I wonder when the rest will catch on that Bjorn is the MC 😛
Also Gavis, man, did you have to go so hard into Baek Ho? Basically crushed him to pebbles
Dunno if anyone caught it, but Gavis basically admitted to placing spies/”guides” by prominent figures of interest. Seeing how he's most interested in Bjorn, does that mean he has someone by Bjorn's side? Maybe Amelia, or perhaps Ragna, or even Hyun Byeol? Those are stretches for sure, but imagine…
Once more bjorn has the opportunity to not be a useless fuck and open up about been the one dude who cleared the game TWICE on the normal difficulty.
I do not think we'll see that level of character growth unless gavis forces it on him.
By “defective" I'm going to assume can't do the secret bjorn events, hasn't been cleansed of the curse thing that happened in basement b1, the cheat copy of Gavis's game might have fucked something important up in the isekai spell, especially if the creator literally didn't know about it. Which would give bjorn the “literally only I can do the thing” plot armor.
I can't see how he could have more of a target on his back.Royals know he is an evil spirit.Baekho knows he's an evil spiritAuril Gavis knows exactly who he is since he's the dude who stole the computer monitorOuting himself as the guy who did the thing the best could buy him more respect thus more support.I do see your argument though, I just think that train of jealous logic is depressing.
I think it might have been different if he wanted to go back, but he wanted to stay and build his life here. He also doesn’t want others to have power over him.I’m not sure if many other evil spirits would agree with his desire to remain and live as a raphdonian, so it could put unwanted pressure on him to open the gates against his willAlso, his safety with the Royals is predicated on the idea that it is not widespread knowledge that he’s an evil spirit, since hes seen as a hero and evil spirits cannot be seen as good from their standpoint.I certainly thing it would be an avenue he could take, but with his goals along with his stance on power dynamics, I don’t think he’d see the benefit in doing so tbhPs. Saw your other thread, and while I don’t think Bjorn will or should out himself, I don’t think it makes sense for other players to try and go kill Bjorn out of self-importance or similar motive. If anything, they may threaten Bjorn's ppl in attempt to control him into helping them get home (if they don’t believe he’ll do it willingly) 🙏
I think he means that every player that was transmigrated here with the difficulty mod are defects. They're not supposed to be there, he only wanted someome that could beat the game. In that regard, it's a mistake to our himself as Elfnuna. It puts a target on his back as he's the only one that was proven to have the ability to beat the game. That means other players would be insecure just by his existence. They can “prove” themselves by beating the player that beat the game. Frankly, if I were Bjorn, I'd staight up kill 99% of players that haven't proven themselves loyal and obedient. They weren't supposed to be there anyway, that's too many variables.
I disagree with your logic rationally but this particular webnovel does have some unhinged actors that would be sad enough to logic that way instead of working with the one dude who can bail them the fuck out.
Sabotage derived from insecurity and entitlement isn't unique to this novel. You see it all the time in the real world. It doesn't seem rational to you because you're not a piece of shit like those people are. People value their feelings of comfort over reality all of the time, even intelligent ones. Intelligent ones are the ones capable of rationalizing their insecurity to delude themselves into thinking they're innocent. Good for you for recognizing the flaw in those delusions, but don't be so naive as to expect others to.Some popular examples of the top of head are: Tonya Harding, Lance Armstrong, and Stalin with Trotsky. Also every single utilitarian and relativist.
Could you elaborate on why you think a utilitarian would sabotage someone to secure their personal feelings?That seems completely counter to that belief structures core ethos of the best action been the action that benefits the most. Why would they take action that benefits the self by sabotaging the one who can help the many?The utilitarian wouldn't sabotage bjorn, the utilitarian would identify bjorn as a potential solution to the problem and prop them up / resource them to solve the problem for them. Bjorn would be the tool they stress and leverage to get the job done, not the tool they’d dispose of before the job is done.If I were to give an example grouping of people for your description I'd start with science deniers such as anti-vaxxers and anyone who has a fixed goal or belief that MUST be the best answer for the problem regardless of new solutions or information presented. Anyone inflexible or emotionally invested in their pre-selected solution.
Utilitarians would be the first to sacrifice Bjorn for their feelings. That’s literally the point of utilitarianism. Aztec ritual sacrifice for the “good” of the people. Utilitarianism is just relativism for intelligent people. They’re both guilty of moral sabotage as they both reject an objective standard. Utilitarianism doesn’t even try to define what “good” even is, it’s just smuggled in as an accepted assumption. Realistically, it’s only a means to justify literally any behavior as long as the outcomes are “good” which it refuses to define. That’s purposeful and insidious. Any player can rationalize killing Bjorn out of jealousy or insecurity as long as they can justify a reason for why it was “good.”
The utilitarian wouldn't sabotage bjorn, the utilitarian would identify bjorn as a potential solution to the problem
No, that’s what you would do. Others could identify him as the problem. It actually makes more sense if they do considering what you said earlier:
instead of working with the one dude who can bail them the fuck out.
