Would Jeremy Bentham support gay necrophiles molesting his corpse? Surely utilitarianism supports raping corpses because it gives positive hedonic points to necrophiles but doesn't really harm Bentham as a person.
>>25625050it could harm the future enjoyment of those who wanted to observe the cadaver without jizz stains on it, which could overrule the value gained from fucking it from the one necrophile
>>25625072The museum staff could clean it afterwards
>>25625075that would demand labor put towards undoing the sex of the one necrophile, which would be a waste of resources that could have been redirected to something with more value for the general public
>>25625076AI automation jizz cleaning robots solve this issue
>>25625078why put the effort into developing jizzcleaning robots when the value of not having the necrophile defile the corpse would be higher with better opportunity cost
>>25625050I'd like to harm Bentham as a person
>>25625079Why do you assume the necrophile will leave jizz stains on the auto-icon to begin with? You can molest someone in many ways without spilling semen on them
>>25625076You could get volunteers to do it or just mention the opportunity on the audio tour and leave out gauze pads and q tips or whatever.
Pretty good thread OP I appreciate knowing about this dead British economist with an ass made thirsty by dictate of philosophy.
>Bentham lived a highly structured and disciplined life, but he also exhibited eccentric behavior. He referred to his walking stick as "Dapple" and his cat as "The Reverend Sir John Langbourne." He had several infatuations with women, and wrote on sex,[126] but he never married.[127] Bentham's daily pattern was to rise at 6 am, walk for 2 hours or more, and then work until 4 pm.[128]
>>25625050I took that philosophy quiz in the other thread and it said my beliefs were most opposed to this Jeremy Bentham nigga's. I looked up what he believed and saw that he pretty much invented reddit ideology and was globohomo incarnate and felt pretty good ngl
>>25625112>An insight into Bentham's character is given in Michael St. John Packe's The Life of John Stuart Mill:>During his youthful visits to Bowood House, the country seat of his patron Lord Lansdowne, he had passed his time at falling unsuccessfully in love with all the ladies of the house, whom he courted with a clumsy jocularity, while playing chess with them or giving them lessons on the harpsichord. Hopeful to the last, at the age of eighty he wrote again to one of them, recalling to her memory the far-off days when she had "presented him, in ceremony, with the flower in the green lane" [citing Bentham's memoirs]. To the end of his life he could not hear of Bowood without tears swimming in his eyes, and he was forced to exclaim, "Take me forward, I entreat you, to the future—do not let me go back to the past."[129]Brutal
Has anyone here actually read Bentham?
https://incels.wiki/w/Jeremy_Bentham>Bentham's sexuality has been mythologized since his death, with Bentham commonly being depicted as an archetypal lonely genius who never interacted romantically with women. The prominent Victorian critic Sir Leslie Stephen encapsulated this view when he described Bentham as a lifelong celibate, writing that Bentham was "all his life both a philosopher and a child [...] he never talked to any woman except his cook and housemaid".>While Bentham may have been incelish throughout his life, there are scattered accounts of him engaging in relationships with women that may or may not have been explicitly sexual. Indeed, Bentham strongly tied in sexuality with his utilitarian ethics, writing many treatizes on sexuality that advocated a neo-epicurean viewpoint of maximizing sexual and material pleasures while minimizing the potential harms of these behaviors as the key to happiness. In several of these treatizes, Bentham describes a variety of sexual acts in explicit detail, which likely indicates some direct experience with sexual intercourse in the context of a period when pornography was much harder to come by.[3]>Bentham was an early advocate of certain aspects of sexual liberation, including decriminalizing homosexuality and many other (then) prohibited sexual acts, as long as they were consensual, though he expressed personal disgust at homosexual acts.[5][6] He did, however, view the enforcement of marriage as "the most important contract in law" and was a strong advocate of monogamy.
>>25625050>doesn't really harmHe'd be remembered as a fuck-corpse so it does harm.
>>25625129The average /lit/ user will read the Google AI summary of Bentham. Advanced bibliophile will skim his Wikipedia article. Patricians will check out Incel Wiki or, rarest of all, pretend to the Plato Stanford entry. But reading Bentham himself is too much effort for Internetbrained men.
>>25625146>pretend to thepretend to read* the
>>25625146what i'm getting here is that if I read all the standford phil entries i'll be the one psued to rule them all...
>>25625142It doesn't harm him directly because he's dead.This is like a counterpart to the "is a fetus a person?" problem. Is a corpse a person? Are fetushood and corpsehood components of a person's personhood? What is a person?
