/lit/ - Literature

>>5105969

yes, we all are happy waving nukes around in each other's faces.

we also completely ignore the hedonist's dilemma, because it maximizes happiness.

>>5105969
What makes you think that.

Also fuck off to >>>/phi/

>>5105978
nukes are the best thing to happen to humanity since fire though

>>5105984

not according to utilitarianism.

>>5105984
the internet is the best thin happen to humanity since the written word

>>5105987
how so?

>>5105996
Because they bring more anxiety than happiness to the world.

Nope, nihilism won.

>>5106002
They bring a lot more peace of mind than perpetual war.

>>5106055

people enjoyed the perpetual war

it was only when it became sporadic that we were traumatised by it. Part of this was the anxiety of nuclear apocalypse averting any war, or ending all life.

“The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.

This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions. What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

>>5106068
>people enjoyed the perpetual war
Citation needed.

>>5106085

None available. Take it as conjecture.

>>5106074

Has done the honours.

>>5106074
>which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

Why not ninety nine percent of humanity looking out for the other one percent, ten hungry people working together to find food and save each other, and an outraged mob holding a fair trial to determine whether a man is dangerous?

Your situation isn't “The greatest good for the greatest number," it's "the most contrived scenario I can imagine that's awful but still technically 'good' if you squint." All you've proven is that things go to shit if you aren't actually interested in trying to achieve positive results, which is exactly what utilitarianism says will happen.

>>5105969
I've made this post before, but here it goes again.

Utilitarianism is flawed because to judge whether an action is morally right for the greatest good, the timescale needs to extend to the end of time. As our friend Burke astutely points out, noble pursuits often degenerate into ignoble ones in the fullness of time.

tl;dr at what point do Utilitarian say "Ok, enough time has elapsed to judge whether action X was good or bad"

Like with individual hedonism, negative utilitarianism works better. Taking away people's pain and suffering is a whole lot more straight forward.

yes nothing will ever change. the current age is definitely the most enlightened and things will always stay like this. colgate toothpaste and family guy reruns will be around forever.

"Whereas the past ages built works before which the observer mut stand in silence, now they build a tunnel under the Thames (utility and advantage). Yes, almost before a child gets time to admire the beauty of a plant or some animal, it asks: Of what use is it?"

Kierkegaard

Define the sum of happiness. Especially when it comes to time-spaces. Is it ok to be unhappy today, even to be in pain, if it gives future generations the chance to be happy ? Would it be ok to wage wars of unprecedented cruelness to reach a better world ? Welcome to Nietzschean doctrine.

Utilitarinism is one of the most pretentious ideas ever put forth by mankind. Considering the infinite nature of the universe, and therefore the infinite amount of factors at play in every decision, there is literally no way to to calculate what decision would eventually generate the most 'good' for humanity.

I'm referring particularly to Rule Utilitarianism, as Act Utilitarianism is a very good way for making small, daily decisions, like whether you feel like giving the homeless man some change, or whether you should take the car or the bike to work on this particular day, but to think our limited perspectives are capable of factoring in the literally unlimited amount of influences is completely ridiculous.

>>5106310
>Utilitarinism is one of the most pretentious ideas ever put forth by mankind

>Considering the infinite nature of the universe, and therefore the infinite amount of factors at play in every decision, there is literally no way to to calculate what decision would eventually generate the most 'good' for humanity.

I think you'll need to amend your first sentence to say second-most pretentious.

>>5106321
unless you can show me where our reality begins and ends I'll consider unknowns more relevant to the 'greater good' than bullshit assumptions.

>>5105969
No. Nihilism has.

>>5105969
The very existence of this board answers by "no" to your question.

/sci/ alone is legit

>>5106399
Le Ligotti Fanboi

>>5106163
>Why not ninety nine percent of humanity looking out for the other one percent, ten hungry people working together to find food and save each other, and an outraged mob holding a fair trial to determine whether a man is dangerous?

Isn't that exactly the point? Hence:

>This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning.
>whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

>>5105969

>>5106074
the way I see Utilitarianism is different. Why not "The least amount of pain for the greatest number of people?"

>>5106171
No decision is perfect. There's no need to be this pedantic.

>>5106805
I'm not being pedantic. Utilitarians are simply not aware that something can go from very good to very bad and flux between over an extended time frame. When is the line drawn to determine an actions morality?

>>5107188
That scepticism goes for any ethical system though.

Yes.

All of applied ethics today extrapolates from utilitarian principles.

>>5107214
congrats, you've worked it out

>>5106780
It's terrifying that there are people retarded enough to make a comic like this.

>I think that rather than letting ourselves become mindless slaves to ideology, we should focus on results: what options will result in the greatest good for the greatest number?
"So you'd rape a baby to save two other babies? I KNEW IT! YOU'RE A MONSTER!"
>What? In what possible situation would raping a baby be the greater good for anyone? The entire point is that you aren't obligated to sacrifice ANYONE for your beliefs, because it's the RESULTS that matter, now the ideology behind them!
"So you admit that the ends justify the means, and you're implying that the means will always be genocide!"
>Are you fucking retarded?
"And now you're saying that you'd fuck a retarded person to save a kitten!"

>>5107232
Isn't it discrimination and bigotry to not fuck a person just because they happen to be differently abled in their brain?

Omnicidism is the only consistent form of utilitarianism.

>>5107253
lol, I love /lit/

>>5107253
Where's the point in eliminating all suffering when there aren't humans anymore? Utilitarianism's goal isn't to eliminate suffering itself but to eliminate suffering from humans.

>>5107253
I know someone who's views are mirrored by that post. It even reads like him.

>>5107300
>any action that results in the least amount of suffering is an ethical one
>eliminating the human race completely prevents suffering, including the suffering of billions of future humans.

It's utilitarianism taken to it's logical conclusion. Unfortunately you are blinded by bias and emotion.

>>5107335
Utilitarianism is not workable as a system, so what difference does it make if you take it to it's logical conclusion?

Won what?

>>5107335
>Unfortunately you are blinded by bias and emotion.
>implying
>>5107335
>>any action that results in the least amount of suffering is an ethical one
>>eliminating the human race completely prevents suffering, including the suffering of billions of future humans.
if you phrase it like that, yes.
But the flaw in this reasoning is that there's no point in eliminating suffering if you have to eliminate every human, because it is for humanity's good that utilitarianism exists. Or at least that's why it was invented. that was the point. by eliminating humans you don't just eliminate the problem, you eliminate the purpose of solving it, namely having a not-suffering humanity
>>5107352
>is not workable as a system
It's not a system in the first place

>>5107300
It is improved utilitaranism without inconsistency.

>>5107335
>It's utilitarianism as interpreted by a retard

Fixed that for you.

>a good can opener is one that opens the can the fastest
>therefore a bomb is a better can opener than one that uses a crank

A rational human being comes to the conclusion that if the side effect is destroying the can (the opposite of the intended goal, ie reducing the possiblity of disaster) then the bomb is not a viable choice as a can opener. A rational human being likewise comes to the conclusion that if the side effect is destroying all of humanity, genocide might not be the best long term solution for solving world hunger.

How does someone as brain damaged as you manage to brush their teeth?

>Fucking utilitarian dentists say that toothpaste is good because it cleans teeth? Well maybe I'll just drink acid!

>>5107370
The purpose is to abolish suffering, if humanity has to go out with it to achieve that then that's unproblematic.

>>5107253

This is edgy, and I'm a Stirnerist.

>>5107370
Most people would agree that a life lived in abject pain and suffering is a life not worth living. Imagine someone tortured from birth till death in a basement. Eliminating the human race is equivalent to putting that person out of their misery since - on the whole - most human beings suffer more than they do not.

>>5107404
>The purpose is to abolish suffering
No, it's phrased like that. The purpose is to eliminate suffering for humans.
You should never be literal when interpreting philosophy
This is correct: >>5107396
>>5107424
The point of utilitarianism is that a human with less suffering would be better than one with more. If you think eliminating humans is equivalent to that then you're missing the point.
It's not suffering ITSELF that we want to eliminate.

>>5107396
Look at it this way. Imagine the entire human race was being tortured by malevolent aliens. They take our brains make us experience the worst suffering imaginable for billions of years.

Would then accept that the suffering of the human race is too great to continue and it would be ethical to end it? If you accept that, then do you accept that ending the human race is ethical provided the suffering is great enough? In which case, where do you draw that arbitrary line?

>>5107451
That's the problem with utilitarianism. It's naive and anthropocentric. When you fix those two things it's a workable ideology.

>>5107451
So you would not end the suffering of the man being tortured in a basement? What about if there were hundreds of men in similar circumstances? What about if this was the state of the entire human race? This is equivalent to my contention that we should end the human race now, except the level of suffering is different, which should be irrelevant if the elimination of suffering itself isn't the goal of utilitarianism.

