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.
Topic: Rational egoism vs. Utilitarianism - page 2. (Read 11105 times)
I don't know what you mean by this vagary. Explain it in literal terms and without supernatural allegories.
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.
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? How that is "controversial" or makes me "illogicalzzzlollzzzozll", I truly do not know.
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.
How that is "controversial" or makes me "illogicalzzzlollzzzozll", I truly do not know.
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.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
unignoring Rudd-O, hide/show button to complicated.
I knew it, behehehe.
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? 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.
unignoring Rudd-O, hide/show button to complicated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jump to: