Unironically being a utilitarian

>unironically being a utilitarian
How can anyone be that stupid?

Other urls found in this thread:

shencomix.com/post/167685680899/hiatus-pt-2-the-unrudening
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Weak people like to trick themselves into believing that others' well-being is more important than their own because they are unable to achieve anything in the pathetic life that they have.

>selflessness is weak

I don't want to live in this world anymore.

Then off yourself you pathetic moralist.

Utilitarians are pretty much betas and cuckolds. Consequentialist libertarianism is the Chad philosophy.

It's not the utilitarian thing to do.

>Don't being a complete egoist is being weak

It's far stronger base than "progress" or "ethics"

...

My happiness will be increased by a thousandfold if you kill yourself. You should do it!

Is there a link between having autism and being utilitarian? And I know that sounds like I want to start shit but I mean it as a genuine question because I'm noticing a connection.

You can slide a thin piece of paper between utlitarianism and consequentianlism, they are basically the same thing.

I doubt it, since autists can be pretty egotistical due to their inability to understand the feelings of others

There's a strong link between being a progressive, "rationalist", having any anarcho ideology and autism

This seems like a highly improbable claim.

Utilitarian here.

I would say it's much more likely that there's a link between autism and being any kind of philosopher, no matter your belief system. Philosophy is kind of the epitome of autism.

>utilitarianism is concerned with the happiness of a single other, not the common good

Out of your league here buddy.

Utilitarianism is a guiding principle but I think there are times it doesn't apply. It's best tho because generally speaking it's better if everyone is doing good so if you or someone else is struggling the rest can help.

Utilitarianism is a hopeless idiotic fantasy the same reason that communism is. The calculus of human happiness is insoluble.

Being a kid is thinking utilitarians were right, growing up you realize Kant was right.

Implying that it isn't plain better than bullshit like libertarism

>moral systems are not created with utilitarian aims
>the utility monster is a valid rebuttal to utilitarianism
>pic related is a valid example of utilitarianism

OP's pic I meant FUCK

Self-delusion and utilitarianism aren't synonyms. The guy has no valid reason whatsoever to believe that stealing a bike causes more happiness than losing it.

That said, yeah utilitarianism is retarded. The basic premise of consequentialism is valid, but considering the subjective nature of utility, there's no justification for weighing everyone's interests equally. Ethical egoism (although superfluous) is pretty much the only tolerably rational moral system.

The calculus of human health is insoluble as well, it doesn't mean you can't use a whole range of indicators of aggregate human health to inform you on best medical practice and healthcare policies.

Utilitarianism is based on a claim that human well-being is the best basis for morality, just like human health is the basis for medicine. It's not a claim that you can simplify complex discussions on morality into simplistic silliness.

The guy from comics is right. What is a point of being upset about the stolen bike? This only will make you even more miserable. I thought you guys respect stoics and not being upset is a pretty stoic choice in such situation.

> My happiness will be increased by a thousandfold
No happy person is oging around and commenting about how people should just off themselves. I estimate your happiness to be basically around zero anyway so thousandfold increase will be pretty neglegiable compared to loss of happiness from my death.

You're right, the correct course of action would be to track down the subhuman nigger who violated your property rights and but a bullet in his monkey brain.

That was my thought as well seeing the comic. I don't think it has anything particularly interesting to say about utilitarianism but it does indicate the subject of the comic has positive mental processes that will keep them happy.

You can still be a utilitarian, following the comic, and file a police report in the fifth frame.

He needs to realize that our joy from calling him a bike cuck outweighs his joy in not being called a bike cuck.

>deontelogy autism
Valuing actions without their consequences is simply self-righteousness, both consequences, actions and intentions are a reflection of the moral agent's nature.

You can’t evaluate all moral action, so all you can do is take the best action available to you by treating others as an end rather than a means to your end.

You can’t evaluate moral action based on results because you don’t, and can’t, know the full breadth of results from your actions (what if the person you saved was the future father of the next hitler!)

>the sum of human health is incalculable
Yes that’s why doctors follow a moral axiom of ‘do no harm’

>utilitarianism is not claiming you can simplify complex discussions on morality into simplistic silliness

Refresh yourself on Jeremy Bentham. The argument of solving the equation of human happiness is directly from his writing.

That's absurd, there are obviously a lot of moral dilemna without a good solution but most of the time you can take risks.
Only caring about the action itself would create a lot less good and much more evil in the real world, you only want to keep clean hands out of a desire for superficial purity even if you indirectly create more evil and less good because of it, it's a false virtue.

