PDA

View Full Version : Utilitarianism



racist
Friday, November 29th, 2002, 04:43 PM
What do you think of utilitarianism?

Hellstar
Saturday, November 30th, 2002, 02:15 PM
Please elaborate yourself.

racist
Saturday, November 30th, 2002, 04:27 PM
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

It's basically about universal happiness-maximation.

I am an adherent of this ideology.



http://utilitarism.net
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hedonism.htm
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm

Hellstar
Saturday, November 30th, 2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by racist
[B]Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which holds that actions are
right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

It's basically about universal happiness-maximation.

I am an adherent of this ideology.

Sorry for saying but it sounds abit dumb or easy bought.
It just sounds like another word for hedonism! Are you not National Socialist? well who are supposed to define the different subjective interests within utilitarianism? its a narrow way to base your beliefs, it sounds almost like Judea preaching's about good and wrong.
To illustrate this simplicity, I retrieve this quote: Definition of good and evil: Good is what you like, Evil is what you don’t like!

(there is nothing Universal about that)

Ederico
Saturday, November 30th, 2002, 05:09 PM
From racist's description of Utilitarianism I have understood that it is similar if not identical to Hedonism. Could you please explain the difference.

Personally I am against Hedonism, I would prefer a more ordered and guided Philosophy.

Hellstar
Saturday, November 30th, 2002, 05:12 PM
Sometimes there is nothing wrong with hedonism, but the movement dont need more selfish egos around. Being ego is also being self-aware but being emphatic and yet selfish is true clinical Hedonism. what we need is solidarity and good comradeships based on love and strength (rather we test the "Nature strength" negatively or merciful)

Ederico
Saturday, November 30th, 2002, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by HELLSTAR
Sometimes there is nothing wrong with hedonism, but the movement dont need more selfish egos around. Being ego is also being self-aware but being emphatic and yet selfish is true clinical Hedonism. what we need is solidarity and good comradeships based on love and strength (rather we test the "Nature strength" negatively or merciful)



Heil, I agree.

racist
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 04:04 PM
From racist's description of Utilitarianism I have understood that it is similar of not identical to Hedonism. Could you please explain the difference.Hedonism is the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life.
Utilitarianism is inclusive of hedonism but also includes universal altruism.
All utilitarians are hedonists but not all hedonists are utilitarians.

Hellstar
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 04:43 PM
If you take away the fine words and remove the Hebrew symbols from Satanism then its the same basically.

So you haven't been able to aswer any of my questions yet, im abit disappointed over that, lets make another question then. what is the gap of egocentrism as well as ethnocentrism within Ultilitarianism?, how folksy social bounded is this Utilitarianism ideology to you? My statement: any Nigger could be an Utilitarianist as well! next question, well if any nigger could be an Utilitarianist then whats the point in this ideology? to make a self justification on the behalf of what's individually hedonistic needed? as long as everyone is happy? now where does this last pacifist = (characterless features) enter the primacy?

How can you be a racist but make everyone happy?

You dont make much sense.

Ederico
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by racist
Utilitarianism is inclusive of hedonism but also includes universal altruism.


Please excuse my inquisitive nature, but what exactly do you mean by "universal altruism"?

racist
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 08:28 PM
Please excuse my inquisitive nature, but what exactly do you mean by "universal altruism"?
Altruism is the opposite of egoism.

Egoism is the state of being solely concerened with ones own welfare.

Universal altruism is the state of being concerned with everyones welfare.

racist
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 08:36 PM
So you haven't been able to aswer any of my questions yet, im abit disappointed over thatPlease accept my apologies. It takes me a bit of time to think about the questions.

Ederico
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by racist
Altruism is the opposite of egoism.

Egoism is the state of being solely concerened with ones own welfare.

Universal altruism is the state of being concerned with everyones welfare.

Thanks for your explanation. I have a further question, since Hedonism is the belief and/or practice that happiness and pleasure is the measure of right and wrong, and Utilitarianism is inclusive of Hedonism, is not it contradictory that Utilitarianism is also inclusive of any sort of Altruism especially Universal Altruism since it is also inclusive of Hedonism which is essentially Egotistical and self-centred?

Hellstar
Sunday, December 1st, 2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by racist
Please accept my apologies. It takes me a bit of time to think about the questions.
ohh im glad to see somebody is diligent around here.
I think I must be the one apologizing for assuming you are slovenly like majority.

racist
Wednesday, December 4th, 2002, 05:36 PM
I have a further question, since Hedonism is the belief and/or practice that happiness and pleasure is the measure of right and wrong, and Utilitarianism is inclusive of Hedonism, is not it contradictory that Utilitarianism is also inclusive of any sort of Altruism especially Universal Altruism since it is also inclusive of Hedonism which is essentially Egotistical and self-centred?Hedonism isn't essentially Egotistical and self-centred.

