>in philosopy
>professor asks me about the concept of morality
>put on the spot, start panicking,but remember a certain quote from Code Geass
>"The world lies! Thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not cheat, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife. All of these are lies! Mere illusions and nothing more! They don’t want to be killed, they don’t want to be robbed, using the twin lies of justice and morality, the weak are endeavouring to protect themselves. But the first truth is that the strong devour the weak, so let us feed upon people, upon wealth, upon riches and power! We at Britannia shall feast upon the raw flesh of the world itself! We will crush this deception and bring forth the truth! All Hail Britannia!"
>professor looks stunned, the class gives me a round of applause
In philosopy
Albert Einstein? Is that you?
Nice blog. Kill yourself.
to be fair
I'm more surprised you could remember that entire quote.
Once in Philosophy we were taught about Utilitarianism and I said "WHAT BUT..." and gave the boat example from Fate/Zero and the professor's world was dumbfounded.
wow. haven't seen this copypasta in probably close to a decade.
Nice to know Philosophy Professors can be BTFO as easily as edgelord manchildren.
the boat example is an actual counterexample to utilitarianism used a long long time ago. Its like the OG textbook example. I hope this is a community college.
who's to say they're mutually exclusive?
I hope someone from class said he would save everyone
Nobody would applaud a misinterpretation of Nietzsche
In addition, you did not answer your professor's question.
In philosophy? Which philosophy?
>in science [class]
>professor asks me to evaluate the indo-european model of languages
This is how fucking vague you are, you cumbiscuit.
This is why nobody takes code gayass seriously
...
The overcrowded lifeboat?
Is this an ebin new copypasta?
>in philosopy
>professor asks me about the concept of morality
>punch him in the face
Wait, what boat example was in Fate/Zero? I don't remember anything like that.
Yes. Sup Forums's ones are lame though.
>in physics
>professor asks me about the concept of gravity
>put on the spot, start panicking,but remember a certain quote from the dark knight rises
>"Perhaps they were wondering why you would shoot a man before they throw him out of an airplane"
>Professor is shocked speechless, class begins to clap and I get a sloppy blowjob from the janitor
I'll take shit that never happened for 200, Alex!
>first week of graphics design class
>using linux in front of class mates
>teacher says "Ok students, now open photoshop"
>start furiously typing away at terminal to install Wine
>Errors out the ass
>Everyone else has already started their classwork
>I start to sweat
>Install GIMP
>"Umm...what the fuck is THAT user?" a girl next to me asks
>I tell her its GIMP and can do everything that photoshop does and IT'S FREE!
>"Ok class, now draw use the shape tool to draw a circle!" the teacher says
>break down and cry and run out of the class
>get beat up in the parking lot after school
I was at a college, a second tier school, not an Ivy League school. More of a second choice school. I was in a class and there was a student in that class. The teacher, he was spouting some horrible nonsense about women's rights being illegitimate, something everyone knows is false. But if anyone spoke up he would have taken extreme joy in failing them so nobody spoke up. One person raised his voice, one person started talking, the teacher couldn't believe it, the classroom couldn't believe it either. But in the end he had logic on his side and at the end of the day, he proved his point. That student, was Albert Einstein.
It was a community college
No, the Fate/Zero one. I forget exactly how it went, but...
>You can either save 100 people or 200 people. You have to kill the other group.
>You save 200.
>But now you have to either save 150 or 50
>You save 150
>But now you have to save either...
Pretty soon you kill more people then you actually saved.
Ivy league is a meme anyways. The prestige from the connections you get is the only thing that matters.
basically an answer to utilitarism.
althought I haven't seen fate/zero and dropped the new fate after 3 episodes, I can explain to you what's going on.
Utilitarianism is "the right moral action is the one which makes the most people the most happiest" basically. so you would litterally calculate the happines of people to come to a moral conclusion.
the boat example would be the simple thing of:
you can save 1 person, either your loved one or a complete stranger.
and is a simple way of critizising utilitarism which might fail to take the human aspect into acount.