>there’s a lot of moral dilemma without good solutions but you take risks
Yes, you aim to solve the dilemma where you maximize the amount of people treated as an ends rather than as a means to an end (in accordance to the moral axiom) and you’ll be viewed as immoral no matter what choice you made. Because there was no right answer.

>only caring about the action itself would create a lot less good and much more evil in the world
You can’t know that if the calculation is impossible. How much is an apple objectively worth?

In that case morality is impossible to follow and trying would be "bad" for humanity, good job arguing for immorality then I guess.

Pic related isn't selflessness. It's a bizarre justification of personal misfortune. Selflessness would be giving the bike to someone that wants it more.

Nonsense. Morality is derived from following moral axioms. Utility still has a place in a deontological framework, but utility itself is not a moral axiom. Because of the problem of utopias. If you’re reasonably convinced that you can usher in the utopia by killing all of a certain amount of people, then you are obliged to do so. Which is why there’s islamic terror, communist genocides, the holocaust, etc. All of it is trying to usher in the utopia rather than following a universal moral axiom of treating people as an ends rather than a means to an end.

because they haven't kept up with the newest research in neuroscience and still think that 'pleasure' and 'happiness' are well-defined, singular mental events that can be quantified over in a unique and non-arbitrary way

shut up retard thats why there is preference utalitariansm, rule utalitariism etc etc

>philosophers don't want to admit that science is going to replace them
Nothing new.

Science is a subset of philosophy.

There’s a reason why it’s called a PhD

>Yes that’s why doctors follow a moral axiom of ‘do no harm’
And what do they base this on?

>Refresh yourself on Jeremy Bentham.
I hate to be "that guy who starts randomly quoting logical fallacies" but that is at least two. An appeal to authority and a genetic fallacy.

>and what do they base this on?
The concept of utility, but utility itself isn’t the axiom (as it is in utilitarianism) or else doctors would be harvesting the organs of the homeless to save children.

>implying that the father of modern utilitarianism isn’t an authority on utilitarianism
Ok. If you want we can go full Stirner and reject all labels and establish our positions purely from first principles

>The concept of utility,
Thank you, that was my point. So by definition utilitarianism.

>(as it is in utilitarianism) or else doctors would be harvesting the organs of the homeless to save children.
That's a gross oversimplification of utilitatianism, you have reinforced my point.

>implying that the father of modern utilitarianism isn’t an authority on utilitarianism
As I said, an absolutely classic textbook genetic fallacy and appeal to authority in one point.

Ignoring the bit about that utility isn’t the moral axiom then? (When the label of utilitarianism is to signify utility as the moral axiom)

What of the problem of utopias?

Stoics didn't think someone would be happy by stealing from them.

Someone once tried to steal something Cleanthes had. Cleanthes beat him up.
When the thief who knew of his fame asked him "But wasn't it your fate that I tried to steal from you?", Cleanthes camly answered with "It was also your fate to get beat by me". And continued to beat him up.

Epictetus once got his lamp stolen. He didn't care that the lamp was stolen. He basically said to his students: "He got the lamp. By doing so he won a lamp but turned into a piece of shit. So, he ended up worse by doing this. Don't become a piece of shit."

He got called bickcuck recently. He got pretty bumbed about it. ut he tink whoever called him that was probably more happy than he was sad. So whatever.

I guess you could argue that there isn’t utility in treating utility as a moral axiom but then utilitarianism becomes self-refuting

You agreed it was axiom and then claimed it wasn't the axiom based on invalid logic.

>What of the problem of utopias?
Utiltarianism isn't a utopian philosophical position.

> based what people should do on your personal beliefs about ethics
I hope you aren't that stupid, fellas

Nice.

There’s nothing intrinsic to utilitarianism that prevents it from being utopian. You aim to maximize all human happiness, the utopia does that.

>>utilitarianism is concerned with the happiness of a single other, not the common good

My happiness will be increased so incredibly much if you kill yourself that the total happiness in the world is increased.

So please, for the sake of the world KILL YOURSELF

>There’s nothing intrinsic to utilitarianism that prevents it from being utopian
You need to show it is always utopian if you want to use that as an argument. There are very few positions on virtually anything that couldn't be claimed to be "prevented" from being utopian,

It doesn’t need to be always utopian, if someone is reasonably convinced they can usher in the utopia by doing X then they are obligated to do X.

>there are very few positions are prevented from being utopian
That’s a roundabout way of saying there’s a lot of ways to be wrong and very few ways of being right.

