I'm dating this girl and I really like her, but her moral positions are insane. She's a hardcore utilitarian...

You are a dirty little cuck who finally met a strong woman and doesn't know what to do with himself. Psychologically, she has a bigger penis than you. You are a piece of shit. "Moral principle", fuck off. People like you are retarded. There is nothing morally wrong. Even genocide is okay as long as it is justified.

Kek. A grill superior to your stupid ass. You should be ashamed.

First few lines aaaaand dropped. Muh the monster gets way more pleasure than anyone else. And on what is this assumption based?

Lets make it bad from the get go. Oh suprise suprise it is bad in the end too.

Give me one example, where utilitarianism doesn‘t stand it‘s ground.
She‘s right and you just can‘t admit that her views are superior.

It's an example with simple math in it, you fucking plastic bag.
If X makes greater use of a resource than a whole group of Y, then killing the group of Y doesn't matter, since X still makes greater use of that resource, so the whole chain reaches maximum utility with X alone.

Your gf is a tryhard that poses as a "muh no-nonsense hurr durr".
If she was such an utilitarian, then she would be popping out kids left and right.
And if she was such an intelligent person, then she would make you both rich.
None of that happened, though, did it?

There are barely any human beings that are real utilitarian, those who usually are (the real ones) are psychopaths and sociopaths. In theory she's right, though in practice moral is a thing that differentiates between positive or negative outcome and is kept as social memory, which defines moral. Any decision that has been made has been recorded with the ever continuing growth of society, and with every history written, moral is considered anew. You can say moral is defined by historic actions and their outcome and continues to be shamed until our species goes extinct.

>Even genocide is okay as long as it is justified.
No it's not, who are you to decide for others? Just that statement alone shows that you haven't understood the complexity of morality. People like you are retarded, you can't argue a point and you become personal because you have nothing to back up your flawed ideology as it is built on a shaky and close minded foundation.

*shaped until

>No it's not, who are you to decide for others? Just that statement alone shows that you haven't understood the complexity of morality. People like you are retarded, you can't argue a point and you become personal because you have nothing to back up your flawed ideology as it is built on a shaky and close minded foundation.

We are talking about practicality. Imagine that I am the dictator of a country. I am so rich that literally everyone wants to take my power and my resources. Everyone has the incentive to fuck me over because of the high reward. Now, you just captured a group of revolutionaries. What do you do?

1) Let them go, increasing the risk that they will try to fuck you over again
2) Put them on a legal trial and jail them, increasing the risk that they will try to fuck you over again
3) Get the firing squad going and murder all of them and their families, reducing the risk of getting fucked over by them to 0 because they will be fucking dead

If you do not choose 3, you will literally never make it. Not even as a dictator. You will never be able to be a CEO (where genocide = mass laid offs), or own your own company, or start your own political party. You will never do anything of value. You are weak.

That's a subjective justification and the topic is a lot more complex than just these 3 options.

1) How did you acquire that position.
2) What made you want to acquire that position.
3) Why do you enslave and abuse your citizens, when you very well know that the consequences at some point might be that you or your offspring would probably be killed in a coupe in order to get rid off oppression?

And in your case the biggest question is, what is the outcome and is it justified by the means? Of course if you focus on staying in power, yes, but you disregard the other factors, your citizens and the people that are oppressed

>1) How did you acquire that position.
Ideally by genociding the previous government.
>2) What made you want to acquire that position.
Being really good at genocide.
>3) Why do you enslave and abuse your citizens, when you very well know that the consequences at some point might be that you or your offspring would probably be killed in a coupe in order to get rid off oppression?

BECAUSE IT IS REALLY PROFITABLE TO HAVE A SLAVE POPULATION AND BE THE ONLY ONE REAPING THE REWARDS, MORON.

> what is the outcome and is it justified by the means?
The outcome is I get to be a billionaire (look up Fidel Castro's worth), with complete control of an entire country, fucking top tier hookers whenever I want, eating whatever I want, doing whatever I want, etc. Basically, infinite pleasure.

She just wants you to think she’s smart. Probably because she thinks you’re smart. Tell her she’s smart.

Then how come every dictatorship recorded in history suffered by far more consequences for both the slaves and the salvers?

Democracy as we know it in the western society works far better than a dictatorship because people believe they can part-take in it, while their work is being sold for more than they earn.

If you'd actually know anything about slavery and how reward systems work you'd realize that the best dictatorships are the ones were people do things out of their own free will.

