+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112780
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 5
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread  (Read 482 times)

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« on: May 05, 2018, 08:04:06 pm »
In order to spark some debate on this desolate site, I'll post my shower thoughts in this thread. I've been thinking about oft-repeated maxims that we take for granted and how dumb most of them are. For example, the golden rule:

"Do unto others as you want done unto you."

What is this bullshit? This is legitimately a terrible way to interact with other human beings. If someone's an introvert and they're interacting with an extrovert, and they treat one another the way they want to be treated, they'll end up hating each others' guts. The introvert will ignore the extrovert and the extrovert will get all up in his face. How can you assume that everyone wants to be treated the same way? It's absurd.

I feel like this is also the mentality of sexually deprived rapists. They want someone to come up to them and have sex, so what do they do? They go up to someone else and rape them. They can't imagine why someone wouldn't want it, because they're treating others the way they want to be treated.

I hate this gay-ass saying.

Social Buttons


Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2018, 09:25:46 pm »
Are you planning to tackle utilitarianism next?

Also, I don’t know if this works in this category (since it’s likely more political) but I would would like to see you analyze “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”.

Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2018, 09:51:43 pm »
Are you planning to tackle utilitarianism next?

Also, I don’t know if this works in this category (since it’s likely more political) but I would would like to see you analyze “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”.

As a deontologist to utilitarian convert, I'd be prepared to go to war over this one.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2018, 10:22:33 pm »
Are you planning to tackle utilitarianism next?

Also, I don’t know if this works in this category (since it’s likely more political) but I would would like to see you analyze “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”.

As a deontologist to utilitarian convert, I'd be prepared to go to war over this one.

Utilitarianism always reminds me of Rousseau's "Dictatorship of the Majority." If the best course of action is the one that maximizes well-being for the largest amount of people, what's to stop us from treating a very small minority with terrible injustice in order to achieve that goal? I also dislike that it tries to consider all viewpoints equally, and that people use it as a justification for veganism.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2018, 10:31:00 pm »
Are you planning to tackle utilitarianism next?

Also, I don’t know if this works in this category (since it’s likely more political) but I would would like to see you analyze “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”.

As a deontologist to utilitarian convert, I'd be prepared to go to war over this one.
Same, if people tried to adhere to utilitarianism more when making a decision I honestly think the world would be a better place.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2018, 10:37:14 pm »
Are you planning to tackle utilitarianism next?

Also, I don’t know if this works in this category (since it’s likely more political) but I would would like to see you analyze “from each according to his ability to each according to his need”.

As a deontologist to utilitarian convert, I'd be prepared to go to war over this one.
Same, if people tried to adhere to utilitarianism more when making a decision I honestly think the world would be a better place.


Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2018, 01:02:57 pm »
Utilitarianism always reminds me of Rousseau's "Dictatorship of the Majority." If the best course of action is the one that maximizes well-being for the largest amount of people, what's to stop us from treating a very small minority with terrible injustice in order to achieve that goal? I also dislike that it tries to consider all viewpoints equally, and that people use it as a justification for veganism.

I don't think since utilitarianism was first launched do you have ideals such as "all viewpoints are equal" or "all pains and pleasures are treated equal". My brand of utilitarianism would be an axis which "minimizes human suffering". To truly understand utilitarian philosophy, you first have to make a set of assumptions which the whole idea relies upon, but that is true with any worldview, be it theistic or secular. My main assumption is that one will be rigorous, honest, and logical when weighting the benefits and suffering of actions.

I would say most utilitarianism doesn't forsake the unforgivable nature of human cruelty. To think of it like "10 people raped 1 person. Ten people got pleasure. 1 suffered. The pleasure outweighs the suffering. The action was right." is a very narrow and incorrect view of the subject. (I'm not saying that's necessarily your view; it's just a common misconception.) The "sophistication of pleasures" is typically an idea that is present in utilitarian philosophy, so I adamantly disagree with "all viewpoints are equal" when not even all pleasures are equal. When deciding a course of action, the suffering of other humans must be taken into account first, and that suffering must be given much more weight than "simple, life-pleasures" that others may gain.

