Anti-Utilitarianism

[Edwardo Piet]

Then perhaps you should rephrase the claim.

I didn't say I was against all forms of Utilitarianism. But I think you're right, I probably should have made it clearer that I am not necessarily against any forms of Utilitarianism that don't aggregate any utility that cannot be aggregated meaningfully due to the consciousness barrier of individuals.

We can make statements about individual atoms, molecules and neurological structures, consciousness is a neurological structure and thus there is no reason why it should be excluded.

When we are aggregating things like pleasure, pain, preference, like or dislike it's different. It's different because those things require conscious experience. When we aggregate individuals' say, pain together we are aggregating a total of pain that doesn't actually exist. It doesn't actually exist because not one of the individuals experience any more pain than their own and that's relevant because experienced pain is the only kind of existent pain. Experienced pain is existent pain. Nonexperienced pain is nonexistent pain. Because pain requires experience.

That DOES NOT mean we can't evaluate their happiness comparatively, you DO NOT need to experience aggregated happiness to make a factual claim about what other people are experiencing.

Experienced happiness is the only kind of happiness. Not one individual experiences more than their own, so when you aggregate them you are aggregating nonexperienced and nonexistent happiness.

The experience of happiness is related to a certain type of neurological pathway, more happiness looks different than less happiness.

If everyone experiences happiness the same, then each individual matters and should be cared about, but it makes no sense to aggregate them because, as I said, no one experiences any more than their own happiness, no one experiences anything close to the aggregate. Nonexperienced happiness is nonexistent happiness.

Taking action P (pinprick) with x (severity) 1 towards a population of 10,000 causes more pain than taking P*X1 towards 5,000 people, not towards the individual, but in terms of the number of people experiencing P*X1.

Not one individual experiences any more pain in the larger group. Not one=none. And not one experiencing more = no more existent pain because nonexperienced pain is nonexistent pain.

They DO NOT need to individually experience more than their own pain in order for some comparative claim to be made about the two opposing states of affairs!

Individuals are all that suffer. There is no more suffering than the sufferers. To aggregate different sufferers' suffering together is to care about suffering that is nonexperienced and therefore nonexistent.

It IS NOT a false analogy, Happiness is an emergent property of consciousness and so is like and dislike!

And any aggregated happiness is happiness that is experienced by no one in the group. And because it's not experienced by anyone it's not existent. Only the separate values of happiness for each individual exists, the aggregated total is a fantasy.

Pleasure IS happiness,

I know. Did I say something to suggest otherwise?

if you can practically determine which action will cause the most pleasure you can ALSO determine which action causes the most happiness.

To any of the individuals yes. But to an aggregate that is not experienced by any individuals whatsoever and therefore not existent, no.

Yes it does, a finite amount of pain on one hand is comparable to an infinite amount of pleasure on the other, you might be uncomfortable with the reality of the death of one person being outweighed by the pleasure of others but it's simply a fact of a comparative evaluation.

See above. It makes no sense to aggregate individual pain, pleasure or preference together because that would be caring about pain, pleasure or preference that is nonexistent because it's nonexperienced.

If that is the case you should believe that a man who needs to rape 10,000 women to live is the only important thing, because their pan for being raped is a more mild pain than his death, and we can't possibly evaluate their combined suffering because that's meaningless!

Yes. If, truly, not one individual suffers any more than their own, combining them makes no sense because not one individual suffers more (besides the man). Caring about the aggregate of suffering is caring about nonexistent suffering because no one experiences the aggregate suffering, therefore it doesn't exist in reality because suffering needs to be experienced in order for it to actually exist.

They CAN be, as I have more than demonstrated already.

No, you haven't demonstrated it because you still insist on aggregating pain, pleasure or preference together when the aggregate is nonexperienced and therefore nonexistent. If you concede that you're caring about non-experienced and non-existent pain then, fine, you've demonstrated that you can aggregate together a bunch of pleasure, pain or preferences despite the fact that it isn't experienced by anyone and therefore doesn't exist.

I've proved that emotions can be compared quantitatively and qualitatively and showed an ABSURD consequence of your ideas.

No you haven't proved it, you think you have, there's a difference. Your aggregation makes no sense in actual reality, you're just playing with numbers, see above.

As for 'absurd consequence', I don't care how absurd a consequence is if it actually makes rational and logical sense. You do appear to be committing the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Your appeal to what you consider absurd is not a rational argument. As for your actual argument, see above.

[...] They way you've been using the term aggregate is abnormal, you DO NOT need to aggregate to compare.

You're the one who has been aggregating, not me.