This means they themselves are disposable and unimportant. Gavis doesn’t care about them, so the only way to get him to care about them is by killing the only person that he perceives to be important. That forces him to consider them out of necessity. So sacrifice Bjorn, to potentially save all the other players. That’s textbook utilitarian. Also, you’re just making the assumption that Gavis will honor his word. Why would you trust that? He’s the one that abducted all of these people and put them all in harms way just to get something he wants. It seems like you as a reader, are feeling the desperation of being stuck in another world and are willing to trust the person that caused it for no other reason other than he said he would. Now, imagine how desperate the players themselves would be and what they would be willing to do or believe. If I was Bjorn, Gavis is already dead and he doesn’t even know it. He must die. If he can do it then that means other people can too as long as you figure out how it works. There are gods in this world and plenty of mages. Better to trust in your comrades or people that haven’t already done you dirty like Gavis did.
Utilitarianism defines good as “what brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, or well-being for the greatest number of people” it seeks to maximise well being where every individuals happiness is considered equal and minimise pain where every individuals pain is equal. Are you ignorant of that definition?Aztec sacrifice, and all sacrifice to deities is based in faith, religion, politics and social outcomes, the people believe the sacrifice will actually legitimely do a thing because their religious leaders and culture has instructed them that the deity is actually real, that the deity actually has this power and that by doing this ritual everyone will benefit. Infact NOT doing this sacrifice means the entire universe will collapse as their gods needed blood to keep them stable. If it doesn't work, shit we just need more sacrifices. The outcome is not measurable as the outcome differs every single time as the action does nothing other than kill someone.Please explain:1. How is an ancient cultural/religious ritual we can both agree is insane, related to utilitarianism when its clearly an extremist religion ritual where the action has no measurable “good"?2. How your example is remotely relevant to the bjorn situation. They're not going to sacrifice him to a god, to keep the metaphor he would be akin to a deity.3. How faith based sacrifice can be objectives based or measureble at all?Your example, like usual, is shit.>Any player can rationalise killing bjorn out of jealousy or insecurity so long as they can rationalise why its goodThis isn't utilitarianism, the good must be measurable and objective, bjorns death must bring the least amount of suffering to the majority. If the world is doomed and he is the only one who can open the gate to let the player's home killing him actively harms all the players. This could be a motivation for an NPC to kill him, but not a player.>Gavis doesn’t care about them, so the only way to get him to care about them is by killing the only person that he perceives to be important. That forces him to consider them out of necessity.This is actual psychopath / cult mentality / child level logic. You can't have cement for your building because i broke the cement machine, make it work with me, the duct tape.1. Why does a player care about what gavis thinks2. Why would gavis save the players if bjorn is dead, gavis does not have that power or bjorn wouldn't be neccesary, this whole story wouldn't be necessary if gavis could carry.Let's say I asked for a Korean to English translator, I wait 20 years, a single one shows up then a bunch of Italian to French translators who showed up uninvited offering to help but literally cant, decide to stab him to death, im still not going to care about them from a goals point of view as they still lack the skillset I need, if anything my apathy for them is more likely to become anger as they've gone from nuisance to active hindrance. Do you not understand why your example is bad?>Sacrifice bjorn to save all the other playersThis sounds like a certain religion’s core belief structure. Interesting example.>That’s textbook utilitarian. That's textbook egotist and textbook dictator sure. A utilitarian knows they aren't the main character for every single role.>Also, you’re just making the assumption that Gavis will honor his word. Why would you trust that?I have not been presented with evidence or a course of action to state why he wouldn't.>He’s the one that abducted all of these people and put them all in harms way just to get something he wants. No, all of these people played a cheat copy of the game and it was never his intention for them to arrive here. As he stated literally this chapter he did not want them.Them been here is a mistake. The fact he hasn't killed them while they're fucking with his plans imho is enough proof his word is good.>It seems like you as a reader, are feeling the desperation of being stuck in another world and are willing to trust the person that caused it for no other reason other than he said he would. Now, imagine how desperate the players themselves would be and what they would be willing to do or believe. Nah, you're wrong as usual.Ah yes, the guy who's guide I read to get teleported here is also here. Oh my god, he knows so much about this world and how to become powerful, I want to work under him and get stronger so we can all get out together?? You forget the actual leech behaviour utilitarianism invokes in those who can't. As I cleared the game at 100x I know that I definitely can't, but the guy who did it at 1x? Just maybe he can and if I play my cards properly I'll ride his coattails out of here.That chain of selfish logic vs “fuck if I kill him and eat his heart maybe I'll get his powers and be relevant” not even a contest my guy.Utilitarianism denies ego, everyones suffering is equal, everyones happiness is weighted equal, a utilitarianist killing someone because it makes them feel better isnt a positive gain thus not a viable action. Even if they were the only 2 people in the world to measure against. Because any form of compromise that made them both happy or not suffer is 2 people happy vs 1 person happy.>If I was Bjorn, Gavis is already dead and he doesn’t even know it. He must die. If he can do it then that means other people can too as long as you figure out how it works.There are gods in this world and plenty of mages. Better to trust in your comrades or people that haven’t already done you dirty like Gavis did.Congrats you're a sociopath. In-world that's insane, you're going to kill the guy who knows how to fix the puzzle and waste how many years to MAYBE get the solution from another source instead of cooperate? And yeah sure ask kamrui, I'm sure he'll give you a good deal in exchange for all your comrades, maybe.Edit:You stated “gavis has to die” congrats you've landed smack bang in my earlier classification of “anyone who has a fixed goal or belief that MUST be the best answer for the problem regardless of new solutions or information presented” what if he tells you his specific mana signature is needed to undo the seal or some other asspull that he is the only candidate that can take the action, what if another expert ex ruin gramps affirms that yeah gavis is the only one that can do that, still going to kill him and try to reverse engineer the solution, is that logical?
what brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, or well-being for the greatest number of people” it seeks to maximise well being where every individuals happiness is considered equal and minimise pain where every individuals pain is equal.
