'fraid it was all rather muddy... certainly nothing that even links suffering to objectivity.
I might mention that your implication that governments are reacting to terrorism with purely protective intentions seems to be granting them much more benevolence than they actually have.
To me it has always looked much more like a series of "false flag" power grabs. My first thought after turning on the tv on 9/11..? "well, there go our last shreds of freedom." Mind you, we didn't have many left.
Yes, nice thought actually,a bit underrated imo. Live does not follow any set targets but we,as human beings,have to choose goals in order to stay alive,which we want to,because we are afraid of pain and death (bad feelings) and want to have orgasms( good feelings)
Honest question, with no criticism or negative responses to follow. What made you choose Utilitarianism over other ethical models, such as Aristotelian virtue ethics, Thomistic Natural Law, Kantian deontological ethics, etc? What were some of the flaws in the other ethics models that made you feel secure in Utilitarianism?
I Did a lot of thinking as a child and this is the moral code i came to believe in. I only found out it had already been invented and names a few years ago. so i chose it because i came to believe it through my own thought. I think other morals seem to either be based on a utilitarian basis anyway... or are just ridiculous.. or are based on logic excluding emotion which i think is like saying whats right and wrong to do to a rock.
hey paddy, a couple of points I'd like to address about your video. Rocks, plants, clocks, cars etc are not sentient beings, they are inanimate objects, therefore they do not have any interests in avoiding pain and suffering and a preference for experiencing pleasure. Sentient beings however, such as humans and non human animals do have interests in avoiding pain and suffering and experiencing pleasure and fulfulling their basic needs. You sort of addressed this, however...
however you've proposed an argument that suggests that if we acted in accordance with our 'true' nature we would be able to satisfy our desire for pleasure and avoid suffering. Where does morality factor into this? There are many people who would not find pleasure in hunting and killing a sentient being, I think its safe to say, most people couldn't do it. Furthermore there were many things in past societies, in which the net pleasure of society outweighed the net sufffering, such as slavery.
There are many other things that humans once did that were considered perfectly natural and even moral historically speaking, infanticide, lynching, and numerous forms of discrimination against certain peoples.Many people recognise now that even though those forms of oppression were socially acceptable then, largely in part because it was part of a majority status quo set of moral principles (cont)
now most people would recognise that things like slavery are morally wrong even if the net pleasure derived from it outweighed the net suffering. From the video it sounds like you are an act utilitarian (?) - you say that if you have to choose between you and someone else, given that you 'may' experience more pleasure than they will, you choose yourself, and thus their interests are ignored.
Therefore utilitarianism is incompatible with any concept of rights, yet you mention it immediately after you make that statement. Then you say 'morally you should choose yourself' but how can this truely be applied in a reality were the overwhelming majority of humans and non humans value their own lives and wish to avoid pain and suffering and death.
I think you completely overlook the fact that the idea of human rights is incompatible with utiliarianism precisely because peoples' interests can be ignored if it serves the interests of someone else who 'may' value her/his life more.
Take the analogy of using homeless people as forced organ donors. Many people would benefit from this, it could save many lives of people who live in higher social classes and who 'value' their lives more, even if it ignored the inherent value and right of the homeless people in not being treated as a commodity.
Or using humans as forced test subjects for finding cures for life threatening diseases. Surely the benefits of this would outweigh any suffering. Yet, most people reject this because it is morally wrong to use any person as a means to an end. Utiliarianism is about the end justifying the means, even if it means ignoring and violating interests and humans rights. Afterall you value your own life, and I value mine. Under utiliarianism none of that matters.
I think the means is an end in itself. so the suffering of those people must be included in the equation. I think people should be given an equal chance as well (i did not mention this in the video) but everyone has teh right to an equal chance of positive emotion) so i agree no using people
valuing your own life does not give you positive emotion. it is "fake" value. life does not neccesarily mean happiness.
the homeless have the same ability to feel positive emotion as the rich so they are equal. but the poor would gain more extra food than the rich so they should get extra food? sorry if i am not explaining well i am in a rush
a being valuing their own life does not necessarily mean happiness, but it does mean that they have interests in continuing to live. Positive benefit/ emotion also does not entitle one to more preference than the next person, because what this does is stamp out the interests of the other person. Take the case of using mentally disabled people in scientific experiments to find cures for diseases. (cont)
I think it is wrong to use any sentient being as a commodity full stop. A sentient being has an interest in continuing to live, otherwise the being would not have evolved to develop neurotransmitters to detect pain (as an indicator to avoid death) this makes evolutionary sense. Thus sentient beings value their life. So using mentally disabled people in scientific experiments would be a violation of their right to continuing to live and not be used as a commodity.
