There's nothing wrong with utilitarianism.

>he thinks the truth of moral good or bad can be built upon popular concensus

Tip top lel

So utilitarianism is right? What makes something right?

>>9414037
Le faith memedoer.

>t.anglo consequentialist

>>9414058
>>>/reddit/

>>9414055
If it maximizes utility :^)

File: anglo.jpg (6KB, 281x180px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 281x180px

The eternal Anglo strikes again!

>>9414086
So what makes utilitarianism right is... utilitarianism? That's a tautology..

>>9414119
the joke ------------->
you

>>9413525
>implying you can justify a system that says it's better for someone to be tortured to death than for a significant enough number of people to stub their toes, bc muh greatest happiness for muh greatest number of people
Done fucked up

JS Mill?
More like JS eat a fucking cyanide Pill

Fucking anglos man I'm telling ya

>>9413525

Remember that utilitarianism is strictly bound to being useful to a majority of people. It falls flat in face of the unequal distribution of power and wealth that, well, has always been there in society. Arguing for it is a lesser version of arguing for communism: it only works in your space homossexual dystopia with optimization AI ruling over men.

You say there's nothing wrong with it, and the minorities who become hindered by it (be they powerful or weak minorities) are always going to say there is everything wrong with it, so yeah, great claim you got there.

>>9414131
Here's the thing. You have no good argument against that other than "dude that's just fucked up."

Philosophers are pseuds.

How do we measure utility?

Would a utilitarian genocide all Muslims, for example?

>implying normies can into it
>implying anyone besides sociopaths and economists actually observe these models.

>>9414127
It might a joke to you but in some ways it's exactly how people think.

>>9413525
Care to make a thread explaining why?

>>9414149
e.g. 'material sciences are better because they are more useful as a source of material tools (phones. computers, etc)'. Well, duh.

>>9414148
who needs normos when you have an AI-God governor?

like it or not, utilitarianism is a much more practical ethical code than something like kantian ethics

>>9413525
what if the greatest good for the most people was to kill off 49% of the population?

has anyone else noticed that recent developments in ethics show that utilitarians (specifically rule/act ulti) and their opponets come anyway to very very similar conclusions

rendering this debate kinda useless or just two way of reaching the same answer

>>9414163
So utilitarianism is better because it is more useful?
>>9414119

>>9414144
>we have to ignore moral intuitions when doing moral philosophy
That's just retarded. It's not like other fields and it's just taken for granted by most people that our moral systems should closely approximate our moral intuitions.

And no my argument against that particular case isn't just that it's "fucked up". It's that stubbing your toe is a kind of suffering different to being tortured to death not just in terms of magnitude of the suffering but in terms of the inherent quality of the suffering, such that no amount of toe-stubbing could ever justify a single instance of torture. A moral system which doesn't have a way of thinking about this kind of things in terms of differing qualities, instead reducing everything to arbitrarily estimated quantities of "happiness" or "displeasure", is worse than useless.

>>9413525

Except for the whole culture of the god forsaken island that is Britain, and its shallow materialism spiraling humanity into the Kali Yuga

Utilitarianism causes so much pain to me personally that it could never result in overall happiness/good/pleasure

Thus it's bankrupt

Virtue ethics > Deontology > Consequentialism

Utilitarianism that prioritizes the avoidance of suffering over the experience of happiness.