/lit/ - Literature

What do you think of Nozick's idea of utility monsters? Have there ever been any in existence?

>>17774756
Refuted by Nozick and Rawls

>Seething so hard at a colleague's book that you spend three years trying to refute them
More like Robert Nodick lmao

>>17371828
Have you met my friend, Wilt Chamberlain?

>You are severely misrepresenting the ingeniousness of Rawls' argument against natural aristocracy/system of natural liberty.
As I quoted in >>17371565, that particular criticism in my OP was aimed at liberalism.

>>13522509
Only if you don't consider Robert Nozick a philosopher

>Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people force you to do certain work, or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purposes your work is to serve apart from your decision. This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part-owner of you. It gives them a property right in you.
Was he right about everything?

>>12855776
>Why Muricans cannot produce any good philosophy
>blocks your fucking path

>be excellent to each other
>party on, dudes

>no mention of Nozick in this thread

What type of spooktastic, haunted house view of the world would make you not want to get into Nozick's experience machine?

Consider this:

[P1] Ethical Hedonism would morally obligate one to enter an Experience Machine.

[P2] The intuitions of many people (but not all) are violated by a moral obligation to enter an Experience Machine.

[P3] These intuitions pertain to moral truth, as in the way morality actually is, rather than merely how people believe it to be.

[C] Entering the experience machine would be wrong, therefore Ethical Hedonism must be false.

Now, surely we can see the obvious flaw in this argument. Namely with [P3]. How can it be assumed that this moral intuition, one that not everyone would agree upon, pertains to moral truth, rather than merely being a baseless preference, which may, after all, be explained by some cognitive bias? Even if the intuition were true, one cannot, in light of such problems, merely assume that it is, and then pretend that it constitutes a rational objection to absolutely anything, other than whether some ethical theory is subjectively appealing to some group of people. You have to justify why it is true. Can we all agree that Nozick is a touchy-feely hack, and a disgrace to normative ethics?