Utilitarians (act and rule) would see the ability of a mentally disabled person's experience of life as 'less' valuable than someone without a mental disability. Therefore, in a situation of deciding between a mentally disabled person and a person without mental disability, utilitarians err on the side of ignoring the interests and inherent right (not to be treated as a commodity) of the mentally disabled person, and trade away her/his interests in favour of the person without disability.
If a person cannot feel emotion then i do not think they have value.. a plant does not have value.. but as long as that person can feel any emotion they are completely included in the equation..
if you truely believe that claim that if a person cannot feel pain therefore they have no value, then logically you must be opposed to vivisection and the use of animals for food. Clearly they experience a great deal of pain and suffering, and it has been scientifically proven they suffering in very much the same way humans do, some suffer more. Moreover they are forced to die for trivial reasons, therefore the net suffering (using hedonic calculus) would clearly outweigh net pleasure.
i believe a life without EMOTION is not a life. not just negative. I believe the pain animals feel is wrong. and i am going to become a vegatarian (although its impossible at the moment) but i also feel that if an animal dies without feeling pain then death is neutral. i'm becoming a vegetarian just in case they feel emotion. so yeah i guess i agree.
mentally disabled people experience pain/pleasure in the same way we do, they have emotions (fear,love, anger etc) and they do value their own lives. It would be immoral to use them as a means to our ends simply because they possess a different intellectual intelligence. They value their life just as you and I value mine (they wish to continue to live) thus I believe it is wrong to use ANY sentient being as a means to an end. This does not correspond with utilitarianism
What your saying here is using the hedonic calculus it is wrong to use them because they feel pleasure and pain.. so your using utilitarianism here. and i agree. if they cannot feel emotion then it would be different. also if i did not answer very well the other day i apologise. i had a stressful day. you make very good points.
In the case of the slaves - the slaves sadness greatly outweigh the happiness of the owners. yes i am an act utilitarian. there interests are not ignored they are included in the calculation but if i can experience mor happiness (say i am hungry and they are not and there is only 1 meal) then i should have the meal..
however, utiliarians (act and rule) judge a scenario on net pleasure and suffering gained out of an equation. Therefore in pro slavery times the majority being whites gained pleasure from the oppression of black people. Nevertheless its not morally justifiable. Similarly many animals used in painful/deadly scientific experiments have their interests traded away for human benefit (this is based on a utiliarian model) thus their inherent right not to be treated as property is completely ignored
I believe that morality comes from positive emotion - which can be gained in different ways for different sentient beings. these positive emotions are a by product of evolution and being socially happy is included in evolution. weather we enjoy killing or not is based on our evolution but weather it is moral is based on the positive and negative emotion felt by both the animal AND you. i hope this cleared up this point.
extrapolation of data from non human subjects to humans is a very complicated and inaccurate procedure leading to all sorts of avoidable errors and resulting suffering. Therefore why not use humans instead of animals, as many utiliarians are for. Extrapolation would be far more accurate, and it can be said that net pleasure would outweigh the suffering caused by their use as a commodity. My point is, rights based claims are meaningless in the utiliarian model, therefore they are always traded
there is absolutely no reliable evidence for this, scientifically proven that animals experience many of the same emotions humans do (humans are animals remember) some experience more pain & pleasure. You are using a claim based on so called "intellectual intelligence" I think, and this is very problematic.
You have read a book. and its likely you had sex. I believe reading a book has more value than sex - you may disagree. i believe this because the pleasure from a book is more than physical and cannot be felt by animals. they probably feel the same physical pleasure but that is not the most important or greatest type of pleasure.
you say that being close to our nature makes us happy because where engineered to live in nature i completly disagree. But agree for the most part up to that point. You seem to forget that evolution dousnt care if we are happy. Evolution has engineered us to survive and multiply best in our nature this evolution and may or may not be completly diffrent from what keeps us happy. I guess what im saying is evolution would engineer us to be misrable in our nature if that would make us fuck more.
I Agree but the reason we feel emotions is to encourage us to do certain things (eat, have sex, hunt) etc. So all I'm saying is if we fulfill those needs as nature intended we would be happy.
