What? Don't introduce new concepts that might teach you something?
Address my argument, please. Thanks.
Topic: Rational egoism vs. Utilitarianism - page 3. (Read 11105 times)
Address my argument, please. Thanks.
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.
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.
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!) 
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?
[...]
Sorry, can you respond to my argument first? Thanks. Do not introduce new and unsubstantiated hypotheses like "well, they must be lying to themselves".
[...]
Sorry, can you respond to my argument first? Thanks. Do not introduce new and unsubstantiated hypotheses like "well, they must be lying to themselves".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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). 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 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. 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.
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.individual vs. group conflict.
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?)
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.
Sounds a little better than making yourself happy without others. Making others happy is what gives you true happiness.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sounds a little better than making yourself happy without others. Making others happy is what gives you true happiness.
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.individual vs. group conflict.
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.
Sounds a little better than making yourself happy without others. Making others happy is what gives you true happiness.
Jump to: