Pro-Vegan utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer BTFO's Marx

...

"Happiness" is too subjective to have any quantifiable meaning. Marx himself already BTFO his babby ideology.

butthurt runs deep with utilitarians

Best way to do it would be to leave it as "Pete Singer" on the left and see if it trips people up.

"Utilitarian"
"Capitalism"
Hehehe

No, 'Pete, singer'

kek

Jesus fucking Christ

Attached: bl.jpg (480x360, 8.62K)

Didn't that guy write the oxford introduction to Marx?
Anyway I remember famine, affluence & morality by Singer was the first paper I had to read in college and I hated it

[screams internally]

Attached: 71Cmc-VXScL.jpg (600x1037, 151.31K)

Saying aloud Pete Seeger and Peter Singer has literally no audible difference for me. I feel mildly embarrassed still comparing two completely different people as the same thing.

Fucking solid gold there.

Peet See-ger
Pee-ter Sing-ger

Attached: Pete, singer.png (594x717, 250.76K)

Attached: my wife got fucked recentlt.jpg (561x560, 56.52K)

...

=MUH HUMAN NATURE=
=COMMIES B T F O=

I love these guys: reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/8ghdv0/peter_singer_beats_down_marx_the_failures_of/

>>>/reddit/*

The Soviet Union proved that not nuking the USA out of existence is a horrible thing.

This has got to be the first subreddit I've ever seen that was actually good.

r/askphilosophy is pretty high quality too for serious discussion

Attached: 1485986419385.png (874x1760, 568.35K)

The /bad-/ and /shitty-/ subs are pretty good (which is rather telling if you consider that their "normal" versions are shit).

reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/top
reddit.com/r/ShittyDebateCommunism/top/
reddit.com/r/badpolitics/top/
reddit.com/r/badhistory/top/

These two as well:
reddit.com/r/AcademicPhilosophy/top/
reddit.com/r/ElitistClassical/top/

Attached: IMG_20171223_100228.jpg (640x640, 43.05K)

What causes a person to be happy is subjective, but the meaning of happines is not subjective at all. Happiness (aka pleasure aka anything that any living being trying to achieve directly or undirectly and preserve as long as it is still pleasure aka happiness, even if the being labels it as something else) is literally the state caused by the things that make you happy, which is the opposite of suffering, anything that any living being that is able to suffer is trying to destroy or stay away from as far as possible.
If the living being is trying to achieve something that leads to more suffering than happiness, the being may prefer low time preference (having pleasure now, sacrificing for it the future) or low effort preference (not suffering a bit to gain more happiness in the future than suffering invested for it in past, which is almost the same as low TIME preference), or whatever else reason. Let's call it "potential suffering". Same with "potential happiness" - there is a barrier of suffering that makes it difficult to achieve hapiness, but once a being goes through it, suffering, it gets happiness.
A masochist doesn't like suffering, he engages in acts that makes him suffer because it makes him more happy than sufferful.
etc, etc, etc, there are thousands more nuances, it's very complicated.
For short, happiness is anything that someone able to be happy wants to achieve and/or preserve, suffering is anything that someone who is able to suffer tries to destroy, escape from and stay away from.
It is almost like saying "pleasure is not pleasure" or "something is not something", which is logically wrong. All these increase or lead to increasing happiness, destroy suffering, or prevent suffering. If they did not do that, the would not even be considered "values".
Love and beauty are hedonistic values, morality and virtue are more utilitarian values. (Frankly, I prefer a socially libertarian law to spooked and unpractical moralism that some people value because literaly suffer from anyone disobeying long standing moral norms, even when it doesn't hurt anyone, even the disobeyer both in long and short time preference).

Too primitive and childish notion of utilitarianism. Google "negative utilitarianism".

Attached: happiness4.jpg (1000x1500 410.48 KB, 370.46K)

Cultured meat is the solution to the factory farming problem.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

lel

Attached: bruce-fink.jpg (220x355, 9.02K)

If you could inject someone with the chemicals to make them feel a certain way, they would feel that way (literally a fucking tautology). It's only after the fact that they would reflect on what happened with horror. There are cases of people who do shit on various drugs where they're fine with it in the moment but then afterward they're appalled, because they no longer are under the influence.

Whoever came up with that thought experiment is fucking dumb.

This is practically semantics. That what makes a person happy is arbitrary is what makes it inherently useless for making objective political decisions.

thanks porkie

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=E62F2FC78FB5A75453EFA8FDDFFA3938

Attached: 9781784780951-264627b35601951d271c741ab81f1cde.jpg (700x1058, 135.18K)

Attached: ideology in the car.jpg (1080x806, 105.95K)

Why are boomers like this?

