/lit/ - Literature

deontology

It's measured in human happiness, ya dingus. Not too far off the mark from the Greek notion of eudaimonia.

>>12410497
Utilitarianism is just reality. I get it, the nuance and imperfection of reality is too much for you to bother with. As a utilitarian though, I have no problem admitting that mystical bullshit frameworks may provide pyschological advantages and healthier living to the average person. It's up for debate which ethical -belief systems- produce the best average results, but the core utilitarian observation that values stem from us and serve our utility is simply factual.

>>12411168
Yes but if we value something, does that mean that we ought to value it?

>>12411182
There is no 'ought' in a universal or transcendental sense. There is only consequence. There is only manipulating what -is- to produce another desired -is-. Desire/preference is inescapable and fundamental to (and shaped by) our nature.

So if you prefer to be healthy/successful/happy, there are behaviours which will be more or less optimal towards those ends. Effective values codify such knowledge. There is nothing that precedes preference. Fortunately there is enough overlap in people's preferences to seek consensus, and that is the business of morality.

>>12411168
>i want it
>therefore it's good

come on nigga

>>12410497
REDUCE

UNNECESSARY

SUFFERING

>>12411373
Judgements of 'good' or 'bad' can't precede our preferences. Would the universe think it was good or bad if the entirety of humanity died out tomorrow? Of course not. So, something is only good or bad insofar as what it achieves and how that aligns with our preferences (and the overlap of collective preferences -- in particular -- as the concept of morality for a lone entity would be nonsensical).

>>12411372
A plain, clear headed anon. You won't do well here.

>>12410918
what about sadomasochism my dude. happiness isn't a universal telos

>>12411436
There is some kind of satisfaction (endorphins, psychological fufillment) in such behaviours or they wouldn't be pursued.

economics mathematically defined utility on mathematical terms. its not perfect but its good enough to capture patterns in the existing data.
at least for policy (e.g. we want universal basic income, or universal health care), normative statements about "ought" are imposed after you make the positive statements about "is" in economic analysis.
so, while not perfect because some things are essentially unmeasurable, measuring preferences of choices and its consequences give us a pretty good approximation of reality.
as for desires like sex and love, well, we dont have data for that but if we had it, we could crank the machine and do the same analysis and find the "optimal" provision of sex and love

>>12412671
This kind of thinking robs reality of so much shit, good shit that makes life better, why would I want the "optimal"? Why would I want your notions of what the best love is? Fuck that, I want to suffer and to fail sometimes too

>>12412714
why would you want that though? in order to "learn" what the best option is. but if you already knew that then it would be irrational to want to fail, as you know what the outcome will be. you dont do that IRL for things you know the result, or in other words, you dont actively engage in behavior you know you'll fail at. you engage in behavior that you didnt know youd fail at, more like strategically experimenting.

to continue my post above, i aspire for a future in which technocrats will not only control income, consumption, and investment, but will also centralize and regulate the market for sex and love, where you get a partner a la black mirror that is /failproof/. this would get rid of "heartbreaks" and other inefficiencies down the line that myopic people failed to acknowledge about the other partner. love will be as automatic as teeth brushing

>>12411168

So if Islamic State want to save everyone from eternal hell by establishing a caliphate of believers and to get to there you have to kill the dissenting minority, is that not the greater good?

>>12412731
I'm not rational, anon, I'm reasonable, and there are a lot of things out there that aren't simply categorized into succeses or failures.

I wonder how you'll feel when your state allocated marriage fails because someone changed their mind at one point, or suddenly chemistry just changed because of some shit you said at breakfast.

>>12412741

But your appreciation for something is often based on how scarce, unique or special it is.

You don't want to to fail at dating but you'll be honestly glad you did when you find the right woman.
I cringe get at the thought of how broke up I was when my ex left me, because I found someone who is a million times better, but I never would have met her without those failure chain of events.
(Started going to the gym to get my mind off things and get out of the house more and I met her).

Think of usa government cheese, it barely resembles real cheese, I imagine it tastes cheap and we know it's unhealthy, do you want government standard love?

>>12412772
>change their mind
that will be avoided by the algorithm
>chemistry
a myth

>>12412786
>he thinks that algorithms can predict the sheer possibility of being inside all of us

>>12412786

Did you just read notes from the underground?

>>12411372
So you are a moral nihlist larping as a utlitarian becuase your metaethical theory is bad, and you should feel bad. Yet another win for the kantgang.

>>12412755
Probably not. Maybe it could be better for them under certain circumstances, but their utility considerations would obviously conflict with those of other collectives (utility varies because people and collectives vary). For instance, many white populations have been conditioned to think that their utility isn't at odds with that of other races, which is leading to us being demographically overrun. This is clearly maladaptive... Whites don't -have- to value in-group preference, but if they don't they will be replaced by collectives who do (and then their values will be irrelevant),

>>12412840
Like utilitarianism, nihilism is simply observation of fact (they are complimentary philosophies). I'm sorry if that hurts your fee-fees.

I have values, which I am unapologetic for... But I don't need to pretend they are universal or transcendental to validate them. The quest for universality in values which cannot possibly precede valuing agents themselves is intellectually dishonest. I can accept that mundanes may need to cleave to fairytales for their own good, but supposed intellectuals aspiring to debate reality should be meeting a coherent standard.

>>12413929
You have preferences which you call values, a way of smuggling metaphysical contraband under the guise of pragmatics.
You're an equivocal garbage man, is what you are.

>>12413939
I refute the whole notion of the metaphysical.

Values are codified knowledge pertaining to behaviours and their likely outcomes, nothing more. If you can logically demonstrate that I'm wrong, do so. Good luck.

>>12414007
>Values are codified knowledge pertaining to behaviours and their likely outcomes, nothing more
Unpack that a little for me, could you? From here it just looks like you've defined 'value' as 'what we know about how certain things will act in such and such a circumstances'. Why call this type of knowledge a 'value?' Why not just 'knowledge?' Or 'knowledge of behavior at x?' Or etc.
What is interesting to me is this identity of value with the knowledge of the observer, rather than the observed. Ut would seem, then, that any value is rather an imputation of the subject/observer to its object, i.e. a reflection of its own positionality or 'predisposition to behave'.

>>12411168
>Utilitarianism is just reality.
>mystical bullshit frameworks may provide pyschological advantages and healthier living to the average person
>but the core utilitarian observation that values stem from us and serve our utility is simply factual.
Laughing hard at this shit.
You speak as if there are objective morals and you can understand everyone's perception of reality.
In conclusion, you are just fabricating bullshit with short sight and cant see the larger implications that derive from following your ideas. You are just another person trying to project his morals on other people.

>>12411378
Everybody strives to do this. They just happen to be fucking retarded at it.

>>12411436
Not everybody is a sadomasochist though, so if you live like that you'd only be making a very small mount of people happy.

>>12414094
You can call it just 'knowledge', but the subset categorization of 'value' is useful in denoting the application of that type of knowledge. For example, we use terms like 'endocrinology' and 'cosmology' to describe branches of knowledge and their specific applications.

Yes, of course values descend from preference. Nothing precedes preference and we cannot escape that biological reality.

>>12414210
I would think quite a few things precede preference, actually. Endocrinology, for instance.
But I want to bring us back to this curious feature of your definition of value. Again, you link it to the 'knowledge pertaining to', and so to that subject possessing the knowledge, the observer of 'behaviors and their likely outcomes'. This seems to suggest that values are those expressions of observation; they are the declarations by someone of something else, with no internal relation to that something.
Is this correct?

>>12414143
You don't undersand the distinction between objectivity and universality. Objectively, values can't be universal because valuing agents (and collectives of agents) vary.

Perhaps you should have a chuckle at your own pseudery. This is ostensibly a philosophical debate, and I shouldn't have to worry about how impressionable or triggerable people are in this forum.

The fact that those who disagree with me are mostly resorting to zingers and ad-homs (while abstaining from logical demonstration) is very telling.

>>12410918
>human happiness
>Not too far off the mark from the Greek notion of eudaimonia
unironically kys, pseud filth

>>12414247
Semantics. Preference is biology.

You're firmly in word-salad territory here. What 'internal relation' are you expecting?

>>12414271
I'm asking for clarification.
By internal relation I mean an intrinsic relationship between two terms, say 'value' and 'subject'. For example, in the sentence 'the ball is red', the term 'red' bears an internal relationship to the term 'ball', while the sentence itself bears an external relationship to both terms.
You asked for a 'logical demonstration' against your position, but I can't begin to do such a thing if I don't understand what you mean.

>>12414271
Also, do you mean to say that preference is identical to biology, or that preference is encompassed by biology, or that preference is a token of biology, or...?
Where in the bios does one find the preference? Is it in the circulatory system?

>>12414171
>implying there is such a thing as unnecessary suffering

>>12414347
I'm actually explicitly stating it.

>>12410497
Good includes virtuous behavior, celebration, winning and even some naughty stuff.

>>12414352
What makes it unnecessary?