This was my point lol. Everything I emboldened is subjective which by definition makes it arbitrary. Happiness, pleasure and well-being according to whom? How can whoever is measuring these subjective feelings get an objective measurement? My point is that you must smuggle in accepted moral claims in order to define why those moral claims are “good” to begin with. You can’t do that. Utilitarianism pretends to be able to quantify something that is impossible to quantify, and when called out, can’t explain how that is the case. That alone is enough to collapse this entire framework. I’m trying to avoid big words to avoid confusing you but maybe you’ll know what I mean. You’re not making an ontological claim here. You’re smuggling in broadly accepted presumptions for your ontology and jumping straight into epistemology. This definition isn’t saying what “good” is, it’s assuming everyone already agrees with what it is and jumping to measuring it for optimization. If you actually want to make an ontological claim, tell me why happiness is good. Once it’s anchored to that ontological claim, you can make a case for why better to optimize for happiness, pleasure and well-being.
1. How is an ancient cultural/religious ritual we can both agree is insane, related to utilitarianism when its clearly an extremist religion ritual where the action has no measurable “good"?2. How your example is remotely relevant to the bjorn situation. They're not going to sacrifice him to a god, to keep the metaphor he would be akin to a deity.3. How faith based sacrifice can be objectives based or measureble at all?
1. Because it’s an example of “needs of the many over the needs of the few” which is utilitarian structure. You’re also making a false assumption that religion is compatible with utilitarianism. If it measurable that believing in any religion leads to more happiness, pleasure or well-being then it’s perfectly fine in that framework according to your own arbitrary standard. 2. You’re misunderstanding the critique. It’s a critique of the “needs of the many” pillar of utilitarianism. If the majority deems his sacrifice good for more people then they can justify it rationally under their own framework. That’s the point I’m making. You can justify any act at all as a utilitarian.3. It can’t be, just like your standard can’t be either. You’re both equally trying to do something impossible. Their measurement worked like this: bad harvest = not enough sacrifices; good harvest = sacrifices worked. So they were factually incorrect but the point is that so are you. In 20 years utilitarians can come to a different consensus about what good is and that’s perfectly fine within it’s own framework. So both you and aztecs are indistinguishable when it comes to the “needs of the many.”
Utilitarianism denies ego, everyones suffering is equal, everyones happiness is weighted equal, a utilitarianist killing someone because it makes them feel better isnt a positive gain thus not a viable action. Even if they were the only 2 people in the world to measure against. Because any form of compromise that made them both happy or not suffer is 2 people happy vs 1 person happy.
This is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. It starts by assuming they’re right ontologically without even proving it. That’s straight up arrogance. 100% ego. You’re also contradicting your previous standard you yourself set when you said this: “what brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, or well-being for the greatest number of people.” This is the classic “greater good” argument and literally and explicitly contradicts your argument that, “a utilitarianist killing someone because it makes them feel better isnt a positive gain thus not a viable action.” It is if more people get happiness, pleasure or well-being from it right? According to your own arbitrary standard lol. You’re really stunting yourself by trying to debate frameworks and philosophy without having a firm grasp of the fundamentals. You need to know what ontology and epistemology are. You need to know is vs ought. You absolutely need to understand the laws of logic, that’s an absolute must when debating. It becomes clear the more you argue that you’re not really capable of structuring arguments because you lack the proper tools to build that structure. You need to have humility to question your own presumptions to tighten your beliefs and be able to defend them. You’re intelligent but your ego prevents your wisdom from growing.
So you don't think “im jealous of bjorn therefore bjorn should die" is invalid as it doesnt cause more good than harm when counting bjorn's views equally with your own?I suspect you are simply incapable of empathy at this point or wilfully ignorant of how that ethical system works since you can't step away from a single person's personal ethics. Which this ethos in practice literally requires you to Do.>You’re also making a false assumption that religion is compatible with utilitarianism.No shithead, that's YOUR EXAMPLE that you're now saying its not relevant. Sounds like we agree that religious practice is NOT utilitarianism, why bring it up as an example when the topic is utilitarianism?The utilitarian would not normalise sacrifice because the consequence, other than someone dies, cannot be reproduced. It does not bring gains, it does not deter, it creates an environment where murdering someone for hopes and prayers is acceptable, which is an environment of harm, thus undesireable to the utilitarian, since the only measurable consequence of the ritual is “someone died”>If it measurable that believing in any religion leads to more happiness, pleasure or well-being then it’s perfectly fine in that framework according to your own arbitrary standard. If the belief brings happiness it is fine until the belief causes those people to become actors of harm, for example if they're from a militant religion that say, demands they spread the religion and kill all non-believers, well now we have a measurable downside where a fantastical belief is leading to measurable harm and becomes unacceptable. Aztec religion is a clear example of this where the belief directly leads to harm. IE your example is shit, your logic is at best a straw man, you are incompetent on this subject matter.>2. You’re misunderstanding the critique. It’s a critique of the “needs of the many” pillar of utilitarianism. If the majority deems his sacrifice good for more people then they can justify it rationally under their own framework. That’s the point I’m making. You can justify any act at all as a utilitarian.There would have to be a demonstrable path forward for why this would be a valid course of action, utilitarianism is not socialism, is not communism. A horde of people saying something will help with no proof does not a decision make. If the evil god descended and said “sacrifice bjorn to me and I'll send you all back to your universes unharmed" then you'd have a potential utilitarian argument for the harmful action if you deemed him trustworthy. The mere jealousy and individual feelings of inadequacy you put forth originally don't make the case for why the consequences of killing bjorn lead to a positive ending and engaging with you in any motivational framework outside of that is dishonest. Jealousy and inadequacy, even among a population, are insufficient arguments for action based on utilitarianism that cause measurable harm such as death, to another. If you don't understand that 1 million people been jealous of someone is weighted less than that person's life I would argue you and yoir ethical system are morally bankrupt.>3. It can’t be, just like your standard can’t be either. You’re both equally trying to do something impossible. Their measurement worked like this: bad harvest = not enough sacrifices; good harvest = sacrifices worked. So they were factually incorrect but the point is that so are you. In 20 years utilitarians can come to a different consensus about what good is and that’s perfectly fine within it’s own framework. I'm glad we can agree YOUR EXAMPLE is shit.The utilitarian argues against the aztec belief structure saying the action’s consequences demonstrate the practice doesn't work, infact it measurably causes harm (death). The zealot then acts like a theocratic dictator and sacrifices the utilitarian to maintain their power structure.>So both you and aztecs are indistinguishable when it comes to the “needs of the many.”Addressed above, you literally do not understand the ethos. I'll make it simpleKill man for god to make rainOh didn't rain, consequence of harmful action bad, should not do again, invalid course of action, should write down so no one make same mistake” because that is “what one ought to do" ie the question utilitarianism seeks an answer for.Whereas the religious zealot whose entire power system and world structure depends on gods been real and having this power says “more blood for the blood god” the utilitarian would argue “this doesn't work, see all these times it did nothing, you are only killing a worker who could help with the crisis" and thus gets sacrificed by the zealots for their efforts because Aztec sacrifice is social, political and religious and that action allows the zealot to retain power.I didn't read the rest because if you're unable to keep track of and justify your your own examples you're clearly failing to proof read whatever slop your AI is giving you and discourse isn't worth pursuing further. I don't gain enough to educate you on the subject when you could instead read Mills and learn about Rule Utilitarianism.
It’s hilarious that you “didn’t read” (sure you didn’t) the part that explicitly and undeniably deconstructs your argument and thought process in excruciating detail. You can pretend to not notice that you can’t explain why anything is bad without having everyone accept your intuitions. It’s clear that you don’t know the difference between ontology and epistemology which is why I was trying really hard to avoid it, because they’re really scary words that tend to confuse people. Ontology (the study of the nature of being and existence) = whatis good/bad? That’s step one. Once you anchor it to what it is you can then move onto epistemology (the study of knowledge and its limits and validity) = how do we know what’s good/bad? This is what you’re stuck on with this: “‘what brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, or well-being for the greatest number of people’ it seeks to maximise well being where every individuals happiness is considered equal and minimise pain where every individuals pain is equal.” That’s measurement. You skipped ontology and just straight to measuring the good things. Why are any of those things good? You need everyone to accept your completely made up presumptions about what good is before you can even jump into your framework. All of utilitarianism crumbles when asked a single word question. “Why?”
No shithead, that's YOUR EXAMPLE that you're now saying its not relevant. Sounds like we agree that religious practice is NOT utilitarianism, why bring it up as an example when the topic is utilitarianism?
That was a typo, I meant you were making an assumption that it “isn’t” compatible which wouldn’t be true under the standard that you set yourself. The following sentence should have made that clear which you bring up later.
If the belief brings happiness it is fine until the belief causes those people to become actors of harm, for example if they're from a militant religion that say, demands they spread the religion and kill all non-believers, well now we have a measurable downside where a fantastical belief is leading to measurable harm and becomes unacceptable. Aztec religion is a clear example of this where the belief directly leads to harm. IE your example is shit, your logic is at best a straw man, you are incompetent on this subject matter.
You’re just reasserting your intuitions. Why is this no longer fine? Anchor to your ontological claim before you get into the epistemology. Can you explain it’s bad to cause harm? If you can’t then why should I or anyone else care about how you measure it?
If you don't understand that 1 million people been jealous of someone is weighted less than that person's life I would argue you and yoir ethical system are morally bankrupt.
You can’t argue anything is morally bankrupt when you can’t define what “morally good” is without relying on people accepting your intuitive assertions. How can you argue it if you don’t know why it’s bad other than “because it’s bad!?” You also keep shifting your definition which you yourself laid out in the beginning lol. I don’t blame you as it doesn’t make any sense. You have to shift it when it doesn’t take certain situations you don’t like into account. That’s what makes it arbitrary.
I don't gain enough to educate you on the subject when you could instead read Mills and learn about Rule Utilitarianism.
