/lit/ - Literature

Is Bentham the best philosopher to ever live?

Do you think he could beat the shit out of Adam Smith in a fist fight?

>>15383857
But it also might.

Now I ask you, which of these benefits should be encouraged, those that benefit the individual and society, or those that only benefit the individual at the expense of society?

I don't see how or why Bentham is cringe, he is extremely pro-free market.

I think he took an anti-law stance on usury, that usury should essentially be allowed to run rampant. Even more loose than Adam Smith.

Antitrust laws are in effect, for one. Necessarily though, as they say, laws are made to be broken.

I'm not too sure, in game theory, the conflict will always be represented into increasingly deterministic oligopolistic or even monopsonistic competition as chance plays a decreasing part.

On the side note, if you haven't gotten the chance yet, I would definitely read Jeremy Bentham's Manual of Political Economy, it is strikingly similar to The Wealth of Nations, and much shorter. I'm thinking of just recommending that one if someone wants a shorter version of the Wealth of Nations.

Alright you guys, post what you're reading currently, and what you'll be reading after:

Roger Bacon - Opus Majus
Jacob Marschak - Economics, Information, Decision, and Prediction
Nicolaus Copernicus - Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres
Jeremy Bentham - Manual of Political Economy
Aristotle - Sophistical Elenchi

After:
Thomas Bradwardine - Theoretical Geometry
Gerard Debreu - Mathematical economics: twenty papers of Gerard Debreu
Galileo Galilei - Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences
John Stuart Mill - A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive
Porphyry - Introduction to Aristotle's Categories.

Did you get filtered by him?

>>15259039
sorry. Pic related.

Post what you're currently reading, and what you'll be reading after. :3

Current:

Roger Bacon - Opus Majus
Werner Hildenbrand - Core and Equilibria of a Large Economy
Nicole Oresme - De Moneta
Jeremy Bentham - Economic Writings Vol. I (Phil. of Economic Science)
Aristotle - The Topics

After:

Thomas Bradwardine - Speculative Geometry
Anatol Rapoport - Conflict in Man-Made Environment
Nicolaus Copernicus - On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres
John Stuart Mill - A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive
Aristotle - Sophistical Elenchii

What do you think about morality, /lit/? Is law necessary to inform it about what is correct?

ITT post current a future reads.

Currently reading:

Roger Bacon - Opus Majus
Werner Hildebrand - Core and Equilibria of a Large Economy
Nicole Oresme - De Moneta
Jeremy Bentham - Economic Writings (Philosophy of Economic Science)
Aristotle - The Topics

After:

Thomas Bradwardine - Speculative Geometry
Anatol Rapoport - Conflict in Man-Made Environment
Nicolaus Copernicus - Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres
John Stuart Mill - A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive
Aristotle - Sophistical Elenchii

:3

Every political and moral question ought to be put upon the issue of fact; and thus mankind are directed into the only true track of investigation which can afford instruction or hope of rational argument, the track of experiment and observation.

--Jeremy Bentham, The Philosophy of Economic Science

You agree/disagree, /lit/? And why?

How do Marxists grapple with the fact that work can be enjoyable? That people can enjoy working i.e. having a job where you talk to people all day or just sit around talking to your co-workers etc etc

If you have environments which habitually let you enjoy yourself is this not the definition of emancipation? Wouldn't these positions afford you a considerable opportunity to exercise that 'extra-regarding prudence' Bentham talks about?

:3

Nietzsche is a perfect example of a 'passionate' philosopher. Their intention is to put you in a state of mind with their words where you cannot make sense of it completely.

Jeremy Bentham is a much better moral philosopher. His findings are almost distinctly coeval with that of game theorists like Harsanyi who define the social welfare function W (A)superM (subi)= SUM ( A subj (superM)) for all values of M across all integers for all players 1 through j. Meaning the social welfare function is essentially a cardinal function, unique up to a linear transformation (because it's for all integer values M in i's interpretation of the citizen's expected utility from some collected basket of goods.

Although Harsanyi makes some mathematical errors here and there: this is the most novel find, really, and it essentially describes mathematically Bentham's theory of collective morality somewhat: that the interpreted moral sanction of the individual will be in a linear relation to his interpretation of the collective needs of society.