>>5107465
>Would then accept that the suffering of the human race is too great to continue and it would be ethical to end it?
>pic related
Yes because feelings / no because feelings it could go either way. In the case of no I would try to save humanity. that would be a utilitarianist's choice. Perhaps. applies to >>5107484 too.
>>5107477
>naive
How?
>anthropocentric
How?

>>5107525
Naive in the sense that existence itself isn't diagnosed as the problem, anthropocentric in focussing solely on human suffering.

>>5107525
>Yes because feelings
>blinded by bias and emotion

See what I mean?

>>5107484
>>5107525
>>5107465
If you think about it you've just given me situations in which removing/reducing suffering from humans is impossible. That means, considering Utilitarianism's premise that is lost. In such situation there is just no way of doing what you should. Actually it's better to say that it's you who failed, since you don't have the power to improve humanity's condition.
>>5107536
>Naive in the sense that existence itself isn't diagnosed as the problem
That we exist is the first cause of suffering, everyone knows that. But utilitarianism has the purpose of making us live with as little of suffering as possible.
>>5107536
>anthropocentric in focussing solely on human suffering.
Jeremy Bentham would disagree with this.
I didn't take animals into consideration just to make things easier
>>5107550
You asked me what I would do. Of course I would be blinded by emotion in such a ridiculous situation.

>>5107550
As I said here >>5107562
It's because in the alien scenario I can't really do much (at least that's what it seems from your premise). In the real world I can improve things.

>http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

>Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
>Other 301 / 931 (32.3%)
>Accept or lean toward: deontology 241 / 931 (25.9%)
>Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 220 / 931 (23.6%)
>Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 169 / 931 (18.2%)

Doesn't look like it.

>>5107562
>That we exist is the first cause of suffering, everyone knows that. But utilitarianism has the purpose of making us live with as little of suffering as possible.
Yes, and to be consistent in that it must abolish life. It's as simple as that.

>>5107571
Besides, there's no need to remove all suffering. That's impossible. We just have to make happiness outbalance suffering and make it so that the latter is trivial and not-life ruining
>>5107594
>Yes, and to be consistent in that it must abolish life. It's as simple as that.
You don't understand, do you? I'm saying that is the premise. Abolishing life goes against it.
>But utilitarianism has the purpose of making us live with as little of suffering as possible.
Don't you see it?

>>5107605
Why would that be a premise? Why couldn't utility be maximised by snuffing out life?

>>5107619
>Why couldn't utility be maximised by snuffing out life?
Because then there wouldn't be a point in pursuing it. You're eliminating the reason you fought suffering in the first place.
Utilitarianism was intended as "removing suffering from humans is good" but worded as "removing suffering is the goal"
The latter is misleading. If you interpret it literally then, yes, utilitarianism is inconsistent.
But you should think about what the objective was.

I think the thread should return to what seems to be Burke's argument back there ( >>5106171 )
First thing we face is that we don't know instinctively what is good for everyone. You could come in a classic empiricist fashion and say: "we'll learn from experience! What leads to good consequences should be repeated and what lead to bad ones, avoided".
But here lies the first problem of utilitarianism. What is the time scope of good and bad? Are we taking into consideration what is good now, after a month, a year?
Let's say for example someone brutally rapes and kill someone. It's bad, people suffer. But it causes a chain reaction that ends up making the police more aware and present, the citizens more cautious and ends up lowing the crime rate and turning the city a better place to live after a month. So was it a good thing, then?
Of course, nobody would suggest murders and rape as an ethical statement, but here is something more tangible: what if we act out fake brutal murders, from time to time? Nobody suffers and everyone enjoys the benefits.
You are probably going to tell me that people would be constantly scared and afraid of being murdered, but it would be better than people dying, right? Right?
No, we don't know. This is the second main problem of utilitarianism: how do we measure happiness, and overall "goodness"? To which extent we can trade a little discomfort for a greater relief, and how do we know which one is greater? You could say that no ethical actions should cause discomfort in the first place, even if it is to bring greater happiness in the end. But then how to justify something simple like vaccination? It clearly causes discomfort in both the child and the parent, with the promise of greater good for the community.
tl;dr - 1 - what time scope we should use to determine if something is good and bad. 2 - how do we measure happiness in a way we can "trade" some little discomfort with greater happiness

>>5107639
>lowering the crime rate
Also, this comic on the subject is funny
even tough it's only argument is that utilitarianism should take into consideration standard deviation and more elegant statistics methods in its calculation of the greater good

>>5107636
>Because then there wouldn't be a point in pursuing it. You're eliminating the reason you fought suffering in the first place.
You fight suffering because you don't want to suffer. Remaining in existence is secondary to that.

