"You Can Be Anything You Want To Be"

[JohnXDoe]

******** made up by optimists / people who were lucky enough to achieve their dreams, or a truthful statement?

Discuss

[Murdererer]

i think if u have enough motivation u can be anything u want to be except an ice cream man cuz gas is too expensive

[Interstate]

True dat

[JohnXDoe]

wisdom abounds already itt

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

the former

[Jude]

You can't ****ing be anything you want to be that's stupid

But if you put your mind to it and aren't incredibly unlucky then you can be a lot of things you want to be

[jaredong]

On a similar note:

i think that, you cant be *anything* you want to be. People are bound by certain limits. (say, you cant be a power ranger when you grow up)

That being said, I do believe that people should be responsible for their actions and the direction they take in their life. The standard that man should be measured is not on a absolute scale, rather relative to their position. In other words "It is not the cards you are dealt, but the way you play your hand that is important." Some rich guy getter richer is no big deal, but if, overcoming adversity, a poor guy makes it, thats special.

I think that, if you worked hard at something sincerely, you would do good relative to your circumstances. But if a person adopts "I am not good at this" and doesnt even try, he's pretty much doomed from the start.

[Nadinus]

You are what you decide to be.

[Odin88]

You are what you decide to be.

false. :smash:

based on this logic i am a t-rex, as of this day forth i decide to be a t-rex.
i am in fact not a t-rex only a human acting as one. (this is what i wanted to be when i was a kid)

or for example if you were to see a person on the street who got a sex change sure they could be emulating the opposite sex to a tee, but they would still in fact be their original gender.

[Nadinus]

false. :smash:

based on this logic i am a t-rex, as of this day forth i decide to be a t-rex.
i am in fact not a t-rex only a human acting as one. (this is what i wanted to be when i was a kid)

or for example if you were to see a person on the street who got a sex change sure they could be emulating the opposite sex to a tee, but they would still in fact be their original gender.

I don't think you got my point.

[Odin88]

I don't think you got my point.

then please clarify.

[Nadinus]

then please clarify.

I mean you are a certain way because you have decided to be like that. People who really want to change can and do.

[Odin88]

I mean you are a certain way because you have decided to be like that. People who really want to change can and do.

not to be a dick, but say it like that next time. :thumb:

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

Just ignore her she's just a stupid bitch like all the rest of them.

[Nadinus]

Someone is bitter about something.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

I just don't like you. I take that back not ALL girls are stupid bitches but a lot are. Like nadinus.

[Maxibon]

you can be anything that its possible for you to be you lazy ****ing dykes

[Iskandar]

I can be the president of Mongolia then? That has been a long-deferred dream for me.

[Odin88]

the feelgoodery of this statement makes me shudder.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

I want to be a gundam.

[Maxibon]

I can be the president of Mongolia then? That has been a long-deferred dream for me.yeah prly

[Nadinus]

It's not about feeling-good, it's just a fact.

[knuckleduster]

I want to be a gundam.

which one


or one of your own design


and how would you design it

[Maxibon]

what if you're a poor ****** raised in deplorable socioeconomic conditions because of the aftereffects of centuries of oppression and intolerance
omg collectivist scum

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

http://www.staats.us/sonle/ew_wing_zero_custom.jpg

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

Is this possible if I try really hard and follow my heart?

[knuckleduster]

classic bro

[Maxibon]

dunno why nadinus is posting in this thread she has no ambitions

[Odin88]

If who consider yourself to be is dependant on how much money you have then you're kind of screwed.

I more meant the ~kind of person~ who are and others consider you to be.

what like nice or mean lol.


also i want to be the Millenium Falcon.

[Iskandar]

omg collectivist scumWe need to keep the browns poor so they can do the jobs we don't want.

[Maxibon]

We need to keep the browns poor so they can do the jobs we don't want.

black people need me, white suburban warrior, to save them from their natural failure

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

right now I am majoring in gundam engineering in japan and i think i am slowly changing into one.

[Thornebranche]

If who consider yourself to be is dependant on how much money you have then you're kind of screwed.

I more meant the ~kind of person~ who are and others consider you to be.
that's pretty ignorant and naive

[Maxibon]

that's pretty ignorant and naive
you're even more white and middle class than iskandar it seems

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

If who consider yourself to be is dependant on how much money you have then you're kind of screwed.

I more meant the ~kind of person~ who are and others consider you to be.

So Nadinus, explain to me why I am not a gundam when I really want to be one.

[Nadinus]

that's pretty ignorant and naive

Not really. If you think you're an unsociable loser then you will be one. If you decide to yourself that you're going to be an outgoing friendly person then...bingo.

[Nadinus]

So Nadinus, explain to me why I am not a gundam when I really want to be one.

From the tl;dr wiki article I conclude that it's not possible by the laws of the universe.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

From the tl;dr wiki article I conclude that it's not possible by the laws of the universe.

So then you cannot be anything you want to be...

[Thornebranche]

Not really. If you think you're an unsociable loser then you will be one. If you decide to yourself that you're going to be an outgoing friendly person then...bingo.
that's not even remotely true

[Maxibon]

From the tl;dr wiki article you're reading it

[Thornebranche]

it's very easy to be an unsociable loser and not realize it

[Maxibon]

Thornebranche you're a douche

and i hate you

[Nadinus]

Then that probably would be a barrier against doing something about about it.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

Not really. If you think you're an unsociable loser then you will be one. If you decide to yourself that you're going to be an outgoing friendly person then...bingo.

so i take it you want to be an unsociable, ugly whore?:confused:

[Maxibon]

now now people dont choose to be ugly

[Nadinus]

so i take it you want to be an unsociable, ugly whore?:confused:

Someone is feeling very bitter about something.

[Iskandar]

you're even more white and middle class than iskandar it seemsAnd you, of course are black and working poor.

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

nah dude you can be anything you want to be duh

[Maxibon]

And you, of course are black and working poor.
middle class is an attitute

i dont patronize people by thinking they need my help

[Iskandar]

middle class is an attitute

i dont patronize people by thinking they need my helpAnd if they do?

[Maxibon]

i would help someone if it actually made a difference and if they wanted the help but i wouldnt generalize entire groups of people because you cant make those judgments like that

[Agr1m]

jews like money

[Maxibon]

they do

[Agr1m]

black people like chicken
women are stupid
asians are actually aliens

you can generalize all sorts of people

[Maxibon]

the second one is supa true

[Stevie]

lol bitterness ITT from people who failed to achieve anything

[P13]

Mind over matter, just like walking on coals

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

lol bitterness ITT from people who failed to achieve anything

Wow I bet you know the whole back history of these people too.:rolleyes:

[Iskandar]

i would help someone if it actually made a differenceActually, it does cause measurable differences in quality of life, alleviation of poverty and income equality. You might think this is a bad thing; I do not.
and if they wanted the helpIf they didn't they would a) stop using these services and b) stop voting for people who promise to retain or expand them.
but i wouldnt generalize entire groups of people because you cant make those judgments like thatI can make a pretty accurate generalization about the poor: They don't have a lot of money.

Nb. you generalize about people all the time but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

[Maxibon]

obviously just giving them money is going to improve their quality of life

its a teach a man to fish thing though

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

I'm poor, if someone gave me money I would go buy some xanax. Thank you for improving my quality of life Iskandar.

