see it?
I argue that there is an absolute moral framework that is the most beneficial. Avoid murder outside of justice (specifically capital punishment), maintain/promote healthy values in a community (respect for the law, respect for your parents, respect for your body, avoid harmful substances/addiction, etc.), and to not kill your own mother, for starters.
You just read Stirner or some other egoist faggot once and think you're hot shit, so dude morals lmao is now your slogan. Set up a society based off of morally relativist logic and see how far it gets you. Then set one up with absolute rules the people strive to follow, and a moral framework as I have described above and see how far that one gets.
Not an argument. Prove how it is wrong or else you are just shitposting.

It justifies one gang-rape instead of several usual rapes. Not "if I'm gonna rape her I might as well call the boys" gang-rapes.

Well obviously you would make said person's family and friends sad in the process so it's hardly maximizing happiness. What if the person was a serial killer and mass rapist of all ages?

>If there is no moral boundary between right and wrong, no absolute frame of reference through which individuals operate, then why not go all the way?
yes, yes. this is reality.

>From any way you slice it, killing your mother is a bad thing,
subjectively. maybe I don't like her?

>If you claim that there is no absolute moral framework, then what is stopping you from acting amorally, or morally, as you see it?
nothing. this is reality, whether you like it or not.

>Avoid murder outside of justice (specifically capital punishment), maintain/promote healthy values in a community (respect for the law, respect for your parents, respect for your body, avoid harmful substances/addiction, etc.), and to not kill your own mother, for starters.
can you tell me why I should do these things without using opinions?

>Set up a society based off of morally relativist logic and see how far it gets you.
who said anything about moral relativism? irrelevant. who said anything about building a society? irrelevant. we are simply discussing the lack of validity of moral realism.

>Then set one up with absolute rules the people strive to follow, and a moral framework as I have described above and see how far that one gets.
define "far". is there some kind of objective metric you measure the "success" of a society with? sounds spooky.

>yes, yes. this is reality.
At least you aren't a simulation cuck.
>subjectively. maybe I don't like her?
What is your reasoning? She nurtured you through infancy and provided the female presence in your life. The maternal presence, paired with the paternal presence, in a child's early stages of life are pivotal for healthy development. I'm not arguing circumstance, if she's some cokehead whore who gave birth to a dumpster baby, but the definition of mothers as applied to most first-world nations.
>nothing. this is reality, whether you like it or not.
I still agree it is reality, and I do like it.
>can you tell me why I should do these things without using opinions?
Murder is detrimental to the well-being and success of a society. Kill all the able-bodied individuals and the roles we fulfil in our communities are left as voids, which means that that society will collapse into anarchy.
Respect for the law is also pivotal, we use law to avoid chaos, we set boundaries (hint: objectivity) on what we deem as being morally permissible in our communities. Running red lights isn't a great decision because it shows irresponsibility for the safety of others/yourself, which is not beneficial to our society. I'm beginning to think you were a dumpster baby if I have to spoonfeed you this, but I like the conversation.
Ad-hom aside, respecting your parents is also important, as they are the caregivers (breadwinner/homemakers) in your life, unless you are some dumpster baby, but we discussed this above. They are important people in your life who demonstrate selflessness and teach you basic life lessons from infancy all the way to adolescence, up until you become an adult (even past that point, with advice on how to raise your OWN child). The point being that one who respects selflessness and virtuous acts praises them, and does not bite the hand that feeds.
Respecting your body is in direct reference to the next points, in that you want to avoid drug use and...

...alcoholism, because drug use creates addiction to the substance, which is a net negative on your wallet, spending money on substances which you are addicted to. There is also a link between alcohol use/cigarette use and cancer development: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12131657
One of many, but the addiction and tolerance to these substances are proven to shorten your lifespan. Unless you are suicidal, this is a bad thing. Or are you going to argue that the passage of time is relativist, too?
>who said anything about moral relativism? irrelevant.
You are arguing for a moral framework which I am refuting because of its ineptitude when adopted by others. Surely, you are not as self-centred to assume you are the only one who thinks like this? These mannerisms will catch on, I am trying to point out the pitfalls if/when it does.
>who said anything about building a society? irrelevant.
The moral framework applied to a mock society. It is important to compare the two side-by-side to make an accurate conclusion. If you are trying to prove that objectivity is bunk, let's see what moral standards have brought us? And what subjective philosophy has brought us, specifically moral relativism?
>we are simply discussing the lack of validity of moral realism.
Doing so successfully makes comparisons between different systems and their applications.
>define "far". is there some kind of objective metric you measure the "success" of a society with? sounds spooky.
I rest my case, you are a Stirner fanboy. By far, I mean financial success and genetic success. Raising a healthy and well-off/prosperous family that is happy with their condition. A poor family may be happy with their condition, but they are not well-off. A mentally ill person may be well-off, but not happy. A cripple may be happy, but not physically fit. The description of success/far I describe above is something that is... objectively true. But no, success is bigoted, too heteronormative and colonial

That's not how humans work.

