Rational egoism vs. Utilitarianism

[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.

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.

If a person honestly thinks lying is moral and justifiable, they're lying to theirself.  Let's use logic on a simular example.  What if people thought they had the right to be violent in the instance of revenge?  The cycle of revenge would never end, humanity would end.  Humans have to take the time to form a believe about the morality of lying and realize that it's not love.  Love is true, how can a lie be true?  You may kid yourself to believing it's true, form a false reality, but deep in you, you know lying isn't honest, it isn't love.

As kokjo said, they did it for power.  Power is division, lying divides people and gives people a sense of control over others.  Truth unites people.

[Rudd-O]

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

OK, here's the dynamic.

Social dominants (like Obama, Roosevelt, Stalin or Hitler) truly believe that they deserve as much power as they can get, by any means.  They are not utilitarians insofar as they really do not believe any of that "common good" nonsense.

But of course that platform wouldn't make them electable even in Hell itself.

So what they do -- which they excel at -- is they lie.  They lie real good.  One of the lies they use is this commonly held utilitarian belief of "the common good" or "maximizing global happiness" or whatever (all utilitarian ideas).  They insist and insist that their promises of action will "bring the common good".  By force of repetition and propaganda, these stick.  They gain power.

Thus they have successfully used utilitarian theories to attain power, even if they are not utilitarian themselves.

This is why I conclude that they all are utilitarians, even if only outwardly so.

[Rudd-O]

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

I agree with this too.

[Rudd-O]

[...]

Sorry, can you respond to my argument first?  Thanks.  Do not introduce new and unsubstantiated hypotheses like "well, they must be lying to themselves".

[dank]

How can you be for the greater good of people if you tell them you'll end wars and you start three more?  If they only use love for power, they are not loving and therefor not utilitarian, so how are they all utilitarians, rather than egotistical?

[...]

Sorry, can you respond to my argument first?  Thanks.  Do not introduce new and unsubstantiated hypotheses like "well, they must be lying to themselves".

What? Don't introduce new concepts that might teach you something?

[kokjo]

This is why I conclude that they all are utilitarians, even if only outwardly so.

Then they are not. your logic is faulty. (go read the link in your sig!)

[Rudd-O]

This is why I conclude that they all are utilitarians, even if only outwardly so.

Then they are not. your logic is faulty. (go read the link in your sig!)

I think that these politicians I spoke of, are both rational egoists of the social dominant variety, and also utilitarians at the same time.  They are one thing inwardly, and the other outwardly.  My reasoning is pretty clear about this.

[kokjo]

This is why I conclude that they all are utilitarians, even if only outwardly so.

Then they are not. your logic is faulty. (go read the link in your sig!)

I think that these politicians I spoke of, are both rational egoists of the social dominant variety, and also utilitarians at the same time.  They are one thing inwardly, and the other outwardly.  My reasoning is pretty clear about this.

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

[Rudd-O]

What? Don't introduce new concepts that might teach you something?

Address my argument, please.  Thanks.

[Rudd-O]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tehehe.  I love how some people allege that their interlocutors are "in capable (sic) of reasoning logically", but they don't even bother pointing out what the logical error is (which should be pretty trivial, if I have indeed made a logical error).

To be fair, a person like kokjo is better off not reading what I have to say.

[dank]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tehehe.  I love how some people allege that their interlocutors are "in capable (sic) of reasoning logically", but they don't even bother pointing out what the logical error is (which should be pretty trivial, if I have indeed made a logical error).

To be fair, a person like kokjo is better off not reading what I have to say.

Let me try to explain.  One person cannot be an honest man and a lire at the same time.  Yes, he can act like an honest man, but he what he acts like does not change his true nature.  If they use love to bring them power over others, they are acting on their ego, for self gain.  If they are using love to bring power to others, they are acting out of love.  It can't be both, even if people live in false realities, at the end of the day, they know the truth.

[myrkul]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tsk... Weren't you paying attention?

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.