Can you please reword this. do you mean they are not compatible? but its rare. that was my point. too much happiness is prevented to justify the devastating and worrying media coverage.
I just got the impression that you think democracy is to blame for bush, un, obama ect... when the problem is not democracy, it is bush, un, obama ect... you really come off bad in this vid.
i disagree, there are flaws in democracy itself. how can leaders hope to create a good society with a bad system..
please explain how you think obama and bush are to blame? and think for yourself about weather they are acting the way they are to please us or for the overall good of us.
What i meant was that a rock doesn't have any value it simply "survives" my point is it does exist but that doesn't matter..
If animals feel positive and negative then they are a full part of it.
modern man? well that would take a long time to answer lol. We should strive to Increase overall positive emotion.. however you best think you can do that. The government is the biggest way. so really we need a better government.
I had a quick read into it. its very interesting and i feel like it had utilitarian goals (if that is what you mean) but i think most things do. even religion can be said to.
I dont know determinism carries good arguements i especially liked dendrophilians vid on it, have you seen that?
It is a nice thought but I tend to not believe in ideas if i had to choose i would rather believe in free will although determinism may convey proof otherwise, thats the problem with belief, I suppose free will and determinism are binary opposites so it can get quite confusing.
Yeah i saw dendros video. i though it was amazing i love his work. i agree free will des make me happier but i must believe only what is true .. and determinism passes the test lol.
Hm it could be said to.. can i ask why so i can better answer?
at the start of the video you stated that you feel many people have a misconcieved idea of utilitarianism. i bet more than half of these people believe (note "believe") that they are right. how do you know that what you believe is the heart of this philosophy?
Happiness does not just mean exstacy. otherwise this philosophy is uselesss. if you take it to mean all positive emotion it becomes a workable moral philosophy - which was the point of it in the first place. and i doubt Jeremy Bentham wanted to create a useless moral system. get me?
Yes, i do. i never dissagreed with you in the first place, i just felt like pointing out that what you believe could be wrong. but i do agree with this interpratation of Utilitarianism
pause video at 00:04 and then go and watch a different video.
lokiboy12 10 months ago
I (from your name) think your Irish, but your accent isn't too far from Scottish..
Good video man, thanks
KosAAAGH 1 year ago
born and brought up in scotland. Irish family..
PaddyCuinne 1 year ago
i liked it
McRitchiePhysics 2 years ago
sounds as if negative emotions being the only vice may be true by definition.
Spalg 2 years ago
That's the way i see it.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
'fraid it was all rather muddy... certainly nothing that even links suffering to objectivity.
I might mention that your implication that governments are reacting to terrorism with purely protective intentions seems to be granting them much more benevolence than they actually have.
To me it has always looked much more like a series of "false flag" power grabs. My first thought after turning on the tv on 9/11..? "well, there go our last shreds of freedom." Mind you, we didn't have many left.
AutodidacticPhd 2 years ago
So how does apathy fit in to all of this? Stay groovy :)
MrMontagne 2 years ago
Well i think apathy can lead to revelations. But my first response would be that it should be treated as a problem to overcome.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
This sounds really interesting actually so I'm going to do a bit more research on it...good work Paddy ^-^
InuyashaVsLoveless 2 years ago
Glad to hear it have fun
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Yes, nice thought actually,a bit underrated imo. Live does not follow any set targets but we,as human beings,have to choose goals in order to stay alive,which we want to,because we are afraid of pain and death (bad feelings) and want to have orgasms( good feelings)
Holmganger 2 years ago
hell yeah very true. yeah its rated low because of the votebot attacks..
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Hi! I love these philo. videos, well done! :)
redpinkcat 2 years ago
Thanks mate,
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Honest question, with no criticism or negative responses to follow. What made you choose Utilitarianism over other ethical models, such as Aristotelian virtue ethics, Thomistic Natural Law, Kantian deontological ethics, etc? What were some of the flaws in the other ethics models that made you feel secure in Utilitarianism?
kerplunk288 2 years ago
I Did a lot of thinking as a child and this is the moral code i came to believe in. I only found out it had already been invented and names a few years ago. so i chose it because i came to believe it through my own thought. I think other morals seem to either be based on a utilitarian basis anyway... or are just ridiculous.. or are based on logic excluding emotion which i think is like saying whats right and wrong to do to a rock.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Man i don't mind criticisms. just lay them out simply and logically. so i know what you disagree with and can explain myself.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
hey paddy, a couple of points I'd like to address about your video. Rocks, plants, clocks, cars etc are not sentient beings, they are inanimate objects, therefore they do not have any interests in avoiding pain and suffering and a preference for experiencing pleasure. Sentient beings however, such as humans and non human animals do have interests in avoiding pain and suffering and experiencing pleasure and fulfulling their basic needs. You sort of addressed this, however...
