[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 8 KB, 240x340, bentham.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14504169 No.14504169 [Reply] [Original]

Start with the utilitarians.

>> No.14504172

>>14504169
No.

>> No.14504213

>>14504172
Ok

>> No.14504220
File: 67 KB, 540x722, 1577218620607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14504220

I'd prefer not to

>> No.14504223

correct, the execution line will start with the utilitarians

>> No.14504247
File: 104 KB, 600x854, 23Gordon-articleLarge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14504247

>>14504169
>The principle of utility was no discovery made by Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with wit and ingenuity in the eighteenth century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must investigate the nature of dogs. This nature is not itself deducible from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would judge all human acts, movements, relations, etc. according to the principle of utility would first have to deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as historically modified in each epoch. Bentham does not trouble himself with this. With the dryest naïveté he assumes that the modern petty borugeois, especially the English petty bourgeois, is the normal man. Whatever is useful to this peculiar kind of normal man, and to his world, is useful in and of itself. He applies this yardstick to the past, the present and the future.

>> No.14504299

>>14504247
I think the idea is that there is a central 'good' whose action dictates the motivations of the core mass of humanity.

While I do disagree with some aspects of Bentham's development of utility, how can I possibly disagree with this? :3

>> No.14504604

>>14504299
You don't have to. The criticism is that he doesn't have a universal concept of well-being that is necessary in order to apply "the idea".

>> No.14504762

>>14504604
>>14504604
>he doesn't have a universal concept of well-being
So the idea is he doesn't define what 'Good' is well enough?

Are you denying that the central tenets of civilization, on the whole, are good? Are you saying there is more bad than good within civilization for humans?

Not even Rousseau would agree with you. :3

>> No.14504781

>>14504169

Only if the majority of others start with the utilitarians as well

>> No.14504813

>>14504781
They most likely have. :3

>> No.14504859

>>14504762
In that case, he is simply restating Plato in a less nuanced form. “We should move towards the universal good” is the simplist if statements that most every philosopher agrees, so the important point is defining what the good is and how to achieve it.

>> No.14505513

>>14504220
why is this stuffed guy everywhere i go

>> No.14506040

>>14505513
it is the symbolic representation of the panopticon that is modern life

>> No.14506401

>>14504762
not all civilisations are equal or similar

>> No.14506416

>>14504223
Based

>> No.14507365

>>14504762
>Are you denying that the central tenets of civilization, on the whole, are good?
What the fuck does that even mean? Here's Bentham:
>The principle of utility judges any action to be right by the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interests are in question... if that party be the community the happiness of the community, if a particular individual, the happiness of that individual.
I don't know what the fuck "the central tenets of civilization" are, but I don't see how they have any necessary connection with happiness. And determining what augments happiness is necessary to determine the correct action according to Bentham.