[Iskandar]

obviously just giving them money is going to improve their quality of life

its a teach a man to fish thing thoughWorkfare.
I'm poor, if someone gave me money I would go buy some xanax. Thank you for improving my quality of life Iskandar.
How poor are you?

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

How poor are you?

I have $24.

[Maxibon]

Workfare.
so? even if i were to support something like that it doesnt mean i want to force other people to support it for me

you can get more people into work by abolishing the minimum wage though, if thats what you're concerned about

[Agr1m]

don't take xanax and go to a rock show

they just... don't mix

[Iskandar]

I have $24.Are you working?
so? even if i were to support something like that it doesnt mean i want to force other people to support it for meThe government is the only entity capable of enacting a nationwide program. More to the point, the government is elected to govern the way people want it too.

If you claim that's an argumentum ad populum I will bust a nut because we've been over why it's not.
you can get more people into work by abolishing the minimum wage though, if thats what you're concerned aboutHardly enough to justify doing this.

[Maxibon]

sure it is you're trying to say something is right or just because most people think it is

which is the definition of ad populum


also

The government is the only entity capable of enacting a nationwide program.

what

[Iskandar]

sure it is you're trying to say something is right or just because most people think it is

which is the definition of ad populumExcept I'm not. People elect the government not because people always elect the best government, but because people deserve to choose the government they want.

[Maxibon]

i dont care about what you think people deserve

i care about forcing people to do things and whether thats right or just

which cant be determined by the number of people who think it is

a dictatorship with social benefits is no better or worse than a democracy with the same things

[lukeskywalkertakingadump6]

Are you working?

Yeah.

[RNR]

If you have dreams, realize that you can't achieve them and yet they remain your dreams and are a source of pain, you're suffering from existential despair and aren't an existentialist.

[Iskandar]

i care about forcing people to do things and whether thats right or just

which cant be determined by the number of people who think it isNo, that doesn't determine if it's right or just.

But governments should be chosen by the greatest number anyway it's just logical.
a dictatorship with social benefits is no better or worse than a democracy with the same thingsThis is both wrong and pointless.

[Maxibon]

no its not just logical, the only person you should be able to elect someone to represent is yourself

i can tell somebody to act on my behalf and in my interests by i cant tell them to come bash your face in and take your stuff just like i cant do it personally


This is both wrong and pointless.
no, and it demonstrates that democracy means nothing when it comes to what is right or what is better

[RNR]

If the government isn't chosen by the greatest number, then it is not the government of the people and has no right to exist. If it isn't chosen by anyone then it is nobody's government and is no different from a conqueror.

[Iskandar]

no its not just logical, the only person you should be able to elect someone to represent is yourselfI vote for someone. Other people vote. The candidate that gets the most votes wins, because that is satisfying the largest number of people.
i can tell somebody to act on my behalf and in my interests by i cant tell them to come bash your face in and take your stuff just like i cant do it personallyGovernments break in your home and beat you. Right.
no, and it demonstrates that democracy means nothing when it comes to what is right or what is betterPerhaps, but democracy does appear to be better at delivering things people want, which is its great advantage.

[Maxibon]

I vote for someone. Somebody else votes. The candidate that gets the most votes wins, because that is satisfying the largest number of people.
if banning homosexuality satisfied the most people, would it be right

Governments break in your home and beat you. Right.government employees physically abuse people quite regularly but it was a demonstrative comment about the fact that i shouldnt be able to elect people to do things that i cannot legally do myself

[Iskandar]

if banning homosexuality satisfied the most people, would it be rightI never said it would be right dammit.
government employees physically abuse people quite regularly but it was a demonstrative comment about the fact that i shouldnt be able to elect people to do things that i cannot legally do myselfYou mean the police?

Btw nobody elected you to do these things ie. nobody chose you to do them because they wanted you to.

[Maxibon]

I never said it would be right dammit.
would it be a 'good' thing then


You mean the police?
sure, the police are generally what the government uses to physically harass people

Btw nobody elected you to do these things ie. nobody chose you to do them because they wanted you to.
i dont understand this sentence

[Iskandar]

would it be a 'good' thing thenGood is subjective.

What matters isn't if it's good, because there are differing conceptions of that. What matters is what the majority wants.
sure, the police are generally what the government uses to physically harass peopleAnd if a private law enforcement agency did the same, it would be okay?
i dont understand this sentenceYou can't choose someone to arrest your neighbour because you are not elected. Government relies on popular sovereignty to justify itself; everyone was able to vote, and the majority selected a government.

[Maxibon]

Good is subjective.

What matters isn't if it's good, because there are differing conceptions of that. What matters is what the majority wants.
if whats the majority wants isnt always good then why would you give it your blanket support in the first place


And if a private law enforcement agency did the same, it would be okay?
current enforcement is disproportionately representational

the uneducated masses control the actions of the police but they are actually funded by a few rich dudes

private enforcement has a disincentive for enforcing personal views since people have to pay for it individually


You can't choose someone to arrest your neighbour because you are not elected. Government relies on popular sovereignty to justify itself; everyone was able to vote, and the majority selected a government.
what if me and five other neighbours elect to have someone go round and steal his stuff

what if me and a hundred other neighbours

or a thousand

it seems the point where its ok is arbitrary

[Iskandar]

if whats the majority wants isnt always good then why would you give it your blanket support in the first placeBecause as I said good is subjective.

Because of this, the government should do what the majority thinks is good for utilitarian reasons.
current enforcement is disproportionately representational

the uneducated masses control the actions of the police but they are actually funded by a few rich dudes

private enforcement has a disincentive for enforcing personal views since people have to pay for it individuallyI'd think that would give more of an incentive to do what their customers pay for, since law effectively becomes whatever people are willing to pay for.
what if me and five other neighbours elect to have someone go round and steal his stuff

what if me and a hundred other neighbours

or a thousand

it seems the point where its ok is arbitraryEveryone in the territory controlled by the state.

[Maxibon]

Because of this, the government should do what the majority thinks is good for utilitarian reasons.
so you agree that the government should enforce the gay marriage ban then

i didnt know you were such a bigot, iskandar



I'd think that would give more of an incentive to do what their customers pay for, since law effectively becomes whatever people are willing to pay for.yes but the disincentive is a customer one, not a corporate one

if one has to pay to enforce ones personal views on gay marriage it would seem more likely that one would be willing to reconcile oneself with it

especially since the cost of enforcement would be huge at the advent of a counter agency protecting homosexual people equally



Everyone in the territory controlled by the state.
you're assuming the state to prove the state

assume we're starting a new state, at what point can we call ourselves one

when we have a majority of 3 people, 100 people, 1,000,000 people?

[Iskandar]

so you agree that the government should enforce the gay marriage ban then

i didnt know you were such a bigot, iskandarI don't have to agree with the government to accept their sovereignty, and neither do you.

Instead of fruitlessly wishing to abolish the government I could do something more productive like trying to reverse their policy.
you're assuming the state to prove the state

assume we're starting a new state, at what point can we call ourselves one

when we have a majority of 3 people, 100 people, 1,000,000 people?When you have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

[Against Miik!]

To an extent we can be what we want to be. Motivated people generally have more success than the unmotivated. But people who believe this to a T generally get caught up in get rich quick investment schemes and crap like that.