>Utilitarianism was intended as "removing suffering from humans is good" but worded as "removing suffering is the goal"
>The latter is misleading. If you interpret it literally then, yes, utilitarianism is inconsistent.
>But you should think about what the objective was.
But I'm not at all concerned with defining traditional/conventional utilitarianism, I'm concerned with fixing its flaws. Changing some of its basic assumptions does this.

>>5107639
This amounts to "you don't really know if you're doing the right thing" which goes for all ethics and is therefore uninteresting as an argument against utilitarianism in particular.

>>5107649
you're a butt. the comic defeats or makes no points. it's just an absurdist scenario.

>>5107664

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster

>>5107658
The problem is that utilitarianism pretends it knows.
Wait, we are talking about a central government thing, right?

>>5107639
>what if we act out fake brutal murders, from time to time? Nobody suffers and everyone enjoys the benefits.
>You are probably going to tell me that people would be constantly scared and afraid of being murdered, but it would be better than people dying, right? Right?
That wouldn't work out the way you seem to think it would.
Eliminating all suffering is impossible, so we shouldn't. Instead we can use utilitarianism to build a society in which work is done by machines and people are free to do whatever makes them happy following the "my freedom ends where yours begins" rule. Also this: >>5107658 you can't make perfect decisions.
>>5107649
That's not utilitarianism, because the suffering of many has priority over the happiness of one.
>>5107651
>>5107651
>You fight suffering because you don't want to suffer. Remaining in existence is secondary to that.
It's an assumption you make. But that aside, HAVING to kill someone because you can't help them implies powerlessness. If you don't have the power to make the right thing, then it's a separate problem. I believe we can make humanity's situation better.
>>5107649
>I'm concerned with fixing its flaws. Changing some of its basic assumptions does this.
I stated the assumption my utilitarianism makes: >>5107605
>>5107675
We discussed this already I believe.

>>5107691

>we discussed this above

more like glossed over it without addressing the problem it poses. anyway, i was trying to indicate what the comic was about. it does not portray an "absurdist scenario. the utility monster thought experiment is what is known as a reductio ad absurdum--drawing an absurd conclusion from the accepted premises of a position you are deconstructing.

>>5107691
I think I got you wrong then
I could swear you were arguing in favor of a central "ethical" government, or anything like tha

>>5107703
I said: >>5107691
>the suffering of many has priority over the happiness of one
because absence of suffering>more happiness

>>5107675
it doesn't really refute the logic behind utilitarianism in any way

>>5107712
Was picking such an original name difficult?

>>5107711
Like a big brother who controls our every action to maximize utility? Nah that's crazy. In the hypothetical world I described people would still struggle and suffer and have stress but it would be over more trivial things. Happiness would outweigh it at least a bit for everyone, making life worth it.
>>5107724
kek

>>5107691
>It's an assumption you make. But that aside, HAVING to kill someone because you can't help them implies powerlessness. If you don't have the power to make the right thing, then it's a separate problem. I believe we can make humanity's situation better.
You're implying an inherent preferability of being alive to not being alive, which I find strange since non-existence is inherently flawless and being alive, for as far as we know, has been inherently problematic.

>>5107712

The comic takes a few liberties with the idea, so I can understand how you could become confused about this.

There is nothing in utilitarianism that declares that the absence of suffering is a greater goal than the greatest sum of happiness. This is to misunderstand the core principle of utilitariansim, which is just that: all actions and policies must be such so as to result in the greatest possible utility.

The scenario introduced by the utility monster doesn't even demand that others suffer for the benefit of the one or few--it only shows that these utility monsters gain more utility than others, and so their utility should be maximized, per the core principle.

>>5107719

Nozick wasn't trying to "refute the logic" of utilitarianism. Again the utility monster scenario is a reduction ad absurdum. It starts from premises that are accepted by the opposition, and reasons validly to an absurd conclusions, which demonstrates the unacceptability of those premises.

>>5107752
>It starts from premises that are accepted by the opposition, and reasons validly to an absurd conclusions, which demonstrates the unacceptability of those premises.
that sounds like refutation. it's perfectly valid, it just doesn't hit anything meaningful.

