In science we have the scientific method and in math we have

>>1452141
Math has more to do with philosophy than science

>>1452141
Because our universe is bound by logical principles and facts.

If your argument is sound/valid, then your reasoning must therefore be correct.

R8 this justification as to why utilitarianism is a good moral philosphy to live by.

>Humans like being happy.
>Humans generally even gain pleasure from making other human beings happy.
>Utilitarianism teaches us that we should make the decision that causes the most amount of people to have the most amount to gain the most amount of happiness.
>If you agree with the first two premises then you must therefore admit that utlitarianism is a pretty good moral philosophy to live by.

Unless I massively fucked up?

>>1452160
>Unless I massively fucked up?
You cannot quantify happiness.

>>1452144
Just because a lot of 17th century philosophers were also mathamaticians doesn't mean philosophy and maths relate to each other.


The reason they were involved in both fields was because they were educated people in the enlightenment and it was fashionable to do both.

Give me one reason how trigonomatry has fucking anything to do with morality.

>>1452167
>Give me one reason how trigonomatry has fucking anything to do with morality.
Both deal with sin.

>>1452165
No you can't, but you can categorize it and that usually does the trick.

File: tmp_13398-1463928830244-346060294.png (198KB, 496x357px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 496x357px

>>1452170

File: img-thing.png (54KB, 300x300px)

54KB, 300x300px

>>1452141
Are you implying philosophy has results

>>1452141
>In science we have the scientific method and in math we have proof.

Both derived from philosophical principles :^P

I was gonna make the exact same thread have a >>1452141.

But yea, how come we do not test philosophy?

I do think there can be value in non-testable philosophy. But it shouldn't claim the prestige it likes to.

>>1452160

As is, you just have a series of propositions arranged in a column, no logical relating between them. Among other things, you're missing a critical conditional statement to set up the syllogism and a proposition affirming the first clause of the conditional. Something like 'If we wish to make people happier on the whole, then we must accept that utilitarianism is a pretty good moral philosophy' 'We do wish to make people happier on the whole, therefore...' etc.

>results

Anyway, philosophy also utilizes logical proof. Yes, even 'continental' philosophy. Just because you're required to do a bit of work to discover the argument doesn't mean it's not there.

>>1452160
This

>>1452141
dumb toadposter

>>1452160
>>1452770

>If the current president of the United States is Barack Hussein Obama, then the initiator of this thread has regular homosexual intercourse
>The current president of the United States of America is Barack Hussein Obama
>Therefore the initiator of this thread has regular homosexual intercourse

By modus ponens, a perfectly valid argument. What have we learned about the world?

>>1452167
1452167
>mentioning maths
>talking about trig
>doesnt even know about logic tables and muh mathematical logic

Graduate students who study formal logic arguably have a better sense of what makes a sound argument than the average individual.

>>1452141
Also, the Socratic method.

>>1452794

That a valid argument is not necessarily true. Since your initial premise was false then the argument is not true even though it is valid.

>hasn't heard of spinoza
Hurrr

>>1452809

There we gooooooooooooo.

Maybe also that

>If your argument is sound/valid, then your reasoning must therefore be correct.

is a tautology

File: David_Hume,_1711_-_1776._Historian_and_philosopher_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (3MB, 3365x4001px)

3MB, 3365x4001px

>>1452794
The fact that Barack Hussein Obama is president, and that OP has regular homosexual intercourse are indisputable facts. But you can't draw necessary connexions between the two.

File: ulitarism.gif (394KB, 576x4213px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 576x4213px

>>1452160
>If your argument is sound/valid, then your reasoning must therefore be correct.
Are you serious or just trolling? This was the argument of the ancient Greeks. Do you still hold onto views that are over 3000 years old?

>>1452913
>le utility monster

>>1452919
utility monster is a real thing
see feminism and positive racism

>>1452141
Formal logic, continentals get fucked

>>1452946

lol continental fags BTFO

HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER

>>1452170
Underrated

>>1452170
Nice one

>>1452913
How about the goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the median happiness rather than the total happiness. There, poof, utility monster gone, right?

In philosophy we have razors, as well as formal and informal fallacies to help discern the verity of ethical and metaphysical claims. We look for rational consistency between tenets of views and it's entailments to decide if it's worth serious consideration. It requires very creative and convoluted reasoning to say anything philosophically profound in much of philosophy, which leads outsiders (like op) to think that there is no method at all.

>>1452913
We hold onto plenty of views that are more than 3,000 years old. You're using a logical fallacy

>>1454480
ERROR: Plutocrat is experiencing too much happiness, must redistribute happiness to the center.
Solution: Move 2 dozen homeless people into Plutocrat mansion, situation resolved.

>>1452946
But the phenomenological method is ay-okay