[Maxibon]

I don't have to agree with the government to accept their sovereignty, and neither do you.

Instead of fruitlessly wishing to abolish the government I could do something more productive like trying to reverse their policy.
who said i was trying to abolish the government

reversing the policy through personal action is equally unlikely, though


When you have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
you're assuming the state to prove the state again

of course i have a monopoly on force if i've got a majority of support

and if legitimacy is decided by majority i've got that too

just tell me how many people it takes

[Iskandar]

who said i was trying to abolish the governmentAren't you a self-described anarcho-capitalist.
reversing the policy through personal action is equally unlikely, thoughNot at all. Activism accomplishes a lot when directed at achievable goals. It's about changing attitudes, which can influence policy.
you're assuming the state to prove the state again

of course i have a monopoly on force if i've got a majority of support

and if legitimacy is decided by majority i've got that too

just tell me how many people it takesHowever many you need to secure that monopoly.

[Maxibon]

Aren't you a self-described anarcho-capitalist.
yeah but i dont know if you could say i was trying to abolish the government

Not at all. Activism accomplishes a lot when directed at achievable goals. It's about changing attitudes, which can influence policy.
theres an huge amount of activism on both sides, thats how prop 8 was won

i find your individual effort towards any of it to be inconsequential


However many you need to secure that monopoly.
so you think its legitimate for two people to enslave a third

alright cool glad i've got your backing

[Iskandar]

yeah but i dont know if you could say i was trying to abolish the governmentI'm not sure if that's better or worse. You're wasting your time by having these opinions, but on the other hand your bad opinions don't affect anything.

What I am curious about is why you would spend so much time debating politics on the internet when you don't want to actually change anything.
theres an huge amount of activism on both sides, thats how prop 8 was won

i find your individual effort towards any of it to be inconsequentialActivism has to include both sides, or more or else it's not fair.

But I dispute that my effort is useless because all social movements are made up of individuals; my effort counts as much as theirs.
so you think its legitimate for two people to enslave a third

alright cool glad i've got your backingI never said I supported slavery.

[Maxibon]

I'm not sure if that's better or worse. You're wasting your time by having these opinions, but on the other hand your bad opinions don't affect anything.

What I am curious about is why you would spend so much time debating politics on the internet when you don't want to actually change anything.
well opinions dont waste time, you just have them as a result of your experiences or whatever

but i dont know, just because im not trying to abolish the government right now doesnt mean im not trying to do anything

maybe sparring with statists on the internet will help me later in whatever aspirations i might have, but right now i guess personal building is more important than political goals - im an individualist, remember, despite what i think is right for the world

and of course arguing on the internet is a good way to waste time when you're supposed to be working


But I dispute that my effort is useless because all social movements are made up of individuals; my effort counts as much as theirs.
groups are abstract things, i suppose you can say your effort both matters and doesnt matter at the same time

I never said I supported slavery.
why not if it meets all your requirements for justification

majority opinion and monopoly on force

i have that with a family slave, no?

[Chu]

You can't ****ing be anything you want to be that's stupid

But if you put your mind to it and aren't incredibly unlucky then you can be a lot of things you want to be
Pretty much this.

It all comes down to motivation, and what people want.

I want to be a theoretical physicist, but the effort involved is far too much so I'll settle for a simple mathematician.

That said, if you really want something, it's very much likely you'll get it, or, this has been so for me over the past few years since I have been driven by my own desires.

Whether are you doing something for yourself, because you want to do it, or because someone told you you should do it. In the latter case, I wouldn't think an individual would exert as much effort (again, coming from my own experience).

I think it just takes a very strong understanding of who you are, and what you want to do. Probably more emphasis on the former, so you can understand your limitations (though that said, there's a sense of self-reference here, because you can over-come those limitations again by applying yourself - in most cases).

[John Paul Harrison]

“porper motivation and discipline allows one to excercise a remarkable degree of control over career and lifestyle choices” isn't catchy

so yeah the idea is false but what people really mean when they tell it to kids is essentially true

[cobert]

You probably could be anything you wanted if you tried hard enough, but the overwhelming majority of people have serious barriers to their desired rate of success that they don't have control over.

I hate debates on this forum about socialism / capitalism because they are always way too broad and a million things get argued. And my head hurts thinkings about how atrocious capitalism is.

[siva_chair]

Good is subjective.

What matters isn't if it's good, because there are differing conceptions of that. What matters is what the majority wants.

Umm why exactly does that matter if good is indeed subjective like you say it is?

[cobert]

i hate debates on this forum ... Because ... A million things get argued.

‪
‪
‪

[Smokey D]

Capitalism is awesome.

Also, this thread is why we shouldn't move discussions that start in the Pit into PNWI.

I think someone should give me a reason not close it in the next 5 posts, or I'm going to shut it down.

[cobert]

Close it.

EDIT: I considered just posting this 5 times but out of respect for the mods I will only say it once. Your welcome bro.

[smiling]

"You Can Be Anything You Want To Be"
That's Attraction Principle.

You can be stronger, be more popular, be whatever, if you are willing to think about it and of course, you should take action and try your best to do it!
Right? :chug:

[Ceminon]

******** made up by optimists / people who were lucky enough to achieve their dreams, or a truthful statement?

Discuss

I'd go for ******** made up by optimists/retards, for obvious reasons.

[TerranYouApart]

some things are beyond your control. so i'll agree with Ceminon

[Iskandar]

Capitalism is awesome.

Also, this thread is why we shouldn't move discussions that start in the Pit into PNWI.

I think someone should give me a reason not close it in the next 5 posts, or I'm going to shut it down.Because Chad and I are having an interesting discussion, which is why I moved it.

[Ceminon]

some things are beyond your control. so i'll agree with Ceminon

Yeah, I mean, I understand that there are some things that you can change to improve your current situation, but homeless people, in a country with a corrupt government simply cannot be anything they want to be.
Of course this is a very extreme example, but you all get my point, right?

[Iskandar]

well opinions dont waste time, you just have them as a result of your experiences or whatever

but i dont know, just because im not trying to abolish the government right now doesnt mean im not trying to do anything

maybe sparring with statists on the internet will help me later in whatever aspirations i might have, but right now i guess personal building is more important than political goals - im an individualist, remember, despite what i think is right for the world

and of course arguing on the internet is a good way to waste time when you're supposed to be workingIf you want to argue in a vacuum, that's cool. I would just prefer to actively try to change things for the better, as I see it.
groups are abstract things, i suppose you can say your effort both matters and doesnt matter at the same timeAs long as the group is accomplishing something, and I feel my contribution helps them in some way, it's all gravy.
why not if it meets all your requirements for justification

majority opinion and monopoly on force

i have that with a family slave, no?No. A plantation isn't a state for one; secondly and more importantly you're completely ignoring the question of rights in this example.
Umm why exactly does that matter if good is indeed subjective like you say it is? Because we have to make decisions about how we're going to govern ourselves.

If the majority wanted anarcho-capitalism, that would be the right choice. I can't see that philosophy being implemented through existing democratic channels, however.

[Odin88]

If the majority wanted anarcho-capitalism, that would be the right choice. I can't see that philosophy being implemented through existing democratic channels, however.

you mean to say majority defines right and wrong?

[Iskandar]

No. I didn't say that at all.

