why aren't you a utilitarian Sup Forums?
i was trying to think of a solution to modern problems and utilitarianism literally solves all of it.
Utility defined as sustainability, technology, and economy; would provide us with the actual ideological roots to form a resistance against liberals. because now all we have is economic libertarianism, which is basically nothing.
we cant just be against something, we have to be FOR something.
Utilitarianism is a shit tier ethical system, literally not worth discussing outside of a philosophy 101 class
the primary problem is that you have to define a universally acceptable 'utility scale' to give all values a common context.
good luck with that.
If you had 4 pedos and a kid, and letting the pedos rape the kid would increase the overall amount of happiness (the kid would remember nothing), would you let the pedos rape the kid?
work your way up to pragmatism and then we can start having a conversation
i already did, sustainability, technology, economy. problem?
Dont worry one day u will develop a real brain
utilitarianism is pragmatism tho, i mean there aren't really any differences
utilitarianism has nothing to do with happiness but sustainability, technology, and economy.
utilitarianism is the foundation, pragmatism is the house built on it
also try some Hegel on for size, if you like utilitarianism, then he speaks your language
The fundamental problem of utilitarianism is that it assumes values can be fully objectivized. This is actually true, but the only way to do so is through money. For utilitarianism to work, you need to establish a socialist-capitalist system to incentivize "useful" behaviors, and then you are very close to economic totalitarianism.
This would all be well and good, if a little too extreme for most people's tastes, but I am yet to meet the utilitarian who proposes using a system primarily based around money and I am yet to meet the utilitarian who favors economic totalitarianism.
utilitarianism holds a moral and ethical structure that describes when to discriminate against immigrants for example. something you feel in your heart is necessary but cant put into words.
utilitarianism does that by giving people an amount of utility and discriminating against the inherently less moral ones. so, niggers.
conservatives have no real way of describing racism, they kinda just say "i dont like em theyre different, but also inferior i guess"
utilitarianism gives you a way to justify the inherent hatred you have towards the arab scum who rape your women
>leaf
t.leaf
using the money someone produces to determine their moral value is limited, thats why i said
sustainability, technology, economy.
it is the split of abilities, normies can do economy by just getting a job. inventors and thinkers come up with technology, and sustainability is the direction it all flows towards.
>utilitarianism has nothing to do with happiness but sustainability, technology, and economy.
But ultlitrain theory is based on maximizing happiness retard
This
Rule utilitarianism falls apart because it requires people to be perfect
Act utilitarianism is just a lazy cop out that really isn't utlilitarianism
What race and religion are they?
utilitariannism is about maximizing utility, utility can be defined in different ways.
this is the correct answer.
that doesnt even make sense
Can be, but isn't. Read some Bentham or Mill. To claim that utility is divorced from sensory pleasure is dishonest.
well if you define it as sustainability, technology and economy, then ur good...
So if you change the fundamental definitions of an entire philosophy, it becomes workable? No shit. Only then you're dealing with something that isn't utilitarianism. Also, there are already other schools of thought that deal with sustainability, technology, and economy, and better than utilitarianism.
What you're saying, ultimately, is "we should do what is best for everyone, but using an arbitrarily defined set of parameters that sound nice". You're talking out your ass.
Caste system? I jest.
Sorry, I didn't read your other posts before replying
And what do you define those three things as? In terms of human behavior? No offense, but this is buzz word tier explanation, go into detail.
Most models of utilitarianism are built around maximizing happiness explicitly.
Pragmatism and Utilitarianism are very different schools of philosophy. Pragmatism is best known by the works of William James, who wrote that righteousness is the most pragmatic state possible, as it justifies literally any "moral holiday" enabling people to do whatever they please and declare it optimally useful. You can't make this shit up.
This is an entirely non-standard interpretation of utilitarianism.
Caste system? I do not jest.
...
making everyone happy leads to degenerates who only care about cummies
fuck off
its just fixing the problems that utilitarianism had before, a small tweak really.
ive never said that we should do whats best for everyone, i said we should do whats best for sustainability, technology and economy.
that means for example getting rid of non-whites and taking away womens right to vote. it means banning the proseletyzation of marxism to children. it means saving the white race.
> '' those people are probably tied to the tracks for a reason ''
> save dick
>What you're saying, ultimately, is "we should do what is best for everyone, but using an arbitrarily defined set of parameters that sound nice". You're talking out your ass.
Are you taking to OP or William James? Because you're literally paraphrasing James.
ok fine, i made up an entirely new philosophy that somewhat ressembles ones from the past and tried to give it a like name to lend it credibility. because if i say that i created an entire new philosophical system i sound like a narcissistic twat. you got me.
i use peoples behavior towards sustainability, technology and economy as the measure of their worth. for example, niggers dont invent anything or work hard so they are worthless. same as women.
an of course if there is a white man who is stupid there is no real reason to send him into the oven with the niggers because he still has potential, his kids might be geniuses. and it is likely that he is very useful if only he was helped properly, autists for example.
Can i be one of the lucky 4
no, because child rape is bad for morale. also for child rape victims...
You are literally not talking about Utilitarianism anymore, which is entirely based on producing the maximum amount of pleasure. Even Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures caused some backlash. You haven't made "a small tweak", you have changed the meaning so thoroughly that you should not be using that word anymore.
As someone else pointed out, your trio of parameters don't actually mean anything either. Ask 100 people, similarly qualified, what it means to do the best for the economy. You will get as many different answers. So now what? And thats just economically. The main appeal of Utilitarianism in the first place is that it based all of its propositions on a fairly simple and well defined idea of "pleasure". You have complicated it to the point where it no longer serves its original purpose.
I only like James for one book, and I was mocking OP's terrible ideas.
of course it does, that's what everything on pol means
ive made it way better desu. also if you ask a million people who is better for the economy, whites or blacks, a few stupid blacks might say its them. its really not hard. utilitarianism is about objective morality, asking for the best course of action between say being an accountant or a teacher is basically meaningless. its a non question. why would you be asking it to 100 people??
I said "similarly qualified" to avoid exactly what you just mentioned, but you chose to ignore it anyway. Why am I not surprised.
Re-read what I wrote. You have moved the locus of morality from a well-defined pleasure principle to not one but THREE different problematic areas.
There are more things in 7-11 than dreamed of in your philosophy.
people being similarly qualified changes literally nothing about what i said.
also its not three things but one thing, the progress of humanity, sustainability is just an obvious thing you have to have to be progressing, and economy as well. theyre just thrown in to apease normies because you cant possibly expect everyone to be great. people want to be normal, and they cant be both normal and great. so you add slogans to apease the nihilistic angst that people bear.
Assuming that the kids are 1)not momentarily traumatized, 2)not physically damaged, and 3)not impregnated, then it would still be a bad choice to make as the pedophile - who was supposedly a dormant fetishist before - may have overdosed on the long-awaited pleasure and awakened the kiddy diddling craving inside him, which in turn would cause him to cause actual damage to actually affected children. If he was already that type of person, then his cravings would be multiplied.
If somehow you could guarantee that he wouldn't go fiddling kids afterwards and go live the rest of his life browsing Sup Forums from his mother's basement (guaranteeing zero harm done), then you could reconsider letting him do so.
You are so off base it hurts. You keep using these buzzwords without thinking about what they actually mean, or what this would look like. Books have been written trying to justify a small fraction of what you are attempting to take as a given right now.
>Sustainability is an obvious thing
if that were true there would be no reason to talk about it as something that needs doing, because we would be doing it. It isn't obvious.
>Economy
What economic structure are we talking about here? Any one you mention, someone smarter than either of us has deconstructed. Economics is not as simple as "do what is good". I can't believe this is even something I have to explain.
You have no right to talk about "normies" when by all rights you are one, in how you think about philosophy and politics.
Your philosophy can be summed up in three buzz words, but really all three are just throwaway nonsense for normies and the real goal is the old March of Progress myth?
Look user, I don't think you realize this but you are straight up ripping off William James. You've probably never read him, but his ideas are such simplistic garbage-tier self-righteousness disguised as highbrow gobbledygook that any high schooler could come up with the totality of his ideas.
Read Pragmatism. You'll like it. James will tell you that every thing you think is right.
Here is the thing, there is no fucking way that raping the kid would increase the overall amount of happiness in the real world
Utilitarianism works, it's just philosophers get assblasted by skepticism and utilitarianism so they make really shitty ideal situations where it wouldn't work
>if that were true there would be no reason to talk about it as something that needs doing, because we would be doing it.
mate everything we do concerns sustainability, you are breathing right now to sustain yourself, what the fuck are you on about???
>Economics is not as simple as "do what is good"
i never said it was, honestly did you read anything ive said? if you cant tell the utilitarian economic difference between two actions then it doesnt fucking matter dude, the point is that not all actions have the same value. and also the people who take those actions. a nigger on welfare has less economic value than a white man who goes to work, this is very easy to understand, i dont get what you arent picking up.