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
however you've proposed an argument that suggests that if we acted in accordance with our 'true' nature we would be able to satisfy our desire for pleasure and avoid suffering. Where does morality factor into this? There are many people who would not find pleasure in hunting and killing a sentient being, I think its safe to say, most people couldn't do it. Furthermore there were many things in past societies, in which the net pleasure of society outweighed the net sufffering, such as slavery.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
There are many other things that humans once did that were considered perfectly natural and even moral historically speaking, infanticide, lynching, and numerous forms of discrimination against certain peoples.Many people recognise now that even though those forms of oppression were socially acceptable then, largely in part because it was part of a majority status quo set of moral principles (cont)
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
now most people would recognise that things like slavery are morally wrong even if the net pleasure derived from it outweighed the net suffering. From the video it sounds like you are an act utilitarian (?) - you say that if you have to choose between you and someone else, given that you 'may' experience more pleasure than they will, you choose yourself, and thus their interests are ignored.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
Therefore utilitarianism is incompatible with any concept of rights, yet you mention it immediately after you make that statement. Then you say 'morally you should choose yourself' but how can this truely be applied in a reality were the overwhelming majority of humans and non humans value their own lives and wish to avoid pain and suffering and death.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
I think you completely overlook the fact that the idea of human rights is incompatible with utiliarianism precisely because peoples' interests can be ignored if it serves the interests of someone else who 'may' value her/his life more.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
Take the analogy of using homeless people as forced organ donors. Many people would benefit from this, it could save many lives of people who live in higher social classes and who 'value' their lives more, even if it ignored the inherent value and right of the homeless people in not being treated as a commodity.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
Or using humans as forced test subjects for finding cures for life threatening diseases. Surely the benefits of this would outweigh any suffering. Yet, most people reject this because it is morally wrong to use any person as a means to an end. Utiliarianism is about the end justifying the means, even if it means ignoring and violating interests and humans rights. Afterall you value your own life, and I value mine. Under utiliarianism none of that matters.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
I think the means is an end in itself. so the suffering of those people must be included in the equation. I think people should be given an equal chance as well (i did not mention this in the video) but everyone has teh right to an equal chance of positive emotion) so i agree no using people
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
valuing your own life does not give you positive emotion. it is "fake" value. life does not neccesarily mean happiness.
the homeless have the same ability to feel positive emotion as the rich so they are equal. but the poor would gain more extra food than the rich so they should get extra food? sorry if i am not explaining well i am in a rush
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
a being valuing their own life does not necessarily mean happiness, but it does mean that they have interests in continuing to live. Positive benefit/ emotion also does not entitle one to more preference than the next person, because what this does is stamp out the interests of the other person. Take the case of using mentally disabled people in scientific experiments to find cures for diseases. (cont)
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
Ok lets try it this way. why do you think that it is wrong to do that?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I think it is wrong to use any sentient being as a commodity full stop. A sentient being has an interest in continuing to live, otherwise the being would not have evolved to develop neurotransmitters to detect pain (as an indicator to avoid death) this makes evolutionary sense. Thus sentient beings value their life. So using mentally disabled people in scientific experiments would be a violation of their right to continuing to live and not be used as a commodity.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
Life only has value when emotion is felt. its why its not wrong to kill a plant..
I believe physical pain is nothing compared to emotional pain. but yeah i agree with you here. im not really seeing your point.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Can i get an example of this and i will try to explain it better...
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Utilitarians (act and rule) would see the ability of a mentally disabled person's experience of life as 'less' valuable than someone without a mental disability. Therefore, in a situation of deciding between a mentally disabled person and a person without mental disability, utilitarians err on the side of ignoring the interests and inherent right (not to be treated as a commodity) of the mentally disabled person, and trade away her/his interests in favour of the person without disability.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
If a person cannot feel emotion then i do not think they have value.. a plant does not have value.. but as long as that person can feel any emotion they are completely included in the equation..