I had similar views about the subject as you do until I read into it more. Once I truly understand the power and benefit it has as a worldview, I "slowly" began adopting it and started to peel away the "higher ethics" layers I had built over myself the past couple years. So please, let us discuss.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2018, 02:47:42 pm »
Utilitarianism always reminds me of Rousseau's "Dictatorship of the Majority." If the best course of action is the one that maximizes well-being for the largest amount of people, what's to stop us from treating a very small minority with terrible injustice in order to achieve that goal? I also dislike that it tries to consider all viewpoints equally, and that people use it as a justification for veganism.

I don't think since utilitarianism was first launched do you have ideals such as "all viewpoints are equal" or "all pains and pleasures are treated equal". My brand of utilitarianism would be an axis which "minimizes human suffering". To truly understand utilitarian philosophy, you first have to make a set of assumptions which the whole idea relies upon, but that is true with any worldview, be it theistic or secular. My main assumption is that one will be rigorous, honest, and logical when weighting the benefits and suffering of actions.

I would say most utilitarianism doesn't forsake the unforgivable nature of human cruelty. To think of it like "10 people raped 1 person. Ten people got pleasure. 1 suffered. The pleasure outweighs the suffering. The action was right." is a very narrow and incorrect view of the subject. (I'm not saying that's necessarily your view; it's just a common misconception.) The "sophistication of pleasures" is typically an idea that is present in utilitarian philosophy, so I adamantly disagree with "all viewpoints are equal" when not even all pleasures are equal. When deciding a course of action, the suffering of other humans must be taken into account first, and that suffering must be given much more weight than "simple, life-pleasures" that others may gain.

I had similar views about the subject as you do until I read into it more. Once I truly understand the power and benefit it has as a worldview, I "slowly" began adopting it and started to peel away the "higher ethics" layers I had built over myself the past couple years. So please, let us discuss.

I suppose I just shy away from any philosophy that claims to work towards a "greater good." This goes for utilitarianism, Marxism, transhumanism, etc. As soon as a philosophy sets up a goal for itself to work towards, and places that goal above individuals, it becomes very easy for its adherents to justify their actions in the name of that goal. If you as an individual see the "greater good" as above yourself, what right do you have to question the methods used to achieve that greater good? This is the sort of groupthink that causes ethnic cleansing and ISIS. I'm of the opinion that the ends never justify the means-- and utilitarianism is all about a specific end (minimizing suffering/maximizing pleasure). Though I will give it credit in that its "means" are less dangerous than the other two schools of thought I just mentioned.

Another thing that's always turned me off from it is this idea that not all pleasures are equal. While I agree, the fact that utilitarianism centers around pleasures and pains makes it necessary to assemble a rudimentary hierarchy of sorts for these experiences. I don't see how that's feasible or even possible.

Again, I'll note that utilitarianism is far from my least-favorite philosophy (that'd change if more people adhered to it, because it could conceivably become very dangerous by that point). I remember reading about Epicurus last semester and agreeing with a lot of what he said.

Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2018, 03:18:37 pm »
I suppose I just shy away from any philosophy that claims to work towards a "greater good." This goes for utilitarianism, Marxism, transhumanism, etc. As soon as a philosophy sets up a goal for itself to work towards, and places that goal above individuals, it becomes very easy for its adherents to justify their actions in the name of that goal. If you as an individual see the "greater good" as above yourself, what right do you have to question the methods used to achieve that greater good? This is the sort of groupthink that causes ethnic cleansing and ISIS. I'm of the opinion that the ends never justify the means-- and utilitarianism is all about a specific end (minimizing suffering/maximizing pleasure). Though I will give it credit in that its "means" are less dangerous than the other two schools of thought I just mentioned.

Another thing that's always turned me off from it is this idea that not all pleasures are equal. While I agree, the fact that utilitarianism centers around pleasures and pains makes it necessary to assemble a rudimentary hierarchy of sorts for these experiences. I don't see how that's feasible or even possible.

Again, I'll note that utilitarianism is far from my least-favorite philosophy (that'd change if more people adhered to it, because it could conceivably become very dangerous by that point). I remember reading about Epicurus last semester and agreeing with a lot of what he said.

