Rational egoism vs. Utilitarianism

[kokjo]

unignoring Rudd-O, hide/show button to complicated.

[1715672299]

1715672299

[1715672299]

1715672299

[myrkul]

but from a utalitarian standpoint it would be perfectly good to lie IF it maximises happiness. eg.
scared person to you and you see which way he runs. murder comes asking "which way did he run?". do you lie and save the persons life, or tell the truth and let the person die? a utilitarian would lie, a Kantian(deontolog?) would panic and be incapable of performing any action(must not lie, must save lifes), and a rational egoist would not care.

Would not being a party to murder reduce one's happiness?

[Rudd-O]

unignoring Rudd-O, hide/show button to complicated.

I knew it, behehehe.

[kokjo]

This thread is vitiated with the all-too-common mistake of "I identify as Xian, and I have concluded that Z is immoral according to Xianism, so obviously I'll substitute a defense of Xianism with my own conclusions about Z".

To wit, those who say "utilitarianism is correct" and then say "lying cannot maximize global happiness" introduced as an unsubstantiated premise, punctuated with the very obvious absence of a utilitarian proof that "lying cannot maximize global happiness".

These types of conversation are unpleasant.

i do not claim that i support any moral philosophy. its Dank that is doing that.

but from a utalitarian standpoint it would be perfectly good to lie IF it maximises happiness. eg.
scared person to you and you see which way he runs. murder comes asking "which way did he run?". do you lie and save the persons life, or tell the truth and let the person die? a utilitarian would lie, a Kantian(deontolog?) would panic and be incapable of performing any action(must not lie, must save lifes), and a rational egoist would not care.

Would not being a party to murder reduce one's happiness?

sounds meaningful, but unable to understand?? please reformulate.

[dank]

Well, let's look at history, shall we?  Earth has seemingly always have a organized power structure over society.  Power and control have always been evident from people's egotistic, self-serving nature.  But that's what makes us human.  Where did that get us?  Should we continue the cycle of lies, violence, greed and power?  Or should we try something new, should we try being honest, loving?

Is it possible lying does not land you in heaven after all?  If you lie, to others, you're only lying to yourself.  You're only creating division.  Division is what we've had for the last few millenniums.  How is it working?  When you are honest, confess your guilt, to anyone, and come clean with your consciousness, you can find love and unity.  Truth is love, lying is hateful.

[Rudd-O]

All I've said here is that rational egoists of the social dominant variety have no problem exploting utilitarian theories to gain power for themselves.  I referred to this observation as these men being both rational egoists and utilitarians.  I think that's a savory and useful conclusion which also happens to be true.

How that is "controversial" or makes me "illogicalzzzlollzzzozll", I truly do not know.

[dank]

All I've said here is that rational egoists of the social dominant variety have no problem exploting utilitarian theories to gain power for themselves.  I referred to this observation as these men being both rational egoists and utilitarians.  I think that's a savory and useful conclusion which also happens to be true.

How that is "controversial" or makes me "illogicalzzzlollzzzozll", I truly do not know.

Yes, those that sell their soul for greed exploit the conscience of others, that doesn't make them a person for the greater good.  It's an illusion, do you understand?

[Rudd-O]

Well, let's look at history, shall we?  Earth has seemingly always have a organized power structure over society.  Power and control have always been evident from people's egotistic, self-serving nature.  But that's what makes us human.

From the very outset, this "Original Sin" theory of "humanity" is wrong.  Wrong twice.

1. All animals, not just humans, demonstrate an egotistic and self-serving side.  To call that "what makes us human" is ridiculously false and belied by any observation of animals in reality.
2. No animal but the human animal has a certain characteristic that distinguishes humans from other animals.  That characteristic is metacognition -- the ability to reflect on one's own thoughts and be aware, not just of oneself, but also aware that one is aware.  To ignore that this is what makes us human, and pretend that it's something else, is again ridiculously false.

This "Original Sin" political theory that dank is peddling here, is bunk, nonsense, false, wrong.

Obviously, starting from false premises will lead to false conclusions.  I won't address dank's conclusions because it should be self-evident that falsifying his premises is enough.

Political Creationism: not even once.

[Rudd-O]

Yes, those that sell their soul for greed exploit the conscience of others

I don't know what you mean by this vagary.  Explain it in literal terms and without supernatural allegories.

[dank]

I never said it was exclusive to humans.  Earth as a whole is still in the ego bound stage of society, for now.

[myrkul]

but from a utalitarian standpoint it would be perfectly good to lie IF it maximises happiness. eg.
scared person to you and you see which way he runs. murder comes asking "which way did he run?". do you lie and save the persons life, or tell the truth and let the person die? a utilitarian would lie, a Kantian(deontolog?) would panic and be incapable of performing any action(must not lie, must save lifes), and a rational egoist would not care.

