Daily Anarchist Forum
October 21, 2019, 06:17:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Utilitarians let's dance!  (Read 4976 times)
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:55:20 AM »

Here's why utilitarianism = fail:

1. What is utility?
           Do to the subjective nature of perception, utility cannot be objectively defined. The "utility" of X is going to vary from person to person. Without an objective standard there cannot be consistency without consistency philosophy fails. It is exactly this lack of consistency that allows for Statism, individuals who rationalize and cherry pick to support their desired conclusions.

2. Suppose that we define utility such that it justifies slavery? Does this then make slavery legitimate? After all it has the most utility!


   
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
State-God
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 670



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2013, 05:20:00 AM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?
Logged

"[In a Socialist Commonwealth] the wheels will turn, but will run to no effect." - Ludwig von Mises
Sima Qian
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 63



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2013, 05:29:21 AM »

And don't forget utility monsters:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2569
Logged
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2013, 05:44:59 AM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?

The problem with subjective morality in utilitarian application is you have subjective laws.  Some people think the greatest utility would occur if we were all priest like.  They start outlawing common activities and items, in an attempt that they believe leads to better people and a better world, despite what you want.  

Someone else will believe some other thing is subjectively the best solution, and they push for those laws. 

Eventually we have a bunch of laws and no one is happy, but all the lawmakers think they did the right thing. 
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 05:54:01 AM by Syock » Logged

MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2013, 02:51:40 PM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?

True all morality is subjective. That's not the point. The point is that utilitarianism allows for other people let's say Statists to claim that their system provides the most utility. They can then justify enslaving everyone based on the utility of Statism.

Instead of having first principles and defining your morality from that you justify whatever you want with utilitarianism.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2013, 12:22:08 AM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?
The point is that utilitarianism allows for other people let's say Statists to claim that their system provides the most utility. They can then justify enslaving everyone based on the utility of Statism.

Instead of having first principles and defining your morality from that you justify whatever you want with utilitarianism.
First Principle: I am god.
First deduction: I own you (and everyone).
Conclusion: Enslavement justified.
Now I have justified enslaving people based on having first principles and defining my morality.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2013, 12:48:55 AM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?
The point is that utilitarianism allows for other people let's say Statists to claim that their system provides the most utility. They can then justify enslaving everyone based on the utility of Statism.

Instead of having first principles and defining your morality from that you justify whatever you want with utilitarianism.
First Principle: I am god.
First deduction: I own you (and everyone).
Conclusion: Enslavement justified.
Now I have justified enslaving people based on having first principles and defining my morality.

LOL We can test your theory that you're god. First principles can be tested. Utility is and always will be purely subjective.

Go! I'm not even saying that Utilitarianism is wrong. What I am saying is that using purely utilitarian logic to support your positions is weak. Furthermore I would argue that the utilitarian arguments are the weakest because I'm not concerned with utility I'm concerned with consistency.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 12:54:41 AM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2013, 12:53:26 AM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?
The point is that utilitarianism allows for other people let's say Statists to claim that their system provides the most utility. They can then justify enslaving everyone based on the utility of Statism.

Instead of having first principles and defining your morality from that you justify whatever you want with utilitarianism.
First Principle: I am god.
First deduction: I own you (and everyone).
Conclusion: Enslavement justified.
Now I have justified enslaving people based on having first principles and defining my morality.

LOL We can test your theory that you're god. First principles can be tested. Utility is and always will be purely subjective.

Go!
REVISED
First principle: God told me (in a dream last night) that I am his prophet and that my will is to be done.
First deduction: I have the right to tell you what to do.
Conclusion: Slavery is justified.

^Can't be tested

First principle: I own myself
Several steps later: NAP.

^Again, the first principle can't be tested. If you tried, you would find that it's false. Slavery has existed, so the principle doesn't always hold.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2013, 12:57:19 AM »

Mises justified the market system because of utilitarianism, and he readily recognized that it was his subjective opinion.

I don't see  problem with utilitarianism as long as you're aware that it's your subjective morality; all morality is subjective, really, so what does it matter?
The point is that utilitarianism allows for other people let's say Statists to claim that their system provides the most utility. They can then justify enslaving everyone based on the utility of Statism.

Instead of having first principles and defining your morality from that you justify whatever you want with utilitarianism.
First Principle: I am god.
First deduction: I own you (and everyone).
Conclusion: Enslavement justified.
Now I have justified enslaving people based on having first principles and defining my morality.

LOL We can test your theory that you're god. First principles can be tested. Utility is and always will be purely subjective.

Go!
REVISED
First principle: God told me (in a dream last night) that I am his prophet and that my will is to be done.
First deduction: I have the right to tell you what to do.
Conclusion: Slavery is justified.