This is the biggest yikes you’ve demonstrated so far and it’s kind of sad that someone that is as intelligent as you can be so foolish. Mills admits that happiness is subjective and attempts to reconcile it with “competent judges” which is still another subjective measurement. He also cannot anchor “good” ontologically which leads to this equally subjective metric. Mill treats competent judges as an objective standard to accurately measure moral truth as a matter of fact. Why would anyone accept this as a fact? Does he prove this claim at all? I’ll give you a spoiler to a subject you’ve read about but clearly don’t understand, no he doesn’t. He has the burden of proof for this claim and he needs to prove it over the negation to his assertion. It’s pure ego and arrogance. I know you don’t actually understand any of this because you’re completely out of your depth, so I’ll make it simple. Why do you accept what he claims as a matter of fact? How did he prove his claim without having to define what “good” is? Kittens I genuinely want to know if you’ve ever asked yourself if anything you’ve ever believed in or identify with could be wrong. Like truly. I’m sorry to say that if you identify as someone that is a competent debater or well-versed in philosophy, you’re mistaken. I will literally concede every single point and argument I’ve ever made with you if you can actually answer what “good” means in utilitarianism. Give me an ontological definition for “good” and I’ll literally fly to wherever you live and let you kick me in the nuts if you want. Do what Mill himself and every other utilitarian ever has never been able to do. You’ll be immediately famous for having done something that is literally impossible within that framework. You’ll be dodging panties thrown at you from philosophy bitches all day. Go ahead and become a living legend lol.
You assert you have done a thing when you have not. Had you done a thing I would agree with you.Your example for aztec's is bad since I do not believe as a theocracy they practiced a rules oriented utilitarian process.You continue using fancy words magic man but you haven't proposed any solution that resolves the same criticisms you have put forth. So I have not been convinced as I do not believe you understand the mechanisms of the topic you discuss, you have not proposed solutions and you have not proposed a better method for answering the question.>Give me an ontological definition for “good”I'll respond to this since it's trivial. All living beings seek to survive and not die. Anything that leads to the survival and not death of the being is therefore good. Bad is defined as the inverse of good.If a being is utilitarian and seeks to maximise good among all beings not just themselves, you have an ethics structure where any action taken that reduces a beings chance of survival is therefore “not good”.When you look at a choice that involves the termination of life you are doing that being the ultimate harm. So your proposition that a utilitarian would do the ultimate harm to someone purely out of petty jealousy and inferiority is invalid. If they did that they would not be utilitarian.All your other bullshit frankly is irrelevant to the initial question asked of >Could you elaborate on why you think a utilitarian would sabotage someone to secure their personal feelings?In my opinion you have completely failed to address this because a rule utilitarian will tell you an uncomfortable truth to keep a rule of “Do not Lie" regardless of short term negative consequence as not following the rule could lead to a worse outcome, eg collapse of trust in the collective reducing odds of survival for the entire group, especially if breaking the rule becomes normalised among the group.
Your example for aztec's is bad since I do not believeas a theocracy they practiced a rules oriented utilitarian process.
Thank you!!! Yes finally, you finally admit it even if unknowingly. Correct kittens, “I do not believe,” means it's your preference. Congratulations, you just proved my entire point. Why were the Aztecs wrong, because it's your preference for it to be so. Why weren't they utilitarian, because your preference is that they weren't. Mill must have been a complete idiot then for even trying to reconcile this issue with “competent judges” when he could have just said, “because that's what I believe,” as an answer to the critiques right, lol. How is it possible to measure something as subjective as happiness, Mill? “That's easy. My preference is that it is possible.” Then the audience and critics just erupt in applause then bow down before the man who's preference can manifest reality simply by existing! Quite literally a god among men!
You continue using fancy words magic man but you haven't proposed any solution that resolves the same criticisms you have put forth.
Yes, I knew using such scary words would cause some confusion given your understanding of philosophy, which is why I was tactful enough to explain those words with much less fancy and easier to understand words. Fortunately, it seemed to work as it got you to at least attempt an ontological definition. This is a huge step forward vs the time I asked you to falsify yourself or the framework you were defending, which is now obvious that you didn't even understand how to. So let's look at how you grounded “good” and succeeded where no other utilitarian had done before!
I'll respond to this since it's trivial. All living beings seek to survive and not die. Anything that leads to the survival and not death of the being is therefore good. Bad is defined as the inverse of good.
Oh boy… Not a good start when you think defining the core of your argument is trivial. “Circles are the best shape.” “What's a circle?” ”Omg, shut up you idiot! Why would you ask something so trivial!? It sounds like you don't understand the mechanisms of the topic you're discussing!” 🤣😂 Doesn't get any better when your response to my request for you to anchor your utilitarian argument to ontology, is to completely abandon your framework and borrow the ontology from another one. Okay then, let's see how your naturalist ontology can work with utilitarian principles. Why? “All living beings seek to survive and not die.” Descriptively true, good job. “Anything that leads to the survival and not death of the being is therefore good.” This is your prescription which you assert as a description. That's your ought claim that you need to prove. Unless you're just planning on proving it by saying it's because of your preference again. 🤣
If a being is utilitarian and seeks to maximise good among all beings not just themselves, you have an ethics structure where any action taken that reduces a beings chance of survival is therefore “not good”.
Unless their preference says otherwise right? Oops. Looks like the moment you admit your morality comes from preferences, then other people’s preferences are just as valid as yours. Like oh, I don't know, the freaking Aztecs you absolute imbecile. Talk about lack of self awareness.
