• agamemnonymous
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Bentham developed hedonistic calculus. The foundation is a multivariate ethical vector space. He rationalized hedonism to the extreme. The passions are explicitly tempered for a calculated greater good.

      • agamemnonymous
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        No? Once reason restricts passion, the hierarchy collapses. An action that causes yourself mild pain, but pleasure of greater extent to others, is preferable to an action that causes many others pain even if it gives you pleasure personally. Reason demands you restrain yourself from the passions that would harm others. That’s not unilateral fealty. Axioms must be assumed, but the most powerful systems assume as few as possible, and leave most of the legwork to reason.

          • agamemnonymous
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I disagree. Reason can take you there by virtue of justice or equality.

              • agamemnonymous
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago
                1. I am a sentient creature that feels pain and pleasure

                2. Others appear to be sentient creatures that feel pain and pleasure

                3. Pain is bad, so I should avoid inflicting it

                You don’t need empathy as an axiom to derive it rationally

                • xthexder@l.sw0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 minutes ago

                  Statement #3 is hearsay. I would argue the only thing you can know is that you personally do not like pain. There is no absolute good or bad, only what aligns or doesn’t with your passions (using the term loosely here).

                  The Golden Rule of “treating others as one would want to be treated”, is a logical conclusion that comes from experiencing the world and seeing that there’s a high probability that others will return actions in kind. It’s not perfect since everyone has different preferences (just look at the variety of sexualities and kinks out there).

          • Comment105@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            It’s not exactly something everyone has. There are quite a few psychopaths and sociopaths and a huge amount of narcissists out there

                • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 hours ago

                  Personality disorder rates are higher in high-income countries. Whereas about one in 10 American adults (if not slightly more) meet diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder, the worldwide prevalence is lower—sitting at about 8%, according to a 2020 literature review.

                  Put that with the 6.2%, and that makes it sound like most personality disorders are NPD. That sounds unbalanced and suspect. Where did you get that figure? Drag always heard 1% for each.

                  • xthexder@l.sw0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 minutes ago

                    How does that study account for the fact a high income individual is significantly more likely to have access to a doctor to diagnose them with a personality disorder?