>What is your reasoning?
it's an opinion. reasoning is irrelevant. that's the point.
>Murder is detrimental to the well-being and success of a society.
that's an opinion. one could argue the opposite and be equally valid in their arguments.
>Unless you are suicidal, this is a bad thing.
that's an opinion. one could argue the opposite and be equally valid in their arguments.
>Or are you going to argue that the passage of time is relativist, too?
you're the only one who's brought up moral relativism. it is not relevant nor is it the opposite of moral realism.
>If you are trying to prove that objectivity is bunk
more things I've never said. not relevant.
>specifically moral relativism?
I already explained in my last post that I've never once brought up moral relativism, it's all you dude.
>By far, I mean financial success and genetic success.
why are these the metric at which we should measure "success" in a society? literally your opinion.
>The description of success/far I describe above is something that is... objectively true
no, it's literally an opinion. another guy's opinion of success could be sustainability and automation success instead of reproductive or play-money success. his opinion would be equally valid as yours in an argument. because it's the opposite of objective.

literally half of your response is opinions and the other half is moral relativism strawman.

utility is a spook

Because it's easy for any random jackass to justify something as "for the greater good." Nazi thought ran on this shit.

>it's an opinion. reasoning is irrelevant. that's the point.
And you are entitled to your opinion, but it is baseless when you wish to weigh the merit of a moral framework. What I have suggested is tried and true, not merely my opinion.
>that's an opinion. one could argue the opposite and be equally valid in their arguments.
You use this a lot. Prove how each case is founded in opinion over observable cases with founding in reality, which we both love so much.
>you're the only one who's brought up moral relativism. it is not relevant nor is it the opposite of moral realism.
You claim that killing your mother is bad, and that its detrimental aspect is merely opinion. I state that murder is a universal concept, and any attempt at undermining this universality is characteristic of morally relativist philosophy.
>more things I've never said. not relevant.
Not explicitly, but denying universal cases, like that murder is bad, doesn't make your case very valid.
>I already explained in my last post that I've never once brought up moral relativism, it's all you dude.
See above.
>why are these the metric at which we should measure "success" in a society? literally your opinion.
>I'm not a relativist, bro. Dude subjective frameworks lmao
Nah, it's more so than opinion. You claim that every thought an individual has on a concept is an opinion, completely disregarding if the claim is corroborated by reality or not. Say, I can say that murder is great, but if it actually is not factual, then it is opinion. If my claim is both opinionated and factual, which is the case, then it ceases to so much an opinion as it is a universal concept.
>no, it's literally an opinion. another guy's opinion of success could be sustainability and automation success instead of reproductive or play-money success. his opinion would be equally valid as yours in an argument. because it's the opposite of objective.
So because people have different perceptions, they all balance each other...

... out, to be able to call each and every one of them mere 'opinion'? You can test to see which 'opinion' is more valid in reality, you are just going off of its preconceptions without analyzing its execution. I state that my idea of success (an opinion) is doing drugs all day long. So I do that, "succeed", and eventually die of an overdose/get caught in the endless drug cycle. Another says his idea of success is saving money for retirement and having children to continue his bloodline. He does so and lives a much longer life (dude time is a bigoted concept, it's just opinion bro live fast and free), and continues his bloodline. The biological urge to procreate is the foundation of all societies, perverting it has/will result in destruction. This perversion includes abandoning it, claiming all "goals" are equal in their "opinion-ation". Not all opinions are created equal, the entire reason you're here so that Stirner can live through you is proof that universal concepts/goals are valid. If they weren't, the drug addicts would have inherited the world.

Justice as fairness - John Rawls

Nice

>And you are entitled to your opinion
no you're confused, you need to maintain a context of discussion or I'll get bored very quickly. I was stating that it is your opinion I should like my mother and that this is reasoning to not murder her. it's an opinion. yours. I have little interest in talking to people who can't focus on a discussion.
>You use this a lot.
because you use opinions as a basis for reasoning a lot.
>You claim that killing your mother is bad
no I didn't. quote me. can you maintain a context of conversation or do you have reading comprehension difficulties? or is this more straw man? jesus dude.
>Not explicitly, but denying universal cases, like that murder is bad, doesn't make your case very valid.
"murder is bad" is an opinion. there is nothing objective about it. sharing your opinion has nothing to do with the validity of any of my statements.
>You claim that every thought an individual has on a concept is an opinion
no I didn't quote me. more straw man? more reading comprehension difficulties? yawn.
>If my claim is both opinionated and factual
that's the same as saying "if my claim is both subjective and objective". it's contradictory at the most fundamental of levels.
>So because people have different perceptions, they all balance each other..
is it magic?!