Would not being a party to murder reduce one's happiness?

sounds meaningful, but unable to understand?? please reformulate.

You claim that a rational egoist would not care about the outcome of this particular scenario. Rational egoists care about their own happiness. Being party to a murder would reduce that happiness (see the formula on page one - it would increase psychological pain) for all but the most psycho/sociopathic of them. Ergo, the rational egoist would not desire to be party to a murder, and lie to the murderer. That the murderer's happiness is reduced by this doesn't matter to the egoist.

[Rudd-O]

I never said it was exclusive to humans.

That is literally and exactly what you said, when you said:

Power and control [...] what makes us human.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

https://i.imgur.com/cWwDz.gif

[dank]

You're not being honest with yourself, Rudd.  Do you really believe people can't tell when you lie to them, 100% of the time?  Even if they don't know it at first, the truth reveals itself with time.

Do you feel happy when you're lied to?

[dank]

Actually, you know what, you're right.  Just like the SA forums, people can lie to each other and create a sense of happiness.  But it's not love.  It's ego, people lie to each other to boost their egos and miss out on the beauty of truth.

[kokjo]

yes but egoism and utilitarianism is mutually exclusive, they can perform the same actions, but the difference lies in there reasoning.

I suspected this was kokjo's "logic" (but, the man having cowardly not stated it, I could not question it).

He can't read me, so it's unlikely that he'll prove me how egoism and utilitarianism are mutually exclusive -- I never said that -- or that they are incompatible (I relied on the fact that they are compatible)... that is to say, how a man who is allegedly a rational egoist is somehow "incapable" of exploiting utilitarianism to justify his true desires.

proof that your argument about lying politician/dictators is invalid:
assume that a given person is behaving utilitarianistic. his reason could then either be:
a) egoistic, that is he is behaving utilitarianistic to gain something(exploiting it), he is therefor not a true utilitarian.
b) utilitarianistic, that is he is behaving that way he *thinks* it maximizes happiness(but he might be stupid, and kill a few million people). he is a true utilitarian.
c) he is completely crazy, and just doing random things that look utilitarianistic.

(i can feel i fail english!)

[Rudd-O]

Actually, you know what, you're right.  Just like the SA forums, people can lie to each other and create a sense of happiness.  But it's not love.  It's ego, people lie to each other to boost their egos and miss out on the beauty of truth.

So, it is possible to use utilitarianism to argue in favor of lying, because it is conceivable that lying and deception can increase global happiness.

But now you're invoking your own (obviously) non-utilitarian preferable values of "love" and "beauty of truth".

Gents, does this count as a partial conversion?

[kokjo]

but from a utalitarian standpoint it would be perfectly good to lie IF it maximises happiness. eg.
scared person to you and you see which way he runs. murder comes asking "which way did he run?". do you lie and save the persons life, or tell the truth and let the person die? a utilitarian would lie, a Kantian(deontolog?) would panic and be incapable of performing any action(must not lie, must save lifes), and a rational egoist would not care.

Would not being a party to murder reduce one's happiness?

sounds meaningful, but unable to understand?? please reformulate.

You claim that a rational egoist would not care about the outcome of this particular scenario. Rational egoists care about their own happiness. Being party to a murder would reduce that happiness (see the formula on page one - it would increase psychological pain) for all but the most psycho/sociopathic of them. Ergo, the rational egoist would not desire to be party to a murder, and lie to the murderer. That the murderer's happiness is reduced by this doesn't matter to the egoist.

logic is sound. rational egoist would not *have to* care, unless he feels like it. better? and again he does not do it for the victim, but for himself.

[dank]

As I just said, it's not true happiness.  It's the same "happiness" we've dealt with in our society for thousands of years.  It's the same division and hate, but if that is what you seek.

[kokjo]

Actually, you know what, you're right.  Just like the SA forums, people can lie to each other and create a sense of happiness.  But it's not love.  It's ego, people lie to each other to boost their egos and miss out on the beauty of truth.

i do not like to put people in boxes, BUT you sound like a Kantian, with some weird Freudian choice of words.

[dank]

Actually, you know what, you're right.  Just like the SA forums, people can lie to each other and create a sense of happiness.  But it's not love.  It's ego, people lie to each other to boost their egos and miss out on the beauty of truth.

i do not like to put people in boxes, BUT you sound like a Kantian, with some weird Freudian choice of words.

Not at all.  Logic shows us that lying brings us division and truth, unity.  Just think about it.  I find a girl and open up everything about me to her, honestly, we create a sense of oneness, we fall in love.  Then later down the road, when a lie is said between us, do you think that doesn't impede our love by creating division, separation?

It's logic.

You can lie to people, and even if they believe your lie, you still lied, that act still happened.  You can't lie to your self, ultimately, you still know.