Stop being speciesist

Stop being speciesist.

Stop thinking symbolically.

Stop.

I will if you donate all your money to the Against Malaria Foundation.

Zerzan is the fucking worst. No Teddy K moxy and all talk.

Racist.

Stop having abhorrent opinions about disabled people.

Stop trying.

No :DD

...

Stop having intrusive thoughts.

this nigga scares the shit out of me. he needs to be put down like the animal he claims to be

Singer is a big stupid poophead.

Why do ethics that make sense scary you?

I earn less than 10k a year and still give 10% to charity.

>makes sense
>YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT EVERYONE EQUALLY AND NOT WASTE RESOURCES OTHERWISE YOU'RE A MORAL MONSTER

But Singer-kun, why then do you spend thousands of dollars to fly to Australia to visit your mother with Alzheimer's disease when you could donate the money from those flights to African children and save dozens of lives?

>WELL WHATEVER IM A MORAL MONSTER TOO THEN BUT YOU SHOULD STILL LISTEN TO ME CAUSE IM STILL BASICALLY RIGHT

a system of morality where it is functionally impossible to actually be moral isn't sensible, it's just an abstracted self hatred fueled death cult.

>a person why is trying to be more moral is not a 100% self-sacrificing saint
>therefore all morality is futile

Lazy.

>cows have rights
>infants should be aborted even after birth
he reaches new levels of idiocy

if someone eats people too, is he a speciesist?.

Have you read his work?

Stop being alive.

Yes. Your point?

>ethics that make sense scary you?

Dude, an entire system of thought based on quantification with absolutely zero idea of how to actually quantify the thing in question, LMAO

Utilitarianism is easily the shittiest product of modern philosophy, and frankly, it's amazing it has any adherents at all.

Why don't you realise he's right?

>suffering can't be quantified at all
>the statement starvation leads to more suffering than a tv show being cancelled is nonsensical!

Any reccomended books by this guy that are translated in English?

Pentii is strong kino but he overvalues animal lives.

He should be in favour of full void.

>muh contrived and fabricated examples

If you want any practical use of utilitarianism, which is one of the main selling points for the people who like it, tell me how many suffering points they both are.

You can't. Utilitarianism works in carefully devised thought-experiments, not in the real world.

I just started Can Life Prevail? yesterday and it seems promising.

>a child being burned alive isn't worse than a man stubbing his toe because we don't have "points" to determine it so let's be nihilists for the sake of intellectual prudence

Psychopathy.

>if you can't put an exact number on suffering you can't say that giving money to an effective charity does more good than buying a book rather than burrowing it

he's a memelord without any appreciation for reality

>I LIKE BIRDS I HATE SPEEDBOATS
>THEREFORE I LOVE HITLER AND STALIN FOR KILLING PEOPLE
>I WANT TO NUKE ALL CITIES IN THE WORLD SO I CAN RELAX IN THE FOREST

greentext not an exaggeration of his views. sincerely.

I agree with him.
What is the flaw in his idea?

>he's a memelord without any appreciation for reality

I can totally dig that

For the love of God, that's just the sort of completely contrived examples that works with utilitarianism.

Take any real life instance with what seems like a moral dilemma. I can assure you it is not as easy to do the utilitarian calculus as you seem to believe. And without any reasonable way to do that calculus, you've come no further than practical relativism.

More like if you can put a number on suffering and joy, then you shouldn't have an entire system of thought predicated on quantification.

That it can't be realised, so it's just empty posturing.

>Take any real life instance with what seems like a moral dilemma. I can assure you it is not as easy to do the utilitarian calculus as you seem to believe.
Give an example.

I gave a real world example.

False Dilemma Fallacy variation

Sophomoric view of utilitarianism, not being able to attach a precise point value to two discrete instances of suffering doesn't preclude us from assessing which of the two is "worse"

The imperfection of a rule doesn't preclude rules. I'm not trying to be patronizing user but how much and what utilitarian work have you studied?

>I can assure you it is not as easy to do the utilitarian calculus as you seem to believe.
Try me. I will have a 100% honest and correct answer in each hypothetical you provide me.

A child dying is worse then a man losing a leg

if utilitarianism is true, then there has to be some quantity (x) of men losing their legs that is worse then the child dying

what is x

[soiler]if the child dying is infinitely worse (i.e. x = undefined) then you have a deontological system[/spoiler]

>A child dying is worse then a man losing a leg
It is not. The child does not suffer death.

I hate this cuck so much desu

But it prevents us from being able to justify why we think there is a worse one, turning the whole thing in feels>reals

I wouldn't mind getting her with child

Good breeding hips

What's the pain (or "suffering") from death?

>he's so unloved and unloving that the idea that someone dying would cause pain doesn't even enter his mind

That's not what I'm asking, please stop.

>I can never be perfect so why even try

It's about doing as much as you can and rightfully feeling bad when you choose not to.

all that implies is that x < 1.

In Abrahamic systems, the human possesses a universal dignity inherently and essentially as a result of being valued (to a lesser extent, created) by God (whose valuation is accepted by default). Whatever God values is to be valued, God values all humans (with a kind of essential universality: imago dei, ben Adam, fitrah, agape), therefore we value all humans.

