/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3130023]

Why does /lit/ pretend to be smart but then blindly accepts utilitarianism and egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.3130027]

I don't blindly accept them. I have decided that, given the inherent meaninglessness of the universe, that I will exert my will over the universe by electing to abide by them.

[Anonymous No.3130029]

>>3130027
As long as you accept that, given the inherent meaningless of the universe, my desire to enslave the human race is just as "moral" as your set of values.

[Anonymous No.3130030]

>>3130027
As long as you accept that, given the inherent meaninglessness of the universe, my desire to enslave the human race is just as "moral" as your set of values.

[Anonymous No.3130032]

>>3130030
Well, according to you. And I'll do everything in my power to stop you.

[Anonymous No.3130034]

>>3130032
>Well, according to you.

No, not just according to me. Your values are not superior in any objective sense to mine. We just have different opinions on right and wrong.

For example, it is not morally wrong for me to murder you if I want.

[Anonymous No.3130037]

>>3130034
>No, not just according to me. Your values are not superior in any objective sense to mine.

No, but they are in a subjective sense (i.e. mine.) I believe that what I believe is right is right. You believe that what you believe is right is right. I still believe that what you believe is right is wrong. There's no "fact of the matter" but I'd still shoot the shit out of Hitler (for example)

[Anonymous No.3130039]

People accept egalitarianism? lol, i honestly have never seen a thread here that espouses it in any capacity.. maybe I just don't come here often enough.

and people accept utilitarianism? on a LIT board? LOL defeats itself right there, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.3130085]

>>3130039

I don't think you know what the terms we're discussing mean.

[Anonymous No.3130097]

>>3130039
>and people accept utilitarianism?
In some contexts. It usually springs up in the feminist threads.

[Anonymous No.3130099]

>>3130097
>>3130039
*Meant to quote
>People accept egalitarianism?

[Anonymous No.3130120]

Utilitarianism is one of those things the edgier posters like to attack with greentext one-liners without actually challenging or refuting. I wouldn't say it's a popular viewpoint on /lit/

[Anonymous No.3130124]

>>3130120
>Utilitarianism is one of those things the edgier posters like to attack with greentext one-liners without actually challenging or refuting.

Utilitarians have expanded the very meaning of pleasure to the point of linguistic incoherence. The utilitarian groundlessly places pleasure as his or her first principle, and in doing so subordinates the value of asceticism, self-sacrifice or any other "secondary" desire. Of course, the utilitarian will deny this contention altogether, claiming that ascetics also seek pleasure, but have merely chosen an alternative path in which to achieve it. Yet such an argument is implicitly tautological ("What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want."). The utilitarian therefore has no ultimate justification for primarily valuing pleasure, other than to say that "this is the way it should be." In this critique, utilitarianism is thus ultimately reduced to a form of dishonest ethical intuitionism, unable to recognize or acknowledge its own groundlessness. Utilitarianism is blind to its own metaphysical impulse.

[Anonymous No.3130131]

You cannot justifiably hold any ethical philosophy that isn't moral nihilism.

[Anonymous No.3130137]

You are now aware that hitler was the 12th avatar of vishnu sent to save the aryan race from the jews.

[Anonymous No.3130135]

>>3130131
>Holding nihilism as his philosophical position.

Brah, philosophical positions are meaningless, don't hold one.

[Anonymous No.3130139]

>>3130124
What is the metaphysical impulse behind utilitarianism?

[Anonymous No.3130147]

>>3130131
On the contrary, I find that the majority of non-trained philosophers who hold positions akin to moral nihilism only do so because possessing poor tools for justification, they latch onto the idea that appeals most to their intuition. The nihilist They can often be found in the young and brash, especially those lacking in life experience and wisdom. A lack of comprehension of other points of views should not be confounded with those views lacking justification.

[Anonymous No.3130150]

>>3130147
Codswallop. There is a reason only analytics think ethics is worth even doing.

[Anonymous No.3130154]

>>3130150
The continentals, despite their wide breadth, are unfortunately firmly entrenched within their own zeitgeist. The modern superfluous man is but a passing fad.

[Anonymous No.3130156]

>>3130150
>There is a reason only analytics think ethics is worth even doing.
Because they are mostly British, so superior to their continental counterparts.

[Anonymous No.3130159]

>>3130156
Anglo saxons can't philosophy. That's why.

[Anonymous No.3130180]

>blindly

Completely retarded assumption. Go away.