So what they do -- which they excel at -- is they lie.  They lie real good.  One of the lies they use is this commonly held utilitarian belief of "the common good" or "maximizing global happiness" or whatever (all utilitarian ideas).  They insist and insist that their promises of action will "bring the common good".  By force of repetition and propaganda, these stick.  They gain power.

I think that these politicians I spoke of, are both rational egoists of the social dominant variety, and also utilitarians at the same time.  They are one thing inwardly, and the other outwardly.  My reasoning is pretty clear about this.

Liars are one thing inwardly, and another outwardly.

[kokjo]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tehehe.  I love how some people allege that their interlocutors are "in capable (sic) of reasoning logically", but they don't even bother pointing out what the logical error is (which should be pretty trivial, if I have indeed made a logical error).

To be fair, a person like kokjo is better off not reading what I have to say.

Let me try to explain.  One person cannot be an honest man and a lire at the same time.  Yes, he can act like an honest man, but he what he acts like does not change his true nature.  If they use love to bring them power over others, they are acting on their ego, for self gain.  If they are using love to bring power to others, they are acting out of love.  It can't be both, even if people live in false realities, at the end of the day, they know the truth.

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.

[dank]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tehehe.  I love how some people allege that their interlocutors are "in capable (sic) of reasoning logically", but they don't even bother pointing out what the logical error is (which should be pretty trivial, if I have indeed made a logical error).

To be fair, a person like kokjo is better off not reading what I have to say.

Let me try to explain.  One person cannot be an honest man and a lire at the same time.  Yes, he can act like an honest man, but he what he acts like does not change his true nature.  If they use love to bring them power over others, they are acting on their ego, for self gain.  If they are using love to bring power to others, they are acting out of love.  It can't be both, even if people live in false realities, at the end of the day, they know the truth.

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.

Lying does not maximize happiness.  That is a fallacy.  That's like saying going to war generates peace.

[kokjo]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tsk... Weren't you paying attention?

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.

So what they do -- which they excel at -- is they lie.  They lie real good.  One of the lies they use is this commonly held utilitarian belief of "the common good" or "maximizing global happiness" or whatever (all utilitarian ideas).  They insist and insist that their promises of action will "bring the common good".  By force of repetition and propaganda, these stick.  They gain power.

I think that these politicians I spoke of, are both rational egoists of the social dominant variety, and also utilitarians at the same time.  They are one thing inwardly, and the other outwardly.  My reasoning is pretty clear about this.

Liars are one thing inwardly, and another outwardly.

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

[kokjo]

in capable of reasoning logically. hitting ignore button.

Tehehe.  I love how some people allege that their interlocutors are "in capable (sic) of reasoning logically", but they don't even bother pointing out what the logical error is (which should be pretty trivial, if I have indeed made a logical error).

To be fair, a person like kokjo is better off not reading what I have to say.

Let me try to explain.  One person cannot be an honest man and a lire at the same time.  Yes, he can act like an honest man, but he what he acts like does not change his true nature.  If they use love to bring them power over others, they are acting on their ego, for self gain.  If they are using love to bring power to others, they are acting out of love.  It can't be both, even if people live in false realities, at the end of the day, they know the truth.

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.

Lying does not maximize happiness.  That is a fallacy.  That's like saying going to war generates peace.

so let the murder kill him!

[Rudd-O]

Let me try to explain.  One person cannot be an honest man and a lire at the same time.

I agree.  I never said otherwise.

Now, how does that realization mean that I am "in capable of logicsssszzsssszzßßß"?

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.

Not that kokjo can read anything of what I'm saying, but a person well-versed in UPB would have no problem ascertaining the least suboptimal thing to do in this attempt at a moral dilemma.

[Rudd-O]

Lying does not maximize happiness.  That is a fallacy.  That's like saying going to war generates peace.

You can't conclude that if you are a utilitarian.

I previously made an argument that demonstrates you can't conclude "lying does not maximize happiness" by relying on utilitarian reasoning, and that asserting "lying does not maximize happiness" is an unsubstantiated a priori and baseless assertion.  In this very thread.

If you are a utilitarian, please don't ignore that argument.

[Rudd-O]

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.

[Rudd-O]

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.