>You can test to see which 'opinion' is more valid in reality
lmao "more valid" opinion do you even understand basic logical reasoning? "murder is bad because I don't like it" is just as valid as a basis for an argument as "killing niggers is good because I hate them". literally equally valid. because they're opinions. there's not even remotely such a thing as a "more valid" opinion.
>He does so and lives a much longer life
how is this objectively better? more opinions!
>If they weren't, the drug addicts would have inherited the world.
pretty fucking non-sequitor. also, why is inheriting the world an objective measure of success? isn't that a specific opinion as to what is considered "success"? what is this general "success" you speak of? it sounds pretty fucking subjective. is it another opinion?

is your entire argument STILL nothing but using opinions as bases and constructing straw men? still?!?!

>you need to maintain a context of discussion or I'll get bored very quickly.
woe is me.
>I was stating that it is your opinion I should like my mother and that this is reasoning to not murder her.
Not my claim, I went to depths to avoid opinionated claims, but that's all you wish to attribute to conflicting worldviews. Spooks are spooks.
>because you use opinions as a basis for reasoning a lot.
Prove this, refute my rebuttal against your accusation.
>no I didn't. quote me. can you maintain a context of conversation or do you have reading comprehension difficulties? or is this more straw man? jesus dude.
I meant to irrelevant because universal concepts don't exist. Misquote. The strawman is not a valid copout now that I have corrected myself.
>"murder is bad" is an opinion.
>dude, it's just a strawman
I provided my claims as to why it is bad above. It is not opinionated, I proved how we can test frameworks for their merit above. If you can't think of a real argument, just let me know so we can end this already, everything is an opinion to you. Only reason you exist is because universal goals have merit and are chased by organisms who wish to thrive and succeed, in the objective sense.
>no I didn't quote me. more straw man?
Okay, let's test if it is a strawman. Is murder bad? (we know your answer here). Is rape bad? Is it bad to be an alcoholic? Is it good to gamble all your money away? Is it good to have sex with children? Is it bad to have laws that prevent these things? Is it good to record events along the timeline of human history? Is it bad to wear clothes when you go outside?
>that's the same as saying "if my claim is both subjective and objective".
That was exactly my point, that it is one or the other. I still hold the fact (once it is universally acceptable, then it is fact and no longer opinion) to be true, because it is true. Here's another test, what do you think about post-modern art compared to, say, more 'dated' pieces?

>is it magic
So you have no arguments and you just want to joke around?
>lmao "more valid" opinion do you even understand basic logical reasoning?
Pot calling the kettle black.
>"murder is bad because I don't like it"
You claim I misquote and misrepresent your claims, but you do the same to me. Show me an exact quote where I explicitly state that murder is bad because "I dislike it". I typed this in my original defense: Murder is detrimental to the well-being and success of a society. Kill all the able-bodied individuals and the roles we fulfil in our communities are left as voids, which means that that society will collapse into anarchy.
Regarding mothers, I talked about not biting the hand that feeds and about the selflessness. I never said we should not do this specific action because it makes me feel bad, that is a byproduct of the universally negative attributes bound to the action itself.
>how is this objectively better?
I didn't think you would attack the concept of time in relation to human life, too. So living longer is a bad thing? Okay, then if you believe that living longer irrelevant to objective success in life, then what do you have to say about the HDI in relation to first-world nations' life expectancies? Or is the HDI baseless, too? Well, then what about other metrics which measure well-being, are all of them baseless units of measuring the success of a nation? Why are poorer nations, in general, unhappier (on the HDI index). There are exceptions, like the rate of suicide in places like Norway and Japan, but there are other metric which measure different things, like press freedom, access to healthcare, access to education, etc. Is it just a coincidence? My main point is that we can measure these things and prove that having access to clean water is not good because of opinion, but because of the fact that there are universally positive things in life which directly improve the quality of life, unlike universally negative things.

>pretty fucking non-sequitor
Nah, the point being that if there is to be no reference of success, then people who practice universally negative actions should be on equal standing with the other people who save for their 401K's.
>isn't that a specific opinion as to what is considered "success"? what is this general "success" you speak of? it sounds pretty fucking subjective. is it another opinion?
I've already described that. Just because different opinions on the topic of success exist does not change the universally approved/tried-and-true methods/end-points of success. Health being a massive point, human beings, as with all complex life, wish to avoid scenarios which negatively impact their future/likelihood to survive.

