|
you could just as easily fit all the crazy dictators in under rational egoism(they did it because they liked power).
|
|
|
|
So yes, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, they were all utilitarians crazy gun controlling people.
|
|
|
|
Utilitarianism can be used -- in fact, it was used -- to justify Hitler's Holocaust, Tsarist Russia pogroms, Lenin's "cut their heads and hang them high so everyone can see them", Mao's mass starvation (the biggest mass death in history), et cetera. Utilitarianism is, indeed, the "moral system" (ugh) that underpins all forms of statism ("we must give this tiny group of cronies the right to murder, cage or ruin anyone who disobeys them, in order to maximize the happiness of everyone else").
This is true because utilitarianism attempts to make moral theories based on of unknowables (as defined above, "maximizing global happiness"), combined with the fact that authoritarians are pretty gullible and they will happily believe any authority that says "I'm working for global happiness", even as the authorities literally mass murder millions of their own people.
Personally, in my view, if your moral system can justify these atrocities, your moral system is an epic fail, worse than cancer and AIDS and fucking children in their eye sockets.
Utilitarianism could function in a anarchistic society(ie. true communism). |
|
|
|
you are not looking at the big picture. but i see your point.
individual vs. group conflict.
No, it's much simpler than that. You cannot punish someone for something in the future. Think of it as a version of the " grandfather paradox." By killing the future next Hitler before he even attempts an aggressive action, I've just made it impossible for him to do so, thus invalidating my reason for killing him in the first place. See time travel paradox, raises with Many-worlds interpretation. which universe would be best?  The universe in which he doesn't attempt an aggressive action. And we don't know that's not the universe we're in until he does. Try taking a god-like time-less no-observer-effect perspective on it. say you have 2 universes: One where you stopped him before aggressed, and another where you stopped him after he aggressed. Which one is most happy? The only problem in the first would be your sadness over have broken the NAP, for a greater good. of course, assuming that he will aggress. the most happy universe would be the one where he never aggress (is my endings on aggress* wrong?) |
|
|
|
you are not looking at the big picture. but i see your point.
individual vs. group conflict.
No, it's much simpler than that. You cannot punish someone for something in the future. Think of it as a version of the " grandfather paradox." By killing the future next Hitler before he even attempts an aggressive action, I've just made it impossible for him to do so, thus invalidating my reason for killing him in the first place. See time travel paradox, raises with Many-worlds interpretation. which universe would be best? |
|
|
|
You're focusing on the forest, and ignoring the trees. Care for each tree, and the forest will prosper.
tired now. thinking about tree hugging.  |
|
|
|
same conclusion, different reason? No, same reason, really. "No need to be an asshole." "i like to make people happy" and "i don't like people to be angry at me", there is a difference. Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time. absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting? I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time. one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before? Because before, he hasn't done anything. Ever watch Minority Report? have watched it, noticed the more peaceful world without murder? Except, it wasn't. There was murder. What happened to that young lady, do you remember? They arrested her "murderer," and then someone else came along and killed her. Only fools are certain. you are not looking at the big picture. but i see your point. individual vs. group conflict. |
|
|
|
thats cheating! don't avoid the question, try again but this time your girl is home playing ludo. would you give them the icecream? but awesome teaching your girl being nice to others, some people don't do that.  Well, way I see it, going through life pissing people off at you isn't a very happy lifestyle, and since my daughter's not there to see me give away "her" icecream (thus reducing her happiness, and thus mine), and since I know there are several other stores where I could get chocolate (if I don't just get her chocolate chip, instead) icecream, Yes, I'd let them buy the icecream. Again, this isn't because I want to increase total global happiness or some such, but because I don't want people pissed off at me, thus reducing my happiness. same conclusion, different reason? Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time. absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting? I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time. one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before? Because before, he hasn't done anything. Ever watch Minority Report? have watched it, noticed the more peaceful world without murder? |
|
|
|
I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized. depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy. You still haven't explained how I can increase my happiness at the expense of another's happiness without violating the NAP. One example would suffice. say you are at the market, and your little girl likes chocolate ice cream(say it gives her 1 units of happiness), there is only one bottle left in the freezer, you take it, just before someone else is going to. the person that was gonna take it also have a child, but his/hers child just loves chocolate icecream(say 2 happiness). would you give the icecream to them? maximizing happiness. or would you keep it, as you are perfectly able to do without violating the NAP, but with the knowledge of there gonna be 1 less happiness in the world? It wouldn't be up to me. Not my happiness, you see. Now, if I were to run into this situation, I would ask my daughter. "Dear, that little girl really likes chocolate. There's this chocolate chip (or whichever flavor she likes almost as much as chocolate) ice cream here, which I'll get you if you want to give her the chocolate, which will make her very happy. What do you say?" If she does decide that the other girl's happiness is important to her happiness, then I'll tell her how proud I am of her for being so nice to that other girl, further increasing her happiness. thats cheating! don't avoid the question, try again but this time your girl is home playing ludo. would you give them the icecream? but awesome teaching your girl being nice to others, some people don't do that. It's not a zero-sum game, and being rationally self-interested doesn't mean being an asshole.