>>12414315
The term 'red' describes a characteristic of an object, and is an instance of collateral knowledge among observers who speak english and have similar sensory function. In the same way, 'values' are collateral knowledge about achieving outcomes in a collective with overlapping preferences. How is this unclear? If you don't understand what I mean, I suspect you are hung up on some abstract dichotomy which is not a concrete one.

>>12414258
I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

>>12414360
It's unneccessary if it doesn't need to happen. As per the definition of the word unnecessary.

>>12410497
A self-limiting population of humans genetically engineered to be healthy in all possible ways including spiritually would not only produce the greatest good in this life but in the afterlife as well. Mill states that rational pleasures are better than sensual pleasures, and I agree, and the more intelligent we can be, the better advantage we have at achieving what will truly benefit us. But spiritual pleasures are superior to both rational and sensual, and it may grant us infinite pleasure in the afterlife.

>>12414372
>it's unnecessary because it's unnecessary
Why is it unnecessary?

>Believing in isms in a world of particulars

>>12414347
He's right though. Every action we take is in some way pursuing satisfaction/relief of suffering, even if fleeting. A supposedly 'selfless' act grants the psychological satisfication of following through on your principles (and perhaps praise from others), and planned suicide is an attempt to end suffering, or temporarily feel the satisfaction of punishing someone, or gain eternal life if you believe in that, etc. Can you really think of any action we can take which isn't an attempt at some kind of satisfaction?

>>12414410
None of that has anything to do with whether suffering is necessary or not

>>12414366
What I found so stranger about this is that 'values', according to you, do not inhere in anything, but are rather tokens of observation. You could simply call them 'expectations'.
But so, then, your knowledge of 'values' turns out to be no more than expectations. And more specifically the expectations of the expectations of the expecting.
It's a circular argument is that I'm saying. A bit of question begging.
Or omphaloskepsis.

>>12413862
>sorry to have to gas you Isaac my old chum, but we've decided our collective utility is best served by killing you all. Yeah, I'm as shocked as you are, but what can you do? We've decided it's the best outcome for our group

>>12414415
Of course it does. Abject suffering without any following payoff (or anticipated payoff) is not something anyone pursues. So, the amount and efficacy of suffering relative to the payoff (and the following consequences of that payoff) are the measure necessity.

>>12414467
What do you think the word 'necessary' means?

>>12414450
Well, do you object to capital punishment? There's a clear conflict between the utility of normative folks and a heinous murderer whose brain functions differently. If you have reasoning for why execution isn't optimal that's fine, but the fact remains that we restrict an punish those who are dangerous to the collective. How can we not?

You're trying to strawman by promoting a facetious example of a utility calculation, but essentially what you describe is exactly what happens.

>>12414383
>why would something that meets the definition of unnecessary defined as unneccessary?

>>12414417
How can values inhere in anything that is not a valuing agent itself? Values are a product of our nature. This is not circular, as no concept or judgement can precede the biology which facilitates thought/action.

>>12414499
You do you dude, and call me jidf, but if your ethical ideas wouldn't prevent you from carrying out a genocide, I'd say you don't actually have any ethical ideas, you have some stuff that you said

>>12414248
>You don't undersand the distinction between objectivity and universality.
Where did i talk about universality?
I stated what i thought, morals and values arent objectively better than others.

>Perhaps you should have a chuckle at your own pseudery.
If you think i was acting pseud then you should take a look at your writting. You write too fancy for smallest of things.

>The fact that those who disagree with me are mostly resorting to zingers and ad-homs (while abstaining from logical demonstration) is very telling.
Didnt see a single logical demostration desu, link me to some or write about it.
You speak as if you are some outsider from here and "we" are some indigenous people. In my opinion there arent many other websites that allow you to have this much freedom of casual discussion without facing unnecessary censorship, lack of users, opinions or bad desing.

>>12414475
That which a given outcome is conditional upon.

>>12411429
this but he should still stay to help keep the melting pot boiling

>>12414536
Well, another way of looking at is that my ethical ideas prevent me from condoing the genocide (no matter how gentle) of my own collective. I have empathy for other collectives, and respect their differences... I wish they would do the same. Again, no logic to be found here -- only vacuous judgement.

>>12414532
No, you misunderstand me (and yourself).
By the definition you gave, values don't inhere in anything OR anyone.
Values are, again according to you, 'codified knowledge[s?] pertaining to behaviors.'
That is to say 'knowledge about an x', which is to say, an external relationship to an observation that can be rendered propositionally as p.
Do you see?

of course it is, anglos are fucked up

>>12413929
>nihilism is simply observation of fact
This claim is non-nihilistic insofar as it proposes a particular belief about the nature of being. Nihilism is a useless concept sustained only by poor use of language, a la existentialism. Even if you identify the right problems, you will get nowhere if you use the wrong language. Nihilism is anti-utilitarian and anti-pragmatic because it is solely abstract.

>>12414537
Morals and values are objectively types of knowledge, what you are denying is the universality of specific moral formulae across all agents, which is my position as well. At least make an effort.

>>12414565
>for other collectives
I don't see any logic in believing in separate collectives of humanity, seems like an emotional gut feeling, but hey, let's hope people like you are never in power

>>12414383
necessity presupposes that an end has to be met.
unnecessary means here that the suffering could be avoided by taking precautionary action.

>>12414579
Nihilism is the realization that valuing agents are the provenance of values. Where you go from there is up to you, but strictly speaking nihlism does not proscribe the application of values. The core is very concrete, but of course pseuds misunderstand and extrapolate towards their dubious ends.

>>12414368
yup

>>12414512
>>12414609
both of you are fucking stupid

>>12414570
Of course values inhere in us. It is our very nature that produces value judgements... It is simply that such judgements are not static/immutable/universal/perfect.

If you know I misunderstand myself, then you must understand my intent. So why don't you just lay out your objection already?

>>12414565
>muh white genocide
You might want to stop acting like this if you want to preserve your bitch tits and gravy arteries for a few more generations because it's just gonna make your kids subconsciously want to fuck other races.

>>12414555
It's decent practice at the very least. Cheers.

>>12414653
You linked two posts that weren't even talking to each other.

>>12414654
I have, repeatedly. You're apparently just too dim to understand it.
Sorry, dude, but I'm getting bored. Catch you later.

>>12413929
>Like utilitarianism, nihilism is simply observation of fact
Limiting oneself to shareable and quantifiable facts*. There are plenty of facts that cannot be quantified. Such as moral truths, emotions, dreams and other people.

>>12414591
Then you're an idiot who disregards facts and consequences. I think that is far more dangerous. I'm not trying to be mean, but if you can't see that humans are sub-speciated into natural collectives you are tremendously ignorant.

>>12414658
It's factual, and the consequences will be very real (for everyone). I couldn't care less if you don't approve.

>>12414368

No you don't, I bet you think "eudaimonia" translates to "the good life" or something.

>>12410497
You rape a woman. She becomes incredibly depressed, but eventually decides to have the child. That child later becomes the joy of her life.

"That was a very moral thing you did, Anon." - Utilitarians

>>12410497
Is that Ray Piste?

>>12414680
You haven't stated an objection at all, you've just played word games. Which is to say, you're a pseud who is bailing to protect his ego. Bon voyage!

>>12410497
'Ethics' and 'morality' are a meme abstraction born of our evolved emotions such as compassion, sense of fairness, etc. and no consistent system can be constructed out of them because of the contradictions inherent in our impulses and the competitive nature of human interaction

prove me wrong

>>12414693
>consequences
Oh no! My grandkid has more melanin than me.

>>12414687
Everything is quanta, we can only do our best to apprehend it. I'm sorry there is no perfect knowledge to console you.

>>12414714
Nice strawman. Intent is an obvous consideration. The woman obviously deserves the moral credit, if anything.

>>12414756
>human genetic differences are limited to melanin
Why do you guys even make these kinds of posts, are you trying to provoke people into explaning why you're wrong? I honestly don't get it

Why is suffering “bad”?

>>12414693
>I've carefully examined the situation and it turns out that /pol/ was right all along
Wow. Such logic. Much science.

>>12414767
>Intent is an obvous consideration
so not utilitarianism then

>>12410918

What the hell is eudaimonia? And how do we measure it?

>>12414756
Yeah, cause race is only skin colour. Fuck off.

>>12414744
If there is consistency between biological impulses and likely outcomes (and consistent overlap in desired outcomes), then some coherent systematization is possible. Note that consistent does not mean perfect or static, and such epxectations are unreasonable.

>>12414786
Why? You don't think intended consequences are relevant just because they didn't happen a particular time?

>>12414801
>consistent overlap in desired outcomes
Even a cursory understanding of evolution would show this is impossible, if nothing else humans have to compete for mating opportunities, natural selection works by culling the unfortunate of each generation, but the conflicts of interest are much more universal than that and apply to any interaction whatsoever.

The more important point though is that the various 'goods' we think exist are nothing but limited(and often conflicting) proxies for the success of gene replication and can't be universalized beyond their particular context.