In secular systems this ethic, which served and continues to serve as the foundation for philanthropic morality, typically has a parallel structure: I experience, experience has value (for reasons we dare not get into here!), others experience, therefore I value others.

This "valuation" in the secular sense never possesses the universality of the religious version, so long as a thing may be said to "experience" more or less: primitive nervous system < animal experience < human experience.

Singer (and others? anybody know others?) is at least onto something, his outrageous conclusions should jerk us into realizing some of our deeper assumptions are incorrect (a kind of counter-example that can follow from many things we believe must be true).

>implying your corpse won't be in the way of nothingness, either
you can't escape existence, bruh

This in so many words. If there is no clear reasoning procedure in cases where people are in disagreement, they're just going to have a standoff. You're still stuck in practical relativism, where A says X and B says Y and you can't prove either one is superior in utility with anything but assertions. This makes utilitarianism entirely trivial in ethical dilemmas.

Singer, Smart and Mill primarily. I'll readily admit that I'm no expert. It just seems like a pretty jarring problem to me. In the case of imperfect rules in utilitarianism, how does it avoid becoming trivial? If you cannot justify your utilitarian assertions with anything?

This is where the fabricated utilitarian examples come into play - where examples are made which are clear cut and dried. Sure, in these cases, common sense or whatever supports one outcome over the other. I don't think that is the case in real world ethical dilemmas, and that's why utilitarianism's lack of jutification for one outcome over the other is a pretty serious problem for the idea.

Again, I'm not an expert. If you know any works that address this problem, by all means give me some recommendations.

Alright, mandatory body-farming for brain-dead people. Body-farming is keeping a brain-dead body alive with nutrients so you can harvest it's blood.

One group of utilitarians say go for it, the utility of having such blood-banks is pretty neat.

Another group of utilitarians say you shouldn't. The effect on people who aren't brain-dead, who thinks it's undignified, scary, "yucky", against their religious beliefs, terrible to think of family members being used as blood-banks etc. is affecting a sufficient amount of people in a sufficient way to outweigh the utility of it.

Which group is right, and most importantly, why? How would you go above mere assertions? How would you reasonably convince a utilitarian from the side you disagree with that you're right?

Isn't Singer's utilitarianism more sound once one will accept accept as well the rule that the distance (geographically, culturally etc) doesn't matter for counting a suffering? In other words, you are supposed to be as concerned about people suffering in remote places as in your local community.
If so, then I always thought that the most of the 1st world suffering is hardly comparable to the one in the Mddle East/Africa. It always seemed to me that this sweeps out the stage of real-life moral dilemmas a lot, and usually donating, idk, AMF is clearly morally superior to other choices.

Someone mentioned a supposed situation of killing a man and a child as a pitfall of utilitarianism. How does other moral systems deal with this situation? If they don't, then it doesn't refute utilitarianism at all (at least if we value having some moral system, even if with pitfalls).


Show me real world examples you have in mind.

>Show me real world examples you have in mind.

Singer is a strong critic of animal right you numptie.

Universalizing morality isn't something unique to utilitarianism. John Rawls' veil of ignorance, applied universally, is another example. And actually rights theory is more sound in this respect as with utilitarianism the ethical pros and cons of any action can be estimated in different ways, e.g. by claiming the benefits to national security overrides the harms of dropping napalm on gooks

Those philosophies are what happen when individualism goes too far. The late-stage individualist realizes solidarity is necessary, but since he rejects nation, family and race he must invent an artificial measure of morality.

Guinea pigs save their own offspring first when they drown. Capitalism (and to certain extend marxism) managed to deprive humanity of their humanity over the decades.

Maybe not through democracy, but implementing radical theories happened before. It's actually quite a frequent thing.

Can you try to convince me that surrogate activities are necessarily lacking something very important? I don't buy it, and I don't think he makes a very strong case for it.

By the way, national solidarity is artificial too, and you could reasonably argue that caring about your nation-state would just be another surrogate activity in the framework of bombin' Ted's ideology.

That's a fair point, but how would you keep solidarity within smaller societies nowadays? I kind of agree with diagnosis blaming capitalism and Marxism, but these are just some political structures that were invented in order to structurize human's naturally inscribed greed for having the best possible outcomes of used resources (take a look at any particular period of human's history). Taking this greed as a premise, it is inevitable to have such a system, smearing borders between naturally occurring societies, because of the additional fact that the natural resources are distributed unevenly, and in turn, a cooperation is the only way to optimize outcomes. Obviously the technological progress is a catalyst, making the whole process exponential (but once again it is inevitable due to the greed I mentioned). Such systems destroy naturally one's individualism, but only as a side effect. However, I don't see what you can do about it.

I understand that you attached Ted's photo on purpose, so you will most likely refute the need for technological progress at the first place, but what's next?

>guinea pigs don't agree with this
>therefore it's wrong

> destroy naturally one's individualism
I meant actually opposite, I should have read it before posting.
Hope to receive answers pointing out flaws.

Not really since at the base level for the people supporting this line of thought this is their psychological imperative. It is meant to be read as an argument these people actually use in conversation and not in some bonafide debate

vital/trivial concerns desu

Outlaw religion and increase utility in the world. Simple.

Certain things are so opposed to people's intuition you can not force them to do so even under a totalitarian regime.

>moral realism

pedo detected