>I went to depths to avoid opinionated claims
literally all of your arguments are based in opinion! "murder is bad" "dying is bad" "success is determined by wealth" these are all examples of opinions you've used as basises for arguments.
>Prove this
literally just referenced three opinions you've used as bases, all of which I told you directly were opinions the moment you used them as bases. scroll up.
>I meant to irrelevant because universal concepts don't exist.
I'm now quoting you stating "universal concepts exist" in other parts of your argument.
"I state that murder is a universal concept,"
"then it ceases to so much an opinion as it is a universal concept. "
you are now directly contradicting yourself.
>I provided my claims as to why it is bad above.
explaining why you think it's bad doesn't make it any less of an opinion. I can explain to you all I want as to why I think chocolate chip cookies are delicious. doesn't make it any less of an opinion.
>I proved how we can test frameworks for their merit above.
no, you gave your opinion as to what is considered universal 'success", even though now according to you universal concepts don't exist.
>If you can't think of a real argument
utilitarianism is invalidated by deriving an "ought" from an "is" and being based in subjective reasoning. this is the initial argument. you have yet to refute this. all you have done is made invalid counter-arguments based on your own opinions, and went on irrelevant straw man rants.
>Only reason you exist
irrelevant.

>Okay, let's test if it is a strawman. Is murder bad? (we know your answer here). Is rape bad? Is it bad to be an alcoholic? Is it good to gamble all your money away? Is it good to have sex with children? Is it bad to have laws that prevent these things? Is it good to record events along the timeline of human history? Is it bad to wear clothes when you go outside?
any answer to any of these is literally an opinion. murderers, rapists, pedophiles, happy alcoholics, oral traditionists, nude tribesmen all have different opinions than you on these things. that's why they can't be used as a basis for an argument here.
>what do you think about post-modern art compared to, say, more 'dated' pieces?
irrelevant.
>Show me an exact quote where I explicitly state that murder is bad because
it doesn't matter what your reasoning is for your opinion. attacking that point is irrelevant. you should focus on the idea that you're using opinions as bases for your arguments instead of try to red herring. who cares why you think murder is bad? doesn't make it any less of an opinion.
>So living longer is a bad thing?
opinion.
>Why are poorer nations, in general, unhappier (on the HDI index).
why is happiness relevant? is it your opinion that everyone should be happy? jesus, MORE opinions?
>but because of the fact that there are universally positive things in life
this is a religious view. evidence?

>universally approved/tried-and-true methods/end-points of success.
no such thing. only opinions, some opinions are more common than others, but there is no "universal opinion". that would mean everyone shared it, which is false.
>Health being a massive point
opinion.

>Prove its illogical nature or else you are talking out of your ass.
Because I don't act according to some "objective inherent value" of a thing, I act according to the value that thing has to me. If I were a sociopath and felt an immense pleasure in setting orphanages on fire and if living in a world where I killed my mom were my dream, then yeah I would do what you said.
Also is/ought, just because moral realism doesn't make sense to me it doesn't mean that I *should* go all the way doing things that would be disgusting to me.
And no, you don't need an absolute ethics to form a society. Maybe to delude the slaves, to give them some comfort with imaginary revenges (by "morally condemning"), but masters laugh at such ethics, that is the reality. To force citizens into obeying your government you only need to convince them about how it is preferable to the chaos of the natural state.

>literally all of your arguments are based in opinion! "murder is bad" "dying is bad" "success is determined by wealth" these are all examples of opinions you've used as basises for arguments.
Nah, murder is bad, then I elaborated. Success is determined by wealth, then I elaborated (not just having money, but using it wisely for the optimal future, not wasting it gambling).
>all of which I told you directly were opinions
You can say many things, if you do not refute them first it means nothing.
>I'm now quoting you stating "universal concepts exist" in other parts of your argument.
>"I state that murder is a universal concept,"
>"then it ceases to so much an opinion as it is a universal concept. "
>you are now directly contradicting yourself.
Great, now we can apply it to test its merit. In what way is it a universal concept that has a net positive outcome when executed (no pun intended). Can you give me an example?
>explaining why you think it's bad
If you read what I posted, I deliberately avoided using statements like "I feel" or "I think".
>I can explain to you all I want as to why I think chocolate chip cookies are delicious.
That truly is subjective, but that is a false equivalence to claim that preference is equivalent to opinions on murder, rape, etc. That point truly is subjective, you can like whatever flavour you want to, but there is a difference between cookie flavour and murder. Any sane and rational agent would wish to avoid deleterious outcomes like the termination of their existence.
>no, you gave your opinion as to what is considered universal 'success"
Incorrect. I avoided using statements like "I feel" and "I think", I explained why the concept is objectively undesirable, and why we should avoid it. Virtues and vices are not equivalent, if they were, we would be able to operate under either one with equal outcomes.