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
if you truely believe that claim that if a person cannot feel pain therefore they have no value, then logically you must be opposed to vivisection and the use of animals for food. Clearly they experience a great deal of pain and suffering, and it has been scientifically proven they suffering in very much the same way humans do, some suffer more. Moreover they are forced to die for trivial reasons, therefore the net suffering (using hedonic calculus) would clearly outweigh net pleasure.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
i believe a life without EMOTION is not a life. not just negative. I believe the pain animals feel is wrong. and i am going to become a vegatarian (although its impossible at the moment) but i also feel that if an animal dies without feeling pain then death is neutral. i'm becoming a vegetarian just in case they feel emotion. so yeah i guess i agree.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
mentally disabled people experience pain/pleasure in the same way we do, they have emotions (fear,love, anger etc) and they do value their own lives. It would be immoral to use them as a means to our ends simply because they possess a different intellectual intelligence. They value their life just as you and I value mine (they wish to continue to live) thus I believe it is wrong to use ANY sentient being as a means to an end. This does not correspond with utilitarianism
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
What your saying here is using the hedonic calculus it is wrong to use them because they feel pleasure and pain.. so your using utilitarianism here. and i agree. if they cannot feel emotion then it would be different. also if i did not answer very well the other day i apologise. i had a stressful day. you make very good points.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
In the case of the slaves - the slaves sadness greatly outweigh the happiness of the owners. yes i am an act utilitarian. there interests are not ignored they are included in the calculation but if i can experience mor happiness (say i am hungry and they are not and there is only 1 meal) then i should have the meal..
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
however, utiliarians (act and rule) judge a scenario on net pleasure and suffering gained out of an equation. Therefore in pro slavery times the majority being whites gained pleasure from the oppression of black people. Nevertheless its not morally justifiable. Similarly many animals used in painful/deadly scientific experiments have their interests traded away for human benefit (this is based on a utiliarian model) thus their inherent right not to be treated as property is completely ignored
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
Ah you havent included AMOUNT of pleasure. the black people felt more pain overall then the pleasure of the whites. look up the hedonic calculus
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I believe that morality comes from positive emotion - which can be gained in different ways for different sentient beings. these positive emotions are a by product of evolution and being socially happy is included in evolution. weather we enjoy killing or not is based on our evolution but weather it is moral is based on the positive and negative emotion felt by both the animal AND you. i hope this cleared up this point.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
extrapolation of data from non human subjects to humans is a very complicated and inaccurate procedure leading to all sorts of avoidable errors and resulting suffering. Therefore why not use humans instead of animals, as many utiliarians are for. Extrapolation would be far more accurate, and it can be said that net pleasure would outweigh the suffering caused by their use as a commodity. My point is, rights based claims are meaningless in the utiliarian model, therefore they are always traded
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
humans feel more emotions than animals... thats why i would say.
i think every human should have an equal chance to be happy..
please go into more detail i enjoy your comments
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
there is absolutely no reliable evidence for this, scientifically proven that animals experience many of the same emotions humans do (humans are animals remember) some experience more pain & pleasure. You are using a claim based on so called "intellectual intelligence" I think, and this is very problematic.
ALEXLOVERH90 2 years ago
You have read a book. and its likely you had sex. I believe reading a book has more value than sex - you may disagree. i believe this because the pleasure from a book is more than physical and cannot be felt by animals. they probably feel the same physical pleasure but that is not the most important or greatest type of pleasure.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
you say that being close to our nature makes us happy because where engineered to live in nature i completly disagree. But agree for the most part up to that point. You seem to forget that evolution dousnt care if we are happy. Evolution has engineered us to survive and multiply best in our nature this evolution and may or may not be completly diffrent from what keeps us happy. I guess what im saying is evolution would engineer us to be misrable in our nature if that would make us fuck more.
antonyneal 2 years ago
I Agree but the reason we feel emotions is to encourage us to do certain things (eat, have sex, hunt) etc. So all I'm saying is if we fulfill those needs as nature intended we would be happy.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
democracy and terrorism is not an interchangeable subject. you might want to think about that.
BrulesRules001 2 years ago
Can you please reword this. do you mean they are not compatible? but its rare. that was my point. too much happiness is prevented to justify the devastating and worrying media coverage.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I just got the impression that you think democracy is to blame for bush, un, obama ect... when the problem is not democracy, it is bush, un, obama ect... you really come off bad in this vid.