As an ideal philosophy, "greater good" seems to be pretty good place to start. I do understand what you are saying about it potentially being used wrongly, but any worldview can produce poor results, not just "greater good" mentalities. As I stated in my original position, one must be rigorous, honest, and logical when trying to figure out what the "greater good" will be. If someone logically assigns values to reward and cost, then that person would never champion ideas such as ISIS. I don't even hear that as an argument. Just because psychopaths think the "greater good" would involve acts of terrorism doesn't mean it can be logically defended.

So if your position against utilitarianism is due to extremists, I have to agree with you. However, there are so many different branches of utilitarianism that it can't be lumped into a general category. The philosophy I champion and that of ISIS are night and day, if you even count ISIS as utilitarian (I don't, but I won't waste your time or mine arguing over definitions).

As far as not having "the right to question," in no philosophy do I hear that as a legitimate point. Though I'm not keen on "transhumanism", I am a humanist/utilitarian and our worldview centers on challenging and being skeptical of everything and driving the world to be its best. Now, you can counter with "How do you define 'best' for everyone?" and I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point. I can answer this and your hierarchy of pleasures point simultaneously. These questions all go back to a logical foundation of the philosophy. I would define the pushing the world to its best as what drives forward knowledge and advancements in medicine, science, mathematics, technology, and even morality as they help the human race address issues such as poverty, sickness, violence, and world hunger aka alleviation of human suffering.

Utilitarianism is hard to define, mostly because it should be a dynamic philosophy, constantly shifting with the needs of the people and of the times. Please don't try to look at it all in one lumped-parameter model.

Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2018, 03:19:14 pm »
Oh and I need to say that I really found you Paasche gif to be rather priceless.
Like Like x 1 View List

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2018, 03:51:47 pm »
I suppose I just shy away from any philosophy that claims to work towards a "greater good." This goes for utilitarianism, Marxism, transhumanism, etc. As soon as a philosophy sets up a goal for itself to work towards, and places that goal above individuals, it becomes very easy for its adherents to justify their actions in the name of that goal. If you as an individual see the "greater good" as above yourself, what right do you have to question the methods used to achieve that greater good? This is the sort of groupthink that causes ethnic cleansing and ISIS. I'm of the opinion that the ends never justify the means-- and utilitarianism is all about a specific end (minimizing suffering/maximizing pleasure). Though I will give it credit in that its "means" are less dangerous than the other two schools of thought I just mentioned.

Another thing that's always turned me off from it is this idea that not all pleasures are equal. While I agree, the fact that utilitarianism centers around pleasures and pains makes it necessary to assemble a rudimentary hierarchy of sorts for these experiences. I don't see how that's feasible or even possible.

Again, I'll note that utilitarianism is far from my least-favorite philosophy (that'd change if more people adhered to it, because it could conceivably become very dangerous by that point). I remember reading about Epicurus last semester and agreeing with a lot of what he said.

As an ideal philosophy, "greater good" seems to be pretty good place to start. I do understand what you are saying about it potentially being used wrongly, but any worldview can produce poor results, not just "greater good" mentalities. As I stated in my original position, one must be rigorous, honest, and logical when trying to figure out what the "greater good" will be. If someone logically assigns values to reward and cost, then that person would never champion ideas such as ISIS. I don't even hear that as an argument. Just because psychopaths think the "greater good" would involve acts of terrorism doesn't mean it can be logically defended.

So if your position against utilitarianism is due to extremists, I have to agree with you. However, there are so many different branches of utilitarianism that it can't be lumped into a general category. The philosophy I champion and that of ISIS are night and day, if you even count ISIS as utilitarian (I don't, but I won't waste your time or mine arguing over definitions).

