[ 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: 24 KB, 217x346, 51718esA9CL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7370813 No.7370813 [Reply] [Original]

My ethics professor argues that utilitarianism and pic related is the foundation for all forms of morality
How do I refute this?

>> No.7370832

>>7370813
"The world didn't start in 1863".

>> No.7370833
File: 63 KB, 484x403, christ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7370833

Point out God is in fact the foundation for all forms of morality

>> No.7370839

thats like asserting consequentialism is the foundation to deontological ethics.

>> No.7370843

"The people tied to the train tracks could be terrorists or grow up to be violent while the fat dude could eventually become a "great man"."

Saving more people =/= having a positive outcome

>> No.7370848

>>7370813
As in deontology and virtue ethics are actually consequentialist and their moral agents ultimately seek to maximize pleasure just through different language, or that it is the most plausible ethical-theory and we all ought to adapt it?

Either way, no.

>> No.7370850

>>7370843
This
The only "morally right"(if such a thing exists) is advancing the long term progress of the human race

>> No.7370876

Just hop into the David Hume mecha and fire your IS-OUGHT missiles.

>> No.7370920

>>7370850
>progress

lmao

What is this, 1850?

>> No.7370965

>>7370813
Introduce him to Kierkegaard, who had a less arbitrary moral system than trash Enlightenment liberals who think progress leads to anything.

>> No.7371018

He's basically right, stop being a contrarian and just accept it.

>> No.7371121

>>7370832
It's been around much longer. The pain/pleasure principle has been around since the days of Epicurus.

>> No.7371125

>>7370813
Moral Nihilism my friend.

>> No.7371167
File: 10 KB, 225x225, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7371167

>>7371125
>yfw you realize moral nihilism is a meaningless position to take when good has been redefined to useful

>> No.7371237

>>7371167
Yes, that is your face, because then it wouldn't be where good has been redefined as useful, because then it wouldn't be nihilism. Of course, nihilists still have emotions: they are human. But intellectually that's so wrong.

>> No.7371251

>>7371237
i suggest you try again, only try being coherent this time.

you're in a discussion about utilitarianism. moral nihilism isn't relevant when there aren't any moral realists around to be angsty at.

>> No.7371459

>>7370876
This. This is actually the answer the demolishes any non-Kantian ethical system.

>> No.7371478

>>7370813
>How do I refute this?
Ask him to go to /his/ :^)