How many deaths would have been an acceptable price for abolition of slavery?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Any moral philosophy that claims to provide a definitive answer to questions like this, or that even posits that questions like this are worth giving a lot of thought to, is not a sound moral philosophy.

(In other words, what Averroes said.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wasn't talking in an economic sense...

well, then, it's worse than I thought.  (actually, it was obvious that you weren't talking in an economic sense but I was being generous)  Since you're willing to bring it up:  If you're not measuring the economy of it, you must be trying to put a price on the intrinsic value of a human life vis-a-vis political goals. 

That's some serious Che Guevara shit right there.  ("¡¿Qué vale la vida de un hombre cuando está en peligro el futuro de la humanidad?!")  I'll wash my hands of this whole sordid business and leave it to the rest of you to figure out that price.

Believing that people should be pragmatic and try to reduce and avoid human suffering as much as possible is worse then valuing human lives merely by economic output? Your definition of reprehensible is f**ked up.

You do realize the most effective way to end human suffering is to kill all humans, right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I wasn't talking in an economic sense...

well, then, it's worse than I thought.  (actually, it was obvious that you weren't talking in an economic sense but I was being generous)  Since you're willing to bring it up:  If you're not measuring the economy of it, you must be trying to put a price on the intrinsic value of a human life vis-a-vis political goals. 

That's some serious Che Guevara shit right there.  ("¡¿Qué vale la vida de un hombre cuando está en peligro el futuro de la humanidad?!")  I'll wash my hands of this whole sordid business and leave it to the rest of you to figure out that price.

Believing that people should be pragmatic and try to reduce and avoid human suffering as much as possible is worse then valuing human lives merely by economic output? Your definition of reprehensible is f**ked up.

You do realize the most effective way to end human suffering is to kill all humans, right?

Death is kind of a bad thing, though. And it also ends all good things in life.

Why is death a bad thing? Dead people don't suffer (unless you believe in hell, which I don't think you do), so obviously it can't be on account of suffering.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

You teach a class?

Sort of. I teach discussion sections for a class with a lecture+discussion format.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just tore apart utilitarianism in the class I teach. I'm grateful I got this opportunity.

Really? How?

I didn't have to do much, honestly. Mostly I just opened it up for discussion and the students came up with the most relevant remarks themselves. Occasionally I asked some follow-up questions to nudge them.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, it's the theory that good consists in maximizing aggregate pleasure.

Most of my students could see what the problems with this theory are. I'm curious if you can.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Or maybe actual utilitarianism isn't what I think it is. I don't put the most scrutiny into labels for this kind of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially, it's the theory that good consists in maximizing aggregate pleasure.

Most of my students could see what the problems with this theory are. I'm curious if you can.

You're aware that "pleasure" is a lot more broad then just food, sex, etc, right?

Yes.