An atheist philosophy of life: hedonistic utilitarianism.

[Cypress]

Prominent atheist philosopher Peter Singer offers his opinions on the goal of life being the maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of suffering.

 

[Lao Tse]

Prominent atheist philosopher Peter Singer offers his opinions on the goal of life being the maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of suffering.

this is a horrific failure to embrace as a civilization.

you and your bullshit are an evil influence.

 

[Cypress]

this is a horrific failure to embrace as a civilization.

you and your bullshit are an evil influence.

I don't really think utilitarianism is the proper way to measure the value of life, but I am pretty sure almost all MAGA morons constantly run a calculus on the balance between pleasure and suffering.

 

[Kafka]

this is a horrific failure to embrace as a civilization.

you and your bullshit are an evil influence.

There is nothing inherently evil about Bentham's hedonism, nor is there anything inherently evil about Utilitarianism.

We are animals at the end of the day. Most animals tend to try to avoid pain and increase pleasure, but primarily avoid pain.

The thing that gets people screwed up is the word "hedonism". Because it carries a lot of baggage of libertine excess and debauchery, but that isn't what Bentham is talking about. Hedonism in this case is merely the drive to reduce pain and if possible increase pleasure.

Would you rather stand on a thumbtack or sit in a comfortable chair?

This gets at the heart of what true "altruism" is as well, but that's for another time.

For meantime there's really nothing wrong with saying that I wish to avoid pain and I wish to maximize the number of my fellow humans who are also able to avoid pain and possibly increase their pleasure.

 

[Yakuda]

Prominent atheist philosopher Peter Singer offers his opinions on the goal of life being the maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of suffering.

pure horse shit

 

[Kafka]

pure horse shit

Why?

 

[Lao Tse]

There is nothing inherently evil about Bentham's hedonism, nor is there anything inherently evil about Utilitarianism.

We are animals at the end of the day. Most animals tend to try to avoid pain and increase pleasure, but primarily avoid pain.

The thing that gets people screwed up is the word "hedonism". Because it carries a lot of baggage of libertine excess and debauchery, but that isn't what Bentham is talking about. Hedonism in this case is merely the drive to reduce pain and if possible increase pleasure.

Would you rather stand on a thumbtack or sit in a comfortable chair?

This gets at the heart of what true "altruism" is as well, but that's for another time.

For meantime there's really nothing wrong with saying that I wish to avoid pain and I wish to maximize the number of my fellow humans who are also able to avoid pain and possibly increase their pleasure.

no shit.

that's too basic.

the human innovation is morality and that is what is most human about us.

this stuff above is just a glittering generality.

and utilitarianism also is just a glittering generality, and spoken about mostly by malthusians who believe in population reduction and fascism, in truth.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't really think utilitarianism is the proper way to measure the value of life, but I am pretty sure almost all MAGA morons constantly run a calculus on the balance between pleasure and suffering.

I long ago arrived at the belief that life only reaches the tolerable level
when the rewards adequately compensate the travails
and life doesn't become an actually positive experience until the rewards exceed the travails.

Any thought that life has absolute rather than qualitative value
was something I could easily dismiss even before reaching adulthood.

You attribute to MAGA morons something that could very reasonably be said about me.

First of all, no MAGAts reach the intellectual level of morons.
They're all idiots.

Beyond that, however, what makes them subhuman to me
is not the beliefs that you could attribute to me as well as them,
but rather the fact that they don't consider the balance between pleasure and suffering for everybody.

 

[Lao Tse]

I don't really think utilitarianism is the proper way to measure the value of life, but I am pretty sure almost all MAGA morons constantly run a calculus on the balance between pleasure and suffering.

everyone does that to some degree.

i'd say the Catholic 7 deadly sins are good in this area of hedonism, and the abuse of natural and bodily pleasure.

obesity and alcoholism really are deadly.

 

[Cypress]

I long ago arrived at the belief that life only reaches the tolerable level
when the rewards adequately compensate the travails
and life doesn't become an actually positive experience until the rewards exceed the travails.

Any thought that life has absolute rather than qualitative value
was something I could easily dismiss even before reaching adulthood.

You attribute to MAGA morons something that could very reasonably be said about me.

First of all, no MAGAts reach the intellectual level of morons.
They're all idiots.

Beyond that, however, what makes them subhuman to me
is not the beliefs that you could attribute to me as well as them,
but rather the fact that they don't consider the balance between pleasure and suffering for everybody.

To me, the main problem with utilitarianism is that it is a type of consequentialist ethics - actions are only considered right or wrong on the basis of their consequences (maximize pleasure, minimize pain). A deontological type of ethics is independent of consequences; it simply considers whether an action is fundamentally right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.

