How can utilitarianism be so right?

>>2022154
But anon, it's not

>>2022154
>purports to be objective
>defines utility with arbitrary axioms
Nice try, ideology.

>>2022154
>riemann sum instead of a plus
come on now

File: tumblr_oegygcziYV1r4oye7o1_400.gif (405KB, 359x371px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 359x371px

>>2022154
>judging an action by its consequences and not for its intrinsical morality

>>2024540
>intrinsical morality

Spooked.

>>2024543
Stirners a fucking spook

>>2022211
just use logic and everything will click for you

>>2024563
>logic
>set of rules to prove things
>relies on itself

>>2024540
>everything slowly goes to shit because people lie to their own conscious
>oh it's okay at least we all meant well guys haha all that matters is that we put in effort who really minds what ended up happening :-)

>>2025895
>logic
>not just a glorified morality system

>>2022154
Virtue ethics*

File: Table-1.png (171KB, 844x654px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 844x654px

>>2025948
> X is totally the most important virtue!
> nah it's only Y that is most virtuolus!
> reminder, that Z isn't even real virtue!
Wow! So insightful and deep moral position.

>everyone should generally be as happy as possible because I want that!!
okay? write that in crayon next to a drawing and I'll put a gold star sticker on it you fucking child.

>>2025987
Your chart is missing aucturias

>>2025987
Source for this table?

>>2025939
Moral non-realists btfo David Deutsch in the house.

>>2026053
Anyone's ass. Welcome to the point.

File: Table5-horizontal.png (113KB, 1185x845px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1185x845px

>>2026053
Ludus Regularis, 10th century board game.

>>2025987
>if people disagree on what the truth is then the truth does not exist

>>2024540
>intrinsical morality
It probably would heve been better for him to say "motives" or "intentions"

It's best to frame it like this; if you've got a window in your room, you wouldn't say "that window looks like shit because my next-door neighbor's door is blue". That isn't one of the windowsill's properties, it's just incoherent to judge it that way. You could tweak it and say "it looks like shit becaue it doesn't match my neighbor's door," but the point is that you describe things based off of their own properties if you want to make sense.

Now apply that reasoning to a person. Obviously we don't say "this guy's an asshole because some other unrelated guy did something" because it doesn't make sense; the other unrelated guy could have never existed and the so-called asshole wouldn't have been any different in his own composition.

Then you take that a step further and go through the "what is a person anyway?" pop phil 101 tier question. If you can tell yourself "well, all the material gets replaced over time yet the idea of the individual remains" then conclude that all which remains of an individual is their own decisions (or in other words, than an individual is literally a string of decisions), then afterwards you can conclude that to judge a person, you must judge their decisions and intentions themselves rather than the unintended consequences.

that isn't to say there are good or bad intentions or motives to pursue though, just that if we were to judge a person, the motives and intentions would be the thing to judge (all assuming you define "person" in such a fashion, which you might not)

>>2024545
You're a fucking spook and Stirner is a good author