>>12414783
If you won't specify why you're right and I'm wrong, then why do you bother? Are your fee-fees hurt?

>>12414775
>>12414801
>Wants to preserve his race because he thinks it's smarter.
>Doesn't kill himself off for having IQ in the double digits.
Be about it or don't, Halfass McGee.

>>12414833
Because on Reddit he can post that and his post will get upvoted, and yours will get deleted by the mods, meaning a sort of victory for him

>>12414839
If you're admitting that IQ measures something important you're admitting quite a lot of things about race differences, your argument is also incredibly bad, supposing we were unintelligent and should kill ourselves, it would have nothing to do with the benefits and cons of race-mixing in the general sense.

>>12414810
why would I? what matters in reality is results, sorry if that hurts your feelings

>>12414831
Don't be silly. If there wasn't signifcant overlap in preferences, civilized society wouldn't be possible. We aren't entirely dissimilar, so neither are our preferences; there is an advantage in collectively enforcing the most prevalent and urgent preferences. I don't deny the conflict, but it's not an 'either/or' thing. Otherwise I agree with you.

>>12414858
I agree, and we can predict that an certain intentions are more likely to lead to certain outcomes. Is prevention not a thing for you?

>>12414891
if prevention was a thing for me you wouldn’t be here right now

>>12414872
Civilized society can be seen as an affront against the genetic interests of many of the people in it, there is no reason it should be 'good' from the perspective of a given individual. It is an emergent phenomenon that harnesses more power than hunter-gatherer societies and so outcompeted them

Society does not work in a collective fashion, there is always a minority who have much more power, and what's more it so drastically rearranges the environment that the evolved behaviors of humans may no longer confer evolutionary advantages, meaning even those with power in the society might not always be better off genetically speaking.

Empathy naturally informs pleasant and advantageous behavior and action
People who need philosophy are underdeveloped and smell QUITE bad
prove me wrong

>>12414848
I actually agree with you that there are race differences. Even that black people are stupider in general. It's not fucking difficult to see. That we shouldn't race mix though is retarded as fuck. It would put the best traits from all parties into your future generations, retard. Read about evolution. Then do a google image search on inbreeding if you're still not convinced.

>>12414901
Zing!

>>12414920
alright, hold your nose up to your monitor.

>>12414936
>It would put the best traits from all parties into your future generations,
It would not, it would create averages of the traits in question in the hybrid population.
>inbreeding
Stops mattering at about 3rd cousin, irrelevant. Outbreeding depression also exists in any case.

>>12414913
Very true. On the other hand, it is good for me that I'm unlikely to be murdered while out and about tomorrow. I have made no claims as to universality or coombaya harmony, only that there is significant overlap in the most urgent preferences (and those base preferences are less likely to be abandoned, although they can be co-opted as we see with apathy in exchange for material comfort).

>>12414936
It's likely that recessive alleles are present in the loci most crucial to intelligence, so your notion is tragically flawed. Perhaps just wait for comprehensive genetic engineering? Also, don't you think human biodiversity is a good thing to preserve, and may hedge against some plague or flawed ideology wiping out everyone? You're prob. just trolling though.

>>12414936
>It would put the best traits from all parties into your future generations, retard. Read about evolution
Imagine being this retarded with such utter confidence.

>>12414920
Philosophy is implicit in how we abstract about our experience to make judgements. Can it really be avoided? You may not need formalized philosophy, but the base of it is always there unless you're a downy.

>Edgy teen nihilist utilitarians are also le epic race realists

>>12414621
No, nihilism is the proposition is that value/meaning does not exist.

>>12415074
>nihilist utilitarians
so you're retarded, and your argument against race differences is to call people talking about them teenagers
par for the course I guess

>>12415124
You seem to be in a different group from me, so what seems logical to me is not logical to you, and what constitutes an argument for me is not what does for you.

>>12415130
Logic is universal, like math... It follows from objective observations of consistency. That's why it is the standard.

Utility -- and therefore preference and values -- are conditional upon the nature of the being(s) doing the valuing. So none of that can be universalized, we can only work with overlap and prioritize our interests where compromise isn't possible. It's ok, I don't expect you to understand.

I took a conservation class that studied the utilitarian view of conservation. Since humans are intrinsically valuable because of their addition of consciousness to the universe, anything that exists that can't be proven to have consciousness (see: anything) can't be proven to be intrinsically valuable and therefore just exists to further the goals of humanity.

To get around this, conservationists have tried and failed to prove that other forms have their own intrinsic value. Eventually some just claimed that the value of a sustainable environment is infinitely valuable in its potential contribution to humanity because they support future generations. Therefore the needs of today could never be outweighed by the needs of the future.

It was all so pointless.

>>12415206
Logic is not universal. How can logic precede the logicizing agent?
When you say logic, what you really mean is 'what I consider to be logical'. Do you understand?

>>12415216
Other humans can't be proven to have consciousness either, the only thing that can be 'proven' is that each person knows for themselves they're aware. The entire idea of interpersonal proof breaks down when talking about consciousness

>>12415225
>Do you understand?
He's in a different group from you, how could he understand your logic here?

>>12414789
The Greeks weren't so fucking autistic that they felt the need to quantify happiness. Generally it's measured by how well you conform to your nature.

>>12414697
I think fulfillment works best. Thriving is another commonly accepted one.

>>12415232
We had to read paper on that too. I forgot everything about it except that they concluded that we can trust it based off of the reactions we're given. Although consciousness is vague and undefinable, 3rd or 4th order thinking pretty much guarantees it I think?

We never even fucking talked about how to do conservation in that class.

>>12415288
If we're going to assume other humans are conscious I think we should assume most animals are conscious. Lots of consciousness is very basic shit like vision and kinesthetic sense and whatever, which other animals have.
Our higher order thinking is a small percentage of what we do consciously. The conflation of consciousness with things like self-awareness(as in having a conceptual model of yourself) has always struck me as completely unfounded.

Of course there's also no way to know if inanimate matter is conscious either, because our sense of continuity with our past moments of consciousness are based on our brains having memory, which creates the illusion of access to the past(it's really a reconstruction each time). being as inanimate matter has no comparable structure, its awareness should it have any would contain no notion of the past presumably

>>12415225
Is that really the best you can do, just parrot me and replace some terms? Pretty weak.

Logic is based upon the nature of our universe, which precedes us. But by all means, I'd be fascinated to see you debunk the law of non-contradiction.

>>12415333
There are many logics you retard. Investigate our curry eating friends. A statement can be true, not true, both true and not true, or neither true nor not true.
Obviously you want to privilege your own logic and knowledges, in order to justify your hatred of black people, but why should everyone else be bound by the logic you have chosen?

>>12415324
>>12415324
That has a lot of ramifications since that's apparently people use consciousness to assign value. We may have to go to vegan because it would be harder to justify the suffering of animals.

Since we're on a literature board, if you're interested more in animals and the consciousness debates, consider Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are by Frans de Waal. It's a pretty good book. We even studied it in my animal cognition class.

What is the difference between utilitarianism and pragmatism?

>>12410497
Utilitarianism is a good switchboard for picking and choosing the appropriate ethical theory for each moral situation.
For the majority of situations virtue ethics will carry you through, but sometimes you have to switch it up and utilitarianism will help decide on the appropriate moral theory.

>>12415462
Personally i think eating animals is impossible to justify morally(im not vegan, I just dont care)
99% of what we do isn't really justifiable morally, it's all a farce

>>12412731
Read Notes from the Underground desu

If the only thing that matters is human happiness, why aren't we just hooked up to heroin drips from birth?

Why do all modern utilitarians completely ignore metaethics? It's like they simply don't want to examine their own misguided presumptions.

>>12413929
Actually just read Kant my brudda

>>12417587
>>12417653

Why can't pseuds like you pair your confident delcarations with short summaries of exactly what is misguided, or the crux of Kant's supposed solution? Oh right, because then you'd have to do some research and thinking (if possible) because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>attempting to base ethics on logic
Why do utilitarians do this? Logic is just prejudice and sentiment given a cloak of objectivity, it has no more validity than any other way of knowing, and in many ways is worse. There was a whole 20th century explaining this.

>>12415465
The main distinction is that ethical pragmatism is broadly about treating ethics as a science, whereas utlitarianism is a specific hypothesis to be considered.

>>12418116
>logic is sentiment
haha, good one

So the whole 20th century explains it, yet you can't. Typical.

>>12418233
'logic' is a word used to justify your sentiments, to do what you were going to do anyway. Women should be a submissive class because it's logical, black people should be second class citizens because its logical. The logical solution to the Jewish problem is genocide.
Logical is like justice, it means 'what I want to happen', it's a nothing word.

>>12410497
John Stuart Mill defined the good as that which produces pleasure and prevents pain. As for judging the different levels of good in an action (but not a person, for that is a different matter)
>If I am asked, what I mean by difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent, and would not resign it for any quantity of the other pleasure which their nature is capable of, we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account.
So as an example, if you're in a tribe, it's good to forage berries for everyone, but it's even better to hunt a buffalo. But either would be better than serving everyone animal dung.