...
there is cheeto dust all over your post
And that same sense of childlike play and innocence that we know from Albert Einstein, I can sense it on Sup Forums today.
wow. clad i droped that shit and never touched it again. exaggerated anime philosophie at it's finest. let's take a simple example and make it into an emo-love song.
user, what inspires you? Let's all give ourselves a pat on the back here.
t.brainlet
underrated
I don't blame you user. I don't know how all these people have so much money to blow on photoshop
>philosophy
They give you the teachings, but do they give you the context?
There's variations of utilitarianism.
This is dumb.
Sounds gay. Isn't there something like utilitarianism that acknowledges that people aren't equally deserving of happiness?
Really makes me think
>people aren't equally deserving of happiness
>Sup Forums user
>morality
Dropped this
>unironically responding to edited pasta
the absolute state of Sup Forums
10 saints vs 10 serial killers, for example.
Technically you can invent any metric you want to assign to individuals utility functions to weight them for the calculus. You could assign a massive value to dog people's happiness and say that the happiness of cat owners is worthless.
Economics is basically just that making assumptions about people under a utilitarian framework.
that's stupid
Rewarding serial killers over saints as a rule incentivizes serial killing which reduces utility.
Good point, I shouldn't have thought about things in a bubble.
>new
That's only half true. Economics as of late cares about equality vs. efficiency. but past economists care about efficiency and worry about equality later.
>hey let me just assert unpredictable consequences on an arbitrary basis
I seriously hope none of you used this specific argument in public.
If traps can give me a boner just as well as girls can...
Then traps... are just another way of having sex with girls.
The only ethical system that works when applied to society is contractarianism.
its basically the same thing as the overcrowded lifeboat.
i have torrents to blow
>not using ms paint shape tools and then pasting the shapes in gimp
>shitty situation where everyone is going to die
How is this a dilemma or at all thought provoking?
It's all applies utilitarianism at the end of the day, if your assumption framework doesn't account for non-consumer sources of happiness your predictive models fall apart. Its useful in markets but not in politics or at a macro level and in a sense its useless because the political equilibrium is never ever the economic efficient solution.
>in philosopy class
>professor asks me about the concept of good and evil
>put on the spot, start panicking,but remember a certain quote from One Punch-Man
>"All of you...all of you...all of you!! The people! The world! None of you see anything. Anything! You act like heroes even though you can't save one child. You're all insane! Yet people rely on you madmen. They make the mistaken assumption that of course you'll save them. No matter what happens, someone will do something. It's not their problem if a monster appears. It's not as if most people's lives will change. And so, in a small part of their heart, it will have room to grow. Evil will be born. But still, the evil of people will never be judged. That's the difference between them and monsters. The phony peace that heroes create will dye people with evil. That's why I'm doing this. I will be the Count Devil that plunges humanity into terror!! In a world with no room for survival, evil will disappear. And so will bullying, and discrimination, even war! WHAT THIS WORLD NEEDS IS NOT BIASED JUSTICE! BUT UNBIASED ABSOLUTE EVIL! I'm fighting for world peace. No justice will be able to overthrow me. I will be stronger than anyone! I will be...AN ABSOLUTE MONSTER!"
>professor looks stunned, the class gives me a round of applause
That is literally The Genealogy of Morals from Nietzsche in a nutshell.
the original version of this which fate/zero borrowed is a thought experiment where if you use the concept of 'utility' (the best outcome for the most people) you'll result in an extremely immoral outcome.
you have a lifeboat and people on it. the lifeboat cannot support everyone, how do you resolve who stays and who is destined to drown? Next, you have to deal with potential starvation. lets say you don't have any idea when you are going to be rescued. Lets say yall are hungry and you dont have any provisions left. you gotta eat each other. Who lives and who dies to feed the rest? what if its just two of you left? Who must eat the other to satisfy utility?
Basically, utilitarianism is for sociopaths.
>muh slave morality
>Pretty soon you kill more people then you actually saved.
That's not how numbers work.
ITT: Things that never happened.
>result in an extremely immoral outcome
It doesn't though, because the moral framework at play is utilitarianism.
So... a pasta from Sup Forums.