As far as not having "the right to question," in no philosophy do I hear that as a legitimate point. Though I'm not keen on "transhumanism", I am a humanist/utilitarian and our worldview centers on challenging and being skeptical of everything and driving the world to be its best. Now, you can counter with "How do you define 'best' for everyone?" and I'll acknowledge that as a reasonable point. I can answer this and your hierarchy of pleasures point simultaneously. These questions all go back to a logical foundation of the philosophy. I would define the pushing the world to its best as what drives forward knowledge and advancements in medicine, science, mathematics, technology, and even morality as they help the human race address issues such as poverty, sickness, violence, and world hunger aka alleviation of human suffering.

Utilitarianism is hard to define, mostly because it should be a dynamic philosophy, constantly shifting with the needs of the people and of the times. Please don't try to look at it all in one lumped-parameter model.

Oh, I absolutely understand that the doctrines of utilitarianism are not codified or set in stone. As with egoism (my personal favorite school of thought), there are as many takes on it as there are people who adhere to it. Still, I think those differences are amplified in utilitarianism, because it all comes down to your definition of being "rigorous, honest, and logical" in determining the greater good. Because utilitarianism is inherently concerned with the well-being of others, it invites its adherents to make normative statements about how others should live their lives. I've always found this to conflict heavily with my own worldview.

With my ISIS reference, I was acknowledging that a Muslim utilitarian and a Christian utilitarian would have fundamentally different approaches to the philosophy. Both would see their religions as a way for society to achieve a greater good, because only through their respective religions could people attain salvation. Therefore, others would have to convert in order for pleasure to be maximized. But we don't have to go off on a religion tangent here-- generally speaking, because utilitarianism is so concerned with the lives of others, it implicitly gives its adherents a free pass to evangelize their own lifestyles.

An example: If I were to become a utilitarian, I might have to support a ban on marijuana. I think its overall impact on people is decidedly negative, and in order to minimize that negative for everyone, I would be morally obligated to prevent them from consuming it in order to maximize pleasure. It could even be argued that drug use in general (alcohol included) is antithetical to your goals of advancing medicine, science, mathematics, etc, as it wastes labor and destroys lives. But I would never support banning these substances. Just as I don't recognize the rights of others to ban things for me, I don't think I have any right to ban things for them.

Nevertheless, you're not arguing that utilitarianism isn't subjective, because it absolutely is. That just happens to be my main beef with it. Your last paragraph is, however, is precisely what I don't like about it-- it changes with the needs of people and the times, like a river. I dislike spongy philosophies. So many ideas pass in and out of them, they become empty shells for whatever personal morals anyone wants to bring to them. I like philosophies that are immutable-- as true in the past and present as they will be in the future.

Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2018, 04:32:35 pm »
All things change with time, my friend. The mathematical expressions we have to tell us how the universe functions are time dependent. The truest law of the universe states that disorder increases with time. All species that have ever been alive came about because things change with time. A static philosophical mindset does not work, as shown through religions, who are trying to adapt to the times to avoid becoming obsolete. I tried it. As I began to challenge myself, I saw how it failed. It's contradictory to all that we experience in nature to deny that everything is relative to time.

We can make certain statements about how others should live their lives. People ought to not harm others. People ought to not steal. People ought to not drive drunk. Those are all general statements most agree with (though they are not absolute). There are very few things I consider to be "rights". The right to be free from suffering would be an easy one. Other than a few choice things, I do believe liberties and expectations of behavior can be adjusted in regard to what the end result would be.

In regards to your examples of substance use, I don't know that marijuana is the best as people don't generally crash cars or break into houses from their marijuana habit but we can use it to highlight situational morality. Take a man with a wife and kids who is the sole earner for the family who lives in a state where marijuana is legal. He smokes a joint in the comfort of his home after work each day. He has more than enough money to sustain his habit while still providing more than enough for his family. There is nothing wrong with this. Take the same man in a state where it is illegal and his company does random drug testing. We'll also thrown in that his family occasionally "goes without" so that he can sustain himself. In this example, it does become a vice because there could be serious suffering of others in regard to his actions. It is a logical derivation. In that case, his personal liberty of "choice" becomes obsolete. His simple pleasure means nothing when compared to the potential suffering of others.