Where it gets interesting is where A subj superM has a finite value for certain values of j only and no others, then depending on what A is, this value of M could be significant for those values of j alone, meaning subjectivity for the individual interpreting society.

Taken as a collective whole (and expressed somewhat loosely verbally), the arithmetic mean of the sum total of the expected utility functions in the eyes of every participant for every other participant is the social welfare function, expressed as a completely symmetric line. This means any idiosyncracies are taken into account with regards to that individual's specific interpretation of society and humanity at a whole. This means the morality of society can be mathematically expressed, loosely, by a linear relation. That's all though.

Those findings are so much more interesting than, say, the absolute word diarrhea of one of the most sophist-like philosophers to ever exist. He can't even agree on a methodology to determine morality concretely, the closest thing you'll come to what I've described above with Bentham and Harsanyi is most likely his 'totem morality'. :3

I don't understand Bentham. It seems like he is fighting with himself within 'Deontology'.

It seems first he says that there is some legitimacy in rebuking the ancient philosophers like Plato for stating their idea of Good is absolute, but then he says that this person has no right to denigrate those others, like himself, who have an individual perception of the world like himself, for simply differing in opinion.

Why wouldn't he extend the same protection towards Plato? Does he simply dislike those who want to extend their viewpoints towards others for the good of them?

Then what is the point of his 'moral sanction' on criminal acts? Even if derived from the majority, it must be because the majority are tending in a collective fashion to prefer what is more pleasurable to them, so why wouldn't this be a form of objective morality? And then what happens if the public misunderstands what is good for them, i.e. tyranny by the majority?

Do you think stealing money from rich people and giving it to poor people is good or evil?

And what if those rich people have obtained that money through long-winded negotiations with the populace through making them believe it is in their best interest not to take money away from them, but to actually give them more money?

Note: just for the purposes of this thread you must take an objective idea of Good and Evil (besides, subjective morality is illogical anyway).

What exactly is the point of subjective morality?

How can it possibly be planned in a system of government?

To be honest with you Nietzschean totemic morality seems similar to Benthamite utility measures of pleasure and pain, except for the sense that overall, there are no sanctions for Nietzsche, no moral or religious sanctions to stop one from murdering someone else even if he saw it in his best interest to do so (and not sufficiently get caught doing so either, obviously because it has to be a net gain).

So what is the point? How can something like Nietzsche's moral nihilism ever be applied in practice? How can it ever be legalized?

What really is the issue with Bentham's idea of utility?

I don't really like that it centers around 'pleasure' or that Bentham defines displeasure as 'evil', but I do like the several motivations Bentham has listed towards different dictates of utility that are passed through the legislature.

So what is the issue? Under the principle of utility there is the motivation factor of morals, and there is also the motivation factor of religion, and also one of self-interested nature.

I find that the general good of the community can be hindered by this last one, although it does increase the dictate's utility for that individual. Were we to ever find society's morals in decay, or the motivating factor of the esteem of one's peers in decay, then under the Benthamite system, the only way to really discourage opprobrious acts would be a strong standing tutelary factor of religion.

I have used Bentham's system to justify the necessity for God, which Bentham himself saw religion tending to: the preservation of mankind. So why, why would you ever assert that it is the principle of self-preservation or the struggle for survival the propels the citizenry when it obviously the principle of utility?

Start with the utilitarians.

What do you think, /lit/? Was Jeremy Bentham the forerunner to transforming utility along geometric or linear trends like Walras/Von Neumann?

If one reads The Introduction.. you can clearly read some actual equations he introduces. Here follows one such example (p.73)

It follows, therefore, that the strength of the temptation, in any case, after deducting the force of the social motives, is as the sum of the forces of the seducing, to the sum of the forces of the occasional tutelary motives". Mathematical equation right? Representable by a - b = c/d.

I could very easily see utility curve analysis applied to morality in general, and social situations as well, and not just applicable to economic goods.

What have you /lit/? :3

>>7910153
I believe in hedonistic act utilitarianism.

>>7864262
When your existence results in net suffering (factoring in your impact on others, too).

Who /utilitarian/ here?

I've got a problem. The utilitarian calculus demands that I kill myself.

Any help?

Don't forget the dream...