He's not a utilitarian

ror elaborate.

No, not all lives are equally valuable but utilitarianism doesn't contradict that. And no, it can't be quantified but it's still a useful guesstimate guide.

You basically just said there are other things to value than value. You know that right?

That would actually reduce net happy points while raising the average (the first part anyway the second part is fine by me). Try again, spook. :^)

Utilitarian utopia

Good suggestion, anoncom! :^)
thanks for not understanding utilitarianism at all fam

Any ideology based on "happy points" is a meme ideology

But what if this Downers refuse to take their Joy? And then start making other people unhappy? Surely it's better for overall happiness points to simply kill or run the Downers off.

Consider the four populations depicted in the following diagram: A, A+, B− and B. Each bar, within a population, represents a distinct group of people, whose size is represented by the bar's width and whose happiness is represented by the bar's height. Unlike A and B, A+ and B− are thus complex populations, comprising two distinct groups of people. (For simplicity, we might imagine that everyone in a group has exactly the same level of happiness, although this is not essential to the argument. We might instead imagine that the height of a bar represents the average happiness within that group of people.)

How do these four populations compare in value? Let's start by making comparisons between pairs of populations.

First, it seems that A+ is no worse than A. This is because the people in A are no worse off in A+, while the additional people who exist in A+ are better off in A+ compared to A. (Arguably, existence is good for these additional people, assuming that they have lives which are worth living and preferable over non-existence.)

Second, it seems that B− is better than A+. This is because B− has greater total and average happiness than A+.

Finally, B seems equally as good as B− as the only difference between B− and B is that the two groups in B− are merged to form one group in B.

Put together, these three comparisons entail that B is better than A. (If y is no worse than z and x is better than y it follows that x is better than z.) However, when we directly compare A and B, it may seem that B is in fact worse than A.

Thus, we have a paradox—the mere addition paradox—because the following intuitively plausible claims are jointly inconsistent: (a) that A+ is no worse than A, (b) that B− is better than A+, (c) that B− is equally as good as B, and (d) that B is worse than A.

wow

Utilitarianism takes all of reality as its sample size, not your in-community. The confusion on that is why utilitarianism is often conflated with Machiavellianism. Running the "Downers" off would make them even less happy. Also you don't have a realistic understanding of sadness at all, if there's no problems there's no reason to be sad

...

Nice book report, faggot.

Why do you think that B is worse than A?

I don't understand how you can claim that A+ is better than A while saying that B is worse than A. If you use maximum individual happiness as you metric, there's no paradox. If you use total happiness as your metric, there's no paradox.

...

Absolutely disgusting. The valuation of a thing inserts the idea of moral value, which we can just get at to its core.

Virtue ethics is self-evidently superior. All your consequentialist attempts to justify ethics have failed and generally rely upon faulty argumentation and tautology.

(See: After Virtue by Alasdair Macintyre)

It's possibly very much a reality, though. How do you know that a utility monster doesn't live amongst us right now?

...

I said it in the post "This is because the people in A are no worse off in A+, while the additional people who exist in A+ are better off in A+ compared to A. (Arguably, existence is good for these additional people, assuming that they have lives which are worth living and preferable over non-existence.)'

Because in A+, the population is split in two, there is the ones that are really happy equal to A and not as happy far less than all of them. B is homogenous and all at a lower happiness level than A.

Yes there is, it's obviously that maximally A is going better off than B yet still the logic follows otherwise.

This is basically claiming that a large, unhappy population is better than a small, happy population, and that's just smh.

So if you like virtue ethics, which definition of virtue do you go by? Do you buy into this moderation meme by Aristotle?

Naive utilitarianism is pure cancer, I think that's clear.

to the utilitarian, the only moral course of action is to attempt to cause extinction to every form of life on earth, as there will otherwise always be more pain than pleasure

is-ought gap

literally smacks down any and all moral theory

until you can resolve the is-ought gap, please, please, don't even talk to me

Utilitarianism is a pretty solid justification for socialism. Also pretty much all systems of morality are basically utilitarian without even realizing it.

...

It's a meme alright- a meme because that's an oversimplification of Aristotle (one I believed in myself because of statements made by yui)

Only certain things are a matter of moderation, he makes it clear that some qualities are never good, and some are never bad. It's just a simple statement about language if anything, there's no intended argument.