What I said was that since right and wrong are subjective, the only approach that makes sense is to govern based on what the majority wants, so as to satisfy the greatest number of people (which meets the requirements for utilitarianism).

[Mr. Ron]

No. I didn't say that at all.

What I said was that since right and wrong are subjective, the only approach that makes sense is to govern based on what the majority wants, so as to satisfy the greatest number of people (which meets the requirements for utilitarianism).
What if what the majority wants is corrosive?

[TerranYouApart]

so like what if you don't agree with the majority is what you're asking.

then move.

[Iskandar]

What if what the majority wants is corrosive?What defines corrosive?

But I can see you're concerned about the wisdom of crowds, which is good because that's why we protect the minority via their guaranteed rights.

[Mr. Ron]

What defines corrosive?

But I can see you're concerned about the wisdom of crowds, which is good because that's why we protect the minority via their guaranteed rights.
Corrosive to me is when the crowd starts to not care about important things.

[TerranYouApart]

if you were in power though that is what you'd want. to distract the masses so you can manipulate them into doing what you want to do and maybe if you're good enough using them as slaves for you.

that's what power does to people it's nice

[Iskandar]

Corrosive to me is when the crowd starts to not care about important things.People who don't care about politics don't vote, so who cares about them.

[gregulus]

People who don't care about politics don't vote, so who cares about them.

This is not true at all.

[Mr. Ron]

People who don't care about politics don't vote, so who cares about them.
Really? because i can point out thousands of college students that probably don't care about politics but voted for Obama because it was the popular thing to do at the time

[Iskandar]

This is not true at all.People who don't vote ipso facto don't care, or else they have some silly fringe ideology that nobody cares about.
Really? because i can point out thousands of college students that probably don't care about politics but voted for Obama because it was the popular thing to do at the time
Is that a bad thing that a man can get lots of people interested in politics when they weren't before.

[beso negro]

iskandar using anecdotal evidence again i see

[Mr. Ron]

People who don't vote ipso facto don't care, or else they have some silly fringe ideology that nobody cares about.
Is that a bad thing that a man can get lots of people interested in politics when they weren't before.
But you see, its for the wrong reasons

[Iskandar]

Bad troll.
But you see, its for the wrong reasonsIt's their vote to do with as they wish.

So you think apathy is better than being ill-informed?

[Mr. Ron]

Bad troll.
It's their vote to do with as they wish.

So you think apathy is better than being ill-informed?
Neither are good. However, an ill-informed vote is no vote at all.

[siva_chair]

No. A plantation isn't a state for one; secondly and more importantly you're completely ignoring the question of rights in this example.

You mean like how you are ignoring the question of rights when it comes to the state violating them via taxation?

Oh I forgot a majority wants to steal from everyone so its ok.

No. I didn't say that at all.

Actually that is exactly what you are saying no matter how much you try to dance around it.

What I said was that since right and wrong are subjective,

Rights are not subjective.

the only approach that makes sense is to govern based on what the majority wants, so as to satisfy the greatest number of people (which meets the requirements for utilitarianism).

So it would be ok to kill redheads if the majority of people hated them and wanted this?

[guitarded_chuck]

You can't exactly do absolutely anything you want or be anything you want, but if you set some high-but-not-ridiculously-unattainable goals and work towards them you can be that person you set out to be. Some people are dreamers all their lives... it's the working towards your goals that makes it happen.

[Iskandar]

You mean like how you are ignoring the question of rights when it comes to the state violating them via taxation?

Oh I forgot a majority wants to steal from everyone so its ok.Your conception of rights.
Actually that is exactly what you are saying no matter how much you try to dance around it. Whatever man.
Rights are not subjective.Says you.
So it would be ok to kill redheads if the majority of people hated them and wanted this?You must have missed the part where the minority is protected against things like this.

[Smokey D]

If right and wrong are subjective, then utilitarianism has no foundation.

And also I could kill or not kill and nobody would be able to tell me what I was doing was right or wrong.

[Maxibon]

You must have missed the part where the minority is protected against things like this.
its stupid how you have arbitrary distinctions like this

oh the government should do what the majority wants

but not when iskandar doesnt think so!

[Maxibon]

and everyone believes in natural rights really nobody thinks its ok for me to rape or kill people on the high seas where there is no state power to stop me or say its wrong

[Smokey D]

There's a distinction between natural rights and doing what's right, though.

A committed utilitarian would say that rape is moral provided it maximised utility.

[Maxibon]

well the moral has to come from somewhere, one would assume its because you believe that a person owns their body regardless of whether theres a state to recognize the ownership or not

[Smokey D]

No. A utilitarian says the moral come from maximising goodness. It has nothing to do with whether you own your body.

[Maxibon]

its not mutually exclusive you have to determine what is good in order to maximize it

what makes rape bad and not rape good

[Against Miik!]

Everything comes down to property rights

O and rape is bad because we say it is.

In parts of Africa rape is probably less bad.

[Smokey D]

ts not mutually exclusive you have to determine what is good in order to maximize it

what makes rape bad and not rape good

A utilitarian says subjective perception of benefit.

To a utilitarian, there is nothing inherent in rape = bad, not rape = good. Rape can be good if it maximises utility.

[Maxibon]

but nobody is absolutely utilitarian, i derive pleasure from raping, its as positive to me as it is negative to the victim

but i said everyone believes in natural rights at heart

everyone meaning 99.99% of people and not hypothetical sociopaths

[Smokey D]

Well, it's only justified if it maximises average utility not merely your own utility but it's conceivable in utilitarianism that rape is the moral course of action at least some of the time.

But I'm not going to try and defend utilitarianism. You'll have to speak with Alex.

[Iskandar]

I'm not a committed utilitarian exactly, I just think it's a useful tool.

I am a bit confused though why you say "If right and wrong are subjective, then utilitarianism has no foundation" and a few posts later you say that they think good is subjective. You're contradicting yourself.

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that proposes how we should determine what's right. It makes no claim to infallibility.
its stupid how you have arbitrary distinctions like this

oh the government should do what the majority wants

but not when iskandar doesnt think so!Er, I didn't invent the concept of rights, and I don't protect them. The government does.

[Smokey D]

I am a bit confused though why you say "If right and wrong are subjective, then utilitarianism has no foundation" and a few posts later you say that they think good is subjective. You're contradicting yourself.

Um, did I?


Utilitarianism is a philosophy that proposes how we should determine what's right. It makes no claim to infallibility.

Well, it claims that natural rights are wrong.

[Iskandar]

Um, did I?Yep.A utilitarian says subjective perception of benefit.Which I agree with, incidentally.
Well, it claims that natural rights are wrong.Is there something wrong with that? That's just one philosophy about rights.

[Smokey D]

Yah that's not what I think that's what a utilitarian thinks.


Is there something wrong with that? That's just one philosophy about rights.

Well, if natural rights are in fact the correct conception of rights or a near enough approximation, then a utilitarian scheme which validates violations of those rights is unjustified or bad pro tanto.

So ya maybe I dunno.

[Iskandar]

Yah that's not what I think that's what a utilitarian thinks.Yeah bro I know.
Well, if natural rights are in fact the correct conception of rights or a near enough approximation, then a utilitarian scheme which validates violations of those rights is unjustified or bad pro tanto.

So ya maybe I dunno.And if they aren't, it's all gravy.

Conceptually the correct ideology may be anarcho-primitivism but if we don't think it is, it's not what we should pursue.