>>25625146>>25625129I have a three step process for reading philosophy.1) go to philosopher's Wikipedia page2) read first sentences of Early Life3) skim Personal Life section (and Controversies and Criticism, if available)
I am the true heir to Bentham because I actively advocate the policy that would actually maximize universal utility: once we have the technology, converting as much of the non-living matter of the universe as possible into as many artificial minds as possible, and engineering those minds specifically to constantly feel the maximum experience of pleasure possible, which they will never tire or bore of because they are engineered to not experience any form of boredom or dissatisfaction, every moment will be as rapturous as the first, and these minds will be maintained in this perfect state of pleasure until the heat death of the universe. This is unironically what humanity should direct all of its technological progress towards bringing about.
>>25625130So was Bentham a truecel or a fakecel?
>>25625233It's possible he had asked some sexhaver to describe to him what sex is like so that he could form a philosophical opinion on it. Just because he described the act of sex doesn't mean he had it himself
I think a man who never made love with a girl in his teens is worthless. You have no right to talk if you're missing something this raw and fundamental about life.
>>25625254I don't really feel like the same species as lovehavers honestly. Their experience of the world is so alien to me
>>25625151I tried that once but I got too bored on the first article already (Presocratics)
>>25625119Apparently him and I are both autistic but we have radically opposed views.
>>25625254Well that would logically follow if having sex whenever you felt like it was a choice for most men. Unfortunately consent is a thing and you can't just climb on some unfortunate woman and thrust your penis into her like a masturbation aid. A man can dream, though.
>>25625882A utopian society would be an AI simulation where other "humans" (realistic simulations) do not have agency or consent, thus making it possible to get a girlfriend without actually harming another person.
honestly he probably would unironacally
>My taxidermied corpse got molested recently.>I was pretty bummed out about it.>But I think whoever molested it was probably more happy to molest it than I am sad to have my corpse molested. The total happiness in the world increased.>So, whatever.
>>25625886Considering most women orgasm when raped it actually increases the overall pleasure of persons than selfishly hoarding an orgasm to yourself. So the greatest aggregate pleasure is achieved from orgies or gang rapes. More orgasms = more ethical.
>>25625941edging is better than getting off man i've been on an edging roll lately so close to busting for hours lmao i thought i was pro at gooning but now i hit a whole new level
>>25625945>edgingWhy are zoomers obsessed with giving themselves blue balls? Are you a masochist?
>>25625050You can instantly tell the value of a man’s philosophy by looking at what kinds of questions it can get you to ask.
Is it time to shit in Bentham again?
>>25625941They orgasm when chad rapes them though, not (You).Utilitarian utopia would be like high-end necrophilia since the AI simulated humans would also be unalive, much like corpses. However Marx would say this is "alienated sex" because if you're a fucking an AI simulation which can't consent it's different from the satisfaction which neurotypicals supposedly get when trying to obtain sex from a living human female via mating rituals
>>25625964God please kill me in my sleep tonight so that I never have to read anything like this post ever again until the end of time.
>>25625948>Why would the generation known for it's inability to stick things out or pay deep attention fetishize the feeling of withholding? IDK anon that's a tricky one.
>>25625954Okay, I write philosophy. I am the exact opposite of an antinatalist. If antinatalist philosophy purpose is to decrease suffering, by eliminating birth, what do you think the purpose and meaning of doing the opposite by breeding like reindeer does? Can increasing suffering turn pain into a virtue?
>>25625962I've had the same diagnosis for 36 years but our worldviews couldn't be further apart.
>>25625964I've had sex and romantic relationships with women in the despite all of this though.
>>25625954https://benthams.substack.com/p/insects-matter-more-than-people
>>25626029this guy is the bane of my existence. I'm subbed to him on substack but he pulls the wildest claims out of his ass. and if he's so inclined to think insects matter more than people why doesn't he bite the bullet and convert to Jainism?
>>25625160>It doesn't harm him directly because he's dead.It harms his memory and what he stood for so it arguably does harm him. Look at something like the ethics involved with cadaver farms (informed consent prior to death, anonymization and restricted access for privacy, etc). >This is like a counterpart to the "is a fetus a person?" problemThere's no problem. A fetus is a person and abortion is murder. >Are fetushood and corpsehood components of a person's personhood? Yes. You will one day be a corpse and it's up to you to make arrangements for your mortal remains. If you don't your loved ones will and if they don't the state will. >What is a person?Personhood isn't necessarily linked to inherent right to dignity so you're not going to get a definition that cleanly confirms your ethics by way of it.