>utilitarianism is invalidated by deriving an "ought" from an "is"
Ought/is argument is pretty weak, you are claiming that because something is, then we should not wish to reform it or put forth alternatives in any way. Nobody is claiming that we should change it for the sole purpose of replacing it with the 'ought', but that the 'is' can be improved. For example, every 'is' law used to not be 'is', and was originally conjured up as some 'ought'. The argument would wish for humanity to remain in anarchy because that was the form of order, or lack thereof.
>you have yet to refute this.
When you state that my points are derived solely from my own arbitrary opinions, that is a strawman. Discard my claims and seek out others who claim the same as I do, if you do not believe me. When you see that they arrive at the same conclusion (that universally negative actions exist), then you can stop making strawmans (you dislike something, therefore that is your reasoning).
>irrelevant straw man rants.
I made an error in my typing, and fixed it. You didn't respond to the corrected point, interesting...
>any answer to any of these is literally an opinion.
Not all opinions are created equal. We can test to see which 'work'. Or is work bigoted, too? Alcoholism and murder are not traits one wishes to see expressed in a community, because they damage the fabric of that community. I am not saying that I feel it is mean or upsetting, I am stating that killing another individual is detrimental to the success of a civilization. This is proven by most major civilizations throughout history, which had punishments issued for murder. Why would they do this, certainly it was independent of my opinion. What was their reasoning, could it be that allowing everybody to commit murder was a universally negative action that inhibited the advancement of their communities?
>irrelevant.
Not an argument, the point was to test your degree of aesthetic relativist spirit.

>it doesn't matter what your reasoning is for your opinion.
>I don't have to provide quotes to back up my statements, I am literally that special.
You have yet to show where I used my feelings for justification of my arguments. I never said that we shouldn't kill our mothers because it makes me feel sad, or that I dislike the action, but instead, why the action itself is wrong. I made no personal connection to it whatsoever. You gotta prove/quote where I did so before we can move forward.
>opinion.
Why do organisms fight back against near-death situations?
>why is happiness relevant?
Because it is a good litmus test, a rational and sane agent will avoid universally negative scenarios because it understands the detrimental consequences of engaging in said activities. Avoiding things like murder means it survives, which is an innate desire in all complex life (to survive to reproduce, rather).
>is it your opinion that everyone should be happy?
No. For somebody who hates strawmanning, you sure do love them. Quote me where I endorsed a happiness-first/individualist/hedonist society, please.
>this is a religious view.
So you cannot have objective moral framework without religion?
>but there is no "universal opinion". that would mean everyone shared it, which is false.
never claimed that. Also
>implying all humans are rational agents
>opinion.
Then jump into oncoming traffic and become paralyzed, if there is no difference between the state of being healthy versus the state of being unhealthy.

here
>Ought/is argument is pretty weak, you are claiming that because something is, then we should not wish to reform it or put forth alternatives in any way. Nobody is claiming that we should change it for the sole purpose of replacing it with the 'ought', but that the 'is' can be improved. For example, every 'is' law used to not be 'is', and was originally conjured up as some 'ought'. The argument would wish for humanity to remain in anarchy because that was the form of order, or lack thereof.
I think you misunderstood the is/ought dilemma, it is not about it being wrong to wish to change things, it is about it being nonsense to derive an "ought" exclusively from an "is", like "There are no objective values so let's kill each other". If killing were objectively wrong but I could only feel myself "flourishing" in killing, then I would not give a fuck about the wrongness of my acts.

is/ought gap*

>Because I don't act according to some "objective inherent value" of a thing, I act according to the value that thing has to me.
This is directly out of Stirner's handbook.
So, individualism? If you care so much about opinion, how can you claim that your judgement is valid/beneficial to other individuals? The individual can believe that raping children has value to them, that does not make it true. This is cognitive dissonance, most individuals would leap at the idea of their value being reigned as the supreme authority to which they are bound by, and not a good kind of leap.
>If I were a sociopath and felt an immense pleasure in setting orphanages on fire and if living in a world where I killed my mom were my dream, then yeah I would do what you said.
Killing orphans is murder, as is killing your mother. Murder is detrimental to a civilization because it removes all the able-bodied individuals and the roles we fulfil in our communities are left as voids, which means that that society will collapse into anarchy. The chaos brought about by that murder would destroy high-trust communities, turn the people against one another, and, eventually, do away with any sign of identity/unity. I never claimed that :I feel that this is a mean outcome, and I think we should not do that because it is bad. You have no excuse to strawman now.
>just because moral realism doesn't make sense to me it doesn't mean that I *should* go all the way doing things that would be disgusting to me.
Not asking you to, but telling you that crossing the universal truths we have set forth in our societies (morally permissible actions, as opposed to morally deleterious actions) will get you killed. Not asking you to do anything.
>you don't need an absolute ethics to form a society.
Why did all major civilizations get together and create rules through which they operate under?
>Maybe to delude the slaves
Let me guess, you aren't one of the slaves.
>but masters laugh
A master, then.