>The outcome is I get to be a billionaire (look up Fidel Castro's worth), with complete control of an entire country, fucking top tier hookers whenever I want, eating whatever I want, doing whatever I want, etc. Basically, infinite pleasure.
God, how naive and childish, just another lower class uneducated scumbag that thinks money is the solution to all problems. Stop watching so many movies and read a book every once in a while, it would do you good

You know, I'm eating breakfast right now and I'm having a nice time so I'll learn you a little bit of history.

One of my personal heroes is Fidel Castro. Not because of his politics as I am a radical capitalist, but because of his strength. He inspires my ambition. Look, Fidel Castro was really fucking dumb when he was younger. He actually got captured by Cuba's right-wing government many times, and they never killed him. Do you want to know what happened? Well, Fidel Castro waited out his jail time, went out, and then started trying to destroy the government once again.

In fact, there was one time when almost the entire revolutionary force (Castro and other people high up) were captured. ALL OF THEM. If the government had killed them all, right now Cuba would be South Korea. But they didn't. They put them on trial and gave them jail time. Then they all went out, and then they did genocide the entire government. The moral of the story is that when you are in the game of power, you can't play around. You can't be a little bitch like you. You cannot be afraid of a little genocide. In fact, you cannot be afraid of huge genocide because sometimes that is what you need.

I love Castro because Castro realized by first-hand experience that revolutionary movements fail at least once. They get captured at least once, because at the beginning of the war the government always has more power. That is why when Castro became the dictator, he had no fucking second thoughts when calling the firing squad. Fidel Castro was very dumb, but by experience he became a fucking master.

Not at all senpai, just visited Cuba a couple of months ago. Saw my buddies in the government there. They are doing fine and fucking dandy. In fact, they are doing great. I honestly believe Cuba could be the eternal communist state because of how tightly the government controls everything. Basically, if the UN keeps blocking the US from just nuking the place, there is nothing they can do. Cuba's upper class will be eternal millionaires. They are a perfect dictatorship.

Life is a form of math. But not on such a simple level. They are way more complex than x is more effective than y.

>muh dictator
>muh CEO
kek
Brainlet.

>"you gotta fight"
t. costco employee

Those are prime examples of people with power. That's what you'd see in most textbooks anyway. Not that you would know any of that, as you seem to be so uneducated about everything.

You people will be eternal workers. You do not have the spine for being leaders. Leaders cannot fucking hesitate. Leaders can't stop themselves and think about the "morality" of shit. That's why you will never own anything, you will never make anything of value, and you will die with nothing for people to remember you.

>Life is a form of math
Explains why over half of this board consists of bitter khv.

>communist
>upper class
lmao.

Wherever you go, if you are wealthy you can live a good life, in India, Colombia, Mexico, doesn't matter. If you want to see a "perfect" dictatorship, you should go to Chile, Cuba is far more unstable economically than Chile, even though they opened up and huge corporations voiced their interest to do business there.
But neither of your answers are sufficient as a justification. Moral is about balance, what immoral people do is destroy balance which has a wider range of implications that you can imagine. Communists thought it's moral that everyone is treated equally and that intellectuals are oppressors, while they have forgotten the nature of competition that makes humanity the fascinating species that it is. The more competition you have, the wealthier your society is, because people want to strive to be the best. If you take away that natural balance, you destroy a lot more and therefor your means don't justify the end because riches can be achieved differently. Usually the lazy and uncultured folk opt out for genocide because they can't comprehend a more complex plan than that to achieve power

You're defending evil. Only pieces of shit like you would regard their own power as more important than innocent human lives.
>That's why you will never own anything, you will never make anything of value, and you will die with nothing for people to remember you.
There are many good people who have made the world a better place and people remember them today. Not all leaders are tyrants.

You dont understand. Math on a maximal complexty level. Not just just basic algebra and geometry.

I am bad and even hate math a bit. Still after being open to it I understood a tiny fraction of the bigger picture.

>There are many good people who have made the world a better place and people remember them today. Not all leaders are tyrants.

Name 3 powerful historical figures with a clean record. Come on man, even today's upper class have slave-tier sweatshops in Bangladesh and India. Just working people to death for profit. That is how power works. Nothing wrong there. But that's the reason you'll never do anything great.

There is no good and evil. Just actions their consequences and your personal evaluation.

