/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19489472]

>”Utilitarianism is bad because… because… well because uh… you see… BECAUSE IT JUST FUCKING IS OK?!”

[Anonymous No.19489475]

> Utilitarianism is retarded and I can prove it.

[Anonymous No.19489478]

Bugman ethics

[Anonymous No.19489487]

>>19489472
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19489497]

[Anonymous No.19489529]

>>19489478
This. I admit that it's alluring, but there is more to life than convenience and utilitarianism. The most degrading things we have done is sacrificed ourselves over to convenience, only for it to leave us in a vegetative state where nothing ever occurs. Participating in such a philosophy, one might say, is hell. Pleasure can only be experienced when we know Pain, Good Times are distinguished by the bad. Pain is a reminder that we are alive, for if we succumbed to Utilitarianism, we might as well be already dead.

That world that maximizes pleasure, or at least minimizes pain, will be not pleasurable because there is no pain. If anything both will be indistinguishable, and pretty soon that orgie of the transhumanist singularity that everyone so dreams of would be extremely playful.

The creature is vile, like that thing from the John Carpenter film. Ask yourself, would you really join it?

[Anonymous No.19489540]

>>19489529
Painful not playful* fuck you demiurge get out of my sight.

[Anonymous No.19489543]

>>19489497
Pretty much someone with Down Syndrome

[Anonymous No.19489564]

>>19489472

If you go to the hospital for a minor injury, should the doctor murder you and harvest your organs if it will save five others?

[Anonymous No.19489566]

>>19489472
Most virtue ethics just reduce into utilitarian ethics anyway. All the harmless yet LeBad actions are obvious signs the person is likely to do harm elsewhere

Ethics are obviously sort of a joke in the first place

[Anonymous No.19489571]

>>19489564
Yes

[Anonymous No.19489572]

>>19489566

fuck off affirmative action supporter

[Anonymous No.19489578]

>>19489571

>china has entered thr chat

[Anonymous No.19489580]

>>19489529
You define pleasure as a lack of pain?

[Anonymous No.19489587]

>>19489572
AA is obviously bad from a utilitarian perspective. They were better off in the 50s, so: segregation, roll back feminism, welfare, etc.

[Anonymous No.19489591]

>>19489472

At best utilitarianism only insures the status quo; at worst it eliminates what is not the status quo, making change impossible and making the status quo the maintenance itself. There is nothing in the goal of utility that isn't the goal of utility itself, making it a maintenance of maintenance, not of that which is maintained.
Utilitarianism is a zombie philosophy.

>>19489529

That is rank nihilism: Because people manage badly, therefore management is impossible and so we give up on trying to fix what holds us back from what we choose.
It is a bad assumption that the world is one way, and a bad assumption that there has to be consistency in what is, and that bad assumption either blinds us to the choice in what world we make, or lies to us about not having choices at all, or, like you, lies to us that we need the bad choice to make the good choice, as if our choice cannot change who we are and what we can choose in the future.

[Anonymous No.19489599]

>>19489587
Obviously they were but not because of fucking segregation retard. Read Sowell.

[Anonymous No.19489605]

>>19489591
>uses term status quo
>post is absolutely vague exhortation to le better future
Yet a pot harry

[Anonymous No.19489621]

>>19489599
Segregation, welfare, feminism, permissive policing and sentencing, the drug war, offshoring of industry, federal reserve fraud, overregulation of small business, race-commie propaganda, the income tax in general, etc