Utilitarianism is the only rational philosophy

Prove me wrong.
pro tip: you can't

This is all well and good until the utilitarian has to make personal sacrifice for a greater good. Protip: This has never, ever, happened. Rationality is overrated.

Knowing what is right is not the same as having the moral strength to do it though.

Yet, the only people who have the moral strength to make personal sacrifices are idealists, not utilitarians.

Maybe so, but idealists are silly and utilitarians are correct.

surely rationalism is the only rational philosophy

The only time a personal sacrifice would have to be made is if it would provide the greatest utility. The one doing it would inherently understand as a utilitarian that he/she must do what needs be done.

Might makes right. Live eternal life.

it depends really.
I wouldn't sacrifice for any humans, but if an A.I. that was pasted the point of singularity needed my sacrifice, I'd probably do it

Satan is a troll on Holla Forums

But they never do anything. Why don't they live in the slums and cycle to work every day for the greater good, giving away two thirds of their income?

gibs are not utilitarian. Fuck welfare, let the useless members of society die in the streets.

Will people die in the streets in a society that is full of pleasure?

Stop deflecting

Uhh yeah, sure, sounds good

They do get quite triggered when people ask why pleasure or good feelings should be the goal
It's surprisingly hard to answer, even though it seems obvious

It's a tautology. Pleasure is the definition of good

Yeah, people often have a very superficial idea of what constitutes happiness–I see that as a pretty major problem regarding the tenets of utilitarianism. But I'd say it's pretty basic common sense that increasing pleasure and decreasing suffering is optimal; I don't think one needs an ideology around that basic idea.

I'm sure pleasure is reducable to an objective phenomenon in the brain, which is completely distinct from the subjective quality of being 'good'.
Why should I consider pleasure among humans to be my end goal?


But 'common sense' isn't an argument tho.

I don't know the Utilitarianism philosophy so can you lecture me about this please?

So what if Idealists are silly? They're willing to do what utilitarians won't, and that's what makes utilitarianism a shitty philosophy.

Right, but my point is that utilitarianism seems to merely scratch the surface of the human condition. It needs to be supplimented with other philosophy to have much depth.

Unfortunately, most people approach utilitarianism–and the countless other philosophies and religions that are essentially dedicated to the same thing–without considering the negative nature of most of their desires.

We be all happier if you died OP.

That just means humans are not naturally good. But the philosophy's correctness is independent of anything so material as human nature.

If your philosophy fails to be implemented due to practical limitations, you have a shit philosophy no matter how logically sound it is on paper.

So if human nature were different, the 'correct' philosophy would also be different?

What is this eternal life stuff?

It does not take into consideration that humans may believe they're acting rationally while having limited knowledge, this defeats the purpose of utilitarianism because it presupposes that it's followers have a holistic understanding of everything they interact with, which does not conform to reality. In addition, it doesn't take into account man's fickle nature nor does it provide a strong epistemological method for it's moral system. I haven't studied it for a while, but last I checked utilitarian morality was at best epicurean and at worst hedonistic, which is inherently destructive.

Try stoicism.

user, I looked at wikipedia what utilitarianism is and then I scrolled down to the critiques section and then I saw marx critique it, and I think he did a good job critiquing the philosophy.

"Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he who would criticize all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naivete he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is "useful," "because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law." Artistic criticism is "harmful," because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, "nulla dies sine linea [no day without a line]", piled up mountains of books." - Karl Marx from Das Kapital

Not user, but I tend to agree with him.

Utilitarianism is extremely subjective, because it's based entirely around subjective things. Would you consider Donald Trump a happy person? I'm sure he'd say that he is, but I think most rational people can see how discontent he is, and how utterly exhausting it would be to have the same kind of insatiable Will to power. Is he happy relative to a manic depressive? Probably, but happiness is a stupid term that has little basis in reality.

When one takes a position that "the pusuit of happiness is the noblest human endeavor" (or something along those lines), it's like saying "sadness is bad"–it lacks nuance, to say the least.

Leftist snark has been winning their arguments for them without really examining their worldview and objective reality since their induction.

It's threads liek this, this is what i come to Holla Forums for
what neuanced discussion, what clever rationale
if only normalfags could understand the deep wisdom of us phiolosophers

YES
death is final relief
street death is just convenience

Subjective nonsense. Also, the first who came up with that ideology were hedonistic faggots.

...

Are you being ironic or not ironic?
To me it seems mediocre, so it's interesting whether you were being ironic or not

So… If someone were to rape someone else. The pleasure of the rapist could roughly equalize the pain of the rapee. So It'd be almost like nothing happened in a utilitarianist place? Fantastic.

But that's not the case with rape, so you're just being a nigger

...

I started to say, "because you are a human". Instead I'm going to say good question

Not at all. The rapee may suffer well beyond the event.

There seems to be recent evidence on people's cell phones at some places at across the nation that some people seem to be getting re growth of missing body parts. Instantly at the existing body parts. If you are missing your hand, then right at your wrist, there would be regrowth of your missing body parts so that you would have a hand again and there are other technologies. Peoples old brains being placed into young clone bodies. So. There's a clone and then somebody's old brain is placed into a young body. The brain of the clone is cut out of the clone and then your brain is put into the young clones body and then you look really really young. Basically there are ancient eternal life programs currently active.

You're confusing pleasure at a point in time with total pleasure

...

I do not believe this is currently going on, but I do believe this is possible, and I would be all for this happening.

Deontological philosophy (Objectivism) is justified by Utilitarianism, when Utilitarianism is applied to the long term.