But let's take alcohol. From Google, about 10,950 people died in 2017 from drunk driving. If we banned alcohol, and everyone just said "Oh well. Guess that's the end of drinking" then I would absolutely say that we ought to do it. The lives of the 11,000 we'd save in the next year means so much more than a personal liberty to drink, but we know from history, that will not work and prohibition causes more harm through inspiration of crime syndicates. But yes, if we can strip a simple pleasure to save countless lives, I do think we ought to do it. Arguing that we shouldn't appeals to things that don't exist and isn't defensible in any logical manner. Note "freedom for freedom's sake" is a very emotional slogan. It sure can promote lots of clapping and cheering, but it has no true rational defenses and doesn't rely upon anything that can be measured.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2018, 04:40:13 pm »
I've come to realize that utilitarianism is a far more evil ideology than I initially gave it credit for.

Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2018, 05:39:53 pm »
Good chat.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2018, 05:55:41 pm »
Good chat.

I'll come back to this later today. First I have to finish my anthropology paper.

Reign in Treet

  • God-King
  • Tyler Perry
  • ******
  • Posts: 960
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2018, 09:31:58 pm »
Alright. I'll probably be back on in a few days. Today was my (kind of) day of rest. Into the flood again come tomorrow, at least through Wednesday.

The One Who Lurks

  • Tyler Perry
  • **
  • Posts: 952
  • I'm still here. Lord knows why.
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2018, 10:31:30 pm »
"Do unto others as you want done unto you."

My parents would always bring this saying up whenever I railed on my brothers for breaking or screwing up something or other.

After pointing out that I'd want to be criticized for doing something wrong and/or stupid, they shut up about it.

Until the next time it happened and we had the exchange all over again.
Like Like x 1 View List

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2018, 02:24:30 am »
All things change with time, my friend. The mathematical expressions we have to tell us how the universe functions are time dependent. The truest law of the universe states that disorder increases with time. All species that have ever been alive came about because things change with time. A static philosophical mindset does not work, as shown through religions, who are trying to adapt to the times to avoid becoming obsolete. I tried it. As I began to challenge myself, I saw how it failed. It's contradictory to all that we experience in nature to deny that everything is relative to time.

We can make certain statements about how others should live their lives. People ought to not harm others. People ought to not steal. People ought to not drive drunk. Those are all general statements most agree with (though they are not absolute). There are very few things I consider to be "rights". The right to be free from suffering would be an easy one. Other than a few choice things, I do believe liberties and expectations of behavior can be adjusted in regard to what the end result would be.

In regards to your examples of substance use, I don't know that marijuana is the best as people don't generally crash cars or break into houses from their marijuana habit but we can use it to highlight situational morality. Take a man with a wife and kids who is the sole earner for the family who lives in a state where marijuana is legal. He smokes a joint in the comfort of his home after work each day. He has more than enough money to sustain his habit while still providing more than enough for his family. There is nothing wrong with this. Take the same man in a state where it is illegal and his company does random drug testing. We'll also thrown in that his family occasionally "goes without" so that he can sustain himself. In this example, it does become a vice because there could be serious suffering of others in regard to his actions. It is a logical derivation. In that case, his personal liberty of "choice" becomes obsolete. His simple pleasure means nothing when compared to the potential suffering of others.

But let's take alcohol. From Google, about 10,950 people died in 2017 from drunk driving. If we banned alcohol, and everyone just said "Oh well. Guess that's the end of drinking" then I would absolutely say that we ought to do it. The lives of the 11,000 we'd save in the next year means so much more than a personal liberty to drink, but we know from history, that will not work and prohibition causes more harm through inspiration of crime syndicates. But yes, if we can strip a simple pleasure to save countless lives, I do think we ought to do it. Arguing that we shouldn't appeals to things that don't exist and isn't defensible in any logical manner. Note "freedom for freedom's sake" is a very emotional slogan. It sure can promote lots of clapping and cheering, but it has no true rational defenses and doesn't rely upon anything that can be measured.

I've been mulling over my reply to this, and I can't think of a way to respond without getting into my own personal philosophy. I'll try not to go too deep here.