>>12414094
>>12414247
>>12414315
>>12414329
>>12414417
>>12414570
>>12414680
This has been the most infuriating sequence of pointless sophist pseud tripe I've had the displeasure to read all year. Unironically consider suicide.

>>12418116
>>12418261
>Logic is just prejudice and sentiment given a cloak of objectivity
neck yourself, retard

>>12418281
so the ultimate good is to forcibly plug everybody into a safe heroin dispensing machine?

>>12418321
Do people enjoy the side effects of heroine use?

>>12418311
An unfortunately emotional response, reifying my argument. We are not, and could not be, rational beings. Everything is feels

>>12418321
What we should do is convert as much matter as possible into 'pleasure experiencing machines' maintained by robots.

>>12418116
>>12418261
>>12418347
Define logic.

>>12418350
Almost everyone who's asked to consider the thought experiment of the pleasure machine has a marked preference for living in reality instead.
Mill would probably advocate for the building of pleasure machines and letting people determine which is better by preference, which may or may not go either way.
We're talking about the guy who wrote On Liberity after all. He's no authoritarian.

>>12412772
>I wonder how you'll feel when your state allocated marriage fails because someone changed their mind at one point, or suddenly chemistry just changed because of some shit you said at breakfast.
Wew. What a strawman. Where's this automatic assumption that utilitarians think the state knows who's the better spouse for you than you do coming from? And if divorces were more frequent under this system, wouldn't the utilitarian response be to NOT have state mandated marriages?

>>12417936
You're but a dog and I'm your master!
>for a statement to be meaningful you need to be able to predict something from it
>moral facts concern the regulation of behavior of agents
>to act morally is to act out of respect for an abstract moral principle
>if moral statements can't predict anything, then moral statements are meaningless
>moral statements describe the ideal action
>all action require an agent
>all moral actions therefor require an agent acting out of respect for an abstract principle
>moral statements can't be deduced from descriptive statements
>therefor descriptive statements are irrelevant for the truth value of moral statements
>moral statements require a moral agent acting out of respect for an abstract moral principle and for the moral statement to be true irregardless of descriptive truths, meaning it holds true for all moral agents becuase moral truths are true, if they are true for all which possess the ability to act out of respect for abstract moral principles, becuase moral statements require for their truthood that they are true for moral agents irregardless of descriptive facts
>if a moral statement were true, then it would be true for all moral agents, therfor moral statements are meaningful becuade they can be falsified using the categorical imperative to see if it is able to become a universal practical law
>if a practical law is contradictionary, theb it's incorrect becuase it's unable to be acted upon and becuase the principle of non contradiction is true, irregardless of what some pajets says

>>12418339
>safe heroin
of course you have to get rid of the side effects first, but if it can be done, you should forcibly plug everybody into the machine and into a pleasurable stupor

>>12418347
Incorrect. In fact, the only reason we rationalize about anything is because we have preferences (in your words, 'feels') paired with a sophisticated brain. It is not an either/or proposition. Yes, feels are the impulse... But that does not preclude the tool (rationality/logic) from elucidating objective reality and revealing truths which may even offend our feelings initially (but are too consequential to ingore).

If you doubt the objective nature and efficacy of consistent standards like logic and empiricism, then I challenge you to explain the incredible predictive/inventive track record of science and math.

>>12418302
You're kind of getting the point, so--good job!

>>12419265
damn, didn't realize kant was such a racist

>>12419674
Your brain is a dopmaine machine, does that count? Also, there are obvious questions about the sustainability/long-term consequences of such pleasure short-cuts. Pleasure is basically our genes' way of getting us to thrive and reproduce; short circuiting that system is likely to be maladaptive.

>>12419790
Moron. We'll have machines extract the gametes from our enervated bodies, run analyses for optimal gene matching, artificially gestate to term, and hook them bitches up when they're done cooking.

>>12419786
He thought that Africans where mentally inferior and that people living on islands in america where lazy.

>>12419674
Well anon, I don't have any experience with heroine to make a comment on this with complete confidence. Would a non-stop surge of positive sensation be what people preferred most? Perhaps. Mill emphasized the role of mental pleasures and pains as well as physical. People are intelligent beings who feel most fulfilled when exercising their higher faculties, and that shouldn't be neglected. I can see myself preferring not to be on a constant heroine high since it could interfere with higher mental pleasures.

The question of how you define "good" is missing the point. There is no single definition to go by, only the intuitive "goodness" that any person or group feel towards any particular thing or situation ("whatever i want"). A moral world is one that satisfies as many of those intuitive senses of goodness as much and often as possible.

The fundamental reason why utilitarianism is correct (insofar anything can be really "correct") is because "good" or "bad" are just silly quirks in the way our money brains construct languages. There is no "good" outside the way any two people use the word when talking to each other. Maximizing people's personal understanding of "good" is as "good" as it going to get. Rigid moral systems are for mustached autists.

>>12419265
There's a lot of assumption there.

-To act morally is to act out of respect for concrete consequences. Abstraction is a tool which allows us to codify moral knowledge in useful ways.

-Why are descriptive statements irrelevant for moral truth? What is 'ought' but an identification of an effective way to achieve an 'is'? In other words, we study and manipulate what -is-, to achieve another -is-. 'Ought' is not another category of reality on par with 'is' (it is an abstraction of -is-)... The supposition that a real dichotomy exists there is a huge flaw.

-You need to explain why meaningful/true moral statements must be universal to all agents. If agents and their collectives differ, and values do not precede but are produced by valuing agents, then how is that possible? There is no contradiction in saying that a value is objectively true for an agent/collective (produces a healthy effect), but may not necessarily be universal to others because their natures are objectively divergent.

Woof. You'll have to try much harder than that, I'm afraid. Also, 'irregardless' is such a stupid word.

>>12410497
I've got an ethical philosophy. It's called fronting the ethics of whoever has power over me and doing whatever I want

>drug overdosing causes you to both feel incredibly high and die prematurely
>dying prematurely reduces the risk of future unnecessary suffering
>dying because of drugs will let you experience the last few moments of your life in bliss
>when faced with a choice between not ODing on drugs and facing only some pleasure in the future or ODing on drugs and experiencing full pleasure for the rest of your life, the only logical choice is to go with ODing

Debate THIS, religiousfags!

>>12419932
Back to the grave, Ayn.

>>12410508
fpbp

>>12410918

Holy fuck you're beyond retarded. Didn't even google eudaimonia I see, too much effort for a brainlet I guess .

>>12419940
I shit in the toilet chief, move along

>>12411436
Those are fetishes, people can satisfy each other fetishes but that doesn't mean they reject things like healthcare, a roof over their heads or job stability.
Not an argument.

>>12412741

lmao holy shit look at this brainlet. literally 'i'm too stupid to think and proud of it: the post'

>>12419112
How else are you going to enforce an universal system of the cuantifiable if not through the state? With the logistics of grabbing the best people for you, presumably consensually, and all that other shit? Does the utilitarian "answer" just turn into "do whatever works at the time"?

>>12419803
Sure, but that isn't present reality is it? I don't dispute that there are huge potential benefits to some kind of simulation living provided we strike a good convincing complexity vs. computing power balance (heat dissapation could be an issue).

It would be interesting to see how they deal with neurotransmitter exhaustion/tolerance, and how they maintain a productive class of people to advance transhumanity. I'm skeptical about the potential of even advanced AI to conduct R&D and be truly innovative.

All utilitarians should kill themselves, for the greater good of course, to reduce everyone else's suffering, to not breathe our air, take up housing, eat food, produce waste. It would be objectively better for everyone if there were fewer humans around.

>>12419875
>higher mental pleasures.
>actually believing this autism
utilitarianfags never had a chance

>>12411436
Your mistake is conflating sensations commonly labeled painful with suffering. If you weren't conscious, the nerves that fire when your ass is paddled could go off all the same, but you wouldn't be suffering. Suffering requires a sentient perceiver who interprets sensations.

>>12419984
>Suffering requires a sentient perceiver who interprets sensations.
No such perceiver exists though, so your point is irrelevant

>>12419977
Go on and contest the notion. I'm ears.
I'm of the opinion that we aren't mere swine and need more out of life than rolling in the mud and lining up to chow down on slop from the trough.

>>12420015
prove it quantitatively then.

>>12419733
>only reason we rationalize about anything is
We don't rationalize about anything

>>12419961
-Objective- system of the quantifiable. Values are not universal, because valuing agents are not universally similar. We work with overlap to the best of our ability and allow room for differences.

We would need to study the consequences of state intervention. Most obviously, there is a balance that needs to be struck between control and anything goes... Just as there is between providing a safety net and subsidizing failure.

Are you expecting some perfect and static solution?

