Rational egoism vs. Utilitarianism

[dank]

Helping yourself is greed, where does that get us?  I'll tell you, greed creates a society ruled by sociopathic humans that seek power and control of their neighbors rather than peace and prosperity amongst all.  Greed creates a society that irresponsibly consumes resources from the earth, unsustainable, when alternative options are known, for the sake of the industry that stands.  Greed creates a society where humans judge and hate each other, where bribery and a valueless concept of debt rule the minds of the population.  Ego creates mental disorders as we know, it makes people question their abilities and self esteem.  Ego makes people run from their problems by escaping realty, and no matter how far or fast you run, you can never escape your problems.  If people didn't eat junk food every time they're upset, or watch tv to ignore their feelings, or shoot up heroin or drink alcohol to find a sense of happiness, people could confront their problems.  People can become one, solve the problems of the world.

When you buy a sub at subway, you are going there to get a sub, correct?  Why do you need to have a certificate to eat?  If your neighbor asks for some sugar, do you give it to him or sell it to him?  Why do we sell goods to other humans, to accumulate our personal wealth, when we are all neighbors?  What if we helped each other so humanity could progress as a whole?  So we could all have a share of a much greater wealth?

[kokjo]

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.

[kokjo]

dank = atlas^-1 ?

[myrkul]

Helping yourself is greed, where does that get us?  I'll tell you, greed creates a society ruled by sociopathic humans that seek power and control of their neighbors rather than peace and prosperity amongst all.  Greed creates a society that irresponsibly consumes resources from the earth, unsustainable, when alternative options are known, for the sake of the industry that stands.  Greed creates a society where humans judge and hate each other, where bribery and a valueless concept of debt rule the minds of the population.  Ego creates mental disorders as we know, it makes people question their abilities and self esteem.  Ego makes people run from their problems by escaping realty, and no matter how far or fast you run, you can never escape your problems.  If people didn't eat junk food every time they're upset, or watch tv to ignore their feelings, or shoot up heroin or drink alcohol to find a sense of happiness, people could confront their problems.  People can become one, solve the problems of the world.

When you buy a sub at subway, you are going there to get a sub, correct?  Why do you need to have a certificate to eat?  If your neighbor asks for some sugar, do you give it to him or sell it to him?  Why do we sell goods to other humans, to accumulate our personal wealth, when we are all neighbors?  What if we helped each other so humanity could progress as a whole?  So we could all have a share of a much greater wealth?

You're focusing on the forest, and ignoring the trees. Care for each tree, and the forest will prosper.

[dank]

One person cannot care for every tree in the forest.  We've been seeking some great leader to solve everyone's problems, a perfect king, when no such thing is achievable.  Everyone must help their self become a better person, nobody can make you hate or love but yourself.  We can help each other improve ourselves.

[kokjo]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

Two sides of the same coin.

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.

[myrkul]

One person cannot care for every tree in the forest. 

Bingo.

Pick a tree, care for it. Everybody pick a tree, forest happy.

You are that tree. Everybody care for their tree, everybody happy.

[kokjo]

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?

[dank]

One person cannot care for every tree in the forest.

Bingo.

Pick a tree, care for it. Everybody pick a tree, forest happy.

You are that tree. Everybody care for their tree, everybody happy.

Why not pick another tree, fall in love with that tree and feed each other more love?  Everyone has a soulmate after all.  When you fall in love, you lose your ego, you become one, as a couple.  If everyone found their soulmate, everyone would be in love, humanity would be one.

Sounds a little better than making yourself happy without others.  Making others happy is what gives you true happiness.

[myrkul]

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.

[myrkul]

One person cannot care for every tree in the forest.

Bingo.

Pick a tree, care for it. Everybody pick a tree, forest happy.

You are that tree. Everybody care for their tree, everybody happy.

Why not pick another tree, fall in love with that tree and feed each other more love?  Everyone has a soulmate after all.  When you fall in love, you lose your ego, you become one, as a couple.  If everyone found their soulmate, everyone would be in love, humanity would be one.

Sounds a little better than making yourself happy without others.  Making others happy is what gives you true happiness.

I dispute your soulmate claim, but certainly making those you love happy is a fine way to make yourself happy. Love, in fact, is best defined as that condition in which another's happiness is required for yours.

[Rudd-O]

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.

[dank]

One person cannot care for every tree in the forest.

Bingo.

Pick a tree, care for it. Everybody pick a tree, forest happy.

You are that tree. Everybody care for their tree, everybody happy.

Why not pick another tree, fall in love with that tree and feed each other more love?  Everyone has a soulmate after all.  When you fall in love, you lose your ego, you become one, as a couple.  If everyone found their soulmate, everyone would be in love, humanity would be one.

Sounds a little better than making yourself happy without others.  Making others happy is what gives you true happiness.

I dispute your soulmate claim, but certainly making those you love happy is a fine way to make yourself happy. Love, in fact, is best defined as that condition in which another's happiness is required for yours.

How so?  Isn't there that one girl you love more than any other?  You may not know it, but everyone has, or had, a soulmate.  You're with them in this life and lives thereafter.

That's an awfully poor definition of love.  In fact, it's totally inaccurate.  My mate in life isn't with me right now, that doesn't mean I don't love them or love life.  Love is a raise in frequency.  That's what you feel, the change of your vibration frequency.  You have to love yourself for others to love you, that's dependent on only you.

[kokjo]

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?)

[dank]

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.

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 they 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.

That was not utilitarianism being utilized.  Lying and deceiving others is not love or moral, logically.  Lying is a function of ego, you lie to help yourself.  Hitler lied to help himself gain power.  And when you lie to others, you're only lying to yourself.

[kokjo]

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).

[Rudd-O]

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.

That was not utilitarianism being utilized.  Lying and deceiving others is not love or moral, logically.

Nope, sorry.  If you're an utilitarian, you can't know or tell anyone whether "lying and deceiving others" is moral for sure.  Even the most cursory of examples will disprove that.

A utilitarian can very well apply utilitarianism and conclude that "lying and deceiving others" could very well be "moral", because lying and deceiving could conceivably be argued to increase global happiness.  Another utilitarian may apply utilitarianism and conclude that "lying and deceiving others" could very well be "immoral", because "lying and deceiving others" could conceivably be argued to decrease global happiness.

Since both conclusions are drawn from opinions as to what increases or decreases global happiness (which is an unknowable), and cannot be fact-checked in any way, what usually ends up happening is that the utilitarian that controls the guns, yells louder, or lies more better, ends up "winning" the debate.  Then all the other authoritarians say "Well, by Golly, if Hitlermaostalin says that killing teh Joos will make us happier, then I'mma get right on Kristallnachting 'em."

So yes, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, they might not have been "utilitarians" in the textbook sense, but they were all relying on utilitarianism to seduce fools and gain power.

[kokjo]

So yes, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, they were all utilitarians crazy gun controlling people.

[kokjo]

you could just as easily fit all the crazy dictators in under rational egoism(they did it because they liked power).