All your other bullshit frankly is irrelevant to the initial question asked of>Could you elaborate on why you think a utilitarian would sabotage someone to secure their personal feelings?
Ah yes, the “bullshit” that is to get you to explain what you mean and why you mean it? 😂 Is it your preference that basic argument structure be considered bullshit? 🤣 So by having you demonstrate how arbitrary utilitarianism is by having you admit it relies on preferences, I didn't just demonstrate that any utilitarian can justify anything as long as it's their preference to do so? Bravo! Good job. You just came up with a definition that Mill himself wasn't arrogant enough overtly say. At least he was humble enough to know how stupid that sounded and was tactful enough to avoid overtly saying that by smuggling it in with his competent judges explanation. Then again it's your preference that I simply don't understand the mechanisms of the topic I'm discussing right lol? Just like it's your preference that you're good at making arguments? Or understanding philosophy? You're a joke.
The GM is threading on some dangerous waters asking about his relationship with Bjorn. I wouldn’t be surprised if he took that as a threat and killed him.
The only ones that are leaving this place alive are bjorn and baekho, then ruin gramps and the karui priest have some chances in case author wants them to become friends with MC or be usefull to him later…. Aures…i think is cooked as well not 100% but up there…
I think it's going to be bjorn and gavis at this point tbfh.My reading between the lines from the “defective" comment leads to an assumption that Gavis only wants bjorn and everyone else is disposable
While this is a fair conclusion to make, i disagree that gavis is going to be inclined to kill all of them but Bjorn. He strikes me as the type of villain who sees these “defective” people as so beneath his attention that he only would them if they interfere directly with his plans, rather than killing them all for the sin of using a cheat game. It’s like how swatting a fly who is too close is different than getting a bug zapper or sticky strips to catch all the flies in the home. Baekho is running his mouth and getting told that he literally is a failure because he’s annoying, classic “I don’t think of you at all”. So by my estimation unless someone directly attacked Gavis I think they’re gonna leave here alive. I’m more curious about Aures and Ruin being from a different world, and how that does or doesn’t tie into the dreamscape alternate reality. Because clearly there are parellel earths now, but are there also different people coming in waves?
I agree too, if anything I'd say he feels guilty they're here at all in the first place. He acknowledges it as an actual mistake, considering how powerful he is that's a big admission.I think even if someone directly attacked gavis he'd flex on them first and not just un-existence them.I don't think the party will attack him either, GM isn't hostile, Ruin scholar has no reason to as he defers to him as master, dark priest is a bit of a wild card tbfh since the “sacrifice" he told her about could have been her lover, so she may dislike him for that at some level, Aures I think isn't interested in a fight, bjorn probably won't either since he wants answers.I too would like an exposition dump / some world lore about how, why and what worlds people are actually from. I think it might just be narrative to allow our MC to retain his super specialness while having other competent people be around him. Because canonically if he's the only one to do it on normal, everyone else from his world is a factor of skill worse than him. Baekho is 30x worse than him if we're measuring with the game multiplier. Aures and Ruinzenes may be the only people on his level skill wise, I'd want to know how they got here too tbh
Ruinzenes being a child threw a wrench in my speculation, because it makes it so it could be that the previous gen was 1)a different species or version of earth and 2) they were taken earlier to make them more likely to assimilate into the game. It could be that this caused them to blend in better but be worse at surviving due to their lack of knowledge, and that the game was meant to be both a tutorial and an entrance exam for this new wave.
Also Ruin scholar didn’t play a game, he entered the world of Raphdonia after reading a book he found in a cave.Maybe Aures also read a similar book to get here? (Not to be judgy but it kinda seems out of character… lol)
I don't think Gavis has any reason to get rid of any of them – unless Baek Ho attacks him, and I'm pretty sure Baek Ho is much smarter than that, even as pissed off as he is
Right. He clearly had the ability to kill them if he wants but chooses not to for whatever reason. The limit might be if the change the path Bjorn has to take to open the abyss gate. They're all variables, but controllable ones with his level of power. If they start powering up to the point where they can be a threat to him or his goals then they'll probably die then.
Unlock with Patreon
I wonder when the rest will catch on that Bjorn is the MC 😛
Also Gavis, man, did you have to go so hard into Baek Ho? Basically crushed him to pebbles
Dunno if anyone caught it, but Gavis basically admitted to placing spies/”guides” by prominent figures of interest. Seeing how he's most interested in Bjorn, does that mean he has someone by Bjorn's side? Maybe Amelia, or perhaps Ragna, or even Hyun Byeol? Those are stretches for sure, but imagine…
Once more bjorn has the opportunity to not be a useless fuck and open up about been the one dude who cleared the game TWICE on the normal difficulty.
I do not think we'll see that level of character growth unless gavis forces it on him.
By “defective" I'm going to assume can't do the secret bjorn events, hasn't been cleansed of the curse thing that happened in basement b1, the cheat copy of Gavis's game might have fucked something important up in the isekai spell, especially if the creator literally didn't know about it. Which would give bjorn the “literally only I can do the thing” plot armor.