In theory, a large group of Germans could decide they would acquire the most happiness by ensuring a small Jewish minority is expelled or exiled, in a utilitarian approach.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

To me, the main problem with utilitarianism is that it is a type of consequentialist ethics - actions are only considered right or wrong on the basis of their consequences (maximize pleasure, minimize pain). A deontological type of ethics is independent of consequences; it simply considers whether an action is fundamentally right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.

In theory, a large group of Germans could decide they would acquire the most happiness by ensuring a small Jewish minority is expelled or exiled, in a utilitarian approach.

What's the source of the deontology in discussion?
What determined that the Germans were wrong, from what we can actually see,
was that a larger group of Russians, Brits, and Americans disagreed and did something about it.

If the moral standard doesn't come from the consensus of people,
what exactly is its source?

Where is the evidence that such an imagined source is more likely than the mere consensus among people?
If there exist such an intrinsic source, who among us understands how it works or from where it was derived?

 

[Cypress]

What's the source of the deontology in discussion?

I threw out utilitarianism as the seed to start a discussion, which could evolve from there.

If the moral standard doesn't come from the consensus of people,
what exactly is its source?

I think slavery was wrong before the 13th amendment, and the Nazi death camps were wrong before the Nuremberg trials, and ritual child sacrifice was wrong long before Mediterranean civilization moved away from practicing it. They didn't just start being wrong after legislation was passed, or consensus changed.

Speaking of consensus, there was a considerable period of time when the consensus of people was that slavery was perfectly fine, oppressing Jews was totally warranted, and ritually sacrificing babies on the altars of pagan gods was a perfectly sensible thing to do.

I don't think they were ever morally justifiable, then or now on the basis of consensus.
I think that the human conscience imprinted on people's minds is predisposed or responsive to being ultimately reached by persuasion to do the right thing -- even if it can take centuries of persuasion by prophets, sages, and activists.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Prominent atheist philosopher Peter Singer offers his opinions on the goal of life being the maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of suffering.

A differing POV on Singer's beliefs:

The Ethics of Peter Singer: He Believes What?

We need to appreciate that these ideas are not being whispered on the dark web or behind closed doors, but openly in one of America’s Ivy League Universities, and in some of the United States’ and Australia’s most respected news and journalistic outlets. I

au.thegospelcoalition.org

...Notice the comparison he makes? He suggests that the life of a dog or cat has more value and ‘dignity’ than a human being with limited cognitive faculties. Not only that, in true utilitarian style he denies Ashley’s intrinsic worth as a human being, suggesting that she has worth only insofar as she is loved by her family.

In a recent article in the Journal of Practical Ethics, Peter Singer tried to justify killing children with Down Syndrome....


While there's a logic to such a thing, especially to ease suffering, I'm not exactly sure taking that path leads to peace and prosperity on Earth. It looks more like Huxley's "Brave New World".

Unless specifically genetically-altered from Homo sapien sapien, human behavior seems to follow some pretty brutal paths if allowed to do so. In the long run, those paths lead to happiness for a few and sorrow for the many.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't really think utilitarianism is the proper way to measure the value of life, but I am pretty sure almost all MAGA morons constantly run a calculus on the balance between pleasure and suffering.

They certainly place more value on wealth than human life. They scream about the "rights of the unborn" then toss families out into the desert and seek to abandon others to savage invading armies.

 

[Kafka]

What's the source of the deontology in discussion?
What determined that the Germans were wrong, from what we can actually see,
was that a larger group of Russians, Brits, and Americans disagreed and did something about it.

I, personally, am of the opinion that among social animals such as humans, the idea of killing another member of our "group" is counter to our survival instincts. We, as all social animals, derive evolutionary advantages from a safe and stable society which I think arises naturally because we are social animals.

That eliminates a lot of the "emotional baggage" that is going to now be larded onto the point. Other posters like to amplify ways of characterizing the position as nearly EVIL with questions like "Do you think killing jews was OK before Nuremburg?" is deliberately offensive and intended to shut down the conversation.

In reality it's a GREAT question to wonder where our moral rules come from. I prefer the natural source as opposed to some ineffible supernatural fiat (whatever the source of that is).

It helps to explain why it is morally wrong for a human to murder another human, but NOT for a well-fed housecat to murder a songbird. Both are cases of unnecessary and unjustified deaths but no one assumes the cat is acting "immorally". That's because the opprobrium of murder resides wholly within the human sphere.

Where is the evidence that such an imagined source is more likely than the mere consensus among people?

I think the subtlety of this point cannot be overstated. It isn't really a "consensus" among people in that we didn't all just get together and arbitrarily decided "This is evil". "this is good" and randomly assign it.

I think our brains are hard wired to be social animals. Our very survival rests on it. In a sense it is a built-in self preservation mechanism like the urge to have sex.

That can SEEM kinda like a variant of "supernatural fiat" but I think it resides more in the realm of things we have observed in other aspects of biology.

