>Find a hobo
>Let him come into your house
>Kill him and give his organs to five other people
>You've increased the total amount of happiness in the world
Why aren't you doing this right now?
>>711980
>five people with momentary stimulus birst
>more net stimulus than 6 people
Well memed
Why don't we just kill everyone and the last human standing can down a glass of cyanide and gin?
>>711987
Come on, it's a hobo. He's going to die soon anyway. This way, he lets five people keep living, who will bring happiness to those around them.
>>711980
that's not how morality works
I don't know how morality works
>>712001
How is any other solution then the maximum amount of happiness moral?
>>712139
first you decide on a number of arbitrary rules then you try to maximise happiness without breaking those rules..
The rules are totally arbitrary and so can only be enforced by popular consensus.
>homeless people
>viable organs
>implying the organ market isn't as tightly regulated as the market for plutonium, for this exact reason
>implying I can perform liver transplants in my basement
>>712139
>make maxmimum amount of drugs
>give it every living being with a nervous system
I don't know if that really works
>>712164
We should strap everyone, willing or not, to a euphoria machine.
>>713361
Drugs are basically virtue in a pill form.
>>711980
You are not thinking deeply enough. A hobo is still capable of being happy. Find people in incurable comas and take their organs. Also make sure to use as much of their bodies as possible. Finger nails can be ground up into fiber tablets and given out, their skin can be turned into coats and given to the homless, muscles can be cooked in a stew and given to the homless too and if t hey have forskin you can make face cream out of it.
>>711998
But you, too, may die soon. Why aren't you actively dismembering yourself and donating organs to increase the maximum net happiness?
>>711980
The pain that would cause the Hobo far outweighs the gains achievable.
This is the worst of all worlds
>>713439
What id your quantifiable metric to assert that?
>>713439
what if it wasn't painful for him?
>>713478
People under medication still feel pain, there is no way to escape the Will's desire to make all suffer
>>713442
>We live, thought Schopenhauer, in the worst of all possible worlds, constantly on the brink of destruction. Our will, or our desires, are continually demanding things from the world that cannot always be satisfied. And so we are continually frustrated.
>Even when our desires are satisfied it will only be brief. This satisfaction will then lead to an increase in our desires and, ultimately, to boredom when our desires are finally exhausted.
This is not a coherent counter-argument to consequentialism, you aren't thinking this through properly.
If we lived in a society where everyone was at risk to be killed for the greater good, everyone would live in fear and anxiety and society would collapse.
I feel depressed that I had to explain this.
>>713442
Any world that would be worse could not possibly exist. If life could have been worse than the Will would have made it so.
>>713523
>>713536
>Not using pain to become stronger
Why don't we just break all the glass in the world? That would make hundreds of millions of jobs.
>>713565
This isn't en economic question....OP started with Unitarianism.
>>713528
Not everyone, just hobos
>>713528
It's an argument against Unitarianism not consequential. The guy in the picture is the leading figure in Unitarianism.
At least figure out what you are responding to.
>>713607
Are you talking about utilitarianism?
Because that IS consequentialism.
I just googled "Unitarianism" and apparently it's some shit about Abrahamic religion co-existing peacefully, I don't see how that could possibly be related to the murder of homeless people.
So I'm guessing you are indeed talking about utilitarianism, which again is related to consequentialism.
>>711980
>Find a rainbow
>Get the pot of gold at the end of it
>Donate gold to charity
>Why aren't you doing this right now?
I can make up ebin fantasy scenarios too OP
>>713622
constitutionalism is the idea that actions should be based on their consequences but does not tell us what the desirable consiquence is (ie no reason to prefer employment to unemployment or happiness to nonhappiness)
You cannot talk about "greater good" until you have defined good.
utilitarianism tells us that what matter is acquiring happiness and avoiding pain (although it doesn't give much of a reason to label happiness good beyond mai feels)
So your point still sucks. OP's argument is about the absurdity of the utilitarian proposition of happy=good suffer=bad
It's neither 'for' or 'against' consequentialism, it's saying that defining 'greater good' as happiness is fucking retarded.
>>713656
That's total nonsense though, this really is just semantics and abusing the is-ought distinction.
There is NO way of dealing with "morality" that doesn't in some sense lead back to increasing happiness and decreasing suffering, the only thing we can discuss is what we deem happening and what we deem suffering.
The state of happiness and the state of suffering are the only two things in this world that have -inherent- value, happiness being good, sadness being bad.
This is generally agreed upon when discussing morality, I challenge you to name me one stance of moral discourse that isn't based on this dichotomy.
