bloodmarkmentor

castiel-in-hell-with-the-pipe asked:

I didnt think Ayn rand really had much of a utilitarian philosophy hers was pretty opposite (sorry to be a creep I hust saw your ask to peashooter

bloodmarkmentor answered:

Oh S’all good. Doing minimum and a quick glancing over some pages, it seems like Rand was one of the first writers of utilitarianism via a concept o f objectivism. Meaning that people will do whats best for themselves (happiness mainly), while this contrasts the utilitarian thought of the greatest amount of good for the most amount of people. It almost doesn’t in that utilitarianism is a social form of objectivism. Clarifying that utilitarianism is large scale objectivism. But that’s just a once over of a few articles and the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

The problem here is that Utilitarianism cannot be seen as “large scale Objectivism”. Objectivist ethics is about rational self-interest, i.e. rational egoism. The goal of Objectivist ethics is to define what is good and rational for one’s self and the long-term goals of one’s life. In essence, one’s life is the standard of Objectivist ethics and that is the only focus. What it isn’t, however, is based on pleasure versus pain like the Epicureans, Hedonists, or Utilitarians. 

The Utilitarian ethics, as you pointed out, is about the greatest amount good for the most amount of people, but this applies to one’s own ethics, i.e. that one’s individual acts must be about providing the greatest amount of happiness to the most amount of people, i.e. altruism. The goal of Utilitarianism is not about your own happiness, but the happiness of others. It was an extension of Kantian ethics, in my opinion. Where Kant’s ethics were about duty, where the only morally good acts come out of complete, dutiful sacrifice; Utilitarians expanded it to the mass of society, which seems often the premise of most governments nowadays. 

Objectivism would be the anti-utilitarianism. It disregards the collective as meaning anything and focuses squarely on the individual. You would have to take a rather large stretch to equate it to scaled down utilitarianism. Hedonists wouldn’t even be considered utilitarians and they are closer to it because they, too, based their standard of value for morality of pleasure versus pain. 

And here’s how Ayn Rand viewed it:

“The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.

This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions.

What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why, the greatest number.

If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynching mob murdering a man whom they consider dangerous to the community.

There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in theory.

But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because “the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.

banging-dickens

undeadwill88:

davethebrave:

praxisandcapital:

peakcapitolism:

svidrigailovskaya:

berserkerjerk:

Yes, I am that capitalist Marx warned you about.

have you even read marx?

"And in a hundred and fifty years, some nerd named berserkerjerk is gonna make a weak assed post calling…

You know Marx never worked a day in his life but rather lived off his rich friend who put him through school? 

"You know Marx never worked a day in his life but rather lived off his rich friend who put him through school?"

So what you’re saying is Communism is like Marx’s rationalization to evade his guilt and his reality that he was, in fact, the parasite he was.

aroundthecornerrr
i-am-matticus:

havea-nicedaze:

c0urtneys:

b0mbb:

wall-flawer:

rip-aaliyah:

man, i don’t think i’ll ever get over this picture. 

Someone please make this a gif with the stars moving or sparkling!!

Oh my gosh this is amazing

wow

No one realizes that this is what the sky is supposed to look like but we fucked it up congrats earth

That looks like heaven


Waitwait. We didn’t “fuck it up.” We illuminated and brought electricity and light and technology to civilizations which brought an even broader knowledge of our world and our universe to the forefront. It isn’t as if you can’t escape it and see this. I would trade a nighty sky for any city skyline at night. But I also love nature and untouched by light skies. But it isn’t fucking it up to illuminate our civilizations.

i-am-matticus:

havea-nicedaze:

c0urtneys:

b0mbb:

wall-flawer:

rip-aaliyah:

man, i don’t think i’ll ever get over this picture. 

Someone please make this a gif with the stars moving or sparkling!!

Oh my gosh this is amazing

wow

No one realizes that this is what the sky is supposed to look like but we fucked it up congrats earth

That looks like heaven

Waitwait. We didn’t “fuck it up.” We illuminated and brought electricity and light and technology to civilizations which brought an even broader knowledge of our world and our universe to the forefront. It isn’t as if you can’t escape it and see this. I would trade a nighty sky for any city skyline at night.

But I also love nature and untouched by light skies. But it isn’t fucking it up to illuminate our civilizations.

So I apparently decided to slice through my thumb almost as far as I could go tonight. Talk about blood. My right thumb has seen like the most damage you could have without actually losing a thumb. When I was like…12 I slammed my hand through a glass pane of a door and sliced a chunk out of my thumb that took forever to heal and create a little scar. Now a pocket knife sliced through the top of my thumb. I am fortunate it did not go into the thumbnail. 

But fuck.

Unhung Hero

There are alot of people who find the guy “whiney” or negative and even attempting to shame the ex-gf who wouldn’t marry him for having a small penis. And alot of people come to the ex-gf defense suggesting his proposal in a “public place” (it was at a sporting event that eventually went YouTube) was embarrassing and pressurizing. Sure, I can see that view point in that, but at the same time, many people propose marriage in wildly public places or in the middle of restaurants and parties, so it isn’t like it’s a completely asinine thing to to do if you want to propose marriage to someone. He didn’t think she’d reject, she did. That’s how it goes. It was a negative for both of them of how that ended. 

Yes, the guy is “whiney” but in the sense of any person who is or can be insecure and I think the point of the documentary is to explore that, and to explore his own identity. That can be a “whiney” journey, it can be a depressing journey with its own fucked up shit. That’s life. And that’s life when you’re insecure. It takes going through fucked up shit to come out on the other side of it, to not feel insecure. But instead of discussing how you find him “whiney” why not discuss the broader point of the documentary?

I think it was a pretty good documentary dealing with the insecurity of men who believe they have small penises and that relationship with themselves and women (primarily the man in the documentary). It also dealt with his own hang-ups with himself, with women, which can also be negative. But I didn’t feel as if he antagonized women. I do feel he projected some bad energy because of insecurity (once again, the symptom of insecurity), but it obviously was something he had to go through and he shared it. 

So I applaud the documentary and the filmmaker for growing from his experience rather than what most documentarians do - try to shove ideologies down people’s throats.