true, i did not say that. im only arguing against you because it would be a boring discussion if we did agree. Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time. absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting? I didn't say kill, I said aggress. Even if that aggression is attempting to murder someone, I certainly wouldn't let him finish the job, if I'd been watching this whole time. one way to solve the problem, but you are avoiding the dilemma. would you allow him to make the world less happy, by reacting after he have aggressed? if you are going to stop him anyway, why not before? |
|
|
|
Are the poor people in Africa incapable of bettering their situation? If so, why? What is stopping them? What is stopping those who love them? If you care so much about their happiness, what is stopping you? why should i care about their happiness? well im forced care if im a Utilitarian. Well, as a utilitarian, I would expect you to act to increase global happiness as much as possible. So why aren't there more people out there helping those poor African kids? just because you are a utilitarian, does not mean that the whole world are. to be honest i don't know where i stand. I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized. depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy. You still haven't explained how I can increase my happiness at the expense of another's happiness without violating the NAP. One example would suffice. say you are at the market, and your little girl likes chocolate ice cream(say it gives her 1 units of happiness), there is only one bottle left in the freezer, you take it, just before someone else is going to. the person that was gonna take it also have a child, but his/hers child just loves chocolate icecream(say 2 happiness). would you give the icecream to them? maximizing happiness. or would you keep it, as you are perfectly able to do without violating the NAP, but with the knowledge of there gonna be 1 less happiness in the world? Allow me to quote your signature: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Only a fool is "absolutely certain." I would wait until he aggressed. But if I were so sure he would, I'd keep a weather eye on him, and catch him in the act the very first time. absolutly true, but in the hypothetically situation you would still allow him to kill some one before reacting? |
|
|
|
Are the poor people in Africa incapable of bettering their situation? If so, why? What is stopping them? What is stopping those who love them? If you care so much about their happiness, what is stopping you? why should i care about their happiness? well im forced care if im a Utilitarian. I say again: If everyone maximized their, as arsenische puts it, "My Happiness," then the sum of those, "World Happiness" would also be maximized. depends on how they maximize it, if they do it at the cost of others(with or without violating the NAP), the world might be less happy. also would you make your life better and a higher cost of someone else?
And how would I do that without violating the NAP? Violating the NAP would make me quite unhappy. would you violate the NAP, if you knew that the world would be a better place if you did? (if you knew that a person would with absolutely certainty would become the next Hitler, and you are able to kill that person before he has aggressed, would you?) |
|
|
|
In the push-a-button case, he might have rationalized it as: my extra happiness would outweigh the average happiness of a person(or indirect happiness caused by the now dead person), therefor it maximizes the global happiness.
If all you are concerned with is global average happiness, then you can ignore a little local unhappiness. This is "missing the trees for the forest," and if everyone does this, your "little local unhappiness" will be repeated everywhere, until the whole world is unhappy. Make your life better, and perhaps those of the ones you love, and if everyone does this, the world will be happy. No. *insert generic poor black people in Africa argument here*. also would you make your life better and a higher cost of someone else? |
|
|
|
Nice one.
But utilitarianism is not that simple. When you think about it, in most cases it's more like rational egoism but expanded to group of people you are in contact with. You cannot possibly be able to optimize for sum of happiness on the planet (too little information, too little computational power).
in reality that is true. but this is philosophy it does not care about reality(we all know that it does not exist anyway: solipsism  ). it might be better to explain utilitarianism as: would you sacrifice your happiness if it maximizes a group's(or worlds) happiness. A rational Egoist might also be nice to others because it makes him happy. I don't know about you, but when I see a smile on my daughter's face, it brightens my day right up.
True. I guess i might have described it a little bit too rough. Rational egoism is based on human nature, whereas utilitarianism is just a nice idealistic concept. To be honest, not many people really care about sufferings of unknown people that are far away.  Though upbringing in society usually injects utilitarian values into human mind (and it is difficult to overcome them), thus it is person's best interest to do something good for society if it is not too expensive for him/her personally. the pic says nothing about utilitarianism vs. rational egoism, only about value of human life... a utilitarian does not necessarily against killing people(eg. he would have killed Hitler). In the push-a-button case, he might have rationalized it as: my extra happiness would outweigh the average happiness of a person(or indirect happiness caused by the now dead person), therefor it maximizes the global happiness. |
|
|
|
|
The two stand points explained simply:
Rational egoism: Do what maximizes happiness for you.
Utilitarianism: Do what maximizes happiness in the world.
i do know that there are other moral standpoints, but choose not to include them.
its critical to see that the rational egoist, does not have to be a complete asshole. eg. if he/she does not want to die sad and lonely, he/she should be friendly to people. while a Utilitarist would just be friendly to people because it makes them happy(and therefor maximizes global happiness)
pick your vote, and discuss.
|
|
|
|
was a joke, but it could be interesting to see how much you could get out of one... just for the lulz |
|
|
|
|
use a patched version of the satoshi client.
WARNING: its the miners that choose to accept your transaction, not your client that forces it upon them. the fee computed by the satoshi client is only a guideline. it would be best to sent the tx with a fee.
|
|
|
|
FYI
Dec. 1st, 2012 18.75 Repayment address.
1LfYYk1oRSw6ig5GC4Udnotqzsj1BvFg4T
do you still want payment to this address? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