>To force citizens into obeying your government you only need to convince them about how it is preferable to the chaos of the natural state.
When your dad tells you not to drive into oncoming traffic, he does so because death results in absolute termination in the corporeal realm. Why do we mourn the dead if there is no difference between the state of being healthy, and the state of being really unhealthy? Why do organisms fight tooth and nail to avoid these scenarios, why has life evolved in this manner? This alludes to a set of objective rules through which certain/most organisms operate under. Advanced organisms, like humans, expand the list to create civilized societies.
>I think you misunderstood the is/ought dilemma, it is not about it being wrong to wish to change things, it is about it being nonsense to derive an "ought" exclusively from an "is", like "There are no objective values so let's kill each other". If killing were objectively wrong but I could only feel myself "flourishing" in killing, then I would not give a fuck about the wrongness of my acts.
"The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs."
That's the definition I found, I stated: Ought/is argument is pretty weak, you are claiming that because something is, then we should not wish to reform it or put forth alternatives in any way. Nobody is claiming that we should change it for the sole purpose of replacing it with the 'ought', but that the 'is' can be improved.
This references the status quo, but I like the original definition much better.

>it is about it being nonsense to derive an "ought" exclusively from an "is", like "There are no objective values so let's kill each other". If killing were objectively wrong but I could only feel myself "flourishing" in killing, then I would not give a fuck about the wrongness of my acts.
I am not claiming that the second we remove these objectives, that people start doing that, but that with the gradual removal/weakening of the law upholding the murder laws, people would feel no fear/apprehension to commit these acts, and they would gradually increase, most likely decreasing when they run out of people to kill.
Also, that assumes you are a rational agent. Sociopaths exist, do not change biological imperatives.

"Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets" - Grandpa Rick

Wait a minute.
My definition: Ought/is argument is pretty weak, you are claiming that because something is, then we should not wish to reform it or put forth alternatives in any way.
Definition: The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur.
I was not only wrong, but had it in the exact reverse.
Still, the absence of objective values is not the status quo position, which does not mean that it needs to be arbitrarily upheld because the status quo agrees/disagrees with it. In fact, t is the exact opposite.

God, your mode of arguing is awful, it's too chaotic. But I will try to organise it instead of replying to greentext.
From what I see, "moral realism" as you put it is about "the flourishing of civilisation": if something improves civilisation, then it is objectively good. But also you seem to use "objective" with another meaning: that is, meaning that things react to our actions in a way that we cannot control. I agree with this second use.
But what I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter to someone if "the flourishing of civilisation" is an absolute moral imperative if he doesn't give a fuck to it. People operate in the basis of what they give a fuck about, if the flourishing of civilisation seems like a moral imperative to you it is because you give a fuck to it. I am not arguing about which moral instance would be better for that flourishing, I am talking about the meaningless of a morality being "objective".
Yes, things react in a way that I cannot control, like, if I violate some established norms or advices I could get myself killed, as you said. But that is no argument for moral realism: I care about getting killed so I conform to some rules. My values still derive from my will and my understanding of the world here, not from an "objective ethics".
We can say that there is an objective (that is, methodical) way of doing ethics, but we can derive a lot of systems of values from that same way: just as you are careful about evaluating things in relation to the flourishing of civilisation, a serial killer can evaluate things in relation to the realisation of the perfect crime.
Also you are putting words in my mouth, I never said that an individual evaluates his actions according to the value it could have to others, such a value would only be important if he cared for their reactions, if it played an important role in what he is planning to do.

About
>"The is-ought fallacy occurs when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. It can also consist of the assumption that because something is not now occurring, this means it should not occur. In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. It seeks to make a value of a fact or to derive a moral imperative from the description of a state of affairs."
That is the definition of a fallacy, not the definition of Hume's is/ought problem. The fallacy is actually about going AGAINST Hume's idea.
About the need of moral realism for the formation of civilisations and the maintaining of order: no, we don't need it. The "objective way of doing ethics"? Yes, that is useful. But "the need to see a value as absolute, inherent to a thing"? No, that doesn't make sense. Civilisations get together because so they will, because they will get something from it. Also, I saw that you used "being objective" in the sense of being a law imposed by a government, that does not make it "objective", that just makes it an imposed law (and I am not arguing against making laws).

>God, your mode of arguing is awful, it's too chaotic.
Pot calling the kettle black. I think you just don't want to respond to each of my posts, so you resort to lazy "chaos" accusations. And THAT is subjective. You will have to affirm/deny my opinion with the truth, if you truly value it.
>From what I see, "moral realism" as you put it is about "the flourishing of civilisation": if something improves civilisation, then it is objectively good.
There are exceptions, it is not an absolute, it should be what is good for the ethnic population, true citizens of the nation. For example, illegal immigrants are in that civilization, technically. Who cares what criminals want to be happy, they have broken the law.
>But also you seem to use "objective" with another meaning: that is, meaning that things react to our actions in a way that we cannot control. I agree with this second use.
Can you give me an example?
>But what I am trying to say is that it doesn't matter to someone if "the flourishing of civilisation" is an absolute moral imperative if he doesn't give a fuck to it..."objective".
I am arguing that absolute individualism is cancer, if you haven't gathered that by now.
>Yes... "objective ethics".
If your values derive from your will and understanding of the environment around you, particularly your will, how can you simultaneously claim that you conform to the rules, which are not your own will?
>We... perfect crime.
Which is more beneficial to the advancement of a civilization of rational agents?
>Also... planning to do.
Of course, not all individuals are rational agents, most are individualists. Where did I put words in your mouth so I can rephrase myself.
>The fallacy is actually about going AGAINST Hume's idea.
Now I'm confused. I think it is in part because the fallacy was used against me... fallaciously. Not by you, just in the past.