Oh right, so, for example if someone could be reasonably convinced lowering or increasing the tax take of any given country they are morally obligated to go on a killing spree until everyone that disagrees with them is dead and therefore any discussions of tax is "utopian"? These are childish attacks at this point.

>That’s a roundabout way of saying there’s a lot of ways to be wrong and very few ways of being right.
No it wasn't, it was a specific point about labeling something as "utopian" and thinking that was a serious argument.

...

...

Unironically this.

Take a breath and reread what you wrote here. This is gibberish.

I never said Utilitarianism was utopian. I said there’s nothing intrinsic to it to prevent utopian thinking, and if utility is to be a moral axiom, it must be ALWAYS TRUE. I’m saying that utility isn’t irrelevant to moral thinking, it’s just not the moral axiom, and the issue of utopias highlights that it’s not the moral axiom.

none of these are utilitarian in real terms and in the long run, only politically and in the short term, because of the attitudes they foster

you score more browny points siding with the left and few whitey points siding with facts and logic

And I said there is nothing intrinsic in virtually any position to prevent it being utopian.

> it’s just not the moral axiom,
What is the moral axiom, can you give me any example of an axiom for morality that is not in the end based on the well-being of sentient beings?

>there’s nothing intrinsic in virtually any position to prevent it from being utopian.
>an example of an axiom that is not based on maximizing well being
Deontology fits the bill. Treat people as an ends rather than a means to an end. That means that if their end is to maximize their own suffering (which it never will be because people are intrinsically self-interested, but conceptually could be) then you preventing their suffering for your own purposes is immoral. This prevents utopian thinking because the utopia is the ceasation of human suffering.

>Treat people as an ends
So it is based on the well-being of sentient beings then.

Deontology is a dead end. It can't progress. At least consequential logic can become better in predicting results by trial and error. But how deontology supposed to fix its own mistakes?

Missed the bit about being permissive to people taking actions against their own interest then eh?

I have a lot of tattoos, they hurt to get, they don’t help in a job market, but I like them. My life is different having them then not having them. I can’t say I would be unhappy without them, because I don’t know what my life, at this age, would be like without them. But it would be unjust for someone to prevent me from getting them because they think they are minimizing my suffering.

>progress
You progress by making yourself better. What mistakes are you positing?

coping mechanism for consistant failure in life. Other's successes based on your failures somehow become joyful. It's a way to trick yourself into believing that everything is all right. Would be difficult considering the egocentric nature of humans. Or it may be some version of altruism.

> You progress by making yourself better.
How do you know that you made yourself better? If from results of your actions than it is consequentialism. If by the experience of pleasure than it is just fancy hedonism. If there is some list of what being better person means, how do you know that there are no mistakes here?

no there not. utlitarianism is a version of consequentianlism many very different version exist like egoism

>Missed the bit about being permissive to people taking actions against their own interest then eh
No, I asked you for a different axiom and it appears you cannot provide one.

So I ask again, can you give me any example of an axiom for morality that is not in the end based on the well-being of sentient beings?

>I have a lot of tattoos, they hurt to get, they don’t help in a job market, but I like them. My life is different having them then not having them. I can’t say I would be unhappy without them, because I don’t know what my life, at this age, would be like without them. But it would be unjust for someone to prevent me from getting them because they think they are minimizing my suffering.
This entire argument is based on the well-being of sentient beings i.e. utilitarianism. You still have no different axiom.

Just to bring you into the loop btw deontology and utilitarianism aren't mutually exclusive.

>how do you know
You’ll know if you’re adhering to the categorical imperative because you’ll know what the categorical imperative is and you’ll know if you’re adhering to it.

>utilitarianism and deontology aren’t mutually exclusive
Where did I ever claim that they were?

I’m saying that utility isn’t the moral axiom.

>the entire argument is based on the well being of sentient beings
Are you even reading what I’m writing anymore?

>Where did I ever claim that they were?
The claim deonotology is right and therefore utilitarianism is wrong de facto makes that claim.

>I’m saying that utility isn’t the moral axiom.
But the 'utility' in utiltarianism is the well-being of sentient beings, why can't you provide another axiom? You kept saying you could.

>Are you even reading what I’m writing anymore?
Yes, you were blathering on about suffering etc, i.e. the well-being of sentient beings i.e. utilitarianism.

For the record, Shen called himself on his bike bullshit.

Pretty cool guy, IMHO.

> shencomix.com/post/167685680899/hiatus-pt-2-the-unrudening

>all these plebs in this thread
It's not like hedonistic utilitarianism is the only form of utilitarianism you know? There's other things you can maximize like meaning in life and caring for others. Allowing people to steal bikes makes them worse as human beings and is harmful to them.