Hellstar
Wednesday, December 4th, 2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by racist
Hedonism isn't essentially Egotistical and self-centred. Well I agree it depends on the personality behind!
(How competent they are to administrate such ideological devotion them selves.)

Kass
Wednesday, December 4th, 2002, 10:05 PM
For the confused:

Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine which states that something has inherent value and it's therefore moral to increase the amount of it.

For example: according to hedonist utilitarianism, pleasure has inherent value and the aim of every action should be to increase the amount of pleasure in all parties concerned with the consequences of the action. One can conclude that displeasure has thus negative inherent value and its amount should be minimized. This is a widespread version of utilitarianism.

However, this "something" could be something entirely different. A famous example is "plastic fork utilitarianism", a moral code which, by name, would attempt to maximize the number of plastic forks.

Hedonism is a pursuit of pleasure as a matter of ethical principle. While hedonist utilitarianism is always concerned with the happiness of all concerned parties (an action must result with more happiness than unhappiness creates as a whole, counting everyone's interests), a pure hedonist can be as egoistical and reckless in his pursuit of pleasure as his nature demands.

racist
Thursday, December 12th, 2002, 09:13 PM
However, this "something" could be something entirely different. A famous example is "plastic fork utilitarianism", a moral code which, by name, would attempt to maximize the number of plastic forks.Here you insinuate that there is a disagreement among utilitarians about what has value.
I disagree. John Stuart Mill defined the term clearly in the second chapter of his book. Read it if you like.
The so-called negative utilitarians really are not utilitarians.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m645u

Kass
Friday, December 13th, 2002, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by racist
Here you insinuate that there is a disagreement among utilitarians about what has value.
I disagree. John Stuart Mill defined the term clearly in the second chapter of his book. Read it if you like.
The so-called negative utilitarians really are not utilitarians.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m645u

I am not saying there is much of a disagreement, just pointing out that hedonist utilitarianism isn't necessarily the only kind of utilitarianism possible. Negative utilitarianism is a completely another case - it's a negative version of hedonist utilitarianism. However, there have been and are utilitarian philosophies that don't assume pleasure but something else to have inherent value, one example is ideal utilitarianism (http://www.utilitarianism.com/idealuti.htm).

racist
Saturday, January 11th, 2003, 05:32 AM
Are you a utilitarian?

Kass
Sunday, February 9th, 2003, 02:54 PM
Yes, I am.

Moody
Sunday, February 9th, 2003, 06:46 PM
Utilitarianism is the favourite philosophy of self-satisfied Liberal Democrats.

I prefer the Will to Power.

Jack
Saturday, May 3rd, 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by NORTHSTAR
If you take away the fine words and remove the Hebrew symbols from Satanism then its the same basically.

Where did you get this from? Satanism and utilitarianism are near opposites. Utilitarianism is basically mass hedonism, Satanism says always look out for your own interests and never compromise your own strength. White Power and Satanism aren't incompatible, if you make looking after your race one of your primary interests.

Personally Satanism is too shallow - Nietzsche is far more complete, philosophically. Besides that Satanism is self-contradictory, a problem Nietzsche's philosophy never had.

White Preservationist
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 04:17 PM
Yes, I am.Good to hear. Post more, I am sure you will only make intelligent comments. I started this thread a long time ago under a different username.

White Preservationist
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 04:24 PM
Utilitarianism is the favourite philosophy of self-satisfied Liberal Democrats.I am not sure about that. I think a few of them like Rawls, who of course was an idiot. I know of members of parliament, lawmakers, that speak in admiration of his idiocy. In any case I think utilitarianism is the only defining of good and evil consistent with reality.


I prefer the Will to Power.?


Is the will to power a moral viewpoint?

Moody
Tuesday, April 27th, 2004, 05:29 PM
I am not sure about that. I think a few of them like Rawls, who of course was an idiot. I know of members of parliament, lawmakers, that speak in admiration of his idiocy. In any case I think utilitarianism is the only defining of good and evil consistent with reality.
Is the will to power a moral viewpoint?

The will to power IS a moral viewpoint, but a REVALUED one.
The 'good and evil' [i.e., virtuous and wicked] you speak of is transvalued to become 'good and bad' [i.e., noble and base].
The former morality of good and evil is very 'utilitarian', while the latter is called 'master morality', and is of the will to power.