...
if you come to basis commonly agreed on, stable executed and predicted by alot of experience. it is only as arbitrary as the punishment for crimes, stated by law.
shouldn't economics have a monetary basis for decisions. but yes if you mean by utilitarian framework the best exploit. yes, i guess.
it's a too deep 4 u comic.
They're not similar though.
The previous scenario is retarded since it relies on an unknown event to "get" the player.
>"do you push the little girl of the bag of leaves off the bridge?"
>"Haha! the bag of leaves actually had three little girls in it you scumbag!"
Well said, user. Well said.
you're assuming moral and ethical statements have truth values, my dude.
utilitarianism isn't for sociopaths. It simply states that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The problem with it arises when morality collides with it on a bases that results in damaging the few. Do you spend 100 dollars to buy one kid a Playstation or do you spend it to buy 100 kids something to eat? That type of stuff is utilitarianism's main draw. It utterly fails when you have things like the hospital example where you have 4 injured patients that need new organs so you go and butcher a perfectly healthy human being, bring back their organs and save 4 lives. The reason it fails is because the greater implication of utilitarianism is that rights can be infringed the moment infringing on them benefits a lot of people.
There are equivalent unknowns. namely when you are going to be rescued. each action is isolated assuming they won't have to kill again because of the possibility that they'd be rescued before that.
Monetary decisions are made on some sort of pre-defined goal ie maximize GDP, lower some predefined survey of unemployment and inflation. By this logic the best way to implement a Keynesian recovery is to bring back racial segregation, tons of jobs, tons of projects for every consumer sector.
I think the total lack of consumer vitality despite the economic crisis being nearly a decade behind us proves that Chicago was somewhat right and that money is neutral in the long run. Really monetary policy intervention basically was just a giant cushion for the banks and screws the little guy for literally a decade and pushed all the recovery to one spot which would have been the same intervention or no.
You are a utilitarian surgeon.
You have 5 dying men in your care, each dying of the failure of a separate organ. These men are young, intelligent, successful and otherwise healthy outside of their imminently fatal conditions. Each of their lives can be saved if they find a donor of the corresponding organ, but no such donor is available and will not become available before the men die.
One day, a 6th man comes into your clinic for a routine checkup. This man is healthy, intelligent, successful and places his entire trust in the care of you, the utilitarian surgeon. The checkup confirms that this man is in good health and, miraculously, that his blood type matches those of all 5 dying men.
An idea enters your good little utility-maximizing brain: While this 6th man is under your care, and placing his trust in you unconditionally, you can sedate him without a struggle and harvest all of the organs that are needed to save the other 5 men. In essence, sacrificing 1 man, and saving the lives of 5 others.
Between sedating and killing the man to reap his innards, or releasing him from your care unharmed and allowing the 5 others to die, which decision maximizes utility?
quit the job lol
also it fails when you factor in utility monsters (calling into question how utility is even measured). Lets say you have two cookies. and there are two children with no cookies. normally, you could give one to each and satisfy utility, but lets say one of these two kids is actually the cookie monster. The cookie monster generates five times the happiness from a single cookie than anyone else in the world and it never wanes. the cookie monster has an insatiable appetite for the damn things. Why the fuck would you split the cookies up when you could generate utility at production rates never before seen on this earth?
If the dying men all have matching blood types, then why not just harvest one of them?
>here are equivalent unknowns. namely when you are going to be rescued.
No because the scenario with two boats is described as always sinking the larger ship if you choose it.
It's like saying if you pick the lightest members to stay on the lifeboat then a wave comes and knocks half off every single time. It makes no sense.
You can design a similar "dilemma" for any ethical framework that forces a bad result.
killing the man maximizes immediate utility but a utilitarian could also argue that killing the man will probably mean that you will lose your job and if you lose your job you'll not be able to help any other people that come into that hospital.
I don't do it because I'm not a freak who'd kill innocent people, that goes against what medicine is about. If you want people to make such an extreme choice, you'd have to put them in a high risk situation where the lives of those 5 men would be extremely important.
