/lit/ - Literature

>Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that.

>>17678854
It's irrefutable in a sense that every non-utilitarian meaning someone opposes can be framed as disiguised utilitarianism.
e.g. you believe in transcendence because it maximises your pleasure.

>>17678942
So by irrefutable, you really mean non-falsifiable?

>>17678959
Yes.

Yes Guénon refutes it on the basis that it is a thinly veiled form of moralism, therefore anti-intellectual. and he's right.

>>17678854
The Nietz and Stirner killed in it's crib. But refuting something doesn't make idiots stop believing in it.
>>17678942
>irrefutable
Don't be silly. Utilitarianism isn't simply hedonism.

>>17678854
Is =/= Ought

>>17679095
Holy based

What kind of refutation are you expecting? It entirely depends on the axioms you've decided to believe in. Or rather ones that was imposed upon you by your environment. Vide: is-ought problem.

That being said, there is a solution: divine revelation. Then to determine if some axioms are right, you just have to decide if the holy text from which they were derived is trustworthy. Then it's just a historical question. And we know how to deal with them.

>>17678854
it's just kinda gay..

>>17679245
Problem is that history and science have disproved all abrahamic revelations.

>>17679272
And I forgot most importantly philology.

If you want to witness the logical conclusion of utilitarianism, that is a world in which truly nothing else matters, go ahead and read the brave new world.

>>17679095
im in awe of this nugget...

>>17679045
>Don't be silly. Utilitarianism isn't simply hedonism.
It might become the same thing as the technology advances. And what then?

>>17679272

How can science disprove a miracle? Being outside the ordinary order of things is in the mere definition of it. And as for history, the resurrection is the best documented event ever. Sure, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I don't see how you can so readily claim it was refuted. IMHO if you were to raise your scepticism-bar so high enough to conclusively reject the resurrection, you would have to declare agnosticism regarding the whole ancient history itself. In a word: if(!) there was a resurrection in the past, what kind of historical record would be left after it and how would it differ from what we have?

I don't believe in consequentialism

>>17678854
Every moral system can be reduced to consequentialism but not necessarily utilitarianism.
Consequentialism is the best system

>>17679356
Erratum: I meant of course events that took place in the antiquity. Trump election is of course better documented.

>>17679391
>Every moral system can be reduced to consequentialism
imagine believing this

>>17678942
>>17678959
>>17678979
Ignoring this here, the sort of end-state of utilitarianism is impossible to achieve. Not only can you never gain enough information to properly compute out the ideal utility, but you can't even compare the utility curves of two individuals (you could theoretically construct a utility curve by measuring someone's preferences in regards to an orgasm, then dissect their brain as they cum, but this will kill the person). You can never get the infinite computational capacity necessary even if you could gather the infinite data and decode the human brain.

Secondly, freaks and edge cases skew the system.

So sure, as a broad and fuzzy background thing, it's probably worth keeping in mind so you don't go full SUFFERING? GOOD retard tier, but I can't see how it's anything but pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

>>17678854
It seems to be the most self-evident to people who try to be objective about this stuff.

I don’t think I was brainwashed by liberalism, it just sort of makes more sense than anything else.
Why does it seem the most common sensical for our modern circumstances? I couldn’t tell you that. To me, it just seems to work the best with a scientific worldview because it’s based on real-world, physical phenomena rather than the mere injunction of some despot.
It’s like, “What gives a despotic moralist like Kant special epistemological privilege?”

There’s no fast and strong takedown argument for it that I’ve seen.

>>17678854
Yes

>>17679272
>>17679356
You don't disprove something. If you make a claim that you have a bridge to sell, it's up to you to show the bridge. But all we ever get is "Show me that there is not bridge."

>>17679849
>all these neetchfags
Neetch was literally a utilitarian

>>17679834
>it just seems to work the best with a scientific worldview because it’s based on real-world, physical phenomena
it makes it a good system for pigs, but human reason doesn't have to conform to physical phenomena. Anglo niggers don't understand this because they are half-breeds with pork blood

>>17680043
I don’t like a purely reductionist worldview either, it feels soulless.
There’s nothing wrong with giving your own life meaning with spiritual notions.

But large institutions should adhere more to principles like secular humanism and utilitarianism. They’re going to be soulless anyway.

>>17680067
You know?
You can’t rely on large institutions like that to give your life meaning in the first place.

>>17679995
All abrahamic revelation books have been thorougly analysed,explained, contextualized, reconstructed. We can't seriously believe them because we've been shown the mechanics. The bridge they sell have been proved to be a fantasy bridge.