In that case, I'm going to shove ecstasy up your ass and then fucking your girlfriend, skin your dog, and burn your house down.
…what? Happiness is all chemicals bro haha :^D

Regardless your argument has shifted to "increase happiness now at the expense of worse consequences later." by your own logic we should get everyone addicted to heroin, what happens about the suicidal crash later? We give them more heroin! You're fucking retarded.

Attached: 1ca907a0ffe0549fb3384f5231cf28bab23b7e810824d48835430fb63ba1abd6.jpg (500x375, 45.25K)

Because they think understanding and nuance is for faggots.

I wonder, when we will have genetically modified cyborgs running around, will rightwingers still use "MUH HUMAN NATURE" argument?

Humanist status: triggered.

who /marxist/ here?

Attached: 1.jpg (500x333, 55.73K)

Singer attacks a strawman of Marx that many Marxists have helped to create. Marx describes humans as heavily influenced by society, but not as an entirely blank canvas. It is clear that some organisms reproduce sexually, and that of those who do, some lay their eggs and then fuck off, and others have babies that remain dependent for some time, and it's also clear that some animals live in larger groups than father-mother-child. And it's completely obvious which type humans are (even if cloning might change one of the mentioned aspects in the future), and only people engaging in abstract capitalism shilling sometimes talk as if they believed otherwise. Where pollution or price speculation with food goes so far that people are at risk of death, one can indeed say that capitalism goes against human nature. Is Singer a climate-change denier? And if not, how can he shill against introducing heavy regulation and planning on a world-wide scale never seen before? Because it is against human nature, but billions having to die is not? If that's Singer's concept of human nature, I'll rather have socialist artificiality, thank you very much.

Marx didn't "disprove" utilitarianism, but he specifically criticized the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (which is a really cartoonish philosophy that doesn't need any debunking and falls apart just when you do as much as glance at it). Of course, what people believe as common sense and what they want is strongly determined by their social and technological surroundings which do change, and to explain everything going on in human affairs as being determined by goals people supposedly act towards achieving in the maximally rational way (knowing everything about the future) is rather unrealistic. That said, for small goals (small in the sense that few people or only one are considered with that, and small in the sense that it doesn't take much energy and time to achieve) utilitarianism (even of a crude sort), can be a guide. And if society changes from chaotic markets to a more planned kind (and planned not by a remote elite with remote interests from the public at large), the scope of where utilitarian reasoning is sensible will increase somewhat. To deny that is to deny that socialist planning is possible.

(I also don't think that any hypothetical story about something horrible happening by following some type of utilitarian model ever works as a slam-dunk argument against utilitarianism in general. The person telling that story always relies on broad agreement among the audience that the scenario is indeed horrible, which means shills for utilitarianism can always slip out of the trap by going meta: "Aha, so you think many people would be very sad about that, and that therefore we should avoid it. You know what that philosophy is called?")

Chuckled

"When the enemy attacks you, it means you are on the right road"