[Anonymous No.3130182]

>>3130180
>retarded
Tu quoque.

[Anonymous No.3130212]

>>3130034
How does it feel to be the reason we still need a state in order to have a civilization? How does it feel to be the enemy of human autonomy under the guise of a specious freedom from morality?

[Anonymous No.3130216]

Analytics think that if we can just agree on it, we will be able to make an ethics, as if thats all philsophy was; if we could just agree on something it becomes true.

All moral systems are merely the opinions of philosophers. Since everyone has different opinions there will never be agreement anyway.

[Anonymous No.3130217]

>>3130182
That's not the right fallacy...

[Anonymous No.3130218]

>moral nihilism
>throwing your hands up at the philosophical project and abandoning it after accepting the consensus of a bunch of overpaid hacks that died irrelevant in their own countries

Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you!

[Anonymous No.3130219]

>>3130216
This is the same opinion every last kid in philosophy 101 espouses, ironically.

[Anonymous No.3130221]

>>3130219
They always assert that all morals are relative. I thought they were full of shit back in first year too.

[Anonymous No.3130222]

>>3130219
Most of the people on /lit/ who go on about how "analytics think" as though analytics as a group think much of anything are the kinds who took Philosophy 101, thought it was too hard, and just took easy English classes for the next three years.

[Anonymous No.3130224]

>>3130221
No.

>All moral systems are merely the opinions of philosophers. Since everyone has different opinions there will never be agreement anyway.

Seriously, an idiot off the street's opinion of ethics is the same thing.

[Anonymous No.3130226]

>>3130222
>implying philosophy isn't just bullshit

Any intelligent person wouldn't waste their time studying academic analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3130228]

>>3130224
How are they not just opinions?

[Anonymous No.3130231]

>>3130228
>prove a negative

Nah, not playing this game.

[Anonymous No.3130229]

>>3130226
Nothing has any intrinsic worth and its extrinsic value is a concoction of the exertion intellectual authority and social norms. So what you're really saying is there's nothing beyond taste in all things.

[Anonymous No.3130232]

What's wrong with egalitarianism exactly?

seems like an okay idea.

[Anonymous No.3130233]

>>3130229
So what?

[Anonymous No.3130234]

>>3130232
Because people voted for Obama instead of Gary Johnson, apparently.

[Vlad the Implyier No.3130235]

>>3130218
>accepting the consensus

I'm pretty sure there are close to 0 moral nihilists who care about consensus-based legitimation of arguments.

[Anonymous No.3130236]

>>3130231
How are they other than opinions?

[Anonymous No.3130237]

>>3130228
Well, some philosophers do think ethical statements are "just" opinions (as though people's opinions don't matter!); this is in fact a common and very Anglo-American analytic viewpoint. You could actually try reading something on meta-ethics before dismissing the entire field as worthless.

[Anonymous No.3130239]

>>3130235
If it pays the bills...

[Vlad the Implyier No.3130241]

>>3130233
The problem with analytical moral philosophy is that it approaches morals as if they functioned through rational argument, which they don't.

[Anonymous No.3130244]

>>3130237
Yes I know that.

So why do they not just admit to being nihilists? it seems to follow that if moral statements are opinions then they are all equally worthless.

[Vlad the Implyier No.3130246]

>>3130237
Nope. The fact alone that a professor for analytical philosophy holds the same view as someone on 4chan does not suggest that there is a need for this opinion to be articulated in a highly technical and professional discipline, rather the opposite.

[Anonymous No.3130250]

>>3130236
They aren't opinions because they are products of a socially determined pattern of acculturation. The things you think aren't yours. That process affects moral nihilism as well.

[Anonymous No.3130253]

>>3130250
So they are opinions.

[Anonymous No.3130256]

>>3130246
Well the view they're expressing is considerably more complicated than "that's just your opinion man!!!1!" and meta-ethics is a pretty minor part of the broader field.

[Anonymous No.3130259]

>>3130256
except that their views can really be reduced to 'well thats just your opinion'

It really is easy to just reject all their theories based on that.

[Anonymous No.3130262]

>>3130253
Opinion is a bit of an innacurrate, sloppy term that presupposes that it is held personally. Morality or the rejection thereof is held only in public, often enforced by a state. In an ironic twist, the western bourgeois state is predicated on utilitarian and egalitarian values. This is to ensure that the petulant college children can have the illusion of freedom necessary to "reject" morality. In other words moral nihilism is a bourgeois affectation, no less acculturated than any other "opinion".