...

did you mean hedonism?
>I'm a classic Machiavellian
t. the lowest t 12 year old on the board

Where did I say deontology is right therefore utilitarianism is wrong. I said deontology is right and utilitarianism is wrong. Utilitarianism being the belief that maximizing utility is the moral axiom.

>another moral axiom that isn’t about maximizing utility
Yes, individual self determination. Let people make their own decisions even if you think you know better.

>interest in the suffering of all sentient beings
Ok by this logic all philosophy is utilitarianism; which is demonstrably not the case.

>Where did I say deontology is right therefore utilitarianism is wrong. I said deontology is right and utilitarianism is wrong
kek.

>Yes, individual self determination. Let people make their own decisions even if you think you know better.
because that will do what other than maximising the well-being of sentient beings? What's the argument here, that self-determination will help space rocks? Where is your separate axiom that is not based on utilitarianism?

>Ok by this logic all philosophy is utilitarianism; which is demonstrably not the case.
No that is not a logical argument because all of philosophy does not deal with morality.

Utilitarianism is based on the axiom that you aim to maximize utility. Meaning you should always maximize utility. Individual self-determination might maximize utility but the path to maximum utility is unknowable so it can’t be confirmed. If you think that the utopia is possible, then individual self determination must end to usher in the utopia if you believe that utility is the moral axiom

>not all philosophy deals with morality
No but all philosophy deals with the cessation of human suffering. Knowledge is the path to ending suffering. Else what is the incentive to understand the world?

ah yes, greetings fellow richard & mortimer viewer!

>Utilitarianism is based on the axiom that you aim to maximize utility
The utility in utilitarianism is the well-being of sentient beings.

>Meaning you should always maximize utility. Individual self-determination might maximize utility but the path to maximum utility is unknowable so it can’t be confirmed. If you think that the utopia is possible, then individual self determination must end to usher in the utopia if you believe that utility is the moral axiom.

So what is the moral axiom, that the most chicken feathers should be maximised? I'm waiting I'm waiting for yoooooo to give me an axiom not based on the well-being of sentient beings. But it is something you can't doooo

>No but all philosophy deals with the cessation of human suffering.
Rubbish.

Ok so you’re not reading what I’m writing and Stirner was completely correct about ideological possession

You're not answering what I am pointing out to you. You can't tell me anything that is useful about Stirner to you that is not based on the well-being of sentient beings i.e a utilitarian claim.

Does Stirner claim following his philosophy will help YOU i.e. a sentient being or does he claim it will help non-sentient vegetables on Alpha Centurai. You can fail to address what I've said to you all you want and sulk about it.

I suggest you read Stirner and find out for yourself

Alright, tell me what you think is the difference between consequentialism and utilitarianism.
>inb4 google it

>Selflessness would be giving the bike to someone that wants it more.
No user, it's need not want. I would give my cheeseburger to a homeless man because he needs to food more than my fatass needs it, but I'm not giving my burger to a bigger fatass because he wants it.

>dude this ideology is stupid if you take it to its logical extreme

Is this a troll thread or is this what philosophical debate is really like? I've never taken much interest in humanities, it just seems like mental masturbation.

That comic pisses me off. Sure a cuck bike costs around $150 new, but a good bicycle is expensive. Beater car money at minimum.
LOL

Hahaha cuck, i'm going to fuck your girlfriend in front of you and give her the sex of her life, we will both enjoy it but not you, because you are a cuck

Utilitarianism is literally a form of consequentialism you knuckle-dragging mongoloid.

Whoa guys we got a fucking badass over here.

So would you like to be drinking mud water and getting stabbed over 20 bucks?

>But I think whoever stole it was probably more happy
Only if you're rich.

Bill gates can drop $100 every second of his waking life upto his death and he wouldn't be any poorer than he was a second ago. In fact, he'd be richer.

In this case Bill gates can rightfully think that and be completely right.

In the case of a poor person losing the bike, he'd be fairly saddened while the thief wouldn't be much happier since its just a transient thing to them.

Most humans are loss averse, his utility decreased further than the gain to the person who stole the bike. The comic does not represent true utalitirianism.

Lmao this cuck hasn’t even read Stirner. Loving my fellow man and working for the general happiness is pleasing to my Ego. It’s not something that property like you would understand.

Stirner did not mean it in the utilitarian sense though

Negative utilitarianism is the true answer

True, but he did mean that you can do basically anything you want as long as you do it for the satisfaction of your ego and not because spooks told you to.