People are able to experience happiness and suffering at the same time. If that's so, he will end life with both great pleasure and sorrow, but if the machine will somehow make make all or most suffering go away, he will actually be happy at the end of his life, despite seeing his family, friends and beloved ones destroyed, because something to be valued as good or bad requires a pleasant or unpleasant feeling about it or about something caused by it or about something caused being showed to other people, etc. .
Surely, the pleasure may amplify the pain of what he sees far beyond the pleasure itself, but if the machine reduces all the pain to little, especially compared to great pleasure he expriences, he will experience little to no (maybe he is a bit psycho or schizoid or sperg) suffering about all his family dying (the judgement of him (and genarally everyone) of his family dying comes directly from his feeling good or bad about it, therefore, if the machine somehow reduces his total suffering to little, the pain of what he sees is little at maximum, because it's would be just a part of total suffering, and he will very euphoric and happy with little pain experienced).
Also a scenario possible where due to experienced pleasure the man will change his mind and in his own little subjective world the image of his family slaughtered will be amusing or entertaining for him ("fuck yeah! kill this bitch, i love hearing her screaming in agony! kill these dumb little brats, they always annoyed me "(even the he may not find them annoying before the scientist's experiment, he may also have an illusion during the experiment that he actually found them annoying)), but in "objective" world (of the imaginary experiment in the comic, this is why the quotes) it will all be caused chemicals of the machine.
Although it is most probably much more complicated than just "cemiculs in ur brain lol", they (dopamine, endorphine, serotonin, adrenaline, testosterone, estrogen, etc.) still at least slightly indicate the happiness and suffering (in different form, direction, etc.) of a person.
They literally all do it for pleasure. They may not necessarilly do it consciously for pleasure, but they certainly do. The idea that that something must be achieved by them and it will be good makes them at least slightly happier or reduce painn, especially when they do something about it, thus, motivating them to achieve it. Or maybe the will experience suffering (self loathing, shame, bad feeling from ignoring the habit, bad feeling of not moving to achieve something etc.) from not doing that as another motivation to do it. Again, it does not require conscius realising of happiness or suffering or labeling it as it. Also there is a thing called "endurance point" or "patience point" or whatever it is called. It is the point, past which the person cannot consciously do something that makes the person suffer more than be happy. Napoleon must've had a very high endurance point at that moment to endure the winters of Russia. Also, it's a matter of high time and effort preference vs low preference. Probably, it doesn't even need suffering and pleasure as motivation, it's matter of low/high preference, endurance, strength of will of individual. The scientist may not be motivated by the pleasure/suffering princeples, but he certainly feels happy, experience the mirth, the joy of creating a great invention or uncovering the great truth, and if he wasn't interested (which is a form of pleasure) in science, he would most probably not do it. Same with Napoleon and other great sufferors.
He is lying to himself. Most probably he actually was happy in youth, drinking and partying (I do not support that, care about your future), but the things that made him happy are changed now, which leads him to believe that the things what he believed in youth was happiness wasn't true from the beginning.

Will cause more suffering. You will not not be able to think adequately when you are high on drugs, you will probably just roll on the ground like a retarded child , smiling and letting foamy saliva out of your mouth in euphoria, even when you seeing your gf raped and hosed burned, you will be helpless and temporarily too retarded to relise that your house burned and gf raped until the effect of a certain drug is gone and you are able realise it adequately.
Will cause more suffering. No wonder that a brainlet who doesn't understand utilitarianism, hedonism and epicureanism doesn't know about drug tolerance.

This book is bullshit. I remember he takes the "I am not a Marxist" quip completely out of context to suggest Marx disowned his work.

Weak ass shit nigga

Utilitarianism is a recipe for mediocrity.

Dumbass, it was meant to refute your shit argument
Thats the whole point retard, sacrificing short term pleasure for a long term pain. Even if you're off the stuff. Fucking opportunist.

Attached: 9e3.jpg (1500x1145, 288.78K)

No natural, healthy vegans exist in the world.
Indians are the closest to that and they're ultra super malnourished even if they're not total poorfags.
If they didn't have their ghee and shit then they'd probably die out completely.

What the fuck are you trying to refute? It only proves my point. I only stated an objective fact that it would make you temporarily happy and retarded enough to ignore things that would make you suffer otherwise, but I never said that we should have pleasure now even if it will make us suffer more in the future. Fucking retard, learn to read before trying to """argue""".

Do you really want to go there?

existentialcomics.com/comic/236

the fact that it's on this reading list is what makes me scream internally

Attached: marxisme-core.png (1364x4013, 7.87M)

Why is happiness good?

Attached: You can't.png (756x574, 85.53K)

meme

Daily reminder that Singer is a retard who advocates killing unwanted newborns but not animals.

Fucking hell! Some of these were complied by uncritically accepting all shit posters suggested. Should be purged.

potery

Happiness is not good, happiness(pleasure) = basic, direct goodness . Everything we see as good derives from whether it makes (or made) us happy (have pleasure), makes us suffer less or not, directly or undirectly. Also, whether one sees something as good or bad is a good indicator whether it makes one happy or not, makes suffer less, not, or does the opposite. As usual, it doesn't require a person a conscious confirmation or labeling something as good or happy, a person can be happy without confirming it to his/herself. A person can see her/himself as "depressed" (which is very different from clinical depression) or "sad", but still enjoying different aspects of life and experiencing more pleasure than suffering, which is a pretty common thing nowadays.
Even hate and sadness and some other emotions that usually seen as "negative" can be pleasure (happiness (have positive hedonistic value)).
I would also like to see an example of something that makes happy no one (directly or undirectly), doesn't reduce suffering of anyone, and maybe even makes at least on person suffer and doesn't make anyone anynyone happy (pleased) about this person/people suffering, but still is seen as "good".