Utilitarians would be the first to sacrifice Bjorn for their feelings. That’s literally the point of utilitarianism. Aztec ritual sacrifice for the “good” of the people. Utilitarianism is just relativism for intelligent people. They’re both guilty of moral sabotage as they both reject an objective standard. Utilitarianism doesn’t even try to define what “good” even is, it’s just smuggled in as an accepted assumption. Realistically, it’s only a means to justify literally any behavior as long as the outcomes are “good” which it refuses to define. That’s purposeful and insidious. Any player can rationalize killing Bjorn out of jealousy or insecurity as long as they can justify a reason for why it was “good.”
No, that’s what you would do. Others could identify him as the problem. It actually makes more sense if they do considering what you said earlier:
This means they themselves are disposable and unimportant. Gavis doesn’t care about them, so the only way to get him to care about them is by killing the only person that he perceives to be important. That forces him to consider them out of necessity. So sacrifice Bjorn, to potentially save all the other players. That’s textbook utilitarian. Also, you’re just making the assumption that Gavis will honor his word. Why would you trust that? He’s the one that abducted all of these people and put them all in harms way just to get something he wants. It seems like you as a reader, are feeling the desperation of being stuck in another world and are willing to trust the person that caused it for no other reason other than he said he would. Now, imagine how desperate the players themselves would be and what they would be willing to do or believe. If I was Bjorn, Gavis is already dead and he doesn’t even know it. He must die. If he can do it then that means other people can too as long as you figure out how it works. There are gods in this world and plenty of mages. Better to trust in your comrades or people that haven’t already done you dirty like Gavis did.
This was my point lol. Everything I emboldened is subjective which by definition makes it arbitrary. Happiness, pleasure and well-being according to whom? How can whoever is measuring these subjective feelings get an objective measurement? My point is that you must smuggle in accepted moral claims in order to define why those moral claims are “good” to begin with. You can’t do that. Utilitarianism pretends to be able to quantify something that is impossible to quantify, and when called out, can’t explain how that is the case. That alone is enough to collapse this entire framework. I’m trying to avoid big words to avoid confusing you but maybe you’ll know what I mean. You’re not making an ontological claim here. You’re smuggling in broadly accepted presumptions for your ontology and jumping straight into epistemology. This definition isn’t saying what “good” is, it’s assuming everyone already agrees with what it is and jumping to measuring it for optimization. If you actually want to make an ontological claim, tell me why happiness is good. Once it’s anchored to that ontological claim, you can make a case for why better to optimize for happiness, pleasure and well-being.
1. Because it’s an example of “needs of the many over the needs of the few” which is utilitarian structure. You’re also making a false assumption that religion is compatible with utilitarianism. If it measurable that believing in any religion leads to more happiness, pleasure or well-being then it’s perfectly fine in that framework according to your own arbitrary standard. 2. You’re misunderstanding the critique. It’s a critique of the “needs of the many” pillar of utilitarianism. If the majority deems his sacrifice good for more people then they can justify it rationally under their own framework. That’s the point I’m making. You can justify any act at all as a utilitarian.3. It can’t be, just like your standard can’t be either. You’re both equally trying to do something impossible. Their measurement worked like this: bad harvest = not enough sacrifices; good harvest = sacrifices worked. So they were factually incorrect but the point is that so are you. In 20 years utilitarians can come to a different consensus about what good is and that’s perfectly fine within it’s own framework. So both you and aztecs are indistinguishable when it comes to the “needs of the many.”
This is blatantly and demonstrably untrue. It starts by assuming they’re right ontologically without even proving it. That’s straight up arrogance. 100% ego. You’re also contradicting your previous standard you yourself set when you said this: “what brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, or well-being for the greatest number of people.” This is the classic “greater good” argument and literally and explicitly contradicts your argument that, “a utilitarianist killing someone because it makes them feel better isnt a positive gain thus not a viable action.” It is if more people get happiness, pleasure or well-being from it right? According to your own arbitrary standard lol. You’re really stunting yourself by trying to debate frameworks and philosophy without having a firm grasp of the fundamentals. You need to know what ontology and epistemology are. You need to know is vs ought. You absolutely need to understand the laws of logic, that’s an absolute must when debating. It becomes clear the more you argue that you’re not really capable of structuring arguments because you lack the proper tools to build that structure. You need to have humility to question your own presumptions to tighten your beliefs and be able to defend them. You’re intelligent but your ego prevents your wisdom from growing.
It’s hilarious that you “didn’t read” (sure you didn’t) the part that explicitly and undeniably deconstructs your argument and thought process in excruciating detail. You can pretend to not notice that you can’t explain why anything is bad without having everyone accept your intuitions. It’s clear that you don’t know the difference between ontology and epistemology which is why I was trying really hard to avoid it, because they’re really scary words that tend to confuse people. Ontology (the study of the nature of being and existence) = what is good/bad? That’s step one. Once you anchor it to what it is you can then move onto epistemology (the study of knowledge and its limits and validity) = how do we know what’s good/bad? This is what you’re stuck on with this: “‘what brings about the greatest amount of happiness, pleasure, or well-being for the greatest number of people’ it seeks to maximise well being where every individuals happiness is considered equal and minimise pain where every individuals pain is equal.” That’s measurement. You skipped ontology and just straight to measuring the good things. Why are any of those things good? You need everyone to accept your completely made up presumptions about what good is before you can even jump into your framework. All of utilitarianism crumbles when asked a single word question. “Why?”
That was a typo, I meant you were making an assumption that it “isn’t” compatible which wouldn’t be true under the standard that you set yourself. The following sentence should have made that clear which you bring up later.