>OP's argument is about the absurdity of the utilitarian proposition
But it's a terrible argument, I've laid this out here: >>713528
Calling something "fucking retarded" is not an argument, be more precise and coherent please.
>>713675
>There is NO way of dealing with "morality" that doesn't in some sense lead back to increasing happiness and decreasing suffering
Have you ever read philosophy?
>I challenge you to name me one stance of moral discourse that isn't based on this dichotomy.
How about Friedrick "Pain makes you stronger" Nietzche?
How about Max "Morality is a spook" Stirner?
How about Emanuel "Dentology" Kant?
How about "Immorality is caused by ignorance" Plato?
utilitarianism is only a stance held by Anglo "philosophers", which as Nietzsche points out is a stance derivative of Christian ethics with it's request for an end to suffering and war.
>>713675
Also you have completely failed to justify why utilitarianism should be the position. You have only asserted you are incapable of imagining anything else.
>>713478
It would be extremely painful.
>>712139
why would your solution be moral exactly?
>because you say so
>>713691
Jesus Christ.
Pain isn't impossible to incorporate into your seeking of happiness, if you lift every day to look sexy as hell so you can fuck women every day then the pain of lifting will result in greater net happiness.
Again, Stirner came to that conclusion because he thought this was the ultimate path to achieving tranquility and general happiness.
NONE of Kant's absolute imperatives are anti-happiness or pro-suffering, he believed that if everyone acted according to his deontology no one would suffer, AGAIN based on avoiding suffering and perpetuating happiness.
I don't know in which context Plato said that.
I'm not arguing in favor of utilitarianism as a prescriptive philosophy, it's much more descriptive, IE every human being is -enslaved- by this method.
We literally cannot discuss morality outside of the realm of utilitiarnism.
Again I challenge you to mention a form of moral discourse that argues in favor of suffering.
If you achieve peace through suffering that is not the suffering I am talking about.
I'm talking about the state of mind that makes you say "I don't want this, I hate this".
>>713712
>Again, Stirner came to that conclusion because he thought this was the ultimate path to achieving tranquility and general happiness.
I don't think he says anything of the sort. He just says that "higher" ideals are still driven by your will in pursuit of personal gratification, and that you should be conscious of this fact.
>>713717
And embrace it, because ultimately that is all we are capable of doing.
>>713607
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
>>713712
I already gave you several examples and you simple reinterpreted the ideas to be Unitarianism.
Nietzsche is not saying one should 'feel pain' in the short term for a hope of a net gain in happiness as you are implying. He is saying that there are goals above pleasure and pain and since strife is how fruitation comes about you should be hardened.
Stirner never fucking says that Egoism should be practiced because it makes you happy, if you want to say that back it up. He is saying that Egoism is the only way and you are either a voluntary or involuntary egoist.
And you have freely admitted you don't know much about Plato.
Kant's system is not made with the goal of reducing suffering, that's your own damn opinion again. By his own words if an axe murderer comes to find your friend with the intent to harm him you should not lie about your friend's location even if it would result in your friend feeling an extreme amount of pain.
So on all accounts not only are you wrong but you have shown you don't understand the most basic parts of the philosopher and that you can't even step outside your own world world view and see other philosophers perspectives (because the moment you get them described to you, you instantly reinterpreted to be utilitarian)
Here's my challenge for you. Read a non-anglo philosopher, read their actual book not skim the wikipedia article, and don't put on utilitarian goggles. You might just find that there are more ways of thinking in the world.
>>713523
>People under medication still feel pain
Who said anything about medication? A .308 to the dome will obliterate his brain before he can register any pain. He wouldn't even hear the shot due to the bullet being supersonic. His organs would still be salvageable provided that the proper procedures were carried out in short order.
>>713739
No I didn't reinterpret them, what the fuck do you think "Pain makes you stronger" means?
That pain makes you experience grief and that's good because durr strong?
Obviously he's speaking in favor of pain here because strength is usually associated with self-sustainability and keeping yourself safe from harm IE well-being.
How the FUCK did you get to the conclusion that any of these philosophers didn't argue in favor of net-well-being?
>Kant's system is not made with the goal of reducing suffering, that's your own damn opinion again. By his own words if an axe murderer comes to find your friend with the intent to harm him you should not lie about your friend's location even if it would result in your friend feeling an extreme amount of pain.
Yes, because of the possibility that the person that the murderer was looking for might have escaped the house and as the murdere moves on after you lied to him they meet and he gets killed, you're missing some context here.