[Vlad the Implyier No.3130265]

>>3130262
>>This is to ensure that the petulant college children can have the illusion of freedom necessary to be "armchair Marxists". In other words armchair Marxism is a bourgeois affectation, no less acculturated than any other "opinion".

I fixed that for you.

[Anonymous No.3130266]

>>3130262
You're not wrong.

It doesn't mean that moral nihilism isnt true though.

[Anonymous No.3130270]

>>3130234
Who's Gary Johnson?

Britfag here

[Anonymous No.3130274]

These threads are garbage

[Anonymous No.3130286]

>>3130270
Libertarian candidate, got 5% of vote, makes you wish we had a parliamentary system.

Not like it matters in an oligarchal dictatorship anyways.

[Anonymous No.3130320]

>>3130286
He definitely didn't get 5%. He barely got 1%.

[Anonymous No.3130332]

>>3130023
because one bad apple makes the whole lot go to waste

[Anonymous No.3130335]

>>3130034
>be unreasonable

[Anonymous No.3130399]

>>3130265
>employs an argument against false consciousness to liberate a fellow worker
>accused of idle marxism

Slave.

>>3130266
Fine, ultimately I just wish it were articulated better than "that's just like your opinion, man"

[Anonymous No.3130424]

>>3130286
>libertarian
>5% of the vote

Negro please, not even RONPAUL2012 could get that much.

[Anonymous No.3130431]

>>3130124
Just curious, not very well read in philosophy, but I can't really imagine another motivation for human behavior other than happiness. I can't imagine a situation where a person performs an action where the deepest underlying motivation isn't personal happiness. You could say self-sacrifice or asceticism, but the underlying motivation for both of those, underneath a surface-level pain, dissatisfaction, or loss, is personal self-satisfaction that you are helping another or that you are bettering yourself. Not that either of the two are bad, I see them as positive actions.

Furthermore, i understand your assessment of Utilitarian thought as tautological, and I agree. But I can't think of any logical exit from "What is it that people want? Pleasure. But what is pleasure? What people want." To escape the loop, one has to redefine what people want. What else could a person want?

[Anonymous No.3130439]

>>3130431
>I can't really imagine another motivation for human behavior other than happiness

Not the person your replying to, but survival comes to mind as another motivator for human behaviour.

[Anonymous No.3130442]

>>3130431
Free minds and free markets

vote libertarian

[Anonymous No.3130444]

>>3130431
>I can't really imagine another motivation for human behavior other than happiness
The will to power

[Anonymous No.3130452]

>>3130439
Of course there is survival, the pursuit of food sex, etc, but don't these things just offer a different form of happiness to us? We are unhappy if we can't survive, happy if we can.

>>3130444
sexy trips. what do you mean by "the will to power?"

>>3130442
#ronpaul2012?

[Anonymous No.3130454]

>utilitarian
>egalitarian
>lit

[Anonymous No.3130461]

>>3130452
Living things exist to discharge their strength, to dominate, conquer, master.

Read some nietzsche. He basically formulated the will to power as an alternative to utilitarianism. He thought happiness was not the most valuable thing, since it is also out of suffering and pain great things come. Happiness breeds complacency and mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.3130563]

>>3130461
I'm interested to know why you would say happiness breeds complacency and mediocrity when there is scientific evidence stating that happiness increases the access to memory and other higher level brain functions.

There is a disconnect between the people who live through suffering and pain and achievement of great things and the happiness that ensues, and the people who never know suffering and pain. A lot of people don't know suffering and pain and don't achieve great things but these are the same people that do not understand higher levels of happiness.

What I understand is that is that what ever pain and suffering you survive in this life you get back in happiness and joy. These are just my opinions though based on my life experience. Like there is some universal cosmic scale magically weighing what you have suffered and paying you back in equal amounts of happiness. There is also the second payback system I find which is one good turn deserves another or you get out what you put in. So the path to success is truly riding the wave of greatness from pain and suffering and leveraging those results for even greater success.

[Anonymous No.3130587]

Nihilism is like a club - a group that is qualitatively different from the rest of populace. It's a club of people that let their cognition outward for a very small (differs between individuals), yet sufficient amount of time to think about reality. It's hardly an effort at all, it's basically a choice. And I don't mean it in elitist sense.

I consider everyone who's not a nihilist as a retard, for convinient generalisation's sake. Here's the reasoning: if you never ventured with your thoughts far enough to discover nihilistic conclusions, you must have spent your life either intoxicated or under extreme mental duress- maybe cos you are a coward.