You’re just reasserting your intuitions. Why is this no longer fine? Anchor to your ontological claim before you get into the epistemology. Can you explain it’s bad to cause harm? If you can’t then why should I or anyone else care about how you measure it?
You can’t argue anything is morally bankrupt when you can’t define what “morally good” is without relying on people accepting your intuitive assertions. How can you argue it if you don’t know why it’s bad other than “because it’s bad!?” You also keep shifting your definition which you yourself laid out in the beginning lol. I don’t blame you as it doesn’t make any sense. You have to shift it when it doesn’t take certain situations you don’t like into account. That’s what makes it arbitrary.
This is the biggest yikes you’ve demonstrated so far and it’s kind of sad that someone that is as intelligent as you can be so foolish. Mills admits that happiness is subjective and attempts to reconcile it with “competent judges” which is still another subjective measurement. He also cannot anchor “good” ontologically which leads to this equally subjective metric. Mill treats competent judges as an objective standard to accurately measure moral truth as a matter of fact. Why would anyone accept this as a fact? Does he prove this claim at all? I’ll give you a spoiler to a subject you’ve read about but clearly don’t understand, no he doesn’t. He has the burden of proof for this claim and he needs to prove it over the negation to his assertion. It’s pure ego and arrogance. I know you don’t actually understand any of this because you’re completely out of your depth, so I’ll make it simple. Why do you accept what he claims as a matter of fact? How did he prove his claim without having to define what “good” is? Kittens I genuinely want to know if you’ve ever asked yourself if anything you’ve ever believed in or identify with could be wrong. Like truly. I’m sorry to say that if you identify as someone that is a competent debater or well-versed in philosophy, you’re mistaken. I will literally concede every single point and argument I’ve ever made with you if you can actually answer what “good” means in utilitarianism. Give me an ontological definition for “good” and I’ll literally fly to wherever you live and let you kick me in the nuts if you want. Do what Mill himself and every other utilitarian ever has never been able to do. You’ll be immediately famous for having done something that is literally impossible within that framework. You’ll be dodging panties thrown at you from philosophy bitches all day. Go ahead and become a living legend lol.
Thank you!!! Yes finally, you finally admit it even if unknowingly. Correct kittens, “I do not believe,” means it's your preference. Congratulations, you just proved my entire point. Why were the Aztecs wrong, because it's your preference for it to be so. Why weren't they utilitarian, because your preference is that they weren't. Mill must have been a complete idiot then for even trying to reconcile this issue with “competent judges” when he could have just said, “because that's what I believe,” as an answer to the critiques right, lol. How is it possible to measure something as subjective as happiness, Mill? “That's easy. My preference is that it is possible.” Then the audience and critics just erupt in applause then bow down before the man who's preference can manifest reality simply by existing! Quite literally a god among men!
Yes, I knew using such scary words would cause some confusion given your understanding of philosophy, which is why I was tactful enough to explain those words with much less fancy and easier to understand words. Fortunately, it seemed to work as it got you to at least attempt an ontological definition. This is a huge step forward vs the time I asked you to falsify yourself or the framework you were defending, which is now obvious that you didn't even understand how to. So let's look at how you grounded “good” and succeeded where no other utilitarian had done before!
Oh boy… Not a good start when you think defining the core of your argument is trivial. “Circles are the best shape.” “What's a circle?” ”Omg, shut up you idiot! Why would you ask something so trivial!? It sounds like you don't understand the mechanisms of the topic you're discussing!” 🤣😂 Doesn't get any better when your response to my request for you to anchor your utilitarian argument to ontology, is to completely abandon your framework and borrow the ontology from another one. Okay then, let's see how your naturalist ontology can work with utilitarian principles. Why? “All living beings seek to survive and not die.” Descriptively true, good job. “Anything that leads to the survival and not death of the being is therefore good.” This is your prescription which you assert as a description. That's your ought claim that you need to prove. Unless you're just planning on proving it by saying it's because of your preference again. 🤣
Unless their preference says otherwise right? Oops. Looks like the moment you admit your morality comes from preferences, then other people’s preferences are just as valid as yours. Like oh, I don't know, the freaking Aztecs you absolute imbecile. Talk about lack of self awareness.
Ah yes, the “bullshit” that is to get you to explain what you mean and why you mean it? 😂 Is it your preference that basic argument structure be considered bullshit? 🤣 So by having you demonstrate how arbitrary utilitarianism is by having you admit it relies on preferences, I didn't just demonstrate that any utilitarian can justify anything as long as it's their preference to do so? Bravo! Good job. You just came up with a definition that Mill himself wasn't arrogant enough overtly say. At least he was humble enough to know how stupid that sounded and was tactful enough to avoid overtly saying that by smuggling it in with his competent judges explanation. Then again it's your preference that I simply don't understand the mechanisms of the topic I'm discussing right lol? Just like it's your preference that you're good at making arguments? Or understanding philosophy? You're a joke.
That chapter felt like it was cut in half:l
soo short… (thats what she said)
Gms death is Almost
guaranteed at this point…anyone in this group could figure out that the rest are evil spirits, as well, by now…
The GM is threading on some dangerous waters asking about his relationship with Bjorn. I wouldn’t be surprised if he took that as a threat and killed him.