^Can't be tested

First principle: I own myself
Several steps later: NAP.

^Again, the first principle can't be tested. If you tried, you would find that it's false. Slavery has existed, so the principle doesn't always hold.

There's a difference between conceptual existence and physical existence. If we want to talk about anything actually existing then libertarians need to hike up their skirts and start killing their masters. I doubt that's going to happen. We're all slaves and until people have the balls to kill the slave masters we always will be.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2013, 01:01:47 AM »

I own myself. But that doesn't matter unless I'm willing to use violence against people who disagree.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2013, 01:13:31 AM »

Every first princeple is a claim test the claim.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2013, 08:01:36 AM »

When you post after yourself like that, I start to think you might be arguing with yourself. 
Logged

Disengage
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 331


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2013, 11:42:21 AM »

Quote
I own myself. But that doesn't matter unless I'm willing to use violence against people who disagree.]I own myself. But that doesn't matter unless I'm willing to use violence against people who disagree.

I disagree with part of that.
So what' you're saying is pacifists don't own themselves?     Or maybe they DO own themselves, but only up until the point where a non-pacifist says otherwise?

Someone who's rights have been violated still has those rights.   If someone puts a gun to my head, makes me get out of my car, and then drives off with it... it's still my car.   The fact that I decided not to die for it doesn't mean I don't have rights to it.        It's just been stolen.  Now, for all pragmatic (utilitarian?) purposes, the thief owns the car now.    He controls it.  He can do whatever he wants with it.   But from a philosophical (and legal, if that means anything in this scenario.  If not, insert "moral") standpoint, the car is still mine.  

I will agree that someone, SOMEWHERE is probably going to have to use or threaten violence against that thief to get the car back.   But where we disagree is in what happens if no one is willing to do so.     I think you're saying that the thief "officially" owns the car if no one is willing to bash his head in to take it back.     I'm saying:  maybe, maybe not.    I'm not willing to automatically cede him ownership on the basis of not wanting to kill him over it.  But the decision isn't really mine, its up to whatever legal structure exists in this scenario.   And If I don't agree with that structure, I can always get in my car and leave.  Oh, wait...

But to boil it down:   Is there a difference in having a right that you can't exercise (out of fear or whatever else) and NOT having that right at all?    I think there is.   I also think that you think there isn't.   That sum it up?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 11:52:54 AM by Disengage » Logged



MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2013, 12:33:15 PM »

Quote
But to boil it down:   Is there a difference in having a right that you can't exercise (out of fear or whatever else) and NOT having that right at all?    I think there is.   I also think that you think there isn't.   That sum it up?

I'll agree with you that conceptually your rights exist even though they have been violated. But from a pragmatic I guess, (I was thinking Utility meant maximum wealth potential) stand point that doesn't matter.

Quote
So what' you're saying is pacifists don't own themselves?

Pacifists exist, and they have their rights (in the real world) at the whim of those who aren't pacifists. Pacifism to my mind essentially begs non pacifists to let them live. Essentially a pacifist is saying please don't take my shit and please don't kill me.

Conceptually I would like to be a pacifist, but I'm not about to put my life in someone else's hands like that. You know? At best pacifists just don't care whether they live or die. At worst they are naive.

Quote

When you post after yourself like that, I start to think you might be arguing with yourself.

Some times I do argue with my self. Smiley

EDIT: At the end of the day I think that if we're ever going to be free we need to be willing to fight for our rights. We need to get together, and work as a team to bring our vision into the world. It's not going to happen like magic. The only way Ancapistan is ever going to exist is with hard work and risk taking. Frankly I don't think that Ancapistan is ever going to exist because people aren't willing to stand up for themselves, they aren't willing to work together, and they aren't willing to actually accomplish shit.

We're never going to become free by trying to spread the intellectual side of things because the vast majority of people aren't even willing to consider the arguments. It's useless and a waste of time to try to convince people that don't want to learn. We need to say fuck these ass holes and just leave, and worry about ourselves.

This is why I have very little hope that anything is ever going to happen, much less in my life time. This used to bother me now I've realized that just like the Statists that can't be convinced, anarchist can't be convinced either. So I just need to save myself. That's not on topic but that's how I feel.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 01:03:13 PM by MAM » Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
MAM
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2357


Life is Sacred


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2013, 03:58:05 PM »

There is a lot of shit in the world that looks good in theory but doesn't work in the real world. This is one of those things.
Logged

"A stone is heavy and the sand is weighty but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both"-Tuek

"Knowledge is power, and it's light weight. The more you know the less you need."-Cody Lundin

"Hey... it's a haiku

Democracy is
Two Zombies and a Sheriff
Deciding on Lunch."-Davi Barker
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!