[Anonymous No.3130639]

>>3130587
>i consider everyone who does not adopt X a retard

And you're a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.3130644]

>>3130431
happiness is a meaningless buzzword

[Anonymous No.3130656]

>>3130563
>the people who never know suffering and pain.
Some might argue this category does not even exist, that pain and suffering are relative functions of action and reaction, rendering any dichotomy/spectrum that posits this category's existence entirely useless. To live is to suffer (emotional pain), and physical pain is an inevitable occurrence.

[Anonymous No.3130660]

>>3130644
So is power.

[Anonymous No.3130667]

>>3130639
>reading comprehension
Your post is incomprehensible. I consider someone a retard - does it automatically mean I don't want that person to be a retard and instead be a non-retard?

Nihilism lies at the deepest level - one's consicence and relation to truth about reality. On a shallower level one can for example transform the surrounding world to his liking - for various, equally unsignificant reasons: f.e. sensations in his brain.

I would bet all my money on the fact that countless moral authorities like elected officials, presidents and shit are simultaneously moral nihilists and self-aggrandising hedonists (f. e. as a result of: nothing matters --> might as well orgasm as much as possible and fuck others up)

[Anonymous No.3130671]

>>3130563
>I'm interested to know why you would say happiness breeds complacency and mediocrity

Happiness is fleeting. It isn't real. Westerners claim to be happy but they are among the most apathetic, lazy, complacent people the world has ever seen.

You really need to read some nietzsche, to at least get another perspective.

[Anonymous No.3130682]

>>3130023
>Implying I don't hate utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an inneffective, illogical theory.

[Anonymous No.3130685]

>>3130667
No it's ironic to espouse an absolutist dismissal of people who do not adopt nihilism as such.

The psychological component of nihilism you describe is more of a narcissistic or sociopathic trait, not something as abstract as nihilism. There are no shortage of people absolutely convinced of the rightness of their actions and continually redefine what constitutes rightness in order to suit their interests "this is wrong, but in this case...". Stiatuional ethics isn't derived from moral nihilism.

[Anonymous No.3130689]

>>3130682
>utilitarianism is ineffective

LOL, it built the fucking modern world through the liberal democratic state and capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3130691]

>>3130656
I see where you are coming from and you make an interesting point. I would be inclined to agree with those arguing the point.

>>3130671
TBH I was referring to budhism and happiness. In no such way was I referring to westerners in general.

[Anonymous No.3130701]

>>3130671
>Westerners claim to be happy
>Westerners claim
>claim

[Anonymous No.3130714]

>>3130685
>Uh, oh, how can someone develop heuristics of their own??!! Impossibru!
the horror!
also:
>rightness
WTFamIreading.jpg
Nihilism states there is no rightness or wrongness. No one has ever proven there are, anyway.

>Ethics
Jesus H. Christ. Ethics are just a tool in power games. Nihilist can have, adopt and operate a fucking encyclopedia of ethics for his enitre life, never-ever thinking for a second that they describe some truth about reality. It doesn't change the fact that s/he realises THEY ARE JUST A TOOL s/he is using for whatever purpose.

[Anonymous No.3130721]

>>3130685
>>3130714
one more thing: you seem to confuse statements about reality with statements about wants. The ought/is dichotomy.

don't hold reality hostage to a chunk of meat in your skull

[Anonymous No.3130790]

>>3130689
But capitalism is evil bro.

[Anonymous No.3130841]

>don't support this social contrsuxt (morals)
>but support these social constructs (reason, logic, rationality)

FUCK YOU SOCIOPATHIC NERDS

[Anonymous No.3130842]

>>3130714
>proven
as if that means anything

HURR REALITY I KNOW IT

yeah fucking right fuck knowing things anyways muh curiosity no fuck you nerd

[Anonymous No.3130847]

for a board that hates science so much they support it's evil views

[Anonymous No.3130854]

>>3130721
>don't hold reality hostage to a chunk of meat in your skull

fuck off you reductionist bastard

>morals don't exist
>but don't do this because i was brainwashed by carl sagan i must support science hurr truth is such a good thing because

[Anonymous No.3130938]

>Utilitarianism

deontologist master race reporting in

[Anonymous No.3130975]

>>3130854
>>3130842
eat shit madsons

not like you deserve the truth anyway

[Anonymous No.3130990]

>>3130975
>puny humans think they have it all figured out