Rage Youre all dumb (and wrong)

[over0]

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

 

[dipenhydramine]

i disagree and will not elaborate

 

[doll]

yeah I dont think anybody is using light mode to read ts

 

[recai]

thats a lot of words i think

 

[twinkdestroyer]

I agree and will not elaborate

 

[Tumor]

yeah I dont think anybody is using light mode to read ts

I use light mode

 

[rovea]

High Iq thread but I have a higher IQ reply

17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 Like 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴



hm: @Travis Bickle @twinkdestroyer @JeezyTheSnowman @BlendedBlade🧿 @Tumor @larp67 @over0

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

dnr

Degay is a 60kg twink and he’s my bitch

 

[twinkdestroyer]

High Iq thread but I have a higher IQ reply

17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 Like 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴



hm: @Travis Bickle @twinkdestroyer @JeezyTheSnowman @BlendedBlade🧿 @Tumor @larp67 @over0

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

 

[over0]

i disagree and will not elaborate

You're wrong.

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

 

[rovea]

You're wrong.

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

You both wrong
Lemme explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

 

[dipenhydramine]

You're wrong.

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

idk man im still not convinced

 

[dipenhydramine]

dnr

Degay is a 60kg twink and he’s my bitch

me me me

 

[over0]

You both wrong
Lemme explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

No no you misunderstand the core premises

17 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 18 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚒𝚝 + 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚎𝚕 𝚏𝚊𝚛𝚊𝚐𝚎 + 𝚞𝚙 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚛𝚊 + 𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚢𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚗*𝚜 𝚠𝚊𝚗𝚝 𝚜𝚘𝚖𝚎 𝚗𝚒𝚐𝚌𝚊𝚔𝚎 + 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚔𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚖𝚎 𝚜𝚘𝚗 + 𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚞𝚖𝚋𝚛𝚎𝚊 + 𝚍𝚎𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚌𝚘𝚌𝚔 + 𝚎𝚢𝚎 𝚘𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚕𝚎𝚏𝚝 𝚍𝚘𝚗’𝚝 𝚋𝚎 𝚊𝚏𝚛𝚊𝚒𝚍 𝚝𝚘 𝚑𝚒𝚝 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝙻𝙸𝙺𝙴

 

[Harold O'Brien]

utilitarianism is for dumb commies - some people deserve to have their happiness minimised

 

[vespertine]

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

so suppose two people are sadists and get great happiness out of torturing people, so they kidnap a random person nobody would miss or care to look for and torture him. is it the right thing to do because its making two people happy while only making one unhappy?

 

[vespertine]

wait is this a bit

 

[jestermax]

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

im not reading all this foid

 

[BigDihDiddy]

Let me explain

The core principles of utilitarianism are quite straightforward. Firstly, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Consequentialists hold that the morality of an action is solely determined by the action’s consequences. Given a range of possible actions, the right action is the one that produces the best possible consequences. But this leads to the question of what counts as good or bad consequences. According to classical utilitarianism, good consequences mean the promotion of happiness, while bad consequences are the production of unhappiness (Mill, 2015, p.155). An action produces the best possible consequences if it creates “the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness” (Bennett, 2015, p.55). Here, I do not wish to wade into the deep water of what counts as happiness and how it is measured, though the difficulties involved with measuring happiness could indeed develop into a noteworthy objection to utilitarianism. For now, it is sufficient to take the meaning and measurement of happiness at an intuitive level. Lastly, whose happiness does utilitarianism take into account? Classical utilitarianism views the welfare of all sentient beings equally and impartially. The happiness of any person is as important as the happiness of any other person, regardless of their class, race, social relationship, etc. In sum, classical utilitarianism holds that given a range of possible actions, the morally right action is the action that maximizes net total happiness—which is the amount of total happiness minus the amount of total unhappiness—of every sentient being.

Dnr black letters when any sane n****r in this forum has it on dark mode

This thread only shows me ur crazy and have light mode on

 

[childishkillah]