>About the need of moral realism for the formation of civilisations and the maintaining of order: no, we don't need it.
Why? Otherwise, that's just, like, your opinion, man :^)
>The "objective way of doing ethics"? Yes, that is useful
I agree.
>But "the need to see a value as absolute, inherent to a thing"? No, that doesn't make sense.
Can you give me two examples and explain why it does not make sense?
>Civilisations get together because so they will, because they will get something from it
What is that thing(s) that they get from joining?
>that does not make it "objective", that just makes it an imposed law
I agree, simply because a law is imposed does not make it have valid standing. That's when I used the is/ought argument, simply because it is doesn't mean it has to remain, we can critique it with what we think 'ought' to replace it based off of the merits of the law, rather than its mere existence.
I originally had the argument used against me in relation to gay marriage. The guy said that I was arguing against it, therefore, I was extending my 'ought' on what 'is'; I was saying that just because it 'is' does not mean that it 'ought' to be, we can see what made it law, and if the merits of the action are grounded in healthy/biologically sound/beneficial futures.

>Where did I put words in your mouth so I can rephrase myself.
Here:
>If you care so much about opinion, how can you claim that your judgement is valid/beneficial to other individuals? The individual can believe that raping children has value to them, that does not make it true.
I said nothing about a criminal thinking that his crime is beneficial to the victims.

>I am arguing that absolute individualism is cancer
A cancer to civilisation. Also, try to argue with what I am saying instead of putting it into a label like "individualism" and arguing against that label. Like, even though I call your position "moral realism", I strive to identify some particularities in your way of thinking it instead of arguing against a preconceived definition. In my view someone could feel realised by contributing to the greatness of his ethnic group, and I don't think you would still call it "absolute individualism" and "cancer". That is the counter-productivity of arguing in terms of simple labels and generalisations, without any effort to try to understand a particular view of things.

>Can you give me an example?
>Virtues and vices are not equivalent, if they were, we would be able to operate under either one with equal outcomes.
(I am not the one you were arguing with, though, I was just reading your discussion, and as I said, I agree with that)
Also, by saying
>it should be what is good for the ethnic population
I think you don't disagree with me so much as you think. We just disagree in the status of the values as "inherent" to the actions. That to me is just a third-person ethics.

>Why? Otherwise, that's just, like, your opinion, man :^)
Because the political world works in the basis of particular interests. If we organise ourselves in a social body it is because we think it is, *for us*, better than living in a barbaric chaos, not because we think it is some absolute duty, that is, better for *the Absolute* or whatever. If we conform to the rules, it is either out of fear or out of love. If out of fear, it is either because we fear punishment or because we fear that our actions could encourage civil disobedience and chaos. If out of love, it is because we love our civilisation or ethnic group and the thought of them achieving greatness. My point is basically that a "third-person ethics" is of no value for someone who doesn't care about that third-person. Also I never said we should care for "what criminals want to be happy", if the way they search for their own happiness is against the law and I am for the law then, yeah, fuck them.

>If your values derive from your will and understanding of the environment around you, particularly your will, how can you simultaneously claim that you conform to the rules, which are not your own will?
Because the rules are part of the environment, because said environment includes other wills (from whose consensus come the rules).

>Which is more beneficial to the advancement of a civilization of rational agents?
Why should the serial killer care about the advancement of said civilisation?

Lets harvest OP for all his organs. We can help people with chronic diseases. His logic is that mutiple peoples happiness is superior to the happiness of a single individual. Thats utilitarianism for OP.

You said: Because I don't act according to some "objective inherent value" of a thing, I act according to the value that thing has to me.
I said that this, in itself, is the very opinionated behaviour you criticize.
>Also, try to argue with what I am saying instead of putting it into a label like "individualism" and arguing against that label.
It is individualism. That is literally what it is, some weird egoist offshoot from Stirner.
>Like, even though I call your position "moral realism", I strive to identify some particularities in your way of thinking it instead of arguing against a preconceived definition.
Moral realism? You mean being pragmatic? That's a philosophy, now? I just call it objective validity or some universal basis for making decisions.
>In my view someone could feel realised by contributing to the greatness of his ethnic group, and I don't think you would still call it "absolute individualism" and "cancer".
An example?
>That is the counter-productivity of arguing in terms of simple labels and generalisations
Labels offend you that much? Take it easy. After all, it's just my opinion :^)
>(I am not the one you were arguing with, though, I was just reading your discussion, and as I said, I agree with that)
We need IDs.
>We just disagree in the status of the values as "inherent" to the actions.
Murder is inherently morally bankrupt, circumstantially justified, most usually in cases where illegitimate actions, like murder, were taken place in a society with "moral realism" or whatever you want me to call it (not dude subjectivity lmao).

