Hey Veeky Forums

>1) One's primary consideration should be their kindness to others
If kindness is limited to: not good-lawfully harming someone

What is "happiness"?

Wow, you discovered utilitarianism, congratulations!

>One's primary consideration should be their kindness to others
Define kindness
Define the method you used to declare it's 'prime' state
Define others. Humans? Animals? All life?
Define one

Sigh, more brainlets

I agree. Sorry, it should have been

1) One's primary consideration should be their kindness to others (provided it does not conflict with their own level of happiness)

See above

Nowhere in my philosophy was there an axiom like "Be retarded and make retarded decisions"

What I mean by kindness is essentially "being polite when interacting with other humans"

>Define kindness

See above.

>declare it's 'prime' state

Again, by kindness I meant "being polite when interacting with other humans", should have made that more clear I guess

>Define others

By "others" I meant only humans

>Define one

One is the same as "X" in a math equation. It's a variable that is meant to represent any human being.

Since you guys obviously aren't intelligent enough to realize I'm looking for someone to prove that my philosophy does not encompass everything, I'll just spell it out for you. Ask me of my opinion on some very loaded, difficult topic, and we'll see who can prove the other's opinion wrong. That's the best way for one of you to prove me wrong, as far as I can tell...

>kindness to others

You mean also to women and nonwhites and gays/trannies (degenerates)?
This is Veeky Forums, not reddit, cuck.

So are these two considerations equal in their importance, or does 1) carry significance over 2)?

To put it another way:

When making any decision in life, the first thought in one's head is "Is this impolite of me to do?"

And then the next thought should be "will this contribute to my happiness?"

>first thought in one's head is

first thought in one's head should be*

Here's something I believe will challenge you a bit:
How does your philosophy deal with death? What do you say about the fact that when you die, everything you experienced is erased, making it meaningless?

The primary goal for humans, while they are alive, is to create some form of happiness for themselves. I don't know what happens after you die, so how could I possibly incorporate it into my philosophy? What happens after you die is absolutely irrelevant to my philosophy. It should be irrelevant to every philosophy, really, since no human being can know what happens after you die. So why pretend like you do?

It sounds like you use the first axiom because it fulfills the second axiom for you. In other words you don't need 1, because for you 2 implies 1.

>Should be irrelevant to every philosophy
You understand that there is more than just ethic philosophy right? Isnt it a bit impolite to claim that your subjective branch of philosophy has importance over other branches?

What's your take on the ultimate objective of human societies? Stability or transcendence?

>Nowhere in my philosophy was there an axiom like "Be retarded and make retarded decisions"
You goal should be to explain what is retarded and what isn't. Because appealing to "common sense" when you construct a system of axioms is impossible.

Biggest problems of yours are: what generates the definitions of politeness you're using. And what's happiness.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I don't do impolite things to other people because I'll feel bad about it and the action will thus detract from my happiness, not contribute to it. I guess it would be more suitable to say that the one and only axiom is:

Do whatever makes you happy provided you are not infringing on the happiness of others.

I understand that there's more than just ethic philosophy, but do I think that it's impolite to claim my branch of philosophy has importance over others? When their are things that don't make sense in other people's philosophies but they do make sense in mine, it's not impolite to claim mine is better, it's logical.

should we just kill every retarted person? It would make everyone happier because they wouldn't have to take care of them anymore

See above..

I shouldn't have used "politeness", I meant to say that one should never be rude or impolite to others. Being rude or impolite to others will only make them think less of you, and why would you want that? If people think less of you, it will only detract from your overall happiness.

Hitler would be quite happy if he could help his friends and kill all the jews

How does all the happiness you acquire matter if you die at the end?

Happiness isn't a means to an end. You don't save up all the happiness you collected in your life and then buy a cool prize at the end. Happiness IS the end. The means is logic.

my solved philosophy:

1. Nobody is capable of having answers to these deep questions.

2. But we're bored, so let's pretend we do, and argue over it.

But what if it makes me happy to make others suffer? Would brand such a person as an inhuman monster in your philosophy? Would you force them to follow your philosophy and thus inflict suffering on them? Would you just let them ramapage thus inflicting suffering on countless others?