Deontology isn't about deducting what's right or wrong in different cases, it's about the -average- outcome of adhering to certain values which will result in greater net-well-being according to Kant.
>>713756
>Obviously he's speaking in favor of pain here because strength is usually associated with self-sustainability and keeping yourself safe from harm IE well-being
No he isn't. Do you even know the basics of Nietzsche? He's famous quote about pain is a drawing on Heraclitu's view about all things being a result of strife and combining it with Shoupenhaur's concept of the will. The Will becomes STRONGER during strife which means, yes actually seeking out and doing things that are painful, and when confronting another Will. From utilitarian perspective this as you described, saying that there should be greater suffering.
From his perspective the happiness/suffering equation doesn't even work the way utilrianisns think it does, if you want more happiness you need an equal amount more suffering and the only choice is between a rollercoaster or a flat line
Again you keep interpretting other philosophers through your own axioms and addressing straw man versions.
You haven't even bothered addressing Stirner.
And I'm sorry but Kant was fully aware that lying can save lies, but he doesn't say we should make utilitarian measurements and it's ok to lie sometimes. It's never ok to lie in his system, EVER. Even if you know it will result in a net lose of happiness. Because the goal is really about order.
You are making the outrageous claims that all philosophers operate on one system and than freely admit you aren't even very familiar with how they all think. You might have not read Plato, you don't know Stirner or Nietzche but you know how they base their choices!
>>712160
>implying black market organ harvesters are motivated by a moral imperative
>>713756
>Deontology isn't about deducting what's right or wrong in different cases, it's about the -average- outcome of adhering to certain values which will result in greater net-well-being according to Kant.
No. No no no no no no no no. Absolutely orthogonal to Kant's actual view. Jesus Christ.
A moral action is one endorsed by a good will that is motivated purely through respect for the moral law. Full stop.
>>713712
>Again I challenge you to mention a form of moral discourse that argues in favor of suffering.
You want if possible – and there is no madder ‘if possible’ – to abolish suffering; and we? – it really does seem that we would rather increase it and make it worse than it has ever been! Wellbeing as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end! A state which soon renders man ludicrous and contemptible – which makes it desirable that he should perish! The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that it is this discipline alone which has created every elevation of mankind hitherto? That tension of the soul in misfortune which cultivates its strength, its terror at the sight of great destruction, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring, interpreting, exploiting misfortune, and whatever of depth, mystery, mask, spirit, cunning and greatness has been bestowed upon it – has it not been bestowed through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In man, creature and creator are united: in man there is matter, fragment, excess, clay, mud, madness, chaos; but in man there is also creator, sculptor, the hardness of the hammer, the divine spectator and the seventh day – do you understand this antithesis? And that your pity is for the ‘creature in man’, for that which has to be formed, broken, forged, torn, burned, annealed, refined – that which has to suffer and should suffer? And our pity – do you not grasp whom our opposite pity is for when it defends itself against your pity as the worst of all pampering and weakening? – Pity against pity, then! – But, to repeat, there are higher problems than the problems of pleasure and pain and pity; and every philosophy that treats only of them is a piece of naïvety.
BGE 225
edgy kids giving shit to hobos deserve to be shot on spot
>>713622
Unitarians feed and clothe homeless people
Source: tenuously housed person
OP should kill themselves, to save me the distress of reading this horrifying post.
>>711980
>let five people die or let 1 person die
Why aren't we doing this? Protip, we already do it. We do it, but dont look into any further because it makes us uncomfortable and questions the very crux of what a moral action is.
>>711980
Most hobos don't have very healthy organs.
They don't just transplant any old organ you know.
>>711993
It would be better for the earth.
>>711980
>2016
>being a utilitarian
Why would you choose the worst moral system instead of litteraly any other sustem (or lack thereof)
>>713442
The same one everyone else uses when discussing utilitarian ethics.
>>713705
For him.
>>717604
It's really telling that it took us thousands of years to come up with something as stupid as consequentialist ethics.
>>711980
You'll probably be called a hero at this point op
http://nypost.com/2015/12/02/woman-carries-baby-to-term-despite-knowing-child-would-die/
>>711980
1) its illegal
2) because it's illegal I risk my current happiness by committing premeditated murder and then participate in black market activities
3) I have no way of confirming the viability of the hobos organs without committing further felonies
4) I inherently value my happiness and freedom above any hobo or stranger that needs an organ.
5) Unlike most of what the edgelords here claim to say, taking human life will not leave your psyche unscarred. I cannot on good conscience take a human life.