Why should I accept the fundamental axiom of utility?

>first point
Maybe you do, that isn't necessarily the case. You make the case in the latter explanation involving servitude (of the rules). That doesn't exist as much these days because we are becoming more so globalized, we need more cultural enrichment from Africa so as to avoid being bigoted.
>My point is basically that a "third-person ethics" is of no value for someone who doesn't care about that third-person.
>Also I never said we should care for "what criminals want to be happy", if the way they search for their own happiness is against the law and I am for the law then, yeah, fuck them.
I can tell you aren't the other guy, you just advocated for law, or a series of codes which society deems are morally permissible actions.
Cool, I agree. That's why those people must be physically removed from society as they are without reason to exist in what I have set forth (for the standards of operation) thus far.
>because said environment includes other wills (from whose consensus come the rules).
Then you are not that different to me, you still abide by a set of universal codes through which human society operates under.
>Why should the serial killer care about the advancement of said civilisation?
Criminals are social degenerates who deserved to be punished for betraying the trust of the society, preferably by hard labour (work builds character), or execution, if the crime is grievous enough.

From what I am seeing, I think we don't disagree so much, maybe you confused me with our common relativist — that is, someone too lazy to think an alternative to realism, who can only say "that is your opinion man... and also an opinion as valid as any other because well we cant know nuffin :^)"

>An example?
You. Everyone who advocates the "inherent values of things" just unconsciously adopt a first-person ethics.

>You said: Because I don't act according to some "objective inherent value" of a thing, I act according to the value that thing has to me.
>I said that this, in itself, is the very opinionated behaviour you criticize.
I don't know what you are exactly talking about here.

>Labels offend you that much?
I don't care about labels, I am only saying that they are useful only up to a point and that they can become counter-productive in a discussion.

>Murder is inherently morally bankrupt
Relative to a civilisation etc.

>you still abide by a set of universal codes through which human society operates under.
You are right, I just don't see the need to hypostasise said codes.

>From what I am seeing, I think we don't disagree so much, maybe you confused me with our common relativist — that is, someone too lazy to think an alternative to realism, who can only say "that is your opinion man... and also an opinion as valid as any other because well we cant know nuffin :^)"
I believe that is the case.
Murder has negative values, outside of circumstantial cases. But child rape is never justifiable, and always a degenerate behaviour. It has an inherent negative value. Honour and virtue have positive values because they build upon greatness.
>I don't know what you are exactly talking about here.
Applied to the other guy, never mind.
>I don't care about labels, I am only saying that they are useful only up to a point and that they can become counter-productive in a discussion.
Arbitrary point, I don't really care and will use phrases I deem fit. The other guy was citing my opinion (despite the fact that I never used statements like "I feel" or "I think" as a rebuttal to my case against killing your own mother). It's just Stirner ego nonsense, baby's first edge phase.
>Relative to a civilisation etc.
Yes.
Hypostatize is defined as representing something as concrete reality. If the codes are not operating in reality, where/how do they operate?

Duty and Kant

>If the codes are not operating in reality, where/how do they operate?
We can say that the codes are a concrete reality in the sense that they operate in our world. When I said that I don't hypostasise codes (that is, values) I meant that it doesn't make sense to talk about values from an "absolute perspective". That is, the way I interact with the world is based on how I evaluate things — from my perspective. If I care about something, it is, first of all, ME who is caring, it is ME who is evaluating. We act according to *our* values and our understanding of our environment (which includes laws and customs). There are not really consensual values (like "let's agree that each one of us will feel disgusted with ... and love ... etc"), but consensual laws (that is, "let's agree that if someone do ... he will be punished with ..."), and those laws arise from our need of some consensus to overcome the natural state or civil chaos. However we can imagine someone who doesn't really care for the flourishing of his civilisation, who doesn't really fears any kind of punishment, who doesn't have any kind of remorse — that is, a sociopath —, in such a case, what is the sense of saying that he "ought" to do something? In the end we are only saying that we *would like* if he behaved in another way. To say that he is "objectively wrong" etc. is of no effect, it will not change reality, it is just "imaginary revenge". And with "imaginary revenge" I mean thinking things like "Well, he did those cruel things... but at least I am right and he is wrong!", or "God will punish him", "The Revolution will make his kind suffer", etc.

I'm going to be super edgy here, but child rape generally has a positive effect on the raper (ie: an orgasm)

It raises overall happiness.
10 people raping get happy, 1 person getting raped gets unhappy.

But does the total unhappiness garnered by the raped person outweigh the happiness of the rapists?