>>12410497
It's one of the most dangerous philosophies to ever exist. The only sincere believers in utilitarianism are far-left and far-right collectivist authoritarians. It requires the complete subjugation of the individual.

>>12419974
There is a balance to be found. Yes we must consider quality of life for extant beings, but we almost also consider that every human we can reasonably add (that won't be born into abject suffering) gets the opportunity to experience the richness of life (which could be viewed as a moral good).

Of course you're just being a disingenuous troll, but it's a genuinely important matter for debate. So here's your (you).

>>12420091
shoo shoo pseud

>>12420091
You see it in this thread. The only way they can make utilitarianism tenable is to advocate racial fantasies and genocide

>>12420028
Really. How do you have a computer to post on then? How would that have been possible if humans are incapable of rational inference to tangible effect?

>>12411378
define unnecessary

>>12420091
>implying le enlightened centrism aka liberal capitalism isn't "collectivist"
Shouldn't you be wasting a third of your time doing alienating labor so that your company's profit rise and GDP continues to grow?

>>12420103
OMG NAAATSSSEEEES

>>12420063
So, you're asking me to simply let you have free reign with that kind of "we'll see what we do" attitude? Seems like an amorphous blob of an answer that doesn't guarantee the kind of "perfect relationships", on the level of predicting issues on an interpersonal level that the anon I originally responded to was implying.
This sounds like "we'll kinda try that the relationships might work", which, I mean, if you admit, defeats the whole idea of this magical algorithm doing all the work and netting you that relationship that you always wanted.

>>12420020
Information, beliefs, attitudes, and concepts held in the mind can produce pleasure or discomfort in someone.
You don't obtain pleasure when you read a book because the font of the text is aesthetically pleasing, presumably, but from the concepts that form in your mind when reading the text.
On the other side, someone can feel discomfort when riding an airplane because they fear it crashing. And they may feel relieved when they learn that they're more likely to die in a car accident. It was the image of their life ending that gave them anguish.
Idk how to quantify that with measuring equipment though lad. Are we at the point where we can measure thoughts? Sorry I can't satisfy your stemfaggotry.
>>12420091
Mill was a classical liberal, which is close to a libertarian in today's terms. I swear you guys get your idea of what a utilitarian is from video games.

>>12420109
>complex phenomena requires a rational intelligence
Seriously? That's your argument?

>>12420137
>thread full of people justifying genocide of other racial groups if it was to the collective utility of another racial group
Omg, why do they call us nazis?
>>12420162
So I can do what I want as long as I shout 'classical Liberal' first? Mill was a racist imperialist and his theories were used to justify some of histories greatest atrocities.

>>12420151
Perfection is an unreasonable standard, and knowledge will always be incomplete. We have to accept and work with that. That doesn't mean there's no specific strategy involved or that a method can't be studied and found to be more objectively effective than another.

I don't believe in magic, I think you're projecting there.

>>12420166
Answer the question smart guy.

Your computer isn't just a phenomena, it was conceived of and built by people, and methods of rational inference were crucial to that process.

Isn't rationality also phenomena? So what exactly are you trying to say?

>>12420187
Exactly, that's the point, if you can't find a complete standard to work from that makes everyone "the happiest" or whatever ideal, then you're going to be trampling over a subset of people with your utilitarianism, then it just becomes shitty authoritarianism.

>>12420183
Can you please show me where genocide has been justified?

Competing utility does not = we must genocide everyone different immediately. Try not to be such a fucking idiot.

>>12420241
>hedonic value at the margin is greater for group a than group b iff group b is annihilated
What does this entail?

>>12420222
Well perfection is impossible and -- more to the point -- perfect is the enemy of good.

You don't have a perfect alternative which doesn't also fuck people's shit up, so you're being hypocritical to the max. Shouldn't we examine consequences and do the best we can? The ideal degree of authoritarianism vs libertarianism is a matter for study... People that promote concrete and extreme dichotomies between such positions are silly imo (like collectivism/individualism... as if the two aren't integral).

>>12420217
So while the whole universe including the human brain did not require a rational designer, you think a macbook Pro did? You are a retard

>>12420252
The groups have different values, values aren't universal. How many times do I have to say this?

That said, it's in my nature to have some empathy and so I find no value in annihilating people who do not pose an existential threat to my collective which could not be resolved in any other fashion (even if I take a generally dim view of group b). How do you feel about harmful parasites, viruses and bacteria? Is it wrong to prioritize our utility over that of organisms which would destroy us (to the extent that we don't fuck up the whole ecosystem, which is part of our utility calculation)?

>>12420338
you're being an inconsistent utilitarian. utility for group a is greater than group b with the annihilation of group b than if both exist coevally. if we are really committed to maximizing utility, we are compelled to destroy group b.
the specific 'values' of group b are irrelevant, as the 'values'of group a in conjunction with other factors apparently produces sufficient utility to outweigh that of group b.

>>12420268
Well, honestly, this whole thing seems absurd.

Trying to build an all encompassing system and finding and "ideal degree" of things which may include more built on categories of holding up "the good for all" that has no real beyond it's own ideal, won't make things any better if in it's search for good and eradication of suffering/the bad/whatever you make shit worse for the people you claim to help.
Either drop the presumption of making the all encompassing system (just make it good for some people who'se good is compatible with yours and fuck the rest (just become authoritarian)) or drop the idea of the system, or the good, or any of this, just throw it in the trash behind a Wendy's, if human organization has reached this level of contradiction, then we may just need to start over.

What is this need to live only a "good" life anyway? without suffering or pain or anything?

>>12420252
Elminating group A would lower overall utility so you don't do that.
Also creating a precedent where you kill a group for the pleasure of others would set an unsettling atmosphere for everyone. Similarly we have laws against killing because no one wants to live in a world where killing is the norm, even if they could avoid death since it would be stressful.

>>12420287
You're strawmanning by presenting rationality as some unfathomable factor, when it's simply a methodology that is very effective at prediction and discovery because it works in accordance with the apparent nature of the universe.

I fear you have an extra chromosome, my dude.

>>12420367
Group a's 'values' are such that they are untroubled by the destruction of other groups. In fact, they receive pleasure from both the thought and act. It is by this that net utility is actually greater with the elimination of group b than if both group a and b were to continue to coexist.
Again, we are compelled, as consistent utilitarians, to eliminate group b.

>>12420359
You're drastically simplifying the scope of utility calculation. The existence or not of groups other than yours have can have all kinds of variegated consequences. Also, if empathy is a part of your nature as a valuing agent, then that will shape your values and being empathetic will serve a psychological utilty for you.

To present a nuanced example... I'm not a fan of hollywood/media/banking/AIPAC Jews... They're a fucking cancer upon the west. I would rather they were sent to Israel. On the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the disproportionate scientific contributions of Jews, and would not want to see them genocided by any means. Empathy is also a part of my nature, so I have no desire to kill people who aren't an urgent threat. Compromises in marginal utility are not a big deal, you try to present an extreme argument to discredit us but it's just silly.

>>12420450
Let's assume for simplicity that group A and group B are of similar size.
Your claim implies that group A's utility would not only be at least doubled the day after they eliminated group B, but would persist in that way the a month after, a year after, etc. While even the initial doubling claim would already be sketchy (these people sound very psychopathic), the idea that this would persist is even more questionable, and the loss of happiness because of the killing would have to be taken into account.
You also didn't address the stress this would produce in group A, knowing that in the future they may separated into group 1A and group 2A, where everyone decides group 1A would love it if 2A were gone.
No one wants to live in that precedent, so it's best to avoid setting it.

Utilitarianism relies on more arbitrary rules and handwaving away of contradictions than literally any other ideology there is.

>>12420501
I am simplifying for demonstrative purposes. If you are allowed to make up fantastix hypothetical scenarios to try and prove a point, so am I.
Group a completely lacks empathy toward exogenous groups. Group a does not care for the possible future ramifications of the destruction of others. The pleasure the members of group a derive from destruction is so great as to completely outweigh all other considerations. Further, through myth and lore and other restrictions of their deeds, group a is able to perpetuate their pleasure in the destruction of others down through the ages, far beyond the total elimination of anyone not belonging to group a.

>>12420361
Why the extremes? You don't actually know what you're talking about, just flailing around posing extremes to distort the arguments. I think you aren't mentally up to this debate and it's frustrating you. Time to stop.

>>12420520
See>>12420557
Group a desires very much to live in such a world. If overt time factions form within it that ultimately result in a new group of outsiders to destroy, so much the better. The fun can continue indefinitely.

>>12420162
cool so you can’t quantify it. higher pleasure doesn’t exist, sorry if that hurts your fee-fees.

>>12420571
>if I construct hypotheticals involving people who don't exist, then utilitarianism leads to consequences that would make us miserable!
At least bring up the fat man problem or something. This is just embarrassing.

>>12410508
based and kantpilled

>>12420641
People like I've described have and do exist. Consider the Aztecs.
The point is that this is a logically allowable possibility. In our repulsion from this possibility, we are directed to an intuition within us that perhaps maximizing utility actually isn't the principle good we took it to be.

>>12420557
Reality isn't simple though, brah. It's complex and nuanced. So while maladaptive extremes are possible and certainly should be guarded against, that doesn't automatically invalidate or outweigh the potential benefits of a system.

For the sake of your simplicity though, consider a plague. A plague is a group that is not even capable of caring about killing potentially vast amounts of people. In this case, the competition is real... It's fight or die. That's just reality. In the case of divergent human populations, it appears to me there is still enough overlap in nature to allow for respectful and even cooperative coexistence (which doesn't involve a collective invading the space of another or thinking they have an automatic right to the accomplishments of another).

Where have I presented a fantastical hypothetical scenario, btw?

>>12420530
I hate to be that Stefan, but not an argument.

>>12420672
Empathy fufillment provides psychological utility, dumb-dumb. Utility follows our nature.

>>12420691
Why should we measure utility by an anthropocentric rubric? That seems arbitrary. Why not take an evolutionary perspective?
Take utility to be the maximization of copies of a species over time. If the utility of species a is greater than the utility of species b through a's destruction of b, we must allow for that. So, in your scenario, rather than fight against the plague--a species of bacteria--we must acquiesce to or own destruction. Bacterium already outnumber us, therefore their gross utility by the above definition already exceeds our own. If they can use our bodies to produce even greater utility for themselves, by orders of magnitude greater than we would be capable of for ourselves, then let it be so.

>>12420709
Not for group a.
See >>12420737

>>12415014
>Very true. On the other hand, it is good for me that I'm unlikely to be murdered while out and about tomorrow. I have made no claims as to universality or coombaya harmony, only that there is significant overlap in the most urgent preferences (and those base preferences are less likely to be abandoned, although they can be co-opted as we see with apathy in exchange for material comfort).
9.5/10 based. I am glad I don't get fucking murdered by nomads.

>>12420501
>They're a fucking cancer upon the west. I would rather they were sent to Israel.
So you aren't a racist anti-semite, because some of your favourite scientists happen to be Jewish? Blah blah blah, just own your /pol/ shit, you're on 4chan you don't have to pretend your aren't racist because it might make people think you're stupid

>>12420373
And you are adding an extra metaphysical factor of 'rationality' into a universe which has no need of it. Everything can be explained without rationality, but you need it to make your idelogy work, so acting purely on emotion you insert it. Proving me correct yet again

>>12411168
There's a meme in society of some kind of entrepreneurial post-capitalist industrial-scientific "productivity" thing, and they are expressing the meme because they are demi-conscious memebuoys floating on a slurry sea of currents you can only see if you zoom out
It's exhausting even trying to give an answer to this question. You need to like phenomenologically bracket every single word and write a book explaining that they aren't even people. They aren't even conscious. They aren't even having "opinions". STEM people are like robots with human skin stretched over them. To say "they are dismissive of the humanities" is implicitly to admit I think there's a "they". STEM people don't even fucking exist. They are a statistical gaseous nebula of random particles wafting across continents and periodically expressing junk they picked up along the way. Why would you even talk to them?
Talking to a STEMfag is literally like being some kind of Buddha, ascending reality, then coming back down and talking to bees who were dudes in past lives. I'm sure these bee niggas can be saved or whatever, but let's just wait until they're back in human form. Don't walk around going "BEES, STOP BUZZING, PUT DOWN THAT POLLEN, LISTEN TO ME ABOUT HOW EVERY CONCEPTUAL CATEGORY YOU HAVE FOR EVEN THINKING OF THINGS WAS SHAPED FOR YOU BY AN UNCONSCIOUS SLUDGE OF MEMETIC POLYALLOY THAT FLOWS IN PREDICTABLE CURRENTS FROM YEAR TO YEAR THROUGH THE HIVE IN WHICH YOU WERE CONCEIVED"

>>12420793
All moral systems strive for logical consistency. Kant, a deontologist, strived for that to the extreme. You seem to be against any formalization of morals at all as opposed to utilitarianism specifically. Your criticisms of it on the basis of "fuck logic" are vague at best.

>>12420672
Eliminating the natives of the Americas caused undue suffering and is something I disagree with on that basis.
You're acting like the people who did it were calculating the benefits of all parties involved and not just what was expedient for themselves.
This is a mischaracterization of utilitarianism and I'd wager most people who came to conquer weren't utilitarian. Some may have been deontolists, but I imagine you wouldn't fault deontology as a whole because of it.

>>12419929
> To act morally is to act out of respect for concrete consequences.
The consequences doesn't exist yet, so they are simply abstractions, which means I'm right. Also, the point isn't about why we do something, but simply what morality is. Both utilitarianism and kantianism operate under abstract principles that are followed by moral agents.
>Abstraction is a tool which allows us to codify moral knowledge in useful ways.
Morality is an abstraction
>Why are descriptive statements irrelevant for moral truth?
Is-ought memes,
> What is 'ought' but an identification of an effective way to achieve an 'is'?
An ought is a moral statement, ex you ought to do x. They can either be hypothetical, "you ought to do x becuase of y" or categorical "do x". Becuase of is ought memery, there can be no real hypothetical statements.
>'Ought' is not another category of reality on par with 'is'
Is is a descriptive statement, ought is a normative
>The supposition that a real dichotomy exists there is a huge flaw.
They are two different kinds of statements my dude. In grammar there's a distinction between indictives(facts) and imperatives(normative statements)
> You need to explain why meaningful/true moral statements must be universal to all agents.
Descriptive facts are not relevant for moral once, therefor a moral fact needs to be universal, true irregardless of descriptive facts.
>If agents and their collectives differ, and values do not precede but are produced by valuing agents, then how is that possible?
Kinda like with descriptive facts, they are generated by the individual subjective experiences of individual, but can by the use of the scientific method be turned into objective facts, same thing with morality.
>If agents and their collectives differ, and values do not precede but are produced by valuing agents, then how is that possible?
You would have to motivate this difference, but you can't becuase of is-ought memes. Alos, the open question argument.

>>12420868
The utility I accrue from misrepresenting your position is greater than your negative utility in being misrepresented.
Sorry, bud, but this is just for the greater good.

>>12420709
>>12420737

There is NO UNIVERSAL UTILITY. How stupid are you guys? Utility is directly related to the nature of the specific being, and there is no universal utility which can precede the valuing agent. There is no divine utility which requires the existence of any life at all, utility conditions follow from the living. Holy fuck you fellows are excruciatingly dense.

>>12420932
i am not saying there is a universal utility. in fact, in taking a specific perspective on utility, i am implicitly relativizing the term.
as a rational being possessed of a broad imagination, i am capable of taking the perspective of something quite unlike myself. i have decided that this perspective is the one which most closely cleaves to my values, i.e. maximizing utility.

>>12420898
Creating an environment in which people regularly argue in jest instead of earnest makes it so the standards of conservation on the board decline. As result, those who are learned and interested in engaging conversation will flee to other chans and forums. With only shitposting left, users here will be left to dwell in the lower pleasures of such babble.
It's not too late anon. Embrace utilitarianism and stop your shitposting ways.

>>12420782
Yes, keep screaming nazi, racist and anti-semite as if it's some kind of substantive argument. I am absolutely racist, if that means I think average racial differences are very consequential. If you think that means I automatically hate and disrespect people of other races, you have the mental capacity of a child.

>>12420976
>users here will be left to dwell in the lower pleasures of such babble
the utility of this is higher than that of having to listen to autistic pontification about utilitarianism all day long

>>12420793
I haven't proposed that rationality is metaphysical (I don't believe in the metaphysical distinction at all), if you'll recall I said it was also a phenomenon. You're so incoherent that I'm almost embarassed for you.

>>12420976
You seem to be operating under the delusion that the natural conclusion of this 'conversation' is that I concede to all your points and, maybe, throw in a little handjob to compensate for your time and effort.
But
That
Can't happen, because I don't know who you are, and our technology is such that I cannot literally reach through my monitor to give you the caresses you so desire.

>>12420873
To explain further.
Say that I ask why should he increase the total happiness in the world, then you would probaly say that it's in human nature and that we form thoose values, and that morality is simply about manipulating things to achieve a state of happiness that is valued by the agent.
Then the question is, why pursue happiness instead of misery?
Then I would imagine that the reason is becuase we create our values and that it is so that we value our happiness, becuase that is what we value.
Where I would object is that pressumes that we ought to pursue that which we value, even if you try to hide it in purely descriptive terms and redfine morality into being the regulation of behavior in search of that which an entity values. The problem were is that you assume that we ought to value that which we value, and then you say that you don't belive in transcendent, objective oughts, while affirming that beings ought to value that which they value. If you deny that you assume this, then you can't make any moral statements, becuase your argument rests on the assumptions that we ought to value that which we value, otherwise our values wouldn't be able to direct our actions in your normative theory. You should just say that subjective beings value happiness and that you tend to like it to, and then leave it at that, instead of saying normatives statements while assuming things you don't belive in. Just become an edgy amoralist. The question is if this is unconscious from your part or if this is some kind of advanced sophistry.