As a rule doctors should not kill their patients because nobody would go to doctors anymore and utility would drop a lot.
hey, you're starting to understand how counterexamples work. the entire point of these scenarios are to come up with a scenario that follows the rule of some maxim or framework that fails to accomplish whatever the maxim or framework set out to do. By doing this, the maxim or framework fails at meeting the requirements of becoming a universal statement.
This is a way better method of cutting too the heart of the real moral delimma than that stupid fate/zero scenario. It helps point out hypocrisy faster.
A good example of utilitarianism going south is the story The Metamorphisis of Prime Intellect. Even if you remove all of society's ills and create a legitimate utopia where pretty much any fantasy one could conceive of can be brought to life, things can still get fucked up. In the story's case, people were wilfully turning into doped up vegetables because there was absolutely nothing for them to strive for. There was zero adversity for society to face, which is something we need I suppose.
Still, having an AI create your ideal waifu and 2D world would be pretty rad. I really wish the story explored more crazy shit than what is pretty much just death worship.
no you take the amount of happiness and unhappiness into acount.
sadly I don't know enough about usa economics to talk about that. but seems interesting.
>bad things can happen so there's no reason to do anything good
Is this what you all tell yourselves to cope with being NEETs?
wHO ARE YOU QUOTING?
No but its how you will cope with my cock in your mouth.
> started out with 200 people
> in the end he had less than 10
> had to choose between 6 and 4
yes, they do
No you're just being a dipshit.
For a dilemma D if F(D) gives the decision for a framework F then designing a scenario such that a bad result always arbitrarily occurs whenever F(D) is chosen is not a counter example.
Why are we discussing a world where ships magically sink if and only if you chose to repair the ship with more passengers?
>whenever you decide something by categorical imperative a meteor strikes a baby, fuck you kant :^)
>suddenly point at the teacher
>"If you weren't here, I would have become the world's absolute evil. Unbiased terror scattered throughout the world...that can establish real peace. Don't think that all children are waiting for heroes. There are even kids around the world waiting for a great monster to take the stage. Can you save them!? Can you follow the ugly kid being picked on in the park!? I can! I can save the whole world with terror! While humanity is fearing Garou the Monster, everyone's hearts will unite to survive. Is there any peace other than this!? Can you create peace? Can you unbiased save the world with that flimsy cape? Do you have the means to stop the unseen tragedies? You're strong but so what? You may defeat me, but can you handle it?! THE RESPONSIBILITY!!! WELL!? IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEFEAT ME, THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHAT WILL YOU ACCOMPLISH? Why will you kill me now? Do you have a sense of duty like mine? WHY...ARE YOU...A TEACHER?!"
>Ignoring that I just called myself Garou, the teacher is dumbstruck and briefly reconsiders his life choices.
>"It's a hobby." He tells me, I am mad.
>It helps point out hypocrisy faster.
How?
This is Sup Forums, theres no way anyone is advocating for the categorical imperative we value masturbation here
...
actually, you're mistaken. The dilemma (the shitty fate/zero scenario) being decided by moral framework (utilitarianism) will always yield a bad result, not because there is a problem with the dilemma, but because there is a problem with the moral framework. Its the same with the lifeboat scenario. Rescue never comes and they will always eat each other if they use utility to decide their fate.
you aren't bound to the fucking tracks, why would the other trolley roll over you.
Pull the lever and get out of the way.
get in the trolly
push my trolley so it also runs over the other fuck even if he doesn't flip the lever
There are so many variations to the trolley problem, they're pretty much meaningless now.
I thought that was the joke
>The dilemma (the shitty fate/zero scenario) being decided by moral framework (utilitarianism) will always yield a bad result, not because there is a problem with the dilemma, but because there is a problem with the moral framework.
What is the dilemma? Either the ships are magically choosing to sink based on your decision which is asinine or the ships are always going to sink in which case the ethical framework is irrelevant.
>Rescue never comes and they will always eat each other if they use utility to decide their fate.
So rescue never coming is contingent on them using utility to decide?
Bravo you've proven utilitarianism to be broken in the world where reality actively opposes it.
Go into fetal position and start screaming in the highest pitch possible in an attempt to make this shitty moral dilemma go away.
hes talking about proof by contradiction, not the categorical imperative.