Virtue for Aristotle (and me) is *equated* with happiness; the virtuous person is a happy person. He looked around him and noticed what sort of qualities make a person happier in the long run, and it just so happens that they kept on in cliche'd society even today as being a "good" person. Though not in the postmodern society I'll bet if that's even a conceivable society

The only form of utilitarianism I can stand is utilitarianism of freedom, and not in the ancap voluntaryist way but in the Hegelian way.

preference/liberty utilitarianism is absolutely based tbh

It was up until I realised that it's ahistorical and leads to anarcho-capitalism

(and that virtue ethics is way better)

I can't edit my posts fuck

And btw liberty utilitarianism logically leads to anti-natalism (which is fine tbh)

I'm an anti-natalist and voluntary extinction advocate for that precise reason

Moral problems cant be solved by blanket flowcharts

Firstly, I just called it the moderation meme for fun, I don't think it's too unreasonable.

And while Aristotle does name a few things where the moderation idea does not apply (murder and adultery are his examples if I recall correctly), it is still the key to his definition of virtue.

So, it's been quite while that I've read the two ethics books by Aristotle; but doesn't he equate happiness with virtue after defining virtue? Doesn't the argument go "This is virtue (understanding, wisdom etc.), and we see that a happy person is a virtuous person"? What I mean is, he does equate happiness with virtue, but that seems to me to be more of an afterthought than an actual part of his virtue ethics.

I don't know, the more I write the more I realize I'm pretty shaky when it comes to Aristotle. I might reread a bit later if I have time and do an actual >good post.

Well, at least you're consistent

They really aren't key to the point of advocating for virtue's nature though. The nature is very different to the definition in this case.

Yes, but why would that mean that he hadn't thought it out in the other way around then put it into that format?

E.G., he made his definition, then provided the evidence instead of the other way around. It's not really an afterthought.

It would make no sense for his conception to be bang on the money of what is happy, if it were just an "aside".

He just defines happiness through virtue. That's what I wanted to say earlier. He explains virtue and its merits first, and then defines happiness through it.

Let me quote a >secondary source, the chapter on Aristotle's virtue ethics in The History of Philosophy by Kenny.

(understanding is the translation he chose for sophia)

So he just defines happiness as the exercise of virtue. Emphasis is here also on exercise, as merely being virtuous does not count, it is only the activity of virtue. So, what I'm trying to say is that his idea of virtue was not created from his idea of happiness, but the other way round.

If you look to Plato/Socrates, you will also see that he does not talk at all about happiness really, but he does talk a lot about virtue.

Last point about the moderation thing:

That's a pretty clear call for moderation to achieve virtue (contemplation, the activity of understanding).

(Again, I'm not claiming to be some kind of expert on this, but this seems to be a pretty clear case).

FILTHY
DUMB
ANGLO
SCUM

AAAAAAAAAAAAANGLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSS

FUCKING ANGLE SAXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONS

REMOVE CRUMPET REMOVE CRUMPET

YOU ARE THE WORST ANGLO. YOU ARE THE ANGLO IDIOT YOU ARE THE CRUMPET SMELL. RETURN TO BRITANNIA. TO OUR ANGLO COUSINS YOU MAY COME TO PRUSSIA. YOU MAY LIVE IN THE ZOO… AHAHAHAHA ,LOCKE WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU. SKEPTIC RASCAL FUCK BUT FUCK ASSHOLE ANGLO STINK BRITAIN INSELAFFE INSELAFFE.. DOGMATIC AWAKENING BEST DAY OF MY LIFE. TAKE A NAP DOGMATIC ANGLO.. AHAHAHAHAHALOCKE WE WILL GET YOU!! DO NOT FORGET COPERNICAN REVOLUTION.BRITAIN WE WILL KILL THE KING , BRITAIN RETURN TO YOUR PRECIOUS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES… HAHAHAHAHA IDIOT ANGLO AND CRUMPET SMELL SO BAD.. WOW I CAN SMELL IT. REMOVE CRUMPET FROM THE PREMISES. YOU WILL GET CRITIQUED.
==CATEGORIES + GOOD WILL + SUBLIME = KILL ANGLO.. YOU WILL AWAKEN HUME ALIVE IN PRUSIA, HUME MAKING PHILOSOPHY OF PRUSSIA. TRANSCENDENTAL CRITIQUE PRUSSIA. WE ARE FREE AND HAVE SYNTHETIC A PRIORI JUDGEMENTS NOW HAHAHAHAHA HA BECAUSE OF HUME… YOU ARE PPOOR STINK ANGLO… YOU LIVE IN A MANOR HAHAHAHA YOU LIVE IN A FLAT
HUME ALIVE #1 IN PRUSSIA… FUCK THE BRITANNIA… FUCKK ASHOL ANGLO NO GOOD I SPIT IN THE AXIOMS OF UR METAPHYSICS. HUME ALIV AND REAL STRONG WIZARD CRITIQUE ALL THE ANGLO UNTERMENSCH WITH EMPICIRCIST MAGIC NOW WE THE PRUSSIAN RULE .INSELAPPE OF THE ZOO JOHN LOCKE FUKC THE GREAT DOGMATIST BERKELEY AND LAY EGG THIS EGG HATCH AND ANGLO WA;S BORN. STUPID DOGMATIC BABY FORM THE EGGN GIVE BAK OUR METAPHYSICS WE WILL CRITIQUE U LIK A SKULL OF RATIONALIST. DEONTOLOGY GREATEST ETHICS==

