Morality versus afterlife

[GrandizerII]

What? You mean you don't do that? No wonder why you don't come off as a bright fellow.

 You JERK OFF too much.  You can not past self judgement on your own transgressions, I think that would be conflict of interest.  You probably unaware of how court system works.

And you are? For one, court systems don't punish you for jerking off too much.

[The Grand Nudger]

"God" has trademark protection, on that count, eh? 

[robvalue]

Yeah, God seems pretty happy judging his own actions as "good" all the time.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Omniscience makes a poor philosopher.

[robvalue]

Must make things pretty boring too.

"I knew that was going to happen!"

[ApeNotKillApe]

[Edwardo Piet]

What? You mean you don't do that? No wonder why you don't come off as a bright fellow.

 You JERK OFF too much.  You can not past self judgement on your own transgressions, I think that would be conflict of interest.  You probably unaware of how court system works.

"Jerk off" and "too much" don't go together.

#turtleywankererthathazmayo

[Pat Mustard]

 You JERK OFF too much.  You can not past self judgement on your own transgressions, I think that would be conflict of interest.  You probably unaware of how court system works.

"Jerk off" and "too much" don't go together.

#turtleywankererthathazmayo

A fact for which ktrap's mother is eternally glad. She doesn't have to pay money for the other mayo to put in his sandwiches.

[orangebox21]

@orange.  
Let's not pretend that we weren't talking genocide just a minute ago.  Get your shit together.  OFC moral utilitarianism allows for the taking of human life.  That's a pretty standard feature of any practical moral system...don't you think?

I agree it should be.

Otherwise we'd have to call every person who's ever defended themselves or another immoral.

Here's the problem.  Under utilitarianism an action is morally justified if and only if it maximizes wellbeing.  So to claim that self-defense morally justifies killing is inconsistent within the utilitarian framework.  It's not the 'self-defense' of the action that morally justifies the action, but whether or not the action maximizes wellbeing.

Does moral utilitarianism proscribe killing people "to maximize wellbeing", no.

Do you see the problem?  If maximizing wellbeing is not the moral justifier of an action, then you're no longer operating consistently within utilitarianism.  Either utilitarianism justifies the taking of human life or it doesn't, and the basis by which this is determined is the amount of wellbeing.

Mostly because killing those people isn't something that's going to "maximize their wellbeing"...as has been explained to you more than once.

There is both the individual and the group to consider.

Relative to the individual I provided a critique in post #56.

---

There are three states of happiness; happy (a positive happiness value), unhappiness (a negative happiness value), and neutral (zero happiness value).  If a person's life is a net sum negative happiness value how does your moral system not justify the killing of that person?  A person who is dead would have a zero happiness value.  Zero is greater than a negative number.  It's simple math.  So, in my understanding, utilitarianism teaches the taking of human life is justified under the previous conditions.

---

Relative to the group, see below.

If you think that killing someone (or committing genocide, ffs) -will- maximize their wellbeing, or even the collective wellbeing, then by all means...make that case.

Couldn't you easily name 5 people who if never existed would have increased the collective wellbeing?

[RoadRunner79]

---

In fact, I would say that a basic inane sense of morality is instilled in all of us.   It is difficult to get away from; and even the most adamant moral relativist is going to become quite objective, when the wrong is done against him.

---

What a snide way to insinuate that anyone who doesn't agree with your notion of objective morality is just a unintentional liar, lol.  That someone feels that they have been wronged is no statement on the objectivity of their moral system..because surprise, surprise.....you don't have to believe in objective morality to have a sense of right....and wrong.  

Just an observation. Why do you think that we act as if morality is absolute, and objective. When someone wrongs us, why do we feel that it really is wrong, and not just against our personal preferences?

How do I know this...gee, idk..perhaps I have notions of right and wrong, but no delusions of possessing an objective morality?

So, then you believe that other peoples notions of right and wrong, are just as valid as your own. Even if they contradict what you believe. Nothing is moral or immoral in and of itself, but it is determined by the person you are referencing.... correct?