On Aug 1, 1:01 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 3:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 19, 3:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 18, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 18, 7:28 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 4:57 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Preference utilitarianism is the view that we ought to perform
> >>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> action which will lead to the greatest expected amount of
> >>>>> overall
> >>>>>>>>>>>> preference-satisfaction, for all sentient beings over all
> >>>>> future time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of the actions available to us.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What if what leads to the most satisfaction to me leads to
> >>>>> death for
> >>>>>>>>>>> another
> >>>>>>>>>>> sentient being, like a chicken?
> >>>>>>>>>> Then you weigh up the interests of all those affected.
> >>>>>>>>> The interest of the chicken in survival is discounted because it
> >>>>> is not
> >>>>>>>>> sufficiently sentient to be aware of its existence across time.
> >>>>> My
> >>>>>>>>> interest in consuming chicken wins.
> >>>>>>>> rupie the toweringly egotistical boy and other
> >>>>>>>> ****witted utilitarians arbitrarily assign weights, on
> >>>>>>>> the basis of polemics, such that the chicken "wins".
> >>>>>>>> The exercise is bullshit sophistry from start to finish.
> >>>>>>> This is nonsense
> >>>>>> No. The exercise *is* bullshit sophistry, nothing more.
> >>>>> That's not an argument.
> >>>> It's a observation based in fact.
> >>> What facts?
> >> Weights are assigned, ****wit, and they're arbitrary,
> >> and manipulated to get to where you want to go.
>
> > Give some evidence for this contention.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> A theory is consistent with equal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> consideration if the means it advocates by which to resolve
> >>>>> moral
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decisions give equal weight to the relevantly similar
> >>>>> interests of all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> sentient beings, regardless of species.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What does "relevantly similar" mean? Relevant to me or the
> >>>>> chicken?
> >>>>>>>>>> It means similar in all morally relevant respects.
> >>>>>>>>> It's invalid to use the same words in the explanation that are
> >>>>> used in
> >>>>>>>>> the phrase being defined.
> >>>>>>>> If we're talking about utilitarianism, "morality"
> >>>>>>>> doesn't enter into it. rupie was just bullshitting.
> >>>>>>> Nonsense. Utilitarianism is a moral theory.
> >>>>>> No. There's no such thing as morality in
> >>>>>> utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by
> >>>>>> blabbering about entities' preferences.
> >>>>> Nonsense.
> >>>> Not an argument, and anyway false.
> >>> You presented no argument
> >> False.
>
> > Where's the argument?
>
> Go back and look.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're such a joke. It's all there in the quotes, I don't need to go
back and look. You wrote "No. There's no such thing as morality in
utilitarianism. You can't get to morality by blabbering about
entities' preferences." And that's all you wrote. That's an assertion,
not an argument.