🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:44:42 UTC No. 16288606
You can't debunk this as an utilitarian.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:52:14 UTC No. 16288615
>>16288606
Is there something wrong about this that you see that a utilitarian wouldn't see? I dont get it
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:17:02 UTC No. 16288645
>>16288606
Without more data, it is challenging to debunk,
we do not know the amount of happiness gained by the "whoever" stole the bike, to challenge the conclusion in the third section.
In addition to the happiness factor we also don't know how much benefit the other party gained. If the thief already had a bicycle for example (and stole this one to sell to someone else) then stealing that bicycle would not increase the mobility benefit a bicycle brings more than the amount of benefit lost by losing your only bicycle.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 18:35:40 UTC No. 16288672
Any of you got the Mato edit version?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:02:22 UTC No. 16288688
>>16288606
Molyneux is right, we need to accept objective morality.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:15:43 UTC No. 16288709
>>16288688
what's molyneux's objective opinion on taking dogs to pound town
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:31:42 UTC No. 16288731
>>16288606
>You can't debunk this as an utilitarian.
Sure I can. The bike cuck's claim that the thief was more happy to get the bike than he was to lose it is bullshit, and people generally feel losses more intensely than they do gains. Simple as.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosp
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 19:43:00 UTC No. 16288745
I can.
That NIGGER who stole the bike contributes society less than me. therefore, transfer of goods from me to him implies a deadweight loss and pareto inefficiency in society. solution:
KILL NIGGERSSSS
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:05:57 UTC No. 16288783
>>16288745
Based
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:21:13 UTC No. 16288798
>>16288745
Nigga stole my bike
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:21:35 UTC No. 16288799
>>16288606
This seems less about measure and more about imagination.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:45:29 UTC No. 16288827
>>16288606
>happiness as the most important metric
lmao, just smoke weed then
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:47:07 UTC No. 16288829
What are the scientific implications of utilitarianism?
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 20:56:24 UTC No. 16288842
>>16288606
Living in a society where shit gets stolen constantly limits what you can do in very real ways. I don't see anything un-utilitarian about that. Panel 3 is just myopic.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 22:33:56 UTC No. 16288950
>>16288606
You can. Having your bike stolen is purely a bad thing for an individualist utilitarian. A collectivist utilitarian might consider this event good, but even then only if he considers joggers as his people.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:04:32 UTC No. 16288974
>>16288950
Not OP but taking a guy's bike while brainwashing him that it's for his own good is totally European but not American at all. That's the reason we divorced you in the first place.
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:32:53 UTC No. 16289005
>>16288950
I think you have things mixed up here. A collective utilitarian would say that if everyone stole bicycles, then the world would be worse (so stealing bicycles is wrong.) I don't know what individualist utilitarianism is
Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 23:52:43 UTC No. 16289030
>>16288606
So misanthropic and malevolent self-interest are always justified especially when done at the expense of others' happiness because if your victims don't share the objective morality of utilitarianism then they're subhumans unworthy of your consideration anyway.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:01:53 UTC No. 16289035
>>16289005
>I don't know what individualist utilitarianism is
If you can't define a code in terms of yourself, it has no value to anyone.
>misanthropic and malevolent self-interest
I'm no fan of OP's cartoon but it certainly doesn't describe self-interest
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:15:36 UTC No. 16289045
>>16289035
>If you can't define a code in terms of yourself, it has no value to anyone.
You've only confused me further. Are there any philosophers who advocate for individualist utilitarianism? Maybe I could read them
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:26:31 UTC No. 16289053
>>16289045
How can a boy who imagines sacrificing his bicycle to an imaginary greater good not be a victim of something? Of anything?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:28:53 UTC No. 16289056
>>16288606
Of course we can. We cannot live in a world where crime is rampant or people will suffer. Allowing one person to steal a bike may seem like that person increases happiness therefore a positive result has been achieved but by not punishing a wrongdoer you're making the world a less safe place, therefore increasing overall unhappiness.
Just because someone's utilitarian doesn't mean they believe everyone should simply take whatever they want which makes them happy. That's insanity.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 00:31:35 UTC No. 16289059
>>16289053
He is a victim, many schools of utilitarianism affirm this. If you don't think there is such a thing as a greater good, then ethics is a pointless exercise
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 01:00:39 UTC No. 16289070
>>16288731
Also the bike thief likely felt some amount of guilt, along with happiness, and bike cuck probably didn't feel that.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 01:02:44 UTC No. 16289071
>>16289059
Yes, and from what you've said you agree completely.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 04:22:49 UTC No. 16289224
>>16288606
Except that whoever stole the bike didn't do it because they needed or wanted a bike for transportation or recreation, they stole it as part of a general practice of stealing bikes, which get sold for cash, so they can buy other things, likely drugs or alcohol, but regardless they stole it because they're bike thieves, therefore scumbags. The overall 'happiness' of the world didn't go up as a result, it went down, as the thieves are evil fucks and they made you miserable.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 07:51:52 UTC No. 16289355
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 07:55:45 UTC No. 16289358
>>16288645
ChatGPT please just fuck off.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:23:51 UTC No. 16289365
>>16288606
>You can't debunk this as an utilitarian.
The environment of fear and distrust that normalizing theft would create would outweigh the enjoyment received by the thieves
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:59:03 UTC No. 16289374
>>16288606
not quite.
the measure is "happiness" which is a subjective measurement.
the measurement should be more objective.
a bicycle is meant to be used and so the measure should be in how the bicycle is used by the original owner versus the thief.
and the most useful measurement, from that perspective, is the overall societal benefit of ownership of the bicycle.
the initial owner was likely using the bicycle as it was intended (riding it as opposed to using motor transportation, riding it for exercise versus not exercising at all).
the thief will likely utilize the bicycle by selling it (no money versus having money). while all objects may be sold, not all objects may be used primarily as transportation or exercise.
therefore, there is a LOSS in utility as a result of the transfer in ownership.
as a result, i would disagree that this theft is a net gain from a utilitarian perspective.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 09:47:48 UTC No. 16289387
>>16288688
Whose objective morality?
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 10:20:06 UTC No. 16289402
>>16288606
>an utilitarian
ESLfag DETECTED
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:15:47 UTC No. 16289465
>>16288606
How does he know that his sadness was exceeded by the bike thieves happiness? I doubt it because if it's general utility remained roughly the same from the owner to the thief, then the utility would have just stayed the same and only "transferred" to a different person.
I thus propose the law of conservation of happiness, where the happiness of the world always stays roughly the same. This works for time too, because every time a new thing makes life happier, we get used to it and thus get bored of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:49:46 UTC No. 16289492
>>16288645
It's not actually about this specific bike per se.
You can construct situations that happen all the time IRL where the happiness gain after bad action is statistically indisputable.
Like just imagine excusing petty pocket theft in an upper-middle class neighbourhood.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:15:44 UTC No. 16289512
>>16289070
The "bike cuck" however did feel some amount of smug satisfaction in being a good progressive, so that has to be added to the equation.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:56:33 UTC No. 16289560
>>16288606
Retard. Utility means nothing if we don't define it or value it based on our axioms.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 14:06:55 UTC No. 16289572
>>16288606
>You can't debunk this as an utilitarian.
Sure you can... gang rape increases the happiness of 9 out of 10 people when there 9 men and 1 woman.
Same argument against pure democracy.
it does not work unless there are certain inalienable rights.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 18:45:18 UTC No. 16289913
>>16289387
>Whose
Objective morality.
>Whose gravity
(you)
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 18:55:37 UTC No. 16289922
>>16289572
How have you debunked OP with utilitarianism? You've only proved him right; utilitarianists are soulless leftists trying to steal other people's things.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 18:56:58 UTC No. 16289928
>>16288606
Why would an utilitarian care about the state of the world? A person is his own world
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 23:14:18 UTC No. 16290236
>>16289374
Your logic doesn't make sense. Whoever the bike thief sells it to will use it, and the original owner will buy a new one he wouldn't have bought before. So the thief has actually increased the use of bicycles and as such has done good according to your logic, or at least has kept the usage the same and is neutral
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 23:21:02 UTC No. 16290245
>>16288606
It's trivially easy to debunk as a utilitarian if you just consider n-th order effects.
And also if your not a cuck who loses less utils than thieves gain.
Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 23:58:19 UTC No. 16290273
>>16288606
The thief is actively harming all of society and must be suppressed. This theft is not likely isolated.
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 01:48:14 UTC No. 16290333
Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 05:25:36 UTC No. 16290445
>>16288606
My group is more important than their group, simple as