>>5107775

I had a problem with your phrasing. One doesn't refute logic, only arguments.

It actually strikes the very heart of utilitariansim. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you, other than you don't actually seem to understand it.

>>5107746
My total happiness outweighs my total suffering so I'm definitely happy being alive and my main point is that you should try getting in this situation rather than kill yourself.
>>5107752
>There is nothing in utilitarianism that declares that the absence of suffering is a greater goal than the greatest sum of happiness.
If you read my posts, then you'll see that that's what I think. Besides many utilitarianists stated that it's more about eliminating suffering.

>>5107781

Then you and these other "utilitarians" aren't actually utilitarians, as you've declaimed it's motivating principle. And even if you were to replace the utilitarians principle of maximizing the sum of happiness with minimizing the sum of suffering, you'd be faced with basically the same problem the utility monster poses. You'd only have to rename it to the suffering monster. (Their units of suffering are reduced by a greater degree than all others, therefore must be accounted for to a greater degree then others).

>>5107779
"logic" is sometimes used in place of "argument"

anyway the point is: "if this is true then I'm sad" doesn't refute philosophy. it's a common mistake.

>>5107808

Right. The utility monster poses a problem to utilitarianism because MOST people would balk at the prospect of allowing everyone else to flounder while one or a few individuals flourished simply on the basis of some principle. You can dig your heels in and just accept this conclusion, but you'd be in the deep minority, and most people will simply ignore you. Your other option is to modify your position so as to mitigate the absurd conclusion t which your premises lead. This is part of the point of the reductio. This is how people actually "do" philosophy.

>>5107781
>My total happiness outweighs my total suffering so I'm definitely happy being alive and my main point is that you should try getting in this situation rather than kill yourself.
That's hardly the case for everyone and hardly achievable for everyone. Even if it were even somewhat possible, there is no good reason to opt for the maybe perhaps possible unproblematic existence when you can have certainly unproblematic non-existence. Let alone force it on others because you're willing to make the gamble.

>>5107818
you imagine I'm arguing for something you disagree with because I disagree with you. the criticism remains irrelevant regardless of how many people it makes mad.

if you were to find criticism that is actually relevant you'd "do" philosophy better.

>>5107801
The problem is that it's not a realistic situation. If it really happened we could decide to limit how much we're going to sacrifice for each individual.
>>5107831
>>5107831
>Even if it were even somewhat possible, there is no good reason to opt for the maybe perhaps possible unproblematic existence when you can have certainly unproblematic non-existence.
But I implied that existing is inherently good. Happiness can't come from inexistence. Why eliminate all your suffering when you give up any way to enjoy not suffering in the first place?

>>5106802

That'd be Epicurianism, pardon my French

>>5107874
That's correct because he's pretty much my reference point. But some consider him the grandfather of utilitarianism

>>5107836

It has nothing to do with "how many people it makes mad." The utility monster scenarios exposes a flaw in the premises of the utilitarian position. The utilitarian needs to account for these flaws or retire.

Again, if you can't see why this is "relevant", there's nothing I can say that may convince you. You will have to stew in your own ignorance. Good luck!

>>5107860

It's not a realistic scenario? Tell that to all the people who are and have wallowed their lives away under monarchs, oligarchs, etc. It's not inconceivable that a society actually motivated by the utilitarian principle would organize itself in such a way.

But that's beside the point. What the utility monster scenario reveals is a flaw in the premises of utilitarianism. These need to be accounted for. That's the point. We're philosophizing, not writing concrete policy. We're dealing with arguments. As it stands, the utilitarian argument has little going for it, given all that has been brought against it.

>>5107910
>because MOST people
>It has nothing to do with "how many people it makes mad."
if you have a point get to it. you're just saying you have one without ever actually explaining it.

>>5107232
>the RESULTS that matter
oops, you were going to writhe there "actions"
small typo

>>5107942

Dude, I have explained this several times. I don't know how much clearer I can makes this.

The reductio is an appeal to common sense or intuitive reasoning. The utilitarian sets out to maximize the sum of happiness, and he thinks he's landed on a principle that will stay consistent without leading to disaster. As utilitarianism emerged out of the Scots/English enlightenment, heavily informed by the Enlightenment and liberal ideals, utilitarians generally are likely unhappy to find that their premises lead to the conclusion that we must, per their own principle, sacrifice increases of happiness to the general population for these utility monsters, bearing as they do a striking resemblance to parasitic monarchs and totalitarians.