[Smokey D]

Yeah bro I know.

SO I don't know why you said that I said hte good was subjective.

As it happens, I do think that the good does permit a reasonably wide field of legitimate actions. However, I think there are probably some things which are near enough to being categorically wrong that they can be called objectively not-good.


Conceptually the correct ideology may be anarcho-primitivism but if we don't think it is, it's not what we should pursue.

Well, Chad is right that a strict adherence to utilitarianism appears to conflict with certain intuitions we have regarding morals and rights.

So unless you're willing to say that rape is good in circumstances where it maximises average utility no matter what the effects it has on the individuals in question, utilitarianism is an illogical position to hold.

[Iskandar]

SO I don't know why you said that I said hte good was subjective.I didn't. I said you contradicted yourself about utilitarians.
As it happens, I do think that the good does permit a reasonably wide field of legitimate actions. However, I think there are probably some things which are near enough to being categorically wrong that they can be called objectively not-good.Sure there are. Allow me to explain myself:
Well, Chad is right that a strict adherence to utilitarianism appears to conflict with certain intuitions we have regarding morals and rights.

So unless you're willing to say that rape is good in circumstances where it maximises average utility no matter what the effects it has on the individuals in question, utilitarianism is an illogical position to hold.It could conceivably be good if it prevented 10 000 deaths or something drastic like that, but since these situations don't ever seem to come up and rape is virtually always negative for everyone involved we can conclude it's not worth pursuing to see if it can be justified. Thus we legislate against it.

[Smokey D]

I didn't. I said you contradicted yourself about utilitarians.

Um, I really don't think I did. But if you want to explain how then go ahead.

PS utilitarians think that what is good is determined by maximising average benefit. At least Bentham argued that benefit was to be determined by the satisfaction or happiness each individual perceived to have.

It could conceivably be good if it prevented 10 000 deaths or something drastic like that, but since these situations don't ever seem to come up and rape is virtually always negative for everyone involved we can conclude it's not worth pursuing to see if it can be justified. Thus we legislate against it.

This is something I struggle with, but I don't think it's fair. When we say people have rights we somewhat confuse the issue because we tend to ignore the internal hierarchy of rights that I think most people probably ascribe to. So we might say a rape is permissible where it prevents someone's death, but do we say a murder is permissible where it prevents X number of rapes? Is the harm caused by rape commensurable with that caused by death/murder?

[Iskandar]

Um, I really don't think I did. But if you want to explain how then go ahead.Nah I don't care enough. Never mind.
PS utilitarians think that what is good is determined by maximising average benefit. At least Bentham argued that benefit was to be determined by the satisfaction or happiness each individual perceived to have.Ya which is why, like you said, maximizing your individual benefit (ie. that of the rapist) is irrelevant if it doesn't maximize that of others too.
This is something I struggle with, but I don't think it's fair. When we say people have rights we somewhat confuse the issue because we tend to ignore the internal hierarchy of rights that I think most people probably ascribe to. So we might say a rape is permissible where it prevents someone's death, but do we say a murder is permissible where it prevents X number of rapes? Is the harm caused by rape commensurable with that caused by death/murder?We ascribe certain values to these actions which are subjective and honestly sort of arbitrary. We traditionally see murder as the worst of crimes, but is having your life ended worse than having your person violated and having to deal with the trauma for the rest of your life? I don't know if I have a quick and ready answer for this.

[Maxibon]

Er, I didn't invent the concept of rights, and I don't protect them. The government does.

thats irrelevant, you said the government should do what a majority wants

if that means genocide then you cant make arbitrary distinctions because you feel like it

rape is virtually always negative for everyone involved
its positive for the rapist

[1338 h4x0r]

let the free market decide the value of rape

why should you be allowed to impose your tastes on everyone else

dont outlaw rape just because you personally disagree with it thats stupid

when the government forces you to do things its like rape

[Maxibon]

maybe your trolling would be better if your read the thread

[1338 h4x0r]

its positive for the rapist

agreed let the market decide

[Maxibon]

still not understanding this thread

read more

[1338 h4x0r]

btw private courts

[siva_chair]

Your conception of rights.

Yeah based in reason as opposed to some silly assertion you keep making.

Whatever man.

Lol.

Says you.

And reason.

You must have missed the part where the minority is protected against things like this.

What rights? I thought you said they were based in utilitarianism. The psychological satisfaction gained by the majority of people wanting to see redheads dead outweighs the concerns and well being of the soon to be dead redheads.

[Iskandar]

thats irrelevant, you said the government should do what a majority wants

if that means genocide then you cant make arbitrary distinctions because you feel like itDemocracy isn't tyranny of the majority.
its positive for the rapistAnd overwhelmingly negative for the victim, their family, the law enforcement who have to track down the rapist, and finally the rapist themself if they get caught. And finally the taxpayers who have to pay for them to be tried and incarcerated.

Sorry, but fail analogy.
Yeah based in reason as opposed to some silly assertion you keep making.You keep asserting natural rights are based in reason.
What rights? I thought you said they were based in utilitarianism. The psychological satisfaction gained by the majority of people wanting to see redheads dead outweighs the concerns and well being of the soon to be dead redheads.No a government with the power to commit genocide isn't utilitarian.

PS. their lives matter more than our personal satisfaction.
PPS. I love redheads.

[Maxibon]

Democracy isn't tyranny of the majority.
iskandar why cant you just stop being evasive

you said we should do what the majority wants

explain to me why there are exceptions in a way that isnt entirely arbitrary


And overwhelmingly negative for the victim, their family, the law enforcement who have to track down the rapist, and finally the rapist themself if they get caught. And finally the taxpayers who have to pay for them to be tried and incarcerated.

sorry did you miss the thread im raping lonely old women with no family at sea on my boat

is that cool with you

im gonna toss her overboard after - giving the added benefit of not having to pay someone to dispose of her body when she dies naturally on dry land

[Iskandar]

iskandar why cant you just stop being evasive

you said we should do what the majority wants

explain to me why there are exceptions in a way that isnt entirely arbitraryTyranny of the majority doesn't maximize utility for anyone. Having guaranteed rights does. If you can't see this, I can't help you.
sorry did you miss the thread im raping lonely old women with no family at sea on my boat

is that cool with you

im gonna toss her overboard after - giving the added benefit of not having to pay someone to dispose of her body when she dies naturally on dry landIf it's positive for you and negative for her it's a zero sum game so that argument isn't convincing either.

What is convincing is that allowing systematic rape is overwhelmingly negative. Categorical imperatives man.

[Maxibon]

Tyranny of the majority doesn't maximize utility for anyone. Having guaranteed rights does. If you can't see this, I can't help you.
we werent talking about utility, dont try and invoke that now after you've made the simple argument that the government should do what the majority wants

If it's positive for you and negative for her it's a zero sum game so that argument isn't convincing either.
not all positives and negatives are equal obviously what if i derive more in pleasure

plus im tossing her overboard and saving a state funeral/cleanup operation how can you deny the positive benefits of my actions

[TerranYouApart]

you're applying value to intangible things (pleasure gained, dignity lost).

i agree, copyrights and patents are a good thing.