Take it easy.

Mfw this Nihilist comrade is sperging out again.

This would be even funnier if it was Nietzsche

>MFW ANGLO SCUM ITT

you read my mind fam

Cor blimey what's going on in this thread
*adjusts bowtie*

I'll have you know that there is literally nothing wrong with utilitarianism

ANGLO SCUM BELONG ON THE SLAUGHTER BENCH OF HISTORY

Spinoza was such a lowkey smug cunt.

Hombre toma tu medicación para controlar ese tremendo Autismo.

Chinga tu madre anglosajón pendejo

Mejor me chingo a tu madre.

Did you actually, like, read Stirner or are you just meming because you don't have anything to say?

I'm a negative utilitarian.

In other words, causing the greatest possible net pain is the only ethical way to live.

I like it.

In other words, causing the greatest possible net pain is the only ethical way to live.

I like it.

That is not what that word means my edgy anarchiddie friend.

I know what you meant you Epicurean trash

Utility monsters vanish if you talk about improving medians instead of means :^)

plz leave this place

lol nothx

I don't know much about Epicurus other than that though. I've always been more knowledgable and interested in the Cynics and Stoics.

it is not just hedonism
it is benevolent hedonism there is HUGE different, read about it

It doesn't matter to me what brand of hedonism it is though. Hedonism itself is what I have a problem with, because I don't think that basing an ethics on pain vs. pleasure is a useful or valid. It's literally civilization's first ethics.

why ? could you please elaborate ?

ultimately nearly any ethics system is going to revolve around this, just in more nuanced and complex ways.

How do you know it does live amongst us?

...

You seem to believe you have found a paradox where a chain of reasoning seems to be clearly correct going from one step to the next, but when one zooms out and looks at start and end of the whole journey, it will look strange.

Problem is, I don't see it.
If B is the status quo, how do we get from B to A? "Hey guys, we are giving half of you a happy-points boost, so your wealth in happiness points which right now is at 1000 will be at 1200. The other half gets holocausted." B looks better to me, which is in line with what the zoomed-in parts of the reasoning chain look like.

To me A+ looks better than A, B- looks better than A+, B and B- look the same. No loop.

Utility is not inherently value, no

WEW

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics#Subsumed_in_deontology_and_utilitarianism
On a less shitposty note I think labeling yourself as a follower of this theory or that theory keeps you from seeing the values of others. Blind men and elephants. And shit. I think virtues are kind of spooky and don't see how for example not being a hothead could be considered "moral" but I do like the emphasis on self-improvement.

Then explain.

TBH all this stuff about anglopositivism is way over my head

what if we created

EGOIST UTILITARIANISM

Utilitarianism doesn't comport with human value structures in a purely logical sense, hence why you arrive at bizarre moral dilemmas and contradictions like if you follow it to a T. There is also an arbitrariness in discerning the stratification and equity of moral utility

tee*

:DDD

Utility requires me to value it first.
If I don't, it carries none except for the people who do.

trash. Read kierkegaard.

If you don't like the consequences of utilitarianism, you picked the wrong utility function.

If there are bizarre moral dilemmas then it's not a human-applicable morality. The best ethical system is the one that leads us to self-improvement and can be historical. That automatically rules out intentionalism & consequentialism.

Kierkegaard is trash tho, like everybody.