BrulesRules001 2 years ago
Calm down I'm just voicing an opinion.
i disagree, there are flaws in democracy itself. how can leaders hope to create a good society with a bad system..
please explain how you think obama and bush are to blame? and think for yourself about weather they are acting the way they are to please us or for the overall good of us.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
''If the government focused more on the point of the law rather than the law itself''
Great point that would lead to a better world,
I do not mean to be arguementable but I do not understand the point you make,
'Survival on its own has no value, a rock survives but it doesnt have any value in terms of existing'
When clearly it does. Rocks have value in terms of existing &
Where do animals lie in utilitarinism?
Where does the modern man lie in utilitarinism?
Bmajor87 2 years ago
What i meant was that a rock doesn't have any value it simply "survives" my point is it does exist but that doesn't matter..
If animals feel positive and negative then they are a full part of it.
modern man? well that would take a long time to answer lol. We should strive to Increase overall positive emotion.. however you best think you can do that. The government is the biggest way. so really we need a better government.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Thank you for the comment by the way.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
No worries thanks for replieing,
I am intrigued by this utilitarinism it is similar to dianetics please correct me if im wrong.
I would love to discuss more with you for we both search for greater understanding.
Would it be okay to discuss more with you
Bmajor87 2 years ago
Definitely i would invite it. I have not heard of dianetics i would be very happy if you could explain this too me.
Any particular point you wish to discuss?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Well thank you for the invite,
Its kinda late right now so I wont dive into any particular points but I will get back to you sometime in the week.
But quickly Dianetics is supposedly 'the modern science of mental health' it was devised by L Ron Hubbard.
Dianetics is what sparked scientology which is very deceitful although Dianetics alone has similar practicalitys as utilitarianism would have.
Look into it & reply
Dont worry im no scientologist.
Im non-partisan.
Thanks again
Speak soon
Bmajor87 2 years ago
I had a quick read into it. its very interesting and i feel like it had utilitarian goals (if that is what you mean) but i think most things do. even religion can be said to.
Do you believe in determinism?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
I dont know determinism carries good arguements i especially liked dendrophilians vid on it, have you seen that?
It is a nice thought but I tend to not believe in ideas if i had to choose i would rather believe in free will although determinism may convey proof otherwise, thats the problem with belief, I suppose free will and determinism are binary opposites so it can get quite confusing.
Does utilitarinism carry any ideologys?
Bmajor87 2 years ago
Yeah i saw dendros video. i though it was amazing i love his work. i agree free will des make me happier but i must believe only what is true .. and determinism passes the test lol.
Hm it could be said to.. can i ask why so i can better answer?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Dianetics is similar in the way that it tries to rid negativity and replace it with positivity thats the only similarity i could recognise really.
What else interests you? Paddy you seem like an insightful person, I would love to chat more with you alot of people on here are adamant assholes.
I really like your new vid too.
Peace
Bmajor87 2 years ago
Yes i agree with your first point,
Personal interests - i like lucid dreaming. please have a look into this it is simply amazing.
Yeah i would definitely like to chat more.
lol thanks i was starting to think it was me. :P
Thanks again.
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Awesome
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
at the start of the video you stated that you feel many people have a misconcieved idea of utilitarianism. i bet more than half of these people believe (note "believe") that they are right. how do you know that what you believe is the heart of this philosophy?
Good vid btw
TheTheifInYourHead 2 years ago
oh, i also forgot to mention that i should be finished reading the book by the end of the week
TheTheifInYourHead 2 years ago
Happiness does not just mean exstacy. otherwise this philosophy is uselesss. if you take it to mean all positive emotion it becomes a workable moral philosophy - which was the point of it in the first place. and i doubt Jeremy Bentham wanted to create a useless moral system. get me?
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
Yes, i do. i never dissagreed with you in the first place, i just felt like pointing out that what you believe could be wrong. but i do agree with this interpratation of Utilitarianism
TheTheifInYourHead 2 years ago
my view cant be wrong its just different. its made up anyway ... lol its a oncept and a concept cant really be wrong but yeah cool
PaddyCuinne 2 years ago
lol well "wrong" was a poorely chosen word, i suppose "miscomprehended" would have been a better word to chooooooose
TheTheifInYourHead 2 years ago