Is there such thing as Dark Utilitarianism? An ethical framework that tries to maximize the amount of human suffering?
Such an ethical system would end up promoting economic growth (desire leads to suffering), increasing the human lifespan (people can suffer longer), and increasing the population in a sustainable manner. (more people to suffer)
Either that or they would just find one really miserable person and focus on making their life worse while ignoring everyone else.
Either way that's better than Utilitarianism, the logical conclusions of which are either voluntary human extinction (no more suffering) or simply making one individual super happy at the expense of everyone else.
Is this doable? Am I missing anything (other than the fact that some people might consider this edgy shit and be turned off)
>An ethical framework that tries to maximize the amount of human suffering
Ow the edge
>>295895
Yes but the consequences of such a system would be all the things our society considers good.
Edge only matters if you believe intent matters.
>>295884
It's called salaf
>>295958
Not really, western capitalism causes more anti-utility than Islam ever has or will.
>>295884
But I enjoy being tortured.
>>295884
It's called Sadism
>>296015
No sadism is an intent. I'm talking about the positive consequence of an ethical system that encourages sadism.
>>296054
Then you are going to have to look up non-western philosophies because Western morality is based on Aristotle and Christianity both of which has happiness and caring as the basis of morality.
>>295926
If you think those outcomes are good then you're lying to yourself about the """"logical"""" conclusion of utilitarianism.
>>296066
Again intent. The problem with western morality is that if gets way too hung up on intent and ignores how much evil is done by stupid people with good intentions, or malicious people exploiting the good intentions of others.
It also discourages some people from doing good by shaming them for having bad intentions. "How dare that billionaire give to charity! he's only doing it to appease his own ego. Only poor people should be charitable!"
>>296072
Are you one of those anti-natalists, because THAT's edgy.
If its trying to maximize the amount of human suffering then the outcome is society's trying to make people suffer more? How is that good or usable? Also those logical conclusions are off m8.
1) Negative utatlerins is not used in actual modern society
2) No Utilitarian theory would put the happiness of the individual over the group. That misses like, the whole point of it.
Yes, this is the plan and belief system of the NWO globalists.
>>295884
What would be the purpose of that? What kind of person would adopt a system like that? It's like asking if there's a thing such as Dark Hedonism, where you try to maximize the amount of personal suffering.
>>297214
They sound like a cool bunch, how do I get into their secret club?
>>297312
Join the Masons.
>>295884
>Urquhart
>trying to maximise human suffering
I hope you picked this image just because you like Ian Richardson.