Hello everyone!

Name's John. I live in Sweden, am 24 years old and recently graduated university, majoring in journalism and psychology with a bit of philosophy on the side. Me and my fiancée became vegans this year, after a period of being vegetarians. I used to be a libertarian (yeah, I know) before I realized that my political philosophy rested on rather shaky ground. I would now describe myself as a Benthamite utilitarian, although interaction with other consequentialists might of course change that. I am also a transhumanist and an atheist.

My interests include writing, science fiction and looking for a job in this godforsaken economy.

I'm looking forward to being stimulated by your ideas. Glad to be here!

Hi! I look forward to hearing what you have to say about the ideas that are already here and the ideas that are to come, especially with regard to transhumanism.

What does it mean to be a Benthamite libertarian? How is it, if at all, distinct from being a Benthamite utilitarian?

*slaps forehead* Gah, I of course meant to write "Benthamite utilitarian", not "Benthamite libertarian". As said, I used to be a libertarian, but eventually I realized that libertarianism relied on several rather fishy axioms. I would today describe myself more as a right-of-center social liberal. In economic questions I am a centrist, but in social issues I am still of the opinion that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be legal. Anyway, sorry about the confusion. I'll edit my first post.

Welcome Alkahest! Make sure to also join the utilitarianism facebook group.

Welcome

I think there are a surprising number of Benthamite utilitarians around (inc me), considering how dusty the description makes it sound.

Welcome! ! Be sure to join the reducing wild animal suffering facebook group too!

Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on wild animal suffering?

EDIT : here are our facebooks if you'd like to add us http://www.felicifia.org/viewtopic.php? ... book#p6563

Alkahest wrote:As said, I used to be a libertarian, but eventually I realized that libertarianism relied on several rather fishy axioms. I would today describe myself more as a right-of-center social liberal.

What made you want to switch? What axioms do you think libertarianism rests on, what makes them fishy, and what axioms do you think utilitarianism rests on that makes it better? Just curious.

Many thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!

RyanCarey wrote:Welcome Alkahest! Make sure to also join the utilitarianism facebook group.

Ruairi wrote:Welcome! ! Be sure to join the reducing wild animal suffering facebook group too!

Ruairi wrote:EDIT : here are our facebooks if you'd like to add us http://www.felicifia.org/viewtopic.php? ... book#p6563

I'm afraid I don't have a Facebook account. I procrastinate enough without that added help.

Arepo wrote:I think there are a surprising number of Benthamite utilitarians around (inc me), considering how dusty the description makes it sound.

You know how many people are described as "fair for his (rarely her) age" or something similar? Say Thomas Jefferson. Brilliant man, passionate advocate for liberty. Owned slaves. Well, at least he was fair for his age, right? Jeremy Bentham is my go-to example of a man who was fair for all ages. I believe that's the reason he still packs such a punch. If I die (I hope not to, but it's a distinct possibility) and if anyone who didn't know me personally remembers me, that's what I want to be remembered as, a person who wasn't constrained by the moral idiosyncrasies of his culture. I believe it's a good goal to strive towards, in any case.

Ruairi wrote:Speaking of which, what are your thoughts on wild animal suffering?

I think it's... bad? I grew up in the forest, I'm thankfully free of the delusions of harmony and general cosiness many vegans annoyingly suffer from when it comes to nature.

peterhurford wrote:What made you want to switch? What axioms do you think libertarianism rests on, what makes them fishy, and what axioms do you think utilitarianism rests on that makes it better? Just curious.

Perhaps "axioms" is the wrong word to use, but most strands of libertarianism rely on an exaltation of private property in conflict with the messy reality behind property ownership in real life (the myth of the noble homesteader) as well as a definition of freedom different from the freedom people care about. I still value freedom perhaps as much or more than I value happiness (I'm not entirely sure where my priorities lie, luckily freedom and happiness tend to go hand in hand), but I don't consider people afflicted with poverty of disease to be as free as people who are rich and healthy. I don't even consider people who have made bad choices to be as free as people who have made good choices.

Utilitarianism in the broad sense of "it's good to maximize utility" is self-evidently correct due to the von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem. Even without any fancy math to back it up, it's obvious (at least to me) that if something is good, it should be maximized. I don't want to be an "egoistic utilitarian" due to having a conscience, I really don't like being a dick. And I value happiness because I can't imagine ever wanting to be happy for the sake of achieving something else, but I have wanted to do many things as means to the end of making myself or others happy. Since I suffer from a mild form of depression, I know what it's like to want to be happy but not be able to, so I am very aware of how terrible the absence of happiness feels like. And I think the happiness from rolling in the mud is worth as much as the happiness from reading Keats because I'm not a snob. (I'm looking at you, John Stuart Mill.)

Alkahest wrote:You know how many people are described as "fair for his (rarely her) age" or something similar? Say Thomas Jefferson. Brilliant man, passionate advocate for liberty. Owned slaves. Well, at least he was fair for his age, right? Jeremy Bentham is my go-to example of a man who was fair for all ages. I believe that's the reason he still packs such a punch. If I die (I hope not to, but it's a distinct possibility) and if anyone who didn't know me personally remembers me, that's what I want to be remembered as, a person who wasn't constrained by the moral idiosyncrasies of his culture. I believe it's a good goal to strive towards, in any case.

Hear hear!*

I think the happiness from rolling in the mud is worth as much as the happiness from reading Keats because I'm not a snob. (I'm looking at you, John Stuart Mill.)

Ditto

* Though you could probably criticise Bentham for his treatment of the young JS Mill. I don’t know the full details, but it seemed to be counterproductively demanding, and was probably a large contributor’s to the latter’s having something like a nervous breakdown at the end of his teens.