How come so many of you on this board hate this? Willing to have a reasonable discussion, I'm just genuinely curious.
I thought he made a lot of good points and while I thought Aristotle was better, I did prefer this over the majority of Kant and Nietzsche's works.
I honestly found Kant to be insufferable and impracticable yet Rawls and a lot of his contemporary followers seem to stem off Kantian thought I work through Kant in order to refute such philosophers.
Mill wasn't that bad to be honest family. He took a lot of previous utilitarian thinking and brought it from the radical notions down to an outline that does make some good points as you have mentioned.
>>7388395
/lit/. Philosophical works of literature are accepted here. Shesh.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert by any means, Mills/Aristotle both believe in an objective morality where one's good works towards society determine one's happiness, while Kant believes all reality is subjective, Nietzche that morality is subjective. I recall Nietzche talking serious shit towards utilitarians. I can imagine your own beliefs playing into which authors you prefer.
I find Aristotle to be dry and Mils to be presumptuous while Kant to be phenomenal and Nietzche hilarious and delicious.
>>7388412
>Kant believes all reality is subjective, Nietzche that morality is subjective
wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooahhhhhhhhhhhh
how did u come up with this shit wtf
>>7388412
Really? I took Kant's use of the categorical imperative to result in a pretty rigid moral and ethical metaphysics that is rather stifling and equally presumptuous.
While I can see where utilitarians are pretty objective I also see room for a use of subjective utility in bettering human flourishing.
>>7388420
The intro to philosophy class I'm currently in. I could say more but I'm on an iPhone and this is an anonymous chat board I don't give a shit about.
>>7388412
I agree that personal belief plays a rather large roll. I found Aristotle to be genius, Kant to have rather good ideas but had a bad way of putting them down on paper, Mill was practical, and I just did not care for Nietzsche at all.
>>7388431
so gtfo
>>7388431
drop out or start paying attention because wrong isn't even close
This is what happens when you try to give Kant to novices and plebe tier students.
What did you guys think of "Against Moral Conservatism" by Nielson? I thought it had some good thought experiments personally
>>7388453
agreed
>>7388454
>Nielson?
First time I've heard of him to be honest family.
There are so many philosophers I feel like I learn some new area of investigation day by day.
>>7388453
And what is wrong with this? Would you rather have blind zealots burning down cities, you elitist fuck?
>>7388369
Even if I were a utilitarianism this books is more useful today than Smith's works on economy are to modern economics. Utilitarianism has progressed so far from this that the only reason anyone would actually think it's good would be for either an introduction to the field of normative ethics or to gain an understand of what Mill thinks about things.
>>7388486
they would be less obnoxious
>>7390312
That's precisely the point of Mill. To give an introductory basis for those who just want a taste of the sub field within political philosophy
>>7390330
Plebes are obnoxious by virtue of being plebes.
>>7390312
ffs at my typing errors.
What are your interpretations and understandings of Nietzsche's stating "Man does not seek happiness, only the Englishman does that"?
("Englishman" almost definitely referring to the utilitarianists)
>>7390360