The only definitions of morality we can conceive of stem from one thing-- the human mind. Every moral system we can develop is limited by it. In fact, if it were not for our advanced minds, we would be incapable of understanding the concept of morality in the first place. It stands to reason, then, that the human mind and morality must work together rather than against one another. Any philosophy that makes statements about how humans should behave is inherently illogical, as it has nothing to compare human instinct to. This is one of many reasons why I find normative philosophies to be brainwashing cults. Unless your normative statement is "humans should act according to their nature," you're building your philosophy on a foundation of sand; an external ideal for human behavior that does not exist in nature.

The human mind is responsible for human nature, so let's discuss human nature itself. Humans are many things-- empathetic, cruel, humorous, vindictive, neurotic-- but our defining trait is our pure selfishness. Unless our minds have been bleached out with some collectivist chemical (religion, military hierarchies, veganism), we are inherently self-interested. It is this trait, I would argue, that has given us the advancements you described as the ultimate goal of your philosophy. Technology, literature, engineering, medicine, and so on-- they all stem primarily from our selfish desire to succeed, improve our own lives, and assert our supremacy. And in our messy race to the top, we've created the most advanced civilization the world has ever seen. I would expect nothing less from a structure as wonderful as the human mind. Ironically, being concerned for the well-being of others (a central tenet of utilitarianism) comes into direct conflict with this rational selfishness. But then that's a discussion for another time.

The goal in constructing an ethical system, therefore, is to create one that fits the human mind like a glove. There is no empirical justification for doing otherwise (forcing a square peg into a round hole; changing human nature in order to impose some imagined external morality). The ideal system, as I see it, would conform fully to the mold of human nature, infringing on self-determination as little as possible. If individuals infringe on one another's self-determination, then it is certainly morally correct to punish them accordingly. But if their actions do not directly affect others (damaging their own bodies with substance abuse), there is no moral grounds for changing their behavior through coercion.

Most importantly, someone who is both logical and selfish (the two great traits of the human mind) will infringe on the rights of others as little as possible. They will understand that any action they take could be reversed and turned on them-- if they can censor speech they disagree with, those they disagree with can censor them. If they can take property from others, others can take property from them. Rational egoists know that actions set precedents, and will avoid harming others-- not out of some respect for the bogus "golden rule," but out of their own innate self-interest.

The man in your scenarios has every right to harm himself regardless of the environment. His wife and children are not owed his labor. They are individuals as well, not objects for him to look after. This is why I prefer egoism-- it is immutable from situation to situation.

This is why your statement regarding alcohol was so alien to me, and why I find utilitarianism to be a morally weak philosophy. A leader who adheres to ethical egoism will inherently respect the human mind, and will infringe on personal freedom as little as possible. A utilitarian, on the other hand, could be good or bad depending on the other beliefs he brings to the situation. Phrases like "minimizing suffering" and "maximizing pleasure" are about as nebulous as it gets, and while you, Treet Johnson, might be an absolutely fine utilitarian leader, that is because of the personality you bring to the philosophy, not the philosophy itself.

You don't have to agree with this, but the fact remains that there absolutely is a rational defense for freedom, and to pretend otherwise is quite silly. Morality stems from the mind, and the mind demands freedom. Oh, and to tie all of this in, I wouldn't ban alcohol even if it would save those 11,000 people. But then I suppose you knew that.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2018, 05:48:46 pm »
Currently have a couple of concurrent discussions going on at Quora, but rest assured, I have read through the thread so far and will come back to it eventually.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: Diego Destroys Western Philosophy: The Thread
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2018, 08:32:04 pm »
Currently have a couple of concurrent discussions going on at Quora, but rest assured, I have read through the thread so far and will come back to it eventually.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this. I've never been able to pin you down from a philosophical perspective. I suppose I'd call you a pragmatist/realist.

 

+- Hot Threads

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Charles Longboat Jr.
Today at 12:48:36 am

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
October 14, 2018, 05:26:22 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 29, 2018, 09:36:30 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Jim Raynor Remastered
September 29, 2018, 03:34:00 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Tut
September 07, 2018, 04:43:28 pm

Favorite videogame cutscenes by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 02:55:25 pm

The US Supreme Court Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 04, 2018, 03:02:07 pm