>>12420873
Yeah, you're just shielding yourself with supposedly concrete dichotomies which don't actually exist. Please explain in explicit detail what kind of knowledge an 'ought' is (or whatever you think it is) and how it isn't a subset of -is-.

>>12421032
No. No. No. There is no actual 'ought', there is no presumption of your 'ought' because there is no actual special category of imperative called 'ought'. You do something because it more or less effectively achieves something else. End of story.

When I say we 'should' do something, I am simply saying that there is a more effective way to achieve a goal, so if you want to achieve it, there is your measure of 'ought'.

You are the one frought with assumption and confusion. What do you mean exactly by 'subjective beings'? Are such beings not also objects? Do the processes of objective reality not apply to us?

>>12421032
>transcendent, objective oughts
What does that even mean? How can one determine these oughts? What thing do we point to as the thing that makes objective oughts true?

>>12421139
A normative statement: a statement regarding the regulation of behavior of a moral agent.

> There is no actual 'ought', there is no presumption of your 'ought' because there is no actual special category of imperative called 'ought'.
Imperatives are oughts
>You do something because it more or less effectively achieves something else.
This is a descriptive fact, which require a value, which require a moral statement, or else the value is wrong.
>When I say we 'should' do something, I am simply saying that there is a more effective way to achieve a goal, so if you want to achieve it, there is your measure of 'ought'.
But why should we achieve it?
> What do you mean exactly by 'subjective beings'?
Subjects
> Are such beings not also objects?
No objects can't act out of volition.
>Do the processes of objective reality not apply to us?
What did he mean by this?

>>12421168
There is no greater 'why'? It's like asking for the meaning of life. It just is... It thrives and survives or becomes maladaptive and dies. If you don't value things which serve your wellbeing, you remove yourself from life and relevance. There's nothing beyond us which says we 'ought' to value our lives, it's just the consequence of suffering and death if we don't.

What is volition exactly? Is it not an object?

>>12410497
long time no squeeze deep&edgy

>>12421215
So you can't answer why we ought to value our values? Do you understand that you have no foundation for any of your ethical statements?
>What is volition exactly? Is it not an object?
Pretty much the ability to act from within the being , instead of soley being determined by the outside.
Subjects: Beings that act out of a an independent will
Objects: Things that don't have any will like rocks.

>>12421032
This all sounds like stuff that can be thrown back at any moral system.
Why ought I value whether my behavior would lead to a contradiction of my own interests if everyone adopts it?
Perhaps people just won't adopt it as a matter of fact and I can take advantage.
While everyone else never lies because they listened to Kant, I can exploit their learned gullibility.

>>12421235
Man you love pretending these dichotomoies are more important/concrete than they are, huh.

You needn't 'ought' to value your values! There is no higher level, why can't you process this? There is no divine or universal 'ought' that precedes your nature. Values are a tool.

Independent will? Wtf is that? If biological nuts and bolts are the only apparent provenance of will, then where is the hard divide between subjects and objects? How is your will independent if you are integrated with the rest of existence? Do you really think you're a closed system, unshaped by the environment and ancestors that birthed you or everything you've experienced since then?

>>12421415
The problem is, is you are proposing a set of behavioral constraints as normative while claiming they are merely descriptive. This is what everyone opposing you in this thread has tried to point out to you. They have been successful, you have just been bull-headedly ignoring them.
This is why someone, earlier, referred to you as an equivocal garbage man. Because that is what you are. You do not need to equivocate, or spend your days rutting about in other people's filth--you just do. But I would advise against it: that's how germs are spread!!

>>12421948
Ok, try to follow me here. I have repeatedly rejected the entire notion of an actual discrete/parallel category of normative knowledge or 'oughts'. When we talk about what should or ought to be done, we are actually just taking a heuristic approach to knowledge about increasing the likelihood of desired outcomes. Is leads to is, and so normative statements can only be a subset of descriptive statements if they are to be effective in achieving their intent. And they are formed with intent, because they are products of valuing agents whose behaviours are objectively linked to outcomes.

You can say 'well just throw out the whole aspiration to values then', but this is an absurd over-reaction and rhetorical ploy. It is simple enough to admit that values and normative judgments are not universal, but can certainly be objective, and that they have evolved because they are tools that confer some advantage.

You are simply blinded by programming which has taught you that certain imagined dichotomies are concrete... You've become so deeply invested in categorical word games that you lose sight of whether these categories actually describe something real.

>>12422185

>>12422268

>>12419945
Eudaimonia was for a long time translated as happiness. It's now commonly accepted that thriving or fulfillment are better translations. I said it was closely related to happiness, not that it was happiness.

>>12422383
>The Greek word eudaimonia means literally “the state of having a good indwelling spirit, a good genius”; and “happiness” is not at all an adequate translation of this word. Happiness, indeed, is usually thought of as a state of mind that results from or accompanies some actions. But Aristotle’s answers to the question “What is eudaimonia?” (namely, that which is “activity in accordance with virtue”; or that which is “contemplation”) show that for him eudaimonia was not a state of mind consequent on or accompanying certain activities but is a name for these activities themselves. “What is eudaimonia?” is then the same question as “What are the best activities of which man is capable?”
If 'happiness' is 'not at all an adequate translation' then how is it at all acceptable to say the two concepts are 'closely related?'
Equivocal
Garbage
Man.

>>12422403
No, I'm EGM... That's some other guy. Unless you're conferring the same honorofic upon him. I'd rather be special though.

I would point out that happiness is certainly related in that it must be a crucial aspect of eudaimonia. Firstly, what is virtue? It's a kind of value, knowledge about what behaviours result in people who both feel more satisfaction themselves (if not more, than perhaps a more stable variety) and produce more satisfaction for others. It is really quite difficult to explain why any course of action is pursued -- or why anything is deemed 'good', 'virtuous', etc. -- without running headlong into some form of happiness.

>>12421415
>You needn't 'ought' to value your values!
True, but if you can't prove that your values are correct, then you can be safely disregarded.
>There is no higher level, why can't you process this?
Wrong. There is the moral level.
>There is no divine or universal 'ought' that precedes your nature.
Wrong. Kantianism is an example of this.
> Values are a tool.
Sure
>Independent will?
Will independent of material circumstances.
>If biological nuts and bolts are the only apparent provenance of will, then where is the hard divide between subjects and objects?
Subjects have a will, objects doesn't.
>Do you really think you're a closed system, unshaped by the environment and ancestors that birthed you or everything you've experienced since then?
No, but parts of my actions stem from my will and not external circumstances.
> I have repeatedly rejected the entire notion of an actual discrete/parallel category of normative knowledge or 'oughts'.
This is becuase you don't understand the distinction between normative and descriptive statements.
>When we talk about what should or ought to be done, we are actually just taking a heuristic approach to knowledge about increasing the likelihood of desired outcomes.
No. We talk about what we ought to do. You can't just assume consequentialism.
>Is leads to is,
Sure.
> and so normative statements can only be a subset of descriptive statements if they are to be effective in achieving their intent.
No. Normative statements are, in kantianism, derived from practical reason and not external reality.
>And they are formed with intent, because they are products of valuing agents whose behaviours are objectively linked to outcomes.
Yes our belifs for action are linked to outcomes, yet morality isn't necessarily based on outcomes, becuase that would mean that we ought to achieve our outcomes, which you need to prove.
>You can say 'well just throw out the whole aspiration to values then', but this is an absurd over-reaction and rhetorical ploy.
No one actually does this. But I think it's true that you have absurd over-reaction and plenty of rhetorical ploys.
>It is simple enough to admit that values and normative judgments are not universal,
But they are, see the categorical imperative
>but can certainly be objective
Which is true
>and that they have evolved because they are tools that confer some advantage.
Here we see your problem again, you can't understand the difference between descriptive and normative so you just base your morality on feelings.
>You are simply blinded by programming which has taught you that certain imagined dichotomies are concrete...
But they are. You haven't provided any evidence against them.
>You've become so deeply invested in categorical word games that you lose sight of whether these categories actually describe something real.
But they do describe real things, so I don't think you understand.
But until next time, learn the difference between descriptive and normative(tbc)

>>12423444
Until next time:
1: Understand the difference between normative statements and descriptive statements.
2: Come up with an answer to why we ought to value our values, if you can't then your morlality is baseless.
Also, here comes a quick tldr of the argument:
>Utilitarianism is correct.
>Why ought we pursue happiness?
>Becuase we value it.
>Why ought we pursue that which we value?
>Dunno.

>>12423444
>Wrong. There is the moral level.
prove it faggot

>>12423484
>Sure:
It simply our belifs about morality, which we can argue about. Using logic we can then prove which moral statements are true or false examining the nature of morals and so on.

>>12410508
fpbp

>>12423501
>Using logic we can then prove which moral statements are true or false
doesn't look like we can desu

>>12419875
>People are intelligent beings who feel most fulfilled when exercising their higher faculties, and that shouldn't be neglected.
>I can see myself preferring not to be on a constant heroine high since it could interfere with higher mental pleasures.
but if you define utility as maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, then it would be better to stop producing creatures that need higher mental pleasures and any amount of pain that they may involve, and just generates creatures that thrive on pure dumb pleasure without any pain

i'm not an utilitarian, but if you just try to maximize pleasure that's what you get logically

>>12423892
People seem to forget that there's a stronger dichotomy underlying utilitarianism than pleasure and pain. There's survival and death, for you can have neither if you aren't alive.

A species that indulges in nothing but simple pleasures simply will not survive in the long term. That requires a drive towards ambitions beyond simple pleasures, and that, requires pain.

So, while reducing suffering to some degree is a nobel goal and all, in the end, one must not remove it entirely, as that would eventually lead to death.

>>12423916
yes, but that's circumstantial, not a value in itself, as in if you could solve the survival issue in any way, like machines or whatever, then there would be nothing in utilitarianism justifying not hooking everybody into the dumb pleasure machine

>>12423988
Well, I suppose we'll have to cross that bridge when we're all perfect machines who dominate the entire universe uncontested and have answered The Last Question.

Meanwhile, it seems, there's still plenty of improvement by increasing survivability and finding that pleasure/suffering sweetspot to be had.

>>12420982
Okay dude, thanks for putting your cards on the table. Do you at least understand why you've forfeited the right to be taken seriously? Are you capable of understanding? Do you think the racial group you believe yourself to belong to has the intellectual faculties to grasp this?

>>12410497
>good
No such thing.

>brainlets still discuss ethics after aristotle
>brainlets still discuss philosophy after aristotle

>>12423444
-Correct by what standard? Utilitarians can certainly prove their values are correct (as in effective) by the consequences of those values as related to the intent (health, happiness). You haven't demonstrated how values can be universal, so you can be safely disregarded.

-Just saying 'Wrong' and 'Sure' doesn't make you right. It shows that you don't have an argument and so must resort to rhetorical posturing (and not even of an entertaining variety). It's pretty sad desu.

-It matters what 'will' is. If you have any evidence or strong logic that will is something non-physical or of anything non-physical actually, that is what you should present here. Othwerise, subjects are also objects and cannot be thought of as discrete from the universe in the way you imagine.

-I do understand your definition of the distinction between normative and descriptive statements, and I'm saying it's flawed. Unfortunately, your fancy 'independent will' doesn't seem to allow you to breach your programming in this regard. Normative statements can only be a kind of descriptive statement if they aim to achieve an outcome. The descriptive element may not be explicit, but it must be implicit in the intent of the normative statement. If you say "People should eat vegetables" there is an implicit descriptive element to the effect of 'vegetables are healthy for you'. If you would maintain that normative statements are not made with results in mind, I would like you to demonstrate how/why and what their purpose is then.

-And how to we decide what we 'ought' to do? You're honestly going to pretend that consequences aren't foremost in that consideration? If not, what is? Expound your alternatives.

-So practical reason is not a part of reality? It isn't informed by observations of consistency in reality? Come on, be serious.

-The categorical imperative starts with universality in mind as the goal, without demonstrating how universality of values can be true (as you don't even bother to attempt). From there it's a series of mental gymanstics which clearly references human nature (the capacity for suffering, empathy, the advantages of trust and society) but then sublimates these observations into transcendental law with no justification or investigation into divergence of nature.

-I don't need to prove we 'ought' to achieve our outcomes, because we don't. You're injecting your undemonstrated assumptions to pretend you've got a poin. You don't. If we fail to achieve certain urgent outcomes, we suffer and die... That is the ultimate 'judgement'.

-Here we see your problem again, you present abstract categories as gospel without demonstrating WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DESCRIBE.

-I have provided evidence and logic against the concrete existence of these dichotomies, you only have to review our conversation. Strictly though, the burden of proof is on you as you are claiming the positive.

-If they do describe real things, it should be trivial for you to demonstrate this.

>>12423450
Based on flawed notion that values can precede valuing agents, which isn't possible. We needn't 'ought' to value our values, we have values because it's in our nature. Stop ducking this obvious problem.

>>12424041
No. Would you please explain it to me in detail, oh enlightened one? It seems I have been led astray by genetic clustering data, demographic data, data on IQ/crime/welfare/voting habits/genetic impact on behaviour, genetic recessivity data, and so on. I have also failed to accept the double standard of only whites not having ethnic identity and allowing themselves to be replaced into my heart. Save me!

>>12425865
>have also failed to accept the double standard of only whites not having ethnic identity and allowing themselves to be replaced into my heart.
Preach nigga. Jews will NOT replace us!

>>12425784
Why should we value what's in our nature?

>>12425889
Because if we don't conform to our nature in the most urgent ways, we die. What do you think actually motivates you to value anything? Some abstract 'law', or your concrete biological impulses? Strictly speaking, we 'shouldn't' value what's in our nature, we just do because values come from our nature.

>>12425902
Given our nature is whatever we want it to be, what should our nature be and why? And why should we value living over dying in any case?

>>12425913
There is no should. There is no apparent valuing agent which precedes us that cares whether we live or die. If we die out because of flawed values, those values were obviously maladaptive.

Our nature is not whatever we want it to be. Whatever we want is our nature. Yes, a feedback loop is possible, but it obviously begins with our nature and there are fundamental physical requirements for life which we can have no say over.

>>12414789
In stoves

>>12425935
My grandmother started herself to death when she was done with living.
Ought she to have done that?

>>12426076
Starved** obvi
Dumb phone poster

>>12425935
>those values were obviously maladaptive
Why? On what basis? Why obviously? You aren't doing a very good job of explaining your position
>Our nature is not whatever we want it to be
It completely is. Essentialism is bunk

>>12425963
I think its like seven stoves make a mini-Hitler, but i never get that right.

>>12426076
>>12426088
>>12425935
Bearing in mind any statements of 'ought' are merely specialized descriptive statements about behavioral predispositions that may are may not be 'maladaptive' from--well, I guess from *your* perspective, but I'll bow to your obvious authority on the subject. Which is why I ask in the first place: I miss my gram and wanna know why she did it :^(

>>12426076
If it achieved her goal (presumably an end to some kind of suffering), then yes. There are other considerations, like the effect it had on others or what other options (possibly unknown to her) she might have had, but that is the reality of moral calculation.

>>12426188
Why obviously? If you begin to function in ways which compromise your ability to surive and reproduce, that is the definition of maladaption. Adaptation confers advantages to survival and reproduction, maladaption does the opposite. Are you this thick?

If our nature is whatever we want it to be, then explain the logistics of how that works. Your mere proclamation is not sufficient demonstration.

>>12426306
Was ending her suffering adaptive?
Is your definition of adaptation in keeping with the literature on evolutionary biology? It strikes me as a little, I don't know, idiosyncratic.

>>12426268
I didn't know your gram and her cirumstances, so I can only speculate as I have above. My aunt drank herself to death, and I would say she ought not to have because she had other options (she could have come and stayed with us if she was lonely, etc.). Possibly it was unintentional and just compulsive behaviour, and so I can't for certain ascribe moral intent to her actions. Even so, it was maladaptive as she still had the capacity to enjoy life... Her suffering was avoidable. I don't know if your gram's suffering was avoidable, but if she was quite old then I suspect it's a distinct possibility. Perhaps she also thought she was going somewhere better. I don't know.

>>12426370
Once you're past the prospect of reproduction or contributing to the survival of your collective, maladaption is technically not much of a concern (although you could still influence others). At that point, if ending suffering is your desire then I see no cogent justification for why you 'ought' not to.

>>12419961
You have to work within the confines of what's actionable in the here and now. Your notion that a utilitarian would support mandatory state marriage is loaded with assumptions on the part of the utilitarian, such as them thinking, as I said prior, that the state is able to know better than you on who to spend the rest of your life. I agree with the conclusion that it would likely result in higher demands for divorce and overall dissatisfaction, so I'm against it. And in general, I don't believe the state is capable of determining what you should do in every facet of your life better than you. The utilitarian fundamental principle to maximize utility should be taken not as something you explicitly calculate in every waking moment. That's a misframing. Calculation at every instant would itself limit your ability to act. Instead, utility is a benchmark by which we judge the worthwhileness of different values, rules, virtues, and laws. We treat utility as the backbone to all of those things.
So when I am asked why we should outlaw murder, I say it's because a society that allows murder without punishment from the government would create an incentive to murder more.
When I am asked why I am against a planned economy, I say it's because markets are a generally more efficient means of generating and distributing goods and services.
If there were an omniscient God we had access to that could tell us what to produce and how to distribute it to best maximize utility, then maybe we could talk about the state owning everything.
But we don't live in that reality, so I'd be against it.

>2019 in the year of our lord
>not being a virtue ethicist

>>12428271
>muh current anno domini

>>12414537
You have to go back.