/lit/ - Literature

i hate this lil nigga like you wouldn't believe

Was he the ultimate A*glo bugman?

>>17341799
What was his endgame?

> and my panopticon

>man doesn't choose the circumstances of his acts
I am enlightened.

>DURRRRRRRR PLEASURE GOOD PAIN BAD LET ME WRITE 400 PAGES ON THIS SHITTY DICHOTOMY
I'm not even a christcuck but this guy's philosophy is peak cringe and plebbit tier at most

Is rape morally correct if you think they will enjoy it?
Are particularly sensitive individuals utility monsters?

>Now the Irregularity of a Male is a matter of measurement; but as all Women are straight, and therefore visibly Regular so to speak, one has to devise some other means of ascertaining what I may call their invisible Irregularity, that is to say their potential Irregularities as regards possible offspring. This is effected by carefully-kept pedigrees, which are preserved and supervised by the State; and without a certified pedigree no Woman is allowed to marry.

What the fuck did he mean by this?

Bentham is even gayer. The first "let people enjoy things"philistine. At least Mill recognized the notion of higher pleasures.

>If the quantity of pleasure be the same, pushpin is as good as poetry.

Was he a sociopath?

Im interested in studying ethics seriously and (for now) auto-didactically especially utilitarianism and suffering-focused ethics.

Im philosophically illiterate. Does /lit/ have an image macro for getting into utilitarianism or any advice in general? Is it necessary I read all of platos works first or something like that or can i just start reading Bentham or do I need some preliminary reading? Thanks, girls.

this cunt

>>11496370
solution to pic related is perpetual masturbation machines
cumming so hard every 30 seconds there's no time to worry about a lack of meaning

>>11300181
Too add to the list of Philosophers speaking about vegetarianism:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?

"Every law is an infraction of liberty." what did Jeremy "Let's institute a panoptic system of surveillance in every institution imaginable, and also throughout the general social body" Bentham mean by this?

Has there been a more idiotic and damaging human being in our history?

There's nothing wrong with utilitarianism.

Is Objectivism the philosophical opposite of Utilitarianism?

Hey /lit/ I want to read about utilitarianism, but I am basically philisophically illiterate. Should I just jump right into Bentham? Is there something before that i should read or should I just start with the greeks and if so how thoroughly? Thanks girls.

What's lit's opinion on utilitarianism in general, specifically the Epicureans and Stoics? Are the two schools compatible?

>>8222152
Nah nigga nah.

What are the most significant criticisms (or flaws) of utilitarianism?

Is it the most rational moral framework?
Who is the best utilitarian writer?
Would you torture a man for 50 years in order to prevent an infinite number of people from getting paper cuts?

>pic related, our lord and savior

Can utilitarianism make sense without qualia? My impression is that if utils are not qualia, then it makes no sense whatsoever to compare them or sum them up. It's not even apples and oranges, as we have no access to them at all in other minds.