Thought it might be fun to share works of philosophers (or futurists, social scientists, sociologists, economists, etc) that have inspired you, made you think, or that you simply enjoy rereading or find yourself quoting over and over.

Outside of the usual utilitarian authors, that is.

For myself I'd nominate Pierre Bourdieu's La Distinction -- the masterwork by the French sociologist on how taste is socially contructed and helps to reinforce social class. And probably Plato's Symposium, for its beautiful, deranged musings on human desire, especially the origin story of human love given by the character of Aristophanes.

The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore, showing how Darwinian algorithms work on more than one level, and how this relates to humans and the natural world.

Two years ago, I read "Jenseits von Gut und Böse - Warum wir ohne Moral die besseren Menschen sind" by Michael Schmidt-Salamon, a german philosopher, secular humanist and religion critic. The book is a criticism of the mainstream moral. Here he shows how the idea of the good has created much harm because it labels the outgroup as evil. He proofed that the Nazis were "moral" people who had clear notions of good and evil.
Schmidt-Salomon says that responsable bahviour towards humans is nothing invented by religion. It's a part of human nature.
He claims a form of ethics without obligations towards oneself (unless Kantianism etc.). In his view, ethics is a way of handling with conflicts of interest. Sometimes, he sounds a bit consequentialist or preference utilitarian, but as far as I know he neither metions consequentialism nor utilitarianism in his whole book. He has rather a naturalist approach to ethics. His opinion is that we are moral because we simply are empathic and sympathic beings. Abstract ethical theories are not discussed in this book.
This book inspired me because it encouraged me to get rid of many moral fallacies that prevented me to think utilitarian.

Oscar Horta is an egalitarian

I love Calvin and Hobbes! !

When I'm eating I often like to watch videos of Christopher Hitchens destroying people in debates

BF Skinner

I admire Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus Christ, Tenzin Gyatso (the current Dalai Lama), Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), Lord Mahavir, St. Francis, Nelson Mandela and others. Mother Theresa would be on that list if it weren't for her denying sick people pain medication (as fucked up as that was, I might keep her on anyways since she was a basically kind, if seriously misguided, person. I still have a lot to learn about her ).

It's kind of disappointing that the stereotypical classical utilitarian doesn't really seem to have a personal and emotional investment in their world view or in being consistent in wanting to 'make the world a better place' (especially when it comes to everyday mundane issues or demeanor and not just broad societal concerns on a wide scale), to the point of it being 'spiritual' and not just dispassionate, philosophical musing. I don't know why this would be. Negative utilitarians seem different (maybe because they're more likely to be moral realists?) I'm not denying that many classical utilitarians (and moral nihilists) disprove this stereotype.

Edit :

When I'm eating I often like to watch videos of Christopher Hitchens destroying people in debates

I don't want to sound preachy, and I'm not a kind person myself (which is why I don't consider myself to be a utilitarian), but don't you think it would have been better if he had been more diplomatic and compassionate than he came off? I don't see how a consistent utilitarian could treat people in a way that (s)he could probably guess would both violate their preference to be treated with respect and cause them to feel humiliated, angry, insecure etc. And even if you thought that for some reason it had to be done as a necessary evil, why take pleasure in it?

I don't take pleasure in humiliation, nor do I think he was really that unkind. I enjoy the speed with which he seemed to have been able to think and that he was articulate and intelligent.

Ruairi wrote:I don't take pleasure in humiliation, nor do I think he was really that unkind. I enjoy the speed with which he seemed to have been able to think and that he was articulate and intelligent.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. He did have a sharp mind. I think he was very often unkind, though.

Some names that come to mind: Jorge Luis Borges, C.D Broad, Richard Dawkins, Greg Egan, Jon Elster, James Flynn, Francis Galton, Aubrey de Grey, Arthur Jensen, Leonard D. Katz, Richard Layard, John Leslie, Michael Lockwood, James MacKaye, J. L. Mackie, John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart, G. E. Moore, Thomas Nagel, Yew-Kwang Ng, Robert Nozick, Steven Pinker, Robert D. Putnam, Martin Rees, Bertrand Russell, William Seager, John Maynard Smith, Quentin Smith, Timothy L. S. Sprigge, Keith E. Stanovich, Peter Unger, Roy L. Walford.

No-one's mentioned Parfit, who last I heard was a prioritarian.

Eliezer Yudkosky.

Yeah, but he doesn't just talk about utilitarianism.

I interpreted as asking what thinkers have inspired me on subjects outside utilitarianism.

Elijah wrote:Calvin and Hobbes, David Chalmers, Arthur R. Jensen, Kevin Langdon, Richard Lynn, Gerhard Meisenberg, Steven Pinker, Gregg Rosenberg, Bertrand Russell, Arthur Schopenhauer, Michael A. Woodley.

Russell is one of my favorite philosophers. Not only did he generate ideas and beliefs, but he did actions supporting them, such as anti-war protests and running for parliament.

Also, I believe he was a utilitarian? But his works were mostly devoted to things other than utilitarianism.