Why do you bother posting if you don't even bother reading? If you think I've said something that is either blatantly wrong or something that is not possible, then point it out and let's discuss. If all you meant to say was that the discussion is meaningless, you should have just kept scrolling..

A sadistic person's primary consideration should be to do whatever makes them happy, just as everyone's primary consideration should be to do whatever makes them happy.

No, such a person is not an inhuman monster in my philosophy. No, I would not force them to follow my philosophy since they are already doing that (I like hurting people, it makes me happy. I'm going to hurt people. "But wait, you mustn't be impolite." But wait, you mustn't be impolite so long as doing so does not infringe upon your own happiness.)

I would probably try to make them see the error in their ways, even though according to my philosophy, there is none. A better way to put it is I would try to make them think more like me.

So I guess the only true axiom is:

Do what makes you happy.

I would actually agree with that. Especially since, like everything, ethics are subjective I would not only say "Do what makes you happy" but also "Do what you think is right".

But isn't doing what is right, and only that, ultimately makes you happy?

Does your solution to philosophy include a working definition of knowledge?

You guys hit the nail on the head, that's the whole reason for my secondary axiom of politeness. I can do whatever makes me happy, but if I know I've caused someone suffering in the process, I won't be able to "enjoy" the happiness.

Some money would make me happy. Let's go steal that guy's wallet and take all his money. Great, I have money now. Oh no, this money doesn't actually belong to me, I forcefully took it from someone who worked hard to earn it. How can I possibly enjoy whatever I buy with this money when I know I've caused someone suffering in doing so?

>when you start learning philosophy and some faggot on Veeky Forums solves it

knowledge = facts

they don't have to be "facts" in the sense that they are 100% true. you have to also consider likelihoods.

A black person is more likely to go to jail than any other race in America. It's not a certainty, but the likelihood I've stated is a fact nonetheless.

I think this is like some DFW's shit

A robber breaks into your house. You have a gun. Your two options are to shoot him (but how impolite that would be!) or let him take all your goods.

What do you do?

Still not reading clearly.

>Your two options are to shoot him (but how impolite that would be!)

But shooting him would contribute to my overall happiness whereas not shooting him would detract from my overall happiness. It always comes down to that one simple question.

What bugs me about the secondary axiom of politeness is that it doesnt take into consideration that your idea of gaining happiness is subjective and personal. I would say that someone who steals money and can justify his theft to themselves is not morally condemnable. And since you have to have a personal reasoning to do something, otherwise you would not do it, the moral view of "Do what makes you happy" is engrained in all living creatures anyway.

But what about his level of happiness? That was clearly a primary consideration in your philosophy in your first post. Of course, by this post you had already been forced to concede that your "solved" system of philosophy was rubbish and that the utilitarian aspects of it had to be discarded.

But what if walking over to your neighbor's house and killing him would increase your overall happiness? (Maybe you're mentally ill.) Should you do that?

You've moved the goalposts, but your new system is as flawed as the first.

>first consider kindness to others, then consider your own happiness
------->
>do what makes you happy

That fact that a Veeky Forums thread has so quickly brought you from utilitarianism to hedonism should point out that your thoughts were somewhat flimsy to start with

>your idea of gaining happiness is subjective and personal

exactly. there is no magical meaning to life, every single meaning is subjective and personal.

>someone who steals money and can justify his theft to themselves is not morally condemnable

I agree

>"Do what makes you happy" is ingrained in all living creatures

Exactly. The meaning of life is ingrained in all living creatures.

>But what about his level of happiness?

Doesn't matter. Mine is always more important, remember? I know it was a primary consideration in my OP, but that's because in my OP, I was describing my PERSONAL philosophy. The "true" philosophy is still essentially "Do what makes you happy." So no, my solved system is not at all rubbish.

>killing him would increase your overall happiness? (Maybe you're mentally ill.)

Yes, I would do it. It would contribute to my overall happiness, and that, after all, is the goal of life.

I don't see how anything I've said thus far is flawed.

>That fact that a Veeky Forums thread has so quickly brought you from utilitarianism to hedonism should point out that your thoughts were somewhat flimsy to start with

No, you're just not reading my posts. But I just explained everything above, so go ahead and read that. I have never even studied philosophy. I think the little boxes you guys use to categorize everything is where you fuck it all up.

>I don't see how anything I've said thus far is flawed.
You don't see the contradiction between you previously saying "politeness is consideration #1" and you currently saying "murder for pleasure is ethical"? The problem that your new favorite ethical system doesn't have a problem with murder?

>No, you're just not reading my posts.
What isn't he seeing in your posts, then?

>I have never even studied philosophy.
Believe me, it shows.

I see the contradiction, then I explained to you why there is a PERCEIVED contradiction in what I said, no real contradiction. If you lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to understand my arguments, that's on you.

You'll never be taken seriously if all your retorts are "yeah but you're just too dumb to realize that's not what I meant."

He won't be taken seriously either way

>starting with axioms
>solved philosophy

great thread OP

Hitler was right about most things.

Why do you think that ethics constitutes the whole of philosophy?

I spelled out my argument word for word in simple language that everyone is capable of understanding. If you were STILL unable to understand it, then I'm tempted to believe you didn't understand all the words. But that's not the problem, either. In the end, it just comes down to how willing you are to let go of old beliefs and form new ones. You, obviously, are not very willing. Go ahead, ask me another question you have about my stance and I'll answer it for you.

Agreed, Veeky Forums culture places insulting and name calling above logic

Show me some philosophy that isn't based on axioms.

You've missed the point. It's not ethics that constitutes the whole of philosophy. It's achieving happiness that constitutes the whole of philosophy.

define kindness

you stupid fucking moron

try reading the thread you stupid fucking moron

your hasty arguments more or less add up to ethical egoism, which puts long and short-term self-interest as the only consideration one should take. thus maximizing possible pleasure. ethic egoism implies being polite, as you say, because long-term pleasure is impossibly while being resentful or worthy of murder, etc.

there are a few problems with it.

your argument does not solve moral conflicts, which is ethics is essential. it exacerbates conflict by having one win and one lose. it recommends that A beat B, and B beat A, which is contradictory and not compatible with each other.

you assume that you hold an arbitrarily large amount of importance compared to all others, which brings up the question: why should you be ensuring the greatest amount of happiness for yourself? are you deserving of it? probably not. everyone in this moral system is involved, also.

read nicomachean ethics and continue on, you'll get there, friend.

if you mean solved as in: "what is the definition of academic philosophy" then yes i suppose you have solved it.

if you truly believe that nobody is capable of having answers to these deep questions, then i disagree. Jesus has the answers. I suppose we can always argue about His words, though.

Yeah I guess that's right, didn't know it was called ethical egoism. The entire point of being polite to others is primarily to improve their opinion of you, but secondarily to show off and make them think you're smart, thus feeding your ego.

but will definitely look into your suggestion, thanks

I think the second part is alright and suffices on its own. But instead of happiness, I might say pleasure. Also check out this fellow called max stirner.

Serving kindness as an end in itself seems somewhat silly.

Should have read more of the thread. I concur about politeness. As Fred says: "politeness always.'. I would not subordinate this to pleasure but I find it follows from the second premise

your argument is horribly flawed, inarticulate, and unoriginal. fuck off with your pretentious posturing.

Define "kindness."

Doesn't pretension presuppose posturing

doesn't arguing semantics to distract yourself from the flaws of in own thought make you an especially pestilential, pretentious, posturing cunt?

Well shit. God fucking damn it. Why didn't anyone think of this before. You did it user congratulations.

I'm not him. I didn't even read the thread. I am a passerby, sniping at your redundant statement. Carry on.

Anons who taught me something new today: 1

axioms are shit
go and study some materialism

Kek

tfw this doesnt solve constant suffering

FUCK I only just figured out this is probably a troll thread