- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0

None
by Nathan Saper 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> The reason why I use "the least pain for the greatest number" instead of > "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" is because the latter > justifies many not-so-great acts under act utilitarianism. Killing someone brings the amount of future pain he's gonna suffer to zero. That implies that - according to your ideas - one is morally justified in killing anyone and everyone (as painless as possible, but that's not an important point, as long as it's less than the total amount of pain that person would suffer for the rest of his life). I'd say that using happiness is a little better :) Another problem with utilitarianism is that it requires one to be able to evaluate - or at least compare - happiness (or pain), something which is impossible (subjectivism and all). [See Walter Block's utilitarian demonstration that O.J.Simpson was morally justified to kill his wife.] Not to mention that your stupidity is giving me a headache... Mark

1 0