>>17679995
I wasn't proving there's a bridge. In my first comment I didn't even pointed to any specific holy book. I was just explaining the mechanism and claiming that there's no other way for a bridge to exist than through it. Maybe it doesn't exist. Although I personally think it does.

In the second comment I was arguing with the claim that science and history somehow conclusively disproved the resurrection. I don't think that's true as much as I believe they didn't necessarily prove the opposite. You must have misunderstood my stance.

>>17678854

>utilitarians BTFO in a single pic

>>17680347

>>17679995
So from the point of view of ethics of discussion it was your claim that was under consideration, thus the burden of proof was on you. And I wasn't selling bridges.

>>17680356

>>17680361

>>17680370

>>17680379

>>17679095
*eats the bent-let*

>>17678854
yes.

>>17680015
how the fuck was he a utilitarian?

>>17679095
David Huge

>>17679095
Still, concrete physical phenomena make better guideposts for a scientific society since everyone can see them.

>>17678854
Yes, Wittgenstein did. No two persons can be proved to have the same experience. The contents of your head, whether they are pleasure or pain, are entirely yours, you cannot use the subjective and individual experience as a measuring stick for objective actions.

>>17680888
just because Witt was a homo pseud who couldn't even doesn't mean the rest of us Kant.

>>17680888
>dude, what if like, I'm the new Descartes

>>17680350
actually a society where bikes are stolen generates less utility for each individual in it than a society where laws are enforced. Don't just look at the immediate effects, consider all the costs.

>>17681199
Dubs caught you slippin, retributionist

not everything that maximizes our happiness is good for us.

>>17680888
uh, that’s what we have language for? So we can report on these inner experiences to others?

>>17681254
Utilitarians can't even give an objective definition of happiness

>>17681274
Pleasure.

>>17681280
pleasure and happiness are two different things

>>17681299
Happiness is pleasure worked out through space and time.

>>17681270
>what is the private language argument

>>17678854
1. Utilitarianism requires that every single human in a system knows what the "objectively optimal outcome" is and how to act in such a way as to reach that outcome optimally.
2. This is impossible.
3. Therefore you get parties working towards conflicting outcomes which they all perceive to be the correct outcome, or taking incompatible actions to achieve the same outcome due to ignorance.
4. These situations are, by definition, non-optimal/un-utilitarian.
5. In fact, trying to figure out the perfectly optimal outcome is in itself not the most optimal decision-making framework.
5. Hence, the goal of utilitarianism is incompatible with its methods.

>>17681362
I guess that’s what we have public languages for then.
The orthodox interpretation of the argument (because there’s dispute about what it actually means) focuses on skepticism about memory, how a user of private language would have more difficulty with the untrustworthiness of memory since it cannot be corrected by others.
Kripke takes the community view of the argument, that language is, of necessity, not merely potentially but actually social.

I don’t think the interpretation of the argument that states that you cannot talk about sensations because they are private is a popular interpretation.

>>17681378
>Utilitarianism requires that every single human in a system knows what the "objectively optimal outcome" is and how to act in such a way as to reach that outcome optimally.
Why would it require this when we can have people report on what makes them happy? And what about how we know for a fact that all human beings have certain basic physiological needs in order to sustain themselves at all?

Just starting from the standpoint of feeding the hungry would be something that can’t be denied as increasing happiness since food is a basic physiological requirement for everyone.
Again, the norms of utilitarianism are easily compatible with physical guideposts like these.

>>17681630
Did you just skim the Stanford article? Read the book if you're interested dude, it's much more enjoyable. The point is that the sensation is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there is a beetle in the box or not.

>>17681773
Yes, and I seem to know more about it than you just by doing that. It is disputed what the argument even refers to. But in any case, your interpretation is not the orthodox or Kripkean view, which are the most popular interpretations.

>>17678854
It justifies veganism, which is retarded, and that's good enough of a refutation for me.

>>17678854
Pleasure is pain

>>17678854
it justifies rape so it's bad imo

>>17681847
Peter Singer himself is only a vegetarian, so I doubt veganism is the necessary outcome of utilitarianism.

>>17681877
what's the difference again?

>>17681896
Vegans don’t consume any animal products, vegetarians only abstain from meat.

>>17681908
do vegetarians eat eggs?

>>17681921
They can. I do.

>>17681925
why not eat meat as well then?
seems sort of counter intuitive to eat a sort of pre stage animal but not the full version, they still died
and when you say only meat, what about fish? they have less feelings. other sea creatures?

>>17681942
>they still died
Who died?
The egg?
The eggs aren’t fertilized.

> when you say only meat, what about fish? they have less feelings. other sea creatures?
I do not eat fish. Not eating meat but eating fish is called pescatarian.

>>17680390
Bump.

Keep this alive.
For utility.