The logical end of utilitarianism is virtue ethics btw
if you say so sidedish
Are we talking about kids being raped or looking for a brighter future or are you saying both ?
How do you measure those? GDP etc? It's already been tried multiple times. Good look with your aimless slave society made up of immigrants from Bangladesh.
The only authority we have is found in our traditions, we must be guided by our history and values.
I can't tell I just got played by a troll that took a while to develop, or you're honestly this stupid. The process of sustaining a single human life is different than macro level "sustainability". This is fucking bonkers.
>if you cant tell the utilitarian economic difference between two actions then it doesnt fucking matter dude
By this logic, you're saying that the difference between capitalism and communism "doesn't matter", because there is no clear answer to that from a strict Utilitarian perspective, especially once you take away the pleasure principle and mix in all of your vacuous bullshit.
its very easy to measure those things, for example niggers are inferior at all of em, that was easy.
sustainability of a large scale is just the sustainement of the small scale. much of society works solely to satisfy our base biological needs. and then there are greater needs, like not allowing iq to drop to a point where our species could spiral away from civilization
if you cant tell that capitalism is superior to communism you are a fucking retard and should be turned into chow for the high iq white males. the idea that these kinds of questions are hard to answer is ludicrous. its easy as fuck.
nigger you are criticizing me because im not giving you exactly what you should do, dont be a fucking retard. of course i dont have all the answers to everything, if i did i'd be a liar. and liars are to be shot.
No, its not. What works for one person does not always work for society.
It doesn't matter if I, personally, can decide that capitalism is better than Communism. You said specifically that the answer should be based in utilitarian philosophy, and if it can't be, then it doesn't matter. Utilitarianism is poorly equipped for dealing quickly with that argument. None of this is "easy as fuck", and I am getting strong vibes of idealistic and newly minted teenager from you.
...
No, I'm criticizing you because your arguments are terrible and poorly thought out. Your conclusions are bad too, but I can forgive that.
so youre saying that actually its hard to tell if communism is a good idea? are you retarded?
>the horrible consequence of being sexually attracted to train tracks
you criticized that minute choices cannot be dictated by my ideology, which isnt even a criticism, thats just retarded. its like criticising liberalism because you dont know which tv show to watch
No, I'm saying that Utilitarianism is the wrong tool for that job. And according to you, anything that doesn't have a clear utilitarian right/wrong answer "doesn't matter". At least keep track of your own bad arguments.
>we have to be FOR something
Sup Forums is for a lot of things:
anime
vidya
sedentary lifestyles
living at home
having no education
CP
etc
if two things are different in such minute ways that you cant tell em apart then yea it doesnt matter that much dude
you missed getting angry about things we'll never actually act against irl
...
>would you let the pedos rape the kid?
Of course. But first I will write book that justifies such action and pretend it was send by God. So some britbongs were not offended (this reduces amount of hapines). But in case of God's word they cant even think (thinkcrime) to oppose OBJECTVIE moral values.
That wasn't your argument though. You said specifically that if two things can't be distinguished easily via utilitarian analysis, then they didn't matter.
Both of your arguments are unacceptable, but you're backpedaling now.
>we cant just be against something, we have to be FOR something.
Sup Forums is not united as being for anything. We have fascists, conservatives, libertarians, centrists and liberals. Sup Forums is only united in being contrarian, edgy and against sjws and shitlibs.
explaining things in explicit detail to less educated people is not backpeddling newfriend.
I'm a utilitarian and a mixed-market Fascist who favors de facto economic totalitarianism, in the sense that I want all economic activities to be directed toward achieving Fascist ends (strengthening the nation, improving the quality of the population, eradicating weakness and degeneracy, preserving national culture, conserving nature, maintaining ethnic homogenity, and achieving national rebirth.)
These ends can be achieved first and foremost by restricting the incentives created by our economic insitutions. For instance, the welfare state will be redirected toward incentivizing reproduction between intelligent, healthy, and racially pure citizens through state-subsidized childcare, the extension of low-interest home loans, and direct fiscal transfers.
>Newfriend
>been here since 2005
>double majored in Philosophy and Political Science to have a fucking leaf call me less educated
I'm out and I hope you choke on your Tim Hortons you fucking reprobate.
Restructuring*
fucking nailed it
Interesting! I wonder if the idea will ever catch on. Lots of people have flirted with the concept, but it's rare for it to be identified as utilitarian.
>has a degree in philosophy
>doesnt understand the difference between things that are very different and things that are slightly different
must have gotten the degree from a feminist uni