>You're defending evil.
FYI the topic has shifted to being morally neutral/utilitarian. Don't try to think in the context of good and bad, think of the end justifying the means, with all their consequences or at least the most grave ones

Pope John Paul II
Calvin Coolidge
Jonas Salk
>even today's upper class have slave-tier sweatshops in Bangladesh and India. Just working people to death for profit. That is how power works.
No. Those are unjust conditions that do not always have to be present.
>Nothing wrong there
There is something wrong there. I doubt you would be praising those conditions if you or some of the people you knew were subjected to them.
>that's the reason you'll never do anything great
Evil is not a requirement for greatness.
>There is no good and evil
That is wrong. There are actions that many moral systems regard as good or evil.
The end does not justify all means, there are some means that are evil.

>Pope John Paul II
>Pope John Paul II was criticised, amongst other things, for lack of any response to sex abuse of children in the Church.

Wew lad, first person in your list and WRONG. He hid a child abuse scandal (and maybe participated?) for the sake of keeping the power and influence of the church.

Well, now that I've shown you are fucking retarded I think I don't have much else to say. You are wrong.

The founding fathers of the United States don't necessarily have a clean record, but they aren't tyrants, and they also wouldn't fuck around anytime America was under attack or in jepardy. Just my opinion, but they definitely made the world a better place.

>The founding fathers of the United States don't necessarily have a clean record, but they aren't tyrants
Kek

"They were evil but not too evil :(". Fuck off faggot. They did what they had to do. That is how I see it. You have to do some crazy mental gymnastics to keep morality in high regard while at the same time worshipping those slave owners. I pity you.

What about the other two examples. You only asked for three but there are many more examples.

Well, maybe I will. But I have cut down your examples down to 2 which means you still owe me an example. If you find one I may go back at it again. For now, I don't have to, because I've already shown you are retarded.

Lol calm down dude. They did what they had to do is a good way to put it, that's basically what I was saying. But they didn't do it just for themselves, they did it for Americans as well. Also, Abraham Lincoln was a founding father and abolished slavery.

>these people owned slaves... FOR AMERICA!
TOP FUCKING KEK THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS MAN FUCKING HELL

>That is wrong. There are actions that many moral systems regard as good or evil.
>The end does not justify all means
They do a lot of times actually. You just don't to understand the concept of it, it's that simple.
>there are some means that are evil.
No, there are some means that have negative outcome with the intention of being negative for others. Moral is just collection historic memory that defines our social culture.

There is no such thing as good or evil, the only ones that defined it are us because we are the only species on the planet who can learn effectively from negative experiences and shape our surroundings and our culture to not be constantly affected by it.

Hundreds of thousand of people were killed in the civil war for the freedom to shitpost kiddo. The end justify the means, literally.

Out of all the things the founding fathers did wrong that's the one you're hung up on? You do realize slavery was abolished in the US right?

I'm not even arguing that the founding fathers are "morally righteous", I'm arguing that they did good things without being "morally righteous" and you can do bad without being a dictator. The world isn't as black and white as you make it out to be.

Saint Peter. You have not shown that I am retarded, you responded to not even a quarter of my reply to you.
Causing intentional suffering to innocent people is evil, can you explain why you think it isn't?

Sounds like a phase to me. A lot of people have gone through the edgy "everything is utilitarianism" period, myself included. If she's in her teens or early 20s she'll most likely eventually change her mind. And if you're informed enough on the subject and a good debater you can make her question some things.

For instance.
>Even logical syllogisms are things she considers to be baseless, emotion-driven positions
That's true. The issue is, that's true for every piece of knowledge we ever had. Including knowledge derived from statistics. If you look at a history of scientific beliefs you'll find out that they change drastically over time in any field. That's because, you know, statistics have to be interpreted. And those interpretations are basically logical syllogisms, you can't get away from it. Statistics in and of themselves say nothing. If you make a study and you find out that for your sampled population 10% of the people are named "Smith" that doesn't say anything other than "10% of the people that took part of the study are named John". If you did that study in USA you obviously can't say that applies to the entire world, no matter how big your sample size was. To extrapolate from that piece of information you always need to use some sort of deductive reasoning. So there's always the possibility of human error, no matter what method you use to arrive at a conclusion. There's always the possibility of missing a variable so your theory turns to shit in a few years, once someone else finds it. The conclusion inferred from statistical evidence is as strong as the logic used to draw said conclusion. Just like any syllogism.

Cont

You're welcome to get back in chains if you're gonna be ungrateful about it

And regarding the utilitarian idea, does she even know which part of utilitarianism she believes? Because this is an umbrella term used for a bunch of theories that don't work with eachother. If you're gonna argue with something, at least know what it is, but chances are, she doesn't know what she means by "utilitarianism" either. Anyways the most common criticism is that you can't define utility in a way that's quantifiable. We all get different amounts of "utility" based on, guess what, our emotions, values and beliefs. Many of those we're not even aware of. And if you try to make a model that tries to approximates the utility for the general population those will always be, as your girlfriend put it "baseless, emotion-driven positions". So utilitarianism has the exact same issue every single other theory and form of interpretation has.

Honestly, you should make her read into the philosophy of science. A good "tl;dr" resource for this is "What is this thing called science" by Alan Chambers. Just to make her understand how limited scientific theories are, no matter what they're based on.

>Causing intentional suffering to innocent people is evil, can you explain why you think it isn't?
What defines good or bad? Please elaborate in more than 1 or 2 sentences. Take your time to write it in your own words without copy pasting something from the internet.

You don't make the impression to have understood how morality became to be and what it implies. The way you argue btw is a logical fallacy

See also

>The end justify the means
I agree, read up and see what side of the argument I'm on, moron. I am mocking this guy by appealing to his own moral standards.

Then they weren't moral, so they were more like me than cucks like OP. So I'm right, thank you.

Ayy thank you. Let's look up the next guy in your list:
>Calvin Coolidge
>An even greater scandal had developed earlier in 1924. Senate investigations indicated that oil magnates Harry F. Sinclair and Edward Doheny had bribed Albert Fall, while he was interior secretary, in order to gain leasing rights to the government's Teapot Dome oil reserve in Wyoming and Elk Hills oil reserve in California. Many Democrats and dissident Republicans had a field day with this, and attacks on the administration quickly became vituperative. Soon there were those who charged that the entire cabinet and even Coolidge had been involved in the oil transactions that had taken place during the Harding administration.

WEW LAD WRONG AGAIN YOU MOTHERFUCKER.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I'm fucking dying that the people you hold in high moral regard are a child abuser and a corrupt politician. I'm loving it. You are absolutely fucking retarded.

You've been assuming a lot, and still are. The intentional suffering of others is evil.

I suppose what I would define at least one definition of good to be the benefit of self/society without the hindering others, evil being the above, intention suffering or mistreatment of others. Good and evil is defined by the intentions of the action, but is also completely subjective.

Finally, you see I was agreeing with you to an extent. The only thing I disagreed with is that evil doesn't mean dictator. Good people can do evil things and evil actions can be for good reasons (i.e. "ends justify the means").

>The intentional suffering of others is evil.
Does this apply to animals as well, insects, plants, fungy, bacteria, atoms?

>
I suppose what I would define at least one definition of good to be the benefit of self/society without the hindering others, evil being the above, intention suffering or mistreatment of others
So who is write and who's wrong in a war and why do both sides kill each other if they know killing is "morally" wrong?

Also i'm assuming a lot because you argue like a child "It is bad because it's bad". You have absolutely no knowledge of philosophy or logic for that matter and the way you argue falls under the category of logical fallacies. A good start for you would be reading upon that before you comment on things such as morality:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

>the people you hold in high moral regard are a child abuser and a corrupt politician
Not exactly, I didn't even know who Calvin Coolidge was before today, and I am largely ignorant of Pope John Paul II. And a clean record was far from what you were originally arguing, that it was fine for Dictators to live hedonist lives while killing innocents. Constantine XI Palaiologos was a powerful historical figure was rule was free from scandal, as far as I'm aware.

>it was fine for Dictators to live hedonist lives while killing innocents

Well, you said that it was fine for Pope John Paul to live a hedonist lifestyle inside little boys anuses while raping innocents. So what's the difference?

>Constantine
>After establishing himself as Despot, Constantine strengthened the defences of the Morea by reconstructing a wall
>Despot

Wew lad, once again you fucked up. Please stop it. Your opinion is wrong. You can't even bring up one example from history of a powerful person who was a morality cuck. Just get it into your head: morality cucks like you NEVER GET INTO POWER. You are either enslaved or killed by people like me.

That's drawing into the debate if humans are inherently good or evil. I personally believe we are inherently evil, and in order for life to thrive there has to be some hinderence of another.

War is a different story. Murder is evil, killing can be justified. As for war, it's not a matter of good or evil as much as is something is worth fighting for. As for the questions of morality of war would depend if this hypothetical act of war was an action or a reaction, and what the reaction was to.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is morality is subjective and means different things to different people and cultures. What some find moral others will find immoral, so he question of good vs. evil is also a subjective outlook, whether it seems obvious or not.

>Despot
That was a title in those times, the word did not have the negative connotations it does today

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -Socrates

You're also arguing like a child, and assuming the other side of the argument is also very childish. Most beliefs are logical fallacies, for someone to say that they don't contradict themself in some way is most likely untrue, however I'm not afraid to admit my ignorance. Thank you for the link, I'll read up on it now since I'm not really doing anything.

>As for war, it's not a matter of good or evil as much as is something is worth fighting for.
You know you are contradicting yourself right here. This is exactly what morality is about, end justifying means. You just proved that you haven't understood a single thing about morality.
So i can further safely assume, you are either limited in the capability of grasping complex concepts or you are a shitty troll which isn't uncommon here, especially discussing topics such as these.

Be gone, you have nothing of value to contribute nor the capacity to admit to your own limited understanding.

>Constantine was violent, in a sense that most of his activities were around fighting battles and subduing people here and there, but nothing too crazy for his time and he wasn’t even the most violent person in history. He was within the “lines” of reality back then, which means that other monarchs if they were as successful as Constantine they wouldn’t be any more “hippies” and peaceful.

>His very job was one of violence. Other Roman emperors were just like him on that part.

Okay it seems that he was very nice, but he is definitely not a morality cuck like you. He ordered many killings and genocide in his life, which is what I would have done. Again, morality cucks like you never get into power because people like me always enslave you, kill you, and fuck your sisters and wives.

i had a girl like this for a year. really sweet and intelligent but so intelligent she rationalized too much to the point of becoming insane and fking me over.

some girls cant handle freedom and become slaves to their Desires on the relationship front. and the intellectual front can become just the same for some girls.

they think with their emotions, and are manipulated by mass media and manipulated fellow dumbed down ppl who sometimes knowingly push them further into into becoming an idiot without common sense.

I highly recommend reading John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. And highlights of Utilitarianism.

>This is exactly what morality is about, end justifying means.

I agree, what I was referencing with a quote by general Norman Schwarzkopf. "Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar; and still there are things worth fighting for."

>Be gone, you have nothing of value to contribute nor the capacity to admit to your own limited understanding.

See

People who fight wars can also follow a system of morals. There's a reason why there are laws dictating how wars are fought today. Constantine XI never committed Genocide.

>There are laws dictating how you can massacre people
Nice mental gymnastics there buddy. You don't even understand why those laws exist, or how they are enforced. Trust me, it is not because people like Trump and Putin have very high moral standards. It is because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their enemies using those types of weapons (biological, nuclear, etc.) so they use the very complex web of power and alliances, and the UN, to try to ensure no one fucks up.

Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy your life, yours will be much easier for you than for others :)

One of the reasons those laws are in place is to reduce the suffering that war causes to civilians.

This concept has only became apparent through the geneva convention. Terrorizing civilians was a very common thing throughout history. If you weren't such a close minded tard you'd understand what was written in this post Just stop posting already

>Terrorizing civilians was a very common thing throughout history
And it was still wrong. It being common does not make it right. Murder has been forbidden by the vast majority of societies throughout history. Are you going to argue that Murder isn't morally wrong?

Wrong. That's the feel-good reason. The reality is that governments don't want to deal with a bunch of deformed civilians. They'd rather just have dead soldiers to clean. Again, do you think that civilian suffering is high up the priorities of Putin, Trump, the german bitch, etc.? They don't give a fuck.

You are actually such a bad troll. Go outside or read a book kid, do something productive with your life. It's just sad and pathetic at this point

>She's a hardcore utilitarian
Those type of people are barely even people desu.
They've also clearly never thought through their beliefs because they're almost always nihilists, and if everything is meaningless then nothing is useful. Break it off my guy.

>I have no valid argument to defend my abhorrent beliefs
>I know, I'll call him a troll!
Take your own advice, faggot.
>The reality is that governments don't want to deal with a bunch of deformed civilians.
That might be so, but the primary motive was to lessen the affects of war on civilians.
>The Swiss businessman Henry Dunant went to visit wounded soldiers after the Battle of Solferino in 1859. He was shocked by the lack of facilities, personnel, and medical aid available to help these soldiers. As a result, he published his book, A Memory of Solferino, in 1862, on the horrors of war.

>the primary motive was to lessen the affects of war on civilians.
Yes, but for practical reasons. Not moral ones. Because trust me, Putin does not give a shit if someone prays bioaids in your house.

Why should someone trust what you tell others about someone else's thoughts? Isn't that an unwarranted assumption fallacy? After all you can't know for certain his thoughts.

Seriously, get a hobby or don't you have any friends that you have to shitpost that much on Jow Forums to feel good about your existence?
Pathetic

>More insults.
>More digressions
What's pathetic is the display you've put on here.

The core of the argument is you can't quantify pleasure nor pain retard, utilitarianism is based on a false premise.