Books/philosophers that refute this?

*ahem*

Attached: Nietzsche.jpg (1956x2940, 1.12M)

Will to power and the various manifestations of it.
You cant appease everyone as people have conflicts with eachother all the time. Hierarchies will always be formed and elites aswell.

Those are still both pleasure. Happiness is a more permanent state. Aristotle thought that virtuous acts induce a happy state. Happiness comes from good acts rather than pleasurable ones. But the good can still be pleasurable, etc.

I know plenty of people who are perfectly content spending all day just kind of talking to other people and partaking in hobbies. Not everyone is as power hungry as Nietzsche seems to think

Kant’s Categorical Imperative.
Utilitarianism is mob rule. The people don’t know what’s right, they have to be taught, they have to be instructed by those who do. What’s more, is that the Right thing is right whether it brings pleasure or happiness or not. This is a very complex topic and at the heart of ethical studies in the highest levels of academia. What I can say in brief is that Right thing is that which you can will for the rest of the world without contradicting yourself. Two principles are put into play; do unto others as you would want for yourself, and, the more philosophically advanced, the notion that contradiction is not an attribute of truth. Truth contains contradiction, but not the other way around. Contradiction is unripen, to bloom as truth once the contra has been stripped. I know, i know

Eudaemonia. I hate it when people misattribute pleasure with happiness. These are the same people who have trouble with concepts like Heaven and Eternal life. It’s a pity

his own autobiography basically exposes it as a recipe for autism

just do whatever you want to do lmao

Will to power isnt just power in the sense of political and physical domination of others bucko. And even so, stating that you dont want power is being already unhonest as everyone strives for recognition and influence over his closest peers at some level.
The will to power is present in everyone, but there are sure individuals that are more decadent and weak than others.
There are various ways and forms of will to power and you cant just say that action X is will to power by definition as it depends from the soil which it sprang first.
You need to read the works of Nietzsche to get a better understanding of this meaning and its values.

>Anglo

There saved you the trouble

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Attached: 700094_043.jpg (480x303, 35K)

It's a shame how true this is. He seems like a smart guy, too.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki refute utilitarianism.

Lacan's "Kant Avec Sade"

You can't

Attached: 1558528983507.jpg (800x1094, 235K)

Kant and his "catagorical imperitive" is the main counter to this.
Unless i'm remember things incorrectly.

I like virtue ethics better, but Kant cuts to the chase and explains what it is that virtue seeks. His emphasis on motivation and not on action or outcome is distasteful in my opinion

t. pseud

Industrial Society and it's Future

The categorical imperative is incapable of dealing with more complex ideas and practices, it was already outdated by the time Immanuel wrote it. Think about the Acceleration guys for instance - how can you determine whether or not you'd wish it a general rule that everyone accelerate Capital, or the development of automation? Or even before that, how can you judge if it's "virtuous" to rebel against an unjust regime? These things can only be judged on Utilitarian lines, as a calculus of possible outcomes, if at all.

Why don't you remind me how a moral philosophy can be "outdated"? Furthermore, I can and do will that everyone rebel against unjust systems, accelerate capital/economic collapse, and so on. It's not really that hard

Beyond Good and Evil

Basically every contemporary non-utilitarian book or philosopher?
Read what Robert Nozick wrote about utility monsters and experience machines. For a more abstract but still devastating objection, read Utilitarianism: For and Against by Bernard Williams.
But really you shouldn't have to read anything. Mill's utilitarianism is obviously false since it's obviously wrong to kill an innocent person to harvest their organs, even if it would save lives.
If you want to read a utilitarian who isn't braindead, read Peter Railton. If you want to read the highest IQ consequentialist, read Shelly Kagan. Still shit views though.
Btw everyone who is telling you Kant btfos Mill has no idea what they're talking about. Nobody thinks Kant actually has a good objection to utilitarianism. He just has counterarguments.

Mills talks about pleasure, not happiness.
Happiness > pleasure.

Kant in the Groundwork knocks down utilitarianism before Mill was even born.

The goblin strikes again

Notes from the Underground