[Iskandar]

we werent talking about utility, dont try and invoke that now after you've made the simple argument that the government should do what the majority wantsIt explains why there can be exceptions to this axiom. If what the majority wants is patently bad for everyone, they shouldn't get it. Government functions far better with clearly defined limits on power than without.
not all positives and negatives are equal obviously what if i derive more in pleasure

plus im tossing her overboard and saving a state funeral/cleanup operation how can you deny the positive benefits of my actionsYou're depriving her of the rest of her life for a few minutes of selfish gain. So no. You lose.

Now address my argument about categorical imperatives dammit. What if rape were socially acceptable. The ramifications of that would be unthinkable.

[Maxibon]

You're depriving her of the rest of her life for a few minutes of selfish gain. So no. You lose.
i dont think you can arbitrarily decide that the rest of her life would have been more pleasurable to her than raping and killing her was to me

shes old remember

i can keep escalating this question to cover your silly conditions though why dont you just answer it


Now address my argument about categorical imperatives dammit. What if rape were socially acceptable. The ramifications of that would be unthinkable.
what if people had tentacles i dont see how its relevant

im not saying natural rights are good because people believe in them im saying most people do believe in them so i dont know why they pretend otherwise

[Iskandar]

i dont think you can arbitrarily decide that the rest of her life would have been more pleasurable to her than raping and killing her was to me

shes old remember

i can keep escalating this question to cover your silly conditions though why dont you just answer itYou're being obtuse.

Utilitarianism isn't about maximizing just your own utility but that of others. Unless you can prove rape will make society as a whole happier, you have no intellectual leg to stand on.
what if people had tentacles i dont see how its relevant

im not saying natural rights are good because people believe in them im saying most people do believe in them so i dont know why they pretend otherwisePeople have a revulsion to rape ≠ people believe in natural rights. It's a red herring.

[Maxibon]

Utilitarianism isn't about maximizing just your own utility but that of others. Unless you can prove rape will make society as a whole happier, you have no intellectual leg to stand on.

you dont know what utilitarianism is.

its got nothing to do with selfless acts that benefit others or with a 'society'

if her and i are the only people in the situation and theres a net gain of pleasure over me not raping and killing her then thats the utilitarian approach

[lukeskywalkerXI]

I want to be a gundamn, why am I not one?

[1338 h4x0r]

Because Gundam Wing is a faggoty cartoon from Japan

[Iskandar]

you dont know what utilitarianism is.

its got nothing to do with selfless acts that benefit others or with a 'society'

if her and i are the only people in the situation and theres a net gain of pleasure over me not raping and killing her then thats the utilitarian approachNo, you're just either dumb or ignoring my arguments.

[lukeskywalkerXI]

according to the thread title I can be anything I want. I want to be a gundam.

[guitarded_chuck]

Gundam is fictitious. Simply by definition of the word you can never be something that is fictitious. So it does not apply to the argument. Of course you cannot be some anime faggot robot thing because it does not exist in the real world.

[lukeskywalkerXI]

But the thread says I can be anything.

[guitarded_chuck]

You're right, but it is obvious and beside the point that you could ever become something that is not real. There is no argument that can become a multi-colored dragon or some ****. The argument is that can you or can't you become anything, from a astronaut to a rock star etc.

[lukeskywalkerXI]

I want to be a gundam pilot then, why can't I be that?

[guitarded_chuck]

because it does not exist

[lukeskywalkerXI]

but I want it to exist so I can be anything I want to be. I have proved the statement untrue.

[guitarded_chuck]

Just because you want it to exist does not make it exist. Thus the separation between imagination and reality. And back to the original argument, you cannot be something that is fictitious.

[Moon Flavor]

I just noticed this thread and haven't read any of it yet but I'll post my feelings anyways.

I disagree with the thread title. Things such personal brain chemistry and inherent personality make being anything you want to be impossible in most cases. For example, just because you want to be happy doesn't mean you can just flip a switch and be happy. Likewise, how can you achieve, for example, your dream of being a football player if, even though you exercise and eat right and practice, it's simply not in your genes to be particularly fast or strong or have good hand-eye coordination.

On top of this, the fact that other people who may have conflicting ideals exist make this even more impossible. How are you going to be a famous musician of nobody wants to sign you to a label or hire you for a band; no matter how good you are?

seems like a no-brainer to me

[lukeskywalkerXI]

Just because you want it to exist does not make it exist. Thus the separation between imagination and reality. And back to the original argument, you cannot be something that is fictitious.
and therefore...I cannot be anything I want to be.

[Moon Flavor]

and therefore...I cannot be anything I want to be.

The quote in question is not entirely literal is what he's trying to say. It really means you can be anything you want the a real human being can feasibly be.

[Maxibon]

No, you're just either dumb or ignoring my arguments.

yeah well, well uh, well uh, i dont have to answer your question because you're just a stupidhead!

nice made up personal definition of utilitarianism though

Utilitarianism isn't about maximizing just your own utility but that of others. Unless you can prove rape will make society as a whole happier

[Iskandar]

That's what it is, though. The greatest happiness to the greatest number.

If it were only about maximizing your own utility, I'd probably have ordered a hit on you long ago.

[Maxibon]

no you said its about maximizing the utility of others

if the utilitarian path coincidentally happens to be positive for me then its still the utilitarian path

if its only the rapist and the victim in the situation (as was more than clearly pointed out to you), and the rapist gets more pleasure than the victim gets pain from the action then the action is justified in a utilitarian sense

so utilitarianism can justify rape

[Iskandar]

So you choose to ignore like two pages of arguments and go back to square one. I see.

[Maxibon]

you've made no argument against this, stop being evasive

does utilitarianism compel maximum pleasure? yes

is it possible for a rape to create a net gain of pleasure? yes

its not hard iskandar in fact you probably understand it fine you just dont want to admit that utilitarianism can be used to justify bad things

[Iskandar]

It can but only for overriding benefit and I don't think you've proved that this particular situation brings more benefit to you than the potential benefit you're robbing your victim of.

PS. I'd made lots of arguments haven't you been reading the thread.

[Maxibon]

i dont have to prove anything about this specific situation the entire point is that situations exist where utilitarianism justifies courses of actions which are ostensibly bad

im asking if a rapist gets more pleasure from raping someone than the victim gets displeasure in being raped, do you support the rape in that instance

if you dont then why not, why is rape wrong categorically if you dont believe in natural rights

[Iskandar]

Because even if one rape brings a net benefit to you it would not for others if rape became a general axiom.

If it's wrong to rape a 20-year old woman on dry land, it's wrong to rape an 80-year old woman at sea. Value systems need to be consistent.
the entire point is that situations exist where utilitarianism justifies courses of actions which are ostensibly badThese potentially exist but can only be reviewed in retrospect (like "assassinating this guy prevented a catastrophic nuclear war").

[Maxibon]

stop dodging the question

is the rape the right course of action in that instance

yes or no

[Iskandar]

No.

[Maxibon]

okay why then if you dont believe people have a natural right not to be raped

[Iskandar]

I just explained why. I don't think we can take this any further.

[Maxibon]

no you didnt

[JohnXDoe]

you can b anything you want 2b amirite?

[knuckleduster]

you can be anything you want to be bb

[Smokey D]

If it's wrong to rape a 20-year old woman on dry land, it's wrong to rape an 80-year old woman at sea. Value systems need to be consistent.