http://www.babu.com/~laurel/arthurianpictures/beardsley39.jpg

Siegfried
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 06:51 PM
When people who are tolerably fortunate in their outward lot do not find in life sufficient enjoyment to make it valuable to them, the cause generally is, caring for nobody but themselves. To those who have neither public nor private affections, the excitements of life are much curtailed, and in any case dwindle in value as the time approaches when all selfish interests must be terminated by death: while hose who leave after them objects of personal affection, and especially those who have also cultivated a fellow-feeling with the collective interests of mankind, retain as lively an interest in life on the eve of death as in the vigour of youth and health. Next to selfishness, the principal cause which makes life unsatisfactory is want of mental cultivation. A cultivated mind - I do not mean that of a philosopher, but any mind to which the fountains of knowledge have been opened, and has been taught, in any tolerable degree, to use its faculties - finds sources of inexhaustable interest in all that surrounds it; in the objects of nature, the achievements of art, the imaginations of poetry, the incidents of history, the ways of mankind, past and present, and their prospects in the future. It is possible, indeed, to become indifferent to all this, and that too without having exhausted a thousandth part of it; but only when one has had from the beginning no moral or human interest in these things, and has sought in them only the gratification of curiosity.
Now there is absolutely no reason in the nature of things why an amount of mental culture sufficient to give an intelligent interest in these objects of contemplation, should not be the inheritance of every one born in a civilised country. As little is there an inheren necessity that any human being should be a selfish egotist, devoid of feeling or care but those which centre in his own miserable individuality. Something far superior to this is sufficiently common even now, to give ample earnest of what the human species may be made. Genuine private affections, and a sincere interest in the public good, are possible, though in unequal degrees, to every rightly brought up human being. In a world where there is so much to interest, so much to enjoy, and so much to correct and improve, every one who has this moderate amount of moral and intellectual requisites is capable of an existence which may be called enviable.

-John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Patria
Monday, March 27th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Auszug aus John Stuart Mill - Der Utilitarismus / Seite 25, 26

Daß ein Leben unbefriedigend ist, hat seine Ursache außer im Egoismus vor allem auch im Mangel an geistiger Bildung. Ein gebildeter Mensch - nicht nur der Philosoph, sondern jeder, dem die Quellen des Wissens aufgetan worden sind und der zumindest in gewissem Maße gelernt hat, seine Möglichkeiten zu verwirklichen - findet Gegenstände unerschöpflichen Interesses in allem, was ihm umgibt: in den Dingen der Natur, den Werken der Kunst, den Gebilden der Poesie, den Ereignissen der Geschichte, dem Schicksal der Menschheit in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart und ihren Aussichten in der Zukunft. Freilich ist es möglich all diesen Dingen gegenüber gleichgültig zu werden, ohne auch nur den tausendsten Teil von ihnen ausgeschöpft zu haben; doch nur, wenn man von Anfang an kein Interesse an diesen Dingen hatte und an ihnen im Grunde nur seine Neugier befriedigen wollte.

Es besteht jedoch der Natur der Sache nach kein Grund, warum eine gewisse geistige Kultur, wie sie das Verständnis und Interesse für Betrachtungen dieser Art erfordert, nicht das Erbteil jedes Menschen sein sollte, der in einem zivilisierten Land geboren wird - ebensowenig, wie es eine innere Notwendigkeit gibt, aus der jeder Mensch ein selbstsüchtiger Egozentriker sein muß, ein Mensch, der Gefühl und Interesse nur für das übrig hat, was sich um seine eigene erbärmliche Person dreht. Etwas Höheres als dies ist selbst jetzt schon verbreitet genug, um einen Vorgeschmack davon zu geben wohin die menschliche Gattung geführt werden könnte. Persönliche Gefühlsbindungen und ein aufrichtiges Interesse am Gemeinwohl sind - wenn auch in unterschiedlichem Maße - jedem rechterzogenen Menschen möglich. In einer Welt in der es soviel gibt, das Interesse erregt, soviel, das Freude macht, soviel auch, das es richtigzustellen und zu verbessern gilt, ist jeder, der die bescheidenen charakterlichen und intellektuellen Anforderungen erfüllt, eines Daseins fähig, das beneidenswert genannt werden darf; und falls einem solchen Menschen nicht durch schlechte Gesetze oder durch Bevormundung die Freiheit vorenthalten wird, die Quellen des Glücks, die in seinem Umkreis liegen, zu erschließen, wird er dieses beneidenswerte Dasein sicher nicht verfehlen, vorausgesetzt, daß er von den größten Übeln des Lebens, den Hauptursachen körperlichen und seelischen Leids, von Not und Krankheit und der Herzlosigkeit, Unwürdigkeit und dem vorzeitigem Verlust derer, die wir lieben verschont bleibt. Die schwierigste Seite des Problems ist deshalb der Kampf mit diesen unheilvollen Mächten, denen man nur mit großem Glück gänzlich entgeht und die unter den gegenwärtigen Umständen nicht beseitigt und oft sogar nicht wesentlich gemildert werden können. Doch niemand, dessen Meinung auch nur einen Moment lang Beachtung verdient, wird daran zweifeln können, daß die wirklich großen Übel in der Welt prinzipiell ausrottbar sind und daß sie bei einer weiteren Besserung der menschlichen Verhältnisse schließlich in engen Grenzen gehalten werden können.