>utilitarianism

>>1903633
>deontology

File: image.jpg (23KB, 391x377px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 391x377px

>>1903633

>fascism

Isn't utilitarianism just fascism?
If the sum of comfort is end goal, is seems justify to condemn 1% of the population to suffering in order to make 99% happy. It also seems justifiable to make 2% of the population suffer to make 98% happy. And so on

>>1903707

If you have to choose between hurting 98% of the population and hurting 2%, you're saying you'd choose 98%?

>>1903721
I'm saying that quantifying human existence is fucking retarded

>>1903735

But almost all people on Earth do this near daily.

You can't save everyone.

>>1903721
Only if it is the most moral course of action

man it must really feel like hitting the jackpot when your slight variation of Pepe meme frog you put together in mspaint in 20 minutes spreads like wildfire and ends up spawning a whole new sub class of Pepes

sorry I'm high and it's fucking with me sorry for off topic contribution

>>1903735
It isn't. It is a completely reasonable way of going about things.

It is difficult to decide who should get an organ, but for some things like whether someone should be able to burn a mountain of faeces in a residential area or not the choice is clear. 1 person's convenience is 1000 people's inconvenience.

You side with the 1000 people because generally that is how you make sure at least 99% of people aren't seriously fucked.

If I really, really love rape, and the enjoyment I get from raping people outweighs the misery they receive from it, isn't it moral for me to rape?
In fact, its immoral for anyone to try to stop me, and it is my duty to rape as much as possible.
Every time I rape, a net increase of happiness is created, and out society is a better, happier one overall.

>>1905766

nah man um with you

>>1905932
>f I really, really love rape, and the enjoyment I get from raping people outweighs the misery they receive from it, isn't it moral for me to rape?

No, because everyone in society now has to worry about getting raped, for a net decrease in happiness.

>>1903735

I think you're fucking retarded of you don't think you quantify human existence, and denying is dishonest and childish.

File: 1478004992531.png (125KB, 480x476px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 480x476px

>>1903642
>nihilism

>>1905932
>if you really were some neuro-super-human that got THAT much pleasure from rape, I would help you rape. But it would b even more optimific to find a masochist for you to rape repeatedly ;)

File: pepe.jpg (25KB, 495x495px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 495x495px

>virtues over utilitarianism
>xd five human lives are still equal to one life!
>every argument against utilitarianism is simply "but that's lame that people have to be hurt, my feelings say that you shouldn't think of it like that! Don't say you'd rather shoot one person than five! Why do you want to hurt people?!"
Literally five year old logic

utilitarianisms only logical basis is literally "muh feelings".

if you support it, you use the same logic to reinforce your arguments as SJWs. is that what you want?

>>1909563
I'd shoot five criminals before one innocent man
Utilitarianism is retarded because you can never apply it to real life
Situations can never be boiled down to the simplicity of "benefit a few people or a lot"

>>1909618
>That argument isn't applicable in real life!
Not an argument. If you were given a gun, and told to either kill one person or five, you would choose one. You will not be allowed the choice to kill yourself either.

>>1909630
>If you were given a gun, and told to either kill one person or five, you would choose one

You just proved my point. This doesn't happen in real life. And if it did, again, it would depend on the people.

>>1909634
It happened to me

>>1909591
What could possibly matter to morality except feelings? Feeling good and feeling bad are literally *the* content of anything that matters morally. Tell me the event or action that has no effect on anyone's feelings but still matters morally.

File: 5363.gif (142KB, 495x700px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 495x700px

>>1909648
>morally
found your problem.

>>1903633
t. riven main

>>1909634
You seem to have quite low intelligence.

It is a thought experiment. It can apply to killing 1 person to harvest their organs to save 5 or killing a hostage taker to save 5 hostages.

>>1909815
Yes, a thought experiment. That's all utilitarianism can ever be.

>>1909818
>Yes, a thought experiment. That's all utilitarianism can ever be.
>the desire to maximize utility doesn't actively influence legislation, global politics, and individual decisions on a daily basis

>>1907319
But I really, REALLY love rape, man, I love rape more than you hate it. Its a net happiness gain.

>>1903707

Utilitarianism is just hedonism without the dick jokes

No offense /his/, but I'm not even a utilitarian and every argument in this thread is pathetic.

If you want a true argument against utilitarianism, read upon Nozick's idea of a utility monster.

>>1910245
>>1905932

100000 orgasms is not worth the suffering of a rape. The rape example is stupid.

>>1910569
But it's a thougth experiment that assumes that the happines from a rape is greater than the suffering. If you can not work from those premises then it shows that utilitarianism is flawed.

>>1910599

Ok, so in that clearly fictional scenario, rape should be legal. Just like it is legal to walk up to a stranger and start talking to them - the value of being able to do that is judged by societal consensus to outweigh the value of knowing you'll be left alone. So where is the flaw?

Maximizing happiness is a poor way to go about things when happiness is so hard to define and the goals will vary from person to person. It is much more effective to try to end suffering, as the things that make people suffer are easily identifiable and therefore easy to implement a solution for.

>>1910599
but if the rape monster rapes 2 women, it might experience a million orgasms, but the 2 women will be unhappy, so you are down 2, not up a million.

File: 1457720258311.png (98KB, 1042x804px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1042x804px

>>1903721
>real life decisions are always clear cut "destroy the world or shoot this bad criminal" choices

>>1910636

Not "clear cut," but certainly of that type, yes. Every choice is about weighing consequences.

File: 1477161871334.png (145KB, 427x335px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 427x335px

>>1903633
>hating Form Follows Function

I bet you like Brutalism you massive faggot.

File: thumb.jpg (9KB, 240x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 240x200px

>>1910784
>brutalism
>not utilitarian

>>1910242
Human desires are not infinite.
You are a single man.
There are billions of humans

>>1911045
But the chance that particular anon will rape me is negligable, even if he rapes someone every day. I am not worried about him raping me, even if he was allowed to rape freely.

If you're worried about being raped by him, your fears are irrational.

>>1907319
There are still happening rapes in the society.
Why would I be suddenly more afraid of getting raped if there is one person extremely liking it?
The idea is just that this "rape monster" would act correct (moral) in the terms of utilitarism because it would gain more happiness from the rape than happiness is lost because of the rape.

The "humans desire are not infinite" is a good statement.
Lets change the example:
Would there be a point that the desires outweigh the suffering?
I mean like would be there a net happiness increase if a woman is gangraped by 20 men instead of one?
Or by 100?
And if this is possible we can extend this to a form of fascism.
We could kill the weak and people in need. There would be less happiness lost than gained because of the extra resources you get by killing a lonely old retired person.

Wouldnt it also be moral if I kill a depressed person and take his stuff?
Happiness increase. He was unhappy and I am now more happy.

>>1903721
Acts are not good or bad because of its consequences.