The utility monster reductio is addressed to those utilitarians who are unlikely to accept its absurd conclusion, and will henceforth modify their position or change it. A utilitarian may, as I've said, simply dig their heels in and reject their presumably liberal and generally beneficent ideals, but this seems very unlikely.

>>5107926
What about this:
>In this case, desire utilitarianism says that we have stepped out of the realm of morality. We have a universe in which these two sets of beings are in an unavoidable conflict.
- from a page I can't link since 4chan says it's spam

>>5108008
More complete:
>Let us say, instead, that we are dealing with a non-malleable desire. The utility monster has extremely strong desires (obsessions, perhaps) that require the consumption of vast amounts of resources. Other people have non-malleable desires to use those resources to fulfill weaker desires.

In this case, desire utilitarianism says that we have stepped out of the realm of morality. We have a universe in which these two sets of beings are in an unavoidable conflict. As a matter of fact, each faction will continue to act so as to fulfill the most and strongest of its own desires, given its belief. The fighting will continue until one group or the other has been wiped out or conquered.

Moral concepts only apply when we have a faction that has malleable desires. Then (and only then) it makes sense to ask how social forces should be brought to bear to mold those desires. Which is the same as asking about the desires that the most and strongest people have reason to promote or inhibit - asking about what to call good and what to call evil.

>>5107975
appeals to common sense are not necessarily right and the "common" part depends. there's really nothing in it except getting some people in your present location to agree.

>>5108034

Cartesian common sense.
>http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/3/10.html

but by all means, be obtuse as you like. it's all for the sake of argument, rght?

>>5108016
>>5108034

I just read through the blog post (athiest ethicist, yes?) I've never heard of "desire utilitarianism" before, and a quick glance around google suggests to me it is the construct of atheistic bloggers who fancy themselves moral philosophers. But no matter, I take it to be a form of "preference utilitarianism," which is a pretty radical departure from the utilitarianism I'm acquainted with, and which most contemporary utilitarians side with (rule utilitarianism).

Anyway. The author seems to undermine his own point when he claims on the one hand that "other people" (non-utility monsters) have "non-malleable desires", (whereas presumably the utility monster has very malleable desires, which is part of why it can be such a resource sink); and when they claim that "moral concepts only apply when we have a faction that has malleable desires." So it would seem that morality is only applicable, according to desire utilitarianism, if everybody is a utility monster, at which point the social order dissolves as everyone strives to gobble up as much as they can.

He provides a great supplemental argument against his own position vis-a-vis the utility monster. That's about as much as I can say for it, though. It definitely doesn't recommend itself as a rejoinder to Nozick, et al.

>>5108042
common sense is not logic. fuck you. you're just telling me what you think people think. it's not worth the time it took you to write this shit.

>>5108075
Well, first I'm going to say that I'm really tired and I'm going to bed after this post. It's pretty late where I live.
I think you misunderstood "malleable desires" and "non-malleable desires" since they probably mean the opposite of what they seem. With non-malleable, he simply means fundamental, something you can't change with your own will, something that you need and can't do without. So if absolute needs (non malleable desires) clash against each other there's not much you can do. Only one can logically survive. It's not that desire utilitarianism is only applicable if everyone is a utility monster, he means that you can use moral if there is a possibility of a compromise, which means that it's not non-malleable desires that clash against each other.
Malleable desires means there is something you can give up to someone else. I'm not saying he's right though. It may not even be an argument against utility monsters, like you say. I can't think too clearly right now.

>>5108109

Nozick crafted a thought experiment thought followed the premises of utilitarianism to a logical conclusion. The conclusion is what should compel a conscientious utilitarian to alter or change their position. This is how reasonable argument usually works. I'm sorry you're having such a difficult time with this.

>>5108124

I think I'm still more or less right about his argument, but I'll read over it again.

It's been nice chatting, have a good night.

in the world? it was opposed by sheer caprice of power, not deontology. in philosophy the victory has been recognizing the incompleteness of deontic thinking when it comes to grasping with consequences.

Utilitarianism hasn't won. Go take an ethics class, you dolt. I think you might be surprised to find that it isn't taught from the perspective of "Look at these other ethical frameworks we have that are completely useless now that we have discovered utlitarianism."

I could ask the questions,
"Has deontology basically won?"
or
"Has virtue ethics basically won?"
and they would be about as worthless.

You aren't asking because you are concerned with the state of current ethical debate, but merely to advocate your opinion on how ethics should be and/or, perhaps more likely, simply to troll.