If there exist such an intrinsic source, who among us understands how it works or from where it was derived?

The fact that this question seems hard to resolve is evidence that none of us really know how it all works. We can make informed guesses. But that's about it.

 

[Hume]

Prominent atheist philosopher Peter Singer offers his opinions on the goal of life being the maximizing of pleasure and minimizing of suffering.

He is a utilitarian. Pretty boring.

 

[Lao Tse]

To me, the main problem with utilitarianism is that it is a type of consequentialist ethics - actions are only considered right or wrong on the basis of their consequences (maximize pleasure, minimize pain). A deontological type of ethics is independent of consequences; it simply considers whether an action is fundamentally right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.

In theory, a large group of Germans could decide they would acquire the most happiness by ensuring a small Jewish minority is expelled or exiled, in a utilitarian approach.

deontological is also dumb because of course you should consider consequences.

the problem with utilitarianism is what to measure, what is good, and for whom.

totalitarians use utilitarianism as a cover and then fudge numbers and language to claim they are fulfilling their charter.

 

[Lao Tse]

I, personally, am of the opinion that among social animals such as humans, the idea of killing another member of our "group" is counter to our survival instincts. We, as all social animals, derive evolutionary advantages from a safe and stable society which I think arises naturally because we are social animals.

That eliminates a lot of the "emotional baggage" that is going to now be larded onto the point. Other posters like to amplify ways of characterizing the position as nearly EVIL with questions like "Do you think killing jews was OK before Nuremburg?" is deliberately offensive and intended to shut down the conversation.

In reality it's a GREAT question to wonder where our moral rules come from. I prefer the natural source as opposed to some ineffible supernatural fiat (whatever the source of that is).

It helps to explain why it is morally wrong for a human to murder another human, but NOT for a well-fed housecat to murder a songbird. Both are cases of unnecessary and unjustified deaths but no one assumes the cat is acting "immorally". That's because the opprobrium of murder resides wholly within the human sphere.




I think the subtlety of this point cannot be overstated. It isn't really a "consensus" among people in that we didn't all just get together and arbitrarily decided "This is evil". "this is good" and randomly assign it.

I think our brains are hard wired to be social animals. Our very survival rests on it. In a sense it is a built-in self preservation mechanism like the urge to have sex.

That can SEEM kinda like a variant of "supernatural fiat" but I think it resides more in the realm of things we have observed in other aspects of biology.



The fact that this question seems hard to resolve is evidence that none of us really know how it all works. We can make informed guesses. But that's about it.

morality is simple.

morality is a set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

of course intentional confusion and word games accomplish nothing.

its basically just not lying, stealing, and violencing.

and yes, we did get together and just say "this is evil", for good reason.

it is evil..

people who rely on immorality and human on human predation like to pretend its complicated.

 

[goat]

I, personally, am of the opinion that among social animals such as humans, the idea of killing another member of our "group" is counter to our survival instincts. We, as all social animals, derive evolutionary advantages from a safe and stable society which I think arises naturally because we are social animals.

That eliminates a lot of the "emotional baggage" that is going to now be larded onto the point. Other posters like to amplify ways of characterizing the position as nearly EVIL with questions like "Do you think killing jews was OK before Nuremburg?" is deliberately offensive and intended to shut down the conversation.

In reality it's a GREAT question to wonder where our moral rules come from. I prefer the natural source as opposed to some ineffible supernatural fiat (whatever the source of that is).

It helps to explain why it is morally wrong for a human to murder another human, but NOT for a well-fed housecat to murder a songbird. Both are cases of unnecessary and unjustified deaths but no one assumes the cat is acting "immorally". That's because the opprobrium of murder resides wholly within the human sphere.




I think the subtlety of this point cannot be overstated. It isn't really a "consensus" among people in that we didn't all just get together and arbitrarily decided "This is evil". "this is good" and randomly assign it.

I think our brains are hard wired to be social animals. Our very survival rests on it. In a sense it is a built-in self preservation mechanism like the urge to have sex.

That can SEEM kinda like a variant of "supernatural fiat" but I think it resides more in the realm of things we have observed in other aspects of biology.



The fact that this question seems hard to resolve is evidence that none of us really know how it all works. We can make informed guesses. But that's about it.

Is a safe and stable society subjective? I'm not sure of your position here. Hitler came to power after the Brits forced austerity on Germany. The US is no longer stable because the security of good paying jobs have been outsourced, so workers are once again being squeezed.

Isolated tribes around the globe don't deal with the stress of people dependent on institutions.

 

[Yakuda]

Why?

Why?

Because of all this horseshit "educated" people can no longer distinguish between a man and a woman. People.make decisions all the time now based on their desire even though they are woefully uninformed. This horseshit has been pumped into children in the indoctrination centers for years. We don't produce useful things like engineers or plumbers or carpenters anymore we produce soy boys who arent sure they're even boys.