No, you treat like as like. There are potentially morally relevant differences between an 80 year old woman at sea and a 20 year old girl on land. A utilitarian would say the primary morally relevant difference would be the utility gained and lost. So, in categorical terms, rape where utility gained > utility is lost is justified, rape where utility lost > utility gained is justified.

Especially if you invoke utilitarianism to explain why somethings are better or worse.

These potentially exist but can only be reviewed in retrospect (like "assassinating this guy prevented a catastrophic nuclear war").

Or, if rape gives me and my friends more pleasure than it causes harm in the victim and her friends, then rape is justified in this specific instance.

[Iskandar]

You're treating this too simplistically.

[Smokey D]

How.

[Iskandar]

I just spend like three pages explaining how dammit.

Basically, that utilitarianism is broader than you and your victim.

[Smokey D]

I just read your three pages.

Um, yes I know that utilitarianism is broader than you and your victim.

That's why I said where rape where utility gained (by everyone) > utility lost (by everyone) is justified, rape where utility lost (by everyone) > utility gained (by everyone) is unjustified. That's what utilitarianism means.

[Iskandar]

Broader than you and your friends too.

Unless you can prove rape is categorically good for everyone, it's not justified.

[siva_chair]

You keep asserting natural rights are based in reason.

No I've made the argument many times here that demonstrates how they are based in reason and every time you just ignore it because you are very dishonest when it comes to this subject.

No a government with the power to commit genocide isn't utilitarian.

It is if genocide provides the greatest number of people satisfaction.

PS. their lives matter more than our personal satisfaction.

And why is this?

One of the problems of utilitarianism is the fact that you cannot really quantify things like satisfaction in any meaningful way.

You're being obtuse.

Utilitarianism isn't about maximizing just your own utility but that of others. Unless you can prove rape will make society as a whole happier, you have no intellectual leg to stand on.

Umm society isn't an entity that can be happy or sad or anything so idk wtf you are talking about.

If it's wrong to rape a 20-year old woman on dry land, it's wrong to rape an 80-year old woman at sea. Value systems need to be consistent.

Lol then why do you support a completely arbitrary one?

EDIT: Also lol at you invoking categorical imperatives (a deontological idea) for utilitarianism. Reread your Kant.

[Smokey D]

Broader than you and your friends too.

Well, when I said 'my friends' it was a cute expression referring to people who took pleasure from my rape and 'her friends' meant people who took displeasure from her rape.



Unless you can prove rape is categorically good for everyone, it's not justified.

Well, maybe I do but that's an argument from deontology not utilitarianism, which seems to be a remarkable turn around on by you.

If I were being a utilitarian, I would say that I only need to prove that any specific action is good (utility gained > utility lost) in the specific instance for it to be justified.

[Iskandar]

No I've made the argument many times here that demonstrates how they are based in reason and every time you just ignore it because you are very dishonest when it comes to this subject.No I say it's not convincing.
It is if genocide provides the greatest number of people satisfaction.
Show me when it does.
One of the problems of utilitarianism is the fact that you cannot really quantify things like satisfaction in any meaningful way.
Yes you can it's how the market economy works for one.
Umm society isn't an entity that can be happy or sad or anything so idk wtf you are talking about.I know you like saying "society isn't an entity" a whole lot, but it's just an abstraction of what individuals think.
Lol then why do you support a completely arbitrary one?Not completely doctrinaire ≠ completely arbitrary.

PS. your ad hominems are getting extremely annoying.

[Iskandar]

Well, when I said 'my friends' it was a cute expression referring to people who took pleasure from my rape and 'her friends' meant people who took displeasure from her rape.You have no way of quantifying that, at least beforehand.
Well, maybe I do but that's an argument from deontology not utilitarianism, which seems to be a remarkable turn around on by you.

If I were being a utilitarian, I would say that I only need to prove that any specific action is good (utility gained > utility lost) in the specific instance for it to be justified.Not necessarily incompatible.

[Smokey D]

Yes you can it's how the market economy works for one.

Actually the market flattens out the good into a one dimensional concept of benefit, which is why relying on the free market to work out everything isn't necessarily the best idea I thought you knew this.


You have no way of quantifying that, at least beforehand

Yes which seems to say that utilitarianism is useless as a tool for practical reasoning. I agree. I also say it's pretty bad at being a theory of justice at all.

Not necessarily incompatible.

Utilitarianism says that an act is good where (utility gained > utility lost), and deontology says that something is categorically wrong or categorically right, depending.

[Iskandar]

Actually the market flattens out the good into a one dimensional concept of benefit, which is why relying on the free market to work out everything isn't necessarily the best idea I thought you knew this.Doesn't like every ethical theory do this.
Yes which seems to say that utilitarianism is useless as a tool for practical reasoning. I agree. I also say it's pretty bad at being a theory of justice at all.We have perceptions of benefit.
Utilitarianism says that an act is good where (utility gained > utility lost), and deontology says that something is categorically wrong or categorically right, depending.We can think something is categorically right or wrong if we think it's impossible to have net benefit or loss, which is my point.

[siva_chair]

No I say it's not convincing.

Without any sort of explanation why. My guess is because you don't have any sort of rebuttal.

Show me when it does.

When 51% of the population gets satisfaction from it.

Yes you can it's how the market economy works for one.

Lol no not at all.

I know you like saying "society isn't an entity" a whole lot, but it's just an abstraction of what individuals think.

I know you like avoiding points a whole lot but please show how society is some sort of entity that "feels."

Not completely doctrinaire ≠ completely arbitrary.

No an ethical system based on the whims and personal preferences of a majority = arbitrary.

PS. your ad hominems are getting extremely annoying.

PS your avoidance of arguments is getting extremely annoying.

[Smokey D]

Doesn't like every ethical theory do this.

No. I have discussed the incommensurability of the good elsewhere.

We have perceptions of benefit.

Thanks. That went far to answer my criticism.

We can think something is categorically right or wrong if we think it's impossible to have net benefit or loss, which is my point.

But that is not what utilitarianism says.

Let us imagine that there are 10 000 people and there is me. The 10 000 are dicks. They really hate me. They would take great pleasure in killing me. Are they justified in killing me? Is it possible to measure my suffering (or lack of utility) in terms of their happiness?

[Iskandar]

Without any sort of explanation why. My guess is because you don't have any sort of rebuttal.You're asking me to prove a negative.
When 51% of the population gets satisfaction from it.And this happens when?
Lol no not at all.The market gives people what they want without concern for externalities. This is its chief ethical problem.
I know you like avoiding points a whole lot but please show how society is some sort of entity that "feels."I just answered it are you thick.
No an ethical system based on the whims and personal preferences of a majority = arbitrary.I don't think my personal ethics are based on this but whatever.

[Iskandar]

No. I have discussed the incommensurability of the good elsewhere.k.
Thanks. That went far to answer my criticism.You're welcome.
But that is not what utilitarianism says.

Let us imagine that there are 10 000 people and there is me. The 10 000 are dicks. They really hate me. They would take great pleasure in killing me. Are they justified in killing me? Is it possible to measure my suffering (or lack of utility) in terms of their happiness?Categorically, would it bring a net benefit to everyone to live in a society where they can be lynched on a whim?

[Smokey D]

Categorically, would it bring a net benefit to everyone to live in a society where they can be lynched on a whim?

There is nothing categorical about it. They no they are not at risk of being lynched. they like each other.

