Ask a pure utilitarian anything.
Are you a communist?
>>7456481
how do you decide when to terminate the chain of consequences which are relevant to the utility calculation for your action
Would you sacrifice yourself to make me and others happier?
>>7456488
>Science and logic.
"science and logic" describe a causal system as a series of actions and reactions, with the latter interminably producing the former and vice versa, so I'm not sure how that's an answer.
>>7456494
>"science and logic" describe a causal system as a series of actions and reactions
Your understanding of science and logic is pretty crude and inaccurate.
>>7456500
How so?
What constitutes a single unit of hedon?
>>7456481
underage ban?
>>7456512
>If you had studied any science at all you would know there's much more to it than a causal system. Systems have parameters, different levels and underlying principles.
the point is that an action produces a consequence which in turn produces another action; you've yet to explain how whatever your ideas of science and logic are provides you with a termination point to a causal chain.
>>7456481
How do you respond to the utility monster?
>>7456521
>an action produces a consequence which in turn produces another action
In undergrad philosophy classes maybe. The real world is much more complex.
>>7456531
OK, let me ask you a simpler question. How does logic and science tell you what members of the set of consequences which are used in your utility calculation are?
>>7456535
All of them.
>>7456542
Yeah, that would be the label for your set. The question is how you're determining what its members are.
>>7456548
I just told you. The members of the set are all of them.
>there are people right now on /lit/ who think a utility-based approach requires an objective unit of measure.
lol wtf?
Your local central bank is currently using a general equilibrium model which is based on the concept of utility maximization and you are still arguing about shit
>>7456550
n-no, you didn't. "the members of the set are all of them" is a tautology.
>>7456559
If you don't think the set has any members then what the fuck are we arguing about?
>>7456587
I'm asking you how you're determining what the full set of consequences to any given action are.
>>7456590
he's baiting you senpai, leave him be
>>7456590
>I want to eat pie
>I bake pie
>I eat pie
>consequently I have eaten pie
Is this hard to understand?
>>7456601
No. While an interesting story it's also not an answer to my question.
>>7456603
I want to eat pie. The full set of consequences contains all of the events required in order for me to eat pie.
>>7456627
Why does it terminate once you've eaten the pie?
>>7456633
Because all I wanted to do was eat the pie.
>>7456642
So? If your criteria for isolating consequences is their coherence with a desire then you're saying that accidents by definition have no consequences.
>>7456645
They have consequences, but they're not consequences I necessarily care about. I only necessarily care about the consequences involved in getting what I want.
>>7456649
So you've come pretty far from "all of the consequences of my action are used in the calculus" to "only those consequences which were instrumental in attaining some goal are relevant".
If accidents or consequences consequent to your goal aren't relevant to the calculus though, I presume you don't assume moral responsibility for those either?
>>7456664
also, what about consequences which are instrumental to acquiring your goal but which you weren't aware of? These would be included in your calculus if it's strictly "the entire set of consequences between my action and my goal which necessarily relies on my action".
>>7456664
No, I don't assume responsibility for accidents. I'm a utilitarian, not God.
>>7456673
further, how do you isolate individual consequences from the sequence of events in between your action and your goal? Do you just rely on what words come to you to describe that sequence?
>>7456674
what about the consequences consequent to your goal?
>>7456481
Why are you posting on 4chan instead of working on preventing malaria?
>>7456681
That could mean a number of things depending on how that's interpreted so I'll ask you to expand on it or give me an example.
Say, for example, baking and eating pie costs money for pie mix or whatever the fuck else I need. The consequence of that would be that I have to get a job in order to be able to afford more pie.
>>7456689
If malaria is cured there will be more Africans in the world and consequently more violence, reducing overall utility.
>>7456523
utility monsters don't real
How would a divine command theorist respond to God telling him to kill babies?
>>7456691
So you want a pie then do all those things and eat the pie and then you shit the pie: by your criterion shitting the pie out isn't a relevant consequence of your action.
>>7456531
>more complex
>baiting this hard
>>7456691
That was just an example. Unless you'd like to try to justify how posting on a anime forum maximizes utility, explain why you aren't developing better cancer treatments or [x] thing with more utility than what you're doing now.
>>7456488
>I was but it didn't make me happy.
pure utilitarian
pure
pur
pu
>>7456692
go ask abraham faggot
>>7456733
That was the worst copout of the entire bible
"haha just kidding dude I'm not really a utility monster"
>>7456732
>What would you have me do, retain my shit after eating the pie? Why?
What? The question is whether you're OK with barring those kinds of consequences which are consequent to your goal but nonetheless necessarily dependent on your action from your calculus on that action.
>>7456737
Yes, I am OK with that as long as I am maximising utility.
>>7456732
>Posting on an anime forum makes me happier than curing malaria and enabling more Africans to starve to death does.
Doesn't that just make you a egoist?
>>7456746
Even if the extension of the consequences to one further event that is still dependent on your original action would massively tip the calculus?
>>7456747
No, because an egoist would consider happiness to be a spook.
>>7456752
No, I mean an ethical egoist.
>Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one's self with no higher regard than one has for others
Why are you posting on 4chan if you are actually a 'pure' utilitarian?
>>7456481
What was the purpose of making this thread? What utility is there?
