/liberty/ - Liberty

>>84515

>Or you had to make someone move their house to build a highway

If the highway is so valuable then you can afford to pay a great deal for his land. If its not worth paying him for the land, its not actually that valuable.

>>84515

You can increase the aggregate happiness using the utilitarian/eugenicist route, by killing "undesirables" and donating their organs.

>torture someone to save lives

Was this not proven ineffective in acquiring intelligence?

>>84519

>Was this not proven ineffective in acquiring intelligence?

Its ineffective because people don't know shit and then tell you whatever you want to hear then you waste time going after ghosts. It sure as fuck is effective otherwise though.

>>84519

>>84516

>killing undesirables and donating their organs

this is a better example than what I said. the point of the examples I gave were not that they perfectly represented a scenario where you'd have to sacrifice the NAP for aggregate happiness but more of just to let people know what I was thinking. so you could imagine a scenario like that if you don't think the ones i provided really fit.

>>84521

Thanks for clarification anon

>>84515

you cannot measure aggreggate happiness

>>84549

you are like a baby

watch this

https://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/greatest-happiness.pdf

>>84552

tldr

>>84552

>>84557

I read your quote and skimmed the pdf, but found nothing about whether and how we can measure aggregate happiness. To do so would mean having a unit of happiness, although it would be sufficient for utilitarians to be able to ordinally rank the happiness in different situations, but I don't see how they are able to do that. Simple introspection tells us that we cannot even weigh sadness up with happiness, and the latter even less so. Utilitarians are calculating with apples, oranges and bananas at the same time.

>>84558

>Simple introspection tells us that we cannot even weigh sadness up with happiness, and the latter even less so.

No, that's not quite right. A lot of sadness can spoil happiness easier than happiness can spoil sadness. Otherwise, bittersweet moments wouldn't exist, they'd just be neutral. Hearing that your mother is in hospital and that you won a brand new car that you always wanted does not feel like going on a slightly boring stroll. Emotions do not work that way.

Happiness doesn't exist.

>>84563

You failed to properly remind him that "aggregate happiness" (Also known as "Greater Good") is a meme - a bad one - which cannot be measured and irrespective of that it's immoral to hurt people because something something greater good.

Are you going to offer some argument for utilitarianism or consequentialism? Or like, some model for quantifying and comparing 'happiness' and 'suffering' between individuals?

>>84592

There is no need to come up with happiness to say someone is better off not being coerced.

>>84592

?If we can't properly measure aggregate happiness than why do we advocate anything at all?

Because there is no objective happiness quantification, the individual is best at determining his/her happiness.

>>84692

>no need to come up with happiness to say somebody is better off not coerced.

if you have no basis for the claim someone should not be coerced (like saying it will produce more happiness) why do you advocate non coercion?

>>84696

>the individual is best at determining his/her happiness

that doesn't contradict the statement i made

>>84707

Compulsion destroys a person's owness, which is the basis.

>>84707

It does contradict the utilitarian argument.

>>84802

>there's no reason to advocate anything.

Yes, which is why we do not advocate utilitarian NAP violations mentioned in the OP.

>>84519

You can't, actually. By introducing an unstoppable force that determines who lives and who dies with no oversight and no appeals, you by nature make people afraid that it could make a mistake and take them or their loved ones. The more afraid people are, the more they tend to mistake fucking over everyone around them for self-interest. It doesn't help peoples' marathon times when you put them into "I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you" mode.

>>84827

Sorry, I did not know my post would be subject to Poe's Law.

>>84732

>Makes a thread

>Answers own question

>"Debunks" an idea that no one even defends anymore

>Instead of addressing Marxism decides to call it bad and ignore it

>>84732

>then takes a screenshot of the entire wall of text minus any criticism

Your autism is showing.

>>84829

>"Debunks" an idea that no one even defends anymore

Utilitarianism? Lots of people defend it, both laymen and professional philosophers. Heard of Peter Singer? At the very least, utilitarianism is an approved, respected opinion.

>Instead of addressing Marxism decides to call it bad and ignore it

Says the Ancap? Not gonna say COINTELPRO, but COINTELPRO.

We have a thread on Marxism once a month, and we have a steady influx of guests who are Marxists. Why would he address it at length, then?

>>84830

What's so bad about making a screenshot of the thread? Even if he was the main participant of the thread, his replies were still good, and others in the thread said so. Others participated in it, too.

>minus any criticism

Look at the cited posts. The latest number to be mentioned anywhere in that thread is 79165, and that is also the last post number on that screenshot. We can also see from the large blank space at the bottom that the thread ended there.

Something else that I think deserves to be mentioned: The replies span four days. The only criticism anywhere to be seen was this:

>Autism and zeal.

That was it. For at least three days, no one else thought it proper to address anything said in the thread even though the opposition not only saw it, but replied to it. I can also say that at the time this thread was active, we had more than a few guests. The opposition decided to remain silent, that's why it wasn't heard, save for that one shitpost.

>>84833

>Utilitarianism? Lots of people defend it, both laymen and professional philosophers. Heard of Peter Singer? At the very least, utilitarianism is an approved, respected opinion.

Can you point to any utilitarian boards on 8chan?

>We have a thread on Marxism once a month, and we have a steady influx of guests who are Marxists. Why would he address it at length, then?

Why bother arguing that ancap ideology is superior if you deliberately avoid addressing criticisms from a group like Marxists who actually visit the board an offer critiques?

>We can also see from the large blank space at the bottom that the thread ended there.

>>84177

>For at least three days, no one else thought it proper to address anything said in the thread even though the opposition not only saw it, but replied to it.

Why would anyone respond if there are no utilitarians and the post lacked anything of substance to say about Marxism?

>>84824

you're operating on the false assumption that the NAP is the default position. why do you advocate the NAP?

also killing undesirables and taking their organs to save lives is unironically based

>>84802

Owness is not simply property, but also the ability to reject it. As no one is better off being coerced, everyone rejects it for himself. Ideals such as being better off can be accepted or not.

>>84892

Most human interactions meet the criteria for the NAP. It is the default position, akin to the Golden Rule.

>>84917

is this a natsoc primer?

>>84917

>shilling for (((national-socialism))) on a board for anarcho-capitalists

Unironically McFucking McGet the fuck out.

>>84802

betterness is measured thanks to property