[Iskandar]

There is nothing categorical about it. They no they are not at risk of being lynched. they like each other.So now you have to alter the conditions on me?

[Smokey D]

Well, I thought it was implied but yes if you're going to be obstructive.

is the happiness 10 000 people take from my death, knowing they cannot be subjected to a similar fate, sufficient justification for them to kill me?

[siva_chair]

You're asking me to prove a negative.

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to demonstrate where my argument is flawed or I have erred in my reasoning. You don't and instead just resort to "well, man, that's like, your opinion and stuff."

And this happens when?

It is called a hypothetical perhaps you have heard of it.

The market gives people what they want without concern for externalities. This is its chief ethical problem.

What?

We were talking about quantifying happiness in a meaningful way and such what are you on about now?

I just answered it are you thick.

No you didn't.

Happiness for "society as a whole" is not quantifiable.

I don't think my personal ethics are based on this but whatever.

Well that is what utilitarianism boils down to either you advocate it or you don't which is it?

[Iskandar]

is the happiness 10 000 people take from my death, knowing they cannot be subjected to a similar fate, sufficient justification for them to kill me?Since you just want me to say yes, sure.

But these artificial thought experiments are sorta pointless. We don't make decisions in a vacuum.

[Iskandar]

No, I'm not. I'm asking you to demonstrate where my argument is flawed or I have erred in my reasoning.Present an argument for me then.
Happiness for "society as a whole" is not quantifiable.
Happiness for the majority will do.
Well that is what utilitarianism boils down to either you advocate it or you don't which is it?Not precisely.

[Smokey D]

Since you just want me to say yes, sure.[quote]

I don't want you to say yes I want you to face up to the poverty of your position.

[quote]But these artificial thought experiments are sorta pointless.

I think there are plenty of examples in history where general population has taken pleasure in discriminating against minorities.

We don't make decisions in a vacuum.

Well yes I already said that utilitarianism is useless in praactical reasoning.

[Iskandar]

I think there are plenty of examples in history where general population has taken pleasure in discriminating against minoritiesPlenty more people haven't.
Well yes I already said that utilitarianism is useless in practical reasoning.That's a non sequitur but sure.

[Smokey D]

Plenty more people haven't

What does that have to do with anything.

That's a non sequitur but sure.

Well you said we don't make decisions in a vacuum, which I took to be alluding to your earlier statement that "you have no way of quantifying utility, at least beforehand."

I agree that it can't really be used to make decisions in the present, at least not ones which are off hte cuff.

[Iskandar]

What does that have to do with anything.If Society X likes committing genocide and none of their neighbours do, whose values bear more weight?
Well you said we don't make decisions in a vacuum, which I took to be alluding to your earlier statement that "you have no way of quantifying utility, at least beforehand."

I agree that it can't really be used to make decisions in the present, at least not ones which are off hte cuff.K me too.

That's why we draw on a wealth of experience when we make our decisions. Can you agree utilitarian arguments can be used to justify them after the fact.

[siva_chair]

Present an argument for me then.

I already have multiple times before. You know what they are.

Unless you really have just been completely ignoring them.

Happiness for the majority will do.

So if 51% of the people derive satisfaction from seeing a certain ethnic group die then it is ok right?

Not precisely.

That is what it is.

[Smokey D]

If Society X likes committing genocide and none of their neighbours do, whose values bear more weight?

I guess it depends on how big society X is.


That's why we draw on a wealth of experience when we make our decisions. Can you agree utilitarian arguments can be used to justify them after the fact.

So you're saying that if, after the fact, we determine that a rape/murder what have you has raised average utility it is justified?

[Iskandar]

I guess it depends on how big society X is.Or if we can please more people by getting them to stop killing people and shi.
So you're saying that if, after the fact, we determine that a rape/murder what have you has raised average utility it is justified?Possibly.

Part of the problem lies in quantifying such things. How much does murder repulse you? How much does it benefit some people?

[Smokey D]

Or if we can please more people by getting them to stop killing people and shi.

Well, yeah but you said that X prefers killing people.

Possibly.

Part of the problem lies in quantifying such things. How much does murder repulse you? How much does it benefit some people?

Well htis is the problem I keep on coming back to.

But more importantly, I don't think you can kill someone just because it makes you happy. Their right to life operates as a side constraint on your right to pursue happiness.

[Iskandar]

Well, yeah but you said that X prefers killing people.Preferences change or there wouldn't be any Tutsis left in Rwanda.
Well htis is the problem I keep on coming back to.

But more importantly, I don't think you can kill someone just because it makes you happy. Their right to life operates as a side constraint on your right to pursue happiness.K I'm outie 5000.

[Smokey D]

Preferences change or there wouldn't be any Tutsis left in Rwanda.

So using present preferences as a model for justice is a bad idea?

[Iskandar]

So using present preferences as a model for justice is a bad idea?Not what I was implying.

[gregulus]

I think Smokey D likes to argue with Alex and Alex always takes the bait.

[siva_chair]

I think Smokey D likes to argue with Alex and Alex always takes the bait.

Obvious things are obvious.

Oh and how is Feynman treating you btw?

[Smokey D]

Well what were you implying?

[Iskandar]

Well what were you implying?That we have more tools at our disposal when making ethical judgment calls than the present-day utilitarian rubric. We also have past experience to draw on.
I think Smokey D likes to argue with Alex and Alex always takes the bait.I like to argue with him too, he's a smart dude.

[Mr. Ron]

Smokey D hates me

[Iskandar]

I think he hates me too but he discusses things with me all the same so who cares.

[Haliburton]

i think this post sums up the last few pages

you dont know what utilitarianism is.

[Iskandar]

Greatest happiness to the greatest number.

[TerranYouApart]

but dude why do you care about other people. it's not like they effect you [if you sit in your basement all day every day and come out only to go to work].

[Haliburton]

someone else who doesnt understand utilitarianism

[Mr. Ron]

Why should I care about all people? Why can't I be selective about who I care about? I mean, we all do this when it comes down to it.

[Haliburton]

mr ron dont you know that all people are born equal

[Mr. Ron]

under the law, yes. However no one is really equal.

[Haliburton]

but we're all humans, man

[Mr. Ron]

Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to suffer (well, I would be ok with some select people mwahahaha!) but I just don't think everyone deserves the same praise.

[Iskandar]

but dude why do you care about other people. it's not like they effect you [if you sit in your basement all day every day and come out only to go to work].Whatever other people do affects me quite a bit, actually.
but we're all humans, man Now you're getting it.

Well, you are a human but however you are rather inhumane.
under the law, yes. However no one is really equal. Equal ≠ the same.

Everyone deserves an equal chance at succeeding in practice as well as in theory, and this moral imperative outweighs your own prerogative to succeed only to the extent necessary to provide it to them.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want people to suffer (well, I would be ok with some select people mwahahaha!) but I just don't think everyone deserves the same praise.People deserve praise proportionate to their accomplishments.

Being the scion of a rich white old money family isn't much of an accomplishment, for example.

[Haliburton]

Being the scion of a rich white old money family isn't much of an accomplishment, for example.
the rich white dudes before them earned the right to give their money to poor recipients

[1338 h4x0r]

Being the scion of a rich white old money family isn't much of an accomplishment, for example.

what about being a porch monkey, does that deserve praise