/lit/ - Literature

good, but problematic. must find middle ground

It's shit.

Anglo shit.

>>17774756
Trotsky's utilitarianism is a must read if you're gonna play that game
>Their Morals and Ours

THE ETHOS OF INSECTOIDAL SOULLESS FLESHVESSELS.

>>17774756
Good when moderated, harmful when taken to logical extremes.

Just kill yourself in a happy situation mate

>>17774756
The shittiest of the three big ethics and leads to less freedom.

It's total shite

>>17774756
Refuted by Nozick and Rawls

>>17774756
deboonked

>>17774756
Imbecilic

>>17774783
so illogical.

>>17775816
lol this book is contrived as fuck. look around you. do you see anyone feeling fucking guilt over their lives of degeneracy and sin?

>>17774756
Utilitarianism is based. Pic related would unironically be far better than our current existence.

Does /lit/ read Magnus Vinding?

>>17774756
People should read his work On the Subjugation of Women.

He completely BTFOs women throughout and says "all these bad behaviours will disappear when they can work and get the vote". Lmao, how wrong he was!

>>17774756

>>17774771
No one is reading your kikes give it a rest by bergstein

>>17774904
This but unironically

>>17776046

>>17776062
the only thing women should get to vote on is which one gets to suck my cock first

>>17776048
This is one of those occasions where the meme doesn't work as the most well-known utilitarians are all bird-faced beady-eyed Anglos (except Singer, who is a bird-faced beady-eyed Jew).

>>17774756
I'm into antidisestablishmentarianism

>>17776035
>Pic related would unironically be far better than our current existence.
better by what metric? the utilitarian metric? nice circular logic

>>17776243
As in if I had a choice, I would choose to become a wirehead experiencing nonstop pleasure instead of continue existing in my current form

>>17774756
something only the eternal anglo could come up with

>>17774756
I'm not a bikecuck.

>>17776278
I think this would only be possible/strictly good if you could never ponder about life outside that situation, and since we have lived a life outside that situation (like right now) then we will always be able to think about it.

>>17776082
>bird-faced beady-eyed Anglos
Woah buddy let's not bring looks into this, especially not those that are potentially found in anonymous posters

>>17776342
I mean, that's the point. The 'Yes' meme depends on you not knowing what anonymous posters look like. However, we do know what actual English utilitarian looked like.

>>17774771
>At the end of the last century in Russia there arose a whole school of “Marxists” (Struve, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, and others) who wished to supplement the teachings of Marx with a self-sufficient, that is, supra-class moral principle. These people began, of course, with Kant and the categorical imperative. But how did they end? Struve is now a retired minister of the Crimean baron Wrangel, and a faithful son of the church; Bulgakov is an orthodox priest; Berdyaev expounds the Apocalypse in sundry languages.

lel many such cases

>>17774761
There’s no middle ground, you just don’t treat it like a dogma. And you don’t need to anyway. It’s not a perfect solution, it’s an approximation.

You don’t have to abide by it as an individual, but institutions should lean towards it.

>>17775745
There aren’t magnitudes of difference in mental or physical capacity between individuals. The utilitarian monster is silly. Utilitarianism does make the assumption that individuals are more alike than not—and that’s going to be a messy assumption—but that’s what you expect in applied ethics.
Nobody is going to follow utilitarianism like a dogma and eat bugs and whatever else you could see it entailing. And they shouldn’t have to. It can be moderated.

But negative utilitarianism such as consequentialism avoids the more abstract objections anyway.

>>17776832
>There aren’t magnitudes of difference in mental or physical capacity between individuals.
Yes there are. It only looks that way because we've abolished the old caste structures which used to keep the superior stock obviously separate from the inferior.

>>17776887
You can think yourself superior to the unwashed masses all you want. And there will always be hierarchies for that sort of thing. But institutions in society aren’t there to help you live out your power fantasy. They shouldn’t be. That’s not useful to anybody else.

Debunked 5 million years ago.

>>17774756
It's counterproductive.

>>17776832
>There aren’t magnitudes of difference in mental or physical capacity between individuals.
What even is a "mental or physical capacity"? These are bullshit categories, which is why you've reached a bullshit conclusion. There are no such "capacities," but there are different modes and configurations of instincts which render people unequal, sometimes incredibly.

>>17776832
>There aren’t magnitudes of difference in mental or physical capacity between individuals.
this is such a blatant falsity that i'm led to wonder what the fuck else has gone wrong up there. do you have eyes? do you actually think thoughts? are you even conscious? is this GPT-3 trolling us from some noisy datacenter somewhere? what the fuck must have happened in your life and severely stunted intellectual development for it all to end up with you typing a sentence like that?
people can be so different that they become almost a distinct species from the others, in either direction

>>17774756
like all teleological theories it completely misses the point of an ethical theory, stripping it of all practical value

>>17776029
whenever I look in the mirror

>>17775745
My god, that smile

>>17774756
Wouldn't utilitarianism be an instrumental value instead of a terminal value? I feel like anyone could define whatever they wanted as "utility" and wish to maximize that. I feel like it's much less of an ideology in itself and more of a tool of ideology. Or maybe I'm just retarded and haven't read enough Anglo literature. Is there a more defined way of describing "utility"?

>>17774756
Utilitarianism is fucking gay

>>17774756

its only logical conclusion is anti-natalism, the only praxis of which is nuclear annihilation

>>17778131
I'm a natalist who's hoping for nuclear Armageddon.

Checkmate faggot.

>>17776057
>blissful blank
Do people even think about these ideas? It's not blissful in the slightest. It's, from the perspective of it being a nothing to our something, nothingness.

>>17776564
Was Bulgakov a commie or a christian when he wrote Master and Margarita? I need to know whether I should read it

>>17774756
Stupid

>>17774756
'mirin the zygos

>>17774756
The philosophy of bugmen.

>>17774756
Refuted by Carlyle.

>>17778987

>>17778991

>>17778997

>>17779002

>>17779006