Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 86
This rather archaic, crude, and nonsensical philosophy, developed in the 19th century by Bentham, and refined a bit by Mill, arguably has no place in a modern, civilized nation, whether by the standards of law as articulated by Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Common law (and its acknowledgement of respect for individuals, families, property, and people at large) during that very century, let alone by the more evolved and enlightened standards of the 21st century.
Here are may of the reasons that this archaic and morally degenerate philosophy should be banned, perhaps even criminalized by the state as a "radical" and socially unacceptable view by the standards of any 1st world country:
1. Immorality, per the utilitarian philosophy, one could, of course justify or rationalize greater evils, archaism, primitivism, and so forth, many ideas, of course which would be entirely at odds with the Common Law system, or any of the thinking or educated men or women who make up a civilized society.
As an example, one could easily rationalize the outright extermination of homosexuals per this philosophy, if say, killing 100 gays saved 1,000 people from dying from aids, however even most idiotic and hypocritical adherents of this silly and primitive worldview would not, nor do not actually practice it in all of the radical and extreme conclusions which it could easily be taken to.
2. Anti-intellectualism - Favoring the "greatest number of people", over the superior and thinking men and women, who help make and preserve society, is patently anti-intellectual, on par with anarchy and mob rule.
It of course, goes without saying that men and women of superior morality, intelligence, creativity do more to make and keep society as what it is, than the "greatest number", who often exist or subsist in poverty, low-level morality, and anti-intellectual and creative sentiments.
The average person, of course has only a 100 IQ or a 6th grade reading level, in comparsion to a male or female scientist, entrepreneur, artists, high-ranking military serviceman, and so forth - so the idea that the "mob" and its degenerate tendencies should have, or be falsely pretended and purported to have an "equal" claim to anything at all, would merely bring about degeneracy, or devolution back to the primitive and archaic ways of a 3rd world country, entirely at odds with the Common Law system, and its philosophy of moral and intellectual hierarchy, one such as Holmes, himself a lawmaker, of course being a being of greater morality and willingness to make self-sacrifices and become the man and influencer that he was, being, of course comparatively superior to the baser, and lower level morality, character, work ethic, intellect, and creativity of the "masses" or the "average, something which more or less goes without saying to begin with.
3. Stupidity - typically the stupid nature of this philosophy is predicated simply on being an uneducated, uncreative, and immoral idiot, not acknowledging the simple reality of "cause and effect" in regards to any attempted policy proposal, much of which is likewise simply dated on archaic and antisocial "behaviorsm" and other outdated 19th century trends, which even for their time were archaic, silly, idiotic, and decrepit, by the standards again of superior legal and moral philosophical systems, such as the Common Law and its moral philosophy behind it, acknowledging realities or things such as passions, reasoning, intentions, and so forth playing a role in good or ill human behavior; archaic and simplistic behaviorism being merely the refuge of the primitive, archaic, and unlearned, as a low-level surrogate for superior moral and legal philosophy of the day and age, only relevant in the hands of the immoral or barely if not forcibly civilized, only obeying the law out of primitive and selfish fear of material punishment, as opposed to the higher level logic, philosophy, reasoning, intentions, and other concepts which better, more educated, and morally superior members of society such as Holmes himself, or as found in the moral philosophy of John Stuart Mill; or as likewise documented by psychologists such as Zimbardo, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which the less moral members of society were more likely to engage in immoral or criminal behavior if directed to by one posing as an "authority" figure, while those of superior morality, philosophy, character, or intentions were less likely to comply with such immoral and socially unaccatable acts due to their higher sense of morality and purpose, much akin to men (or women) like Holmes or Mill themselves, motivated by higher moral, rational, legal, and philosophical standards than lesser and selfisher men and women, unable to motivate themselves beyond the bare level of 'religion' or morality which the state rightfully imposes on those too weak, selfish, antisocial or morally and intellectually lacking to be self motivated to moral purposes an callings on their own accord as an individual and a citizen, than what they merely avoid doing out of fear of rightful punishment and correction by the state, as even one as interpersonally immoral as an intended murderer or or rapist might avoid doing were he to fear the death penalty, for example.
Let alone one too immoral or educated on the law(s) and societ(ies) they are a part of, to simply wish or want the law to serve or satiate a simple impulse or passion, rather than serve its rightful moral, ethical, or social purpose, being too heathen, immoral, and lacking basic etiquette, impulse control, manners, or even a rudimentary legal education to properly state, control, or constrain those feral and heathen impulses on their own accord, forced only into the bare and barely a minimum level of "civility" mandated by the might and force of the state, akin to a chained-up lion, rather than the pursuit of self-discipline, character, and superior and effectual self control or restraint as documented or understood by the superior members of society, such as again, Holmes, or Mill himself, who rightfully asserted that it is better to be a "man" (or woman) satisfied than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied, as is part of the intentional and rational motivations of the superior men and women demonstrating a higher and superior level of fluidity and adaptability to the superior aspects and elements of society and civilization, as opposed to those barely, and barely law-abiding immoral, if at all, who again lacking any morality, intellect, education, creativity, willpower or self-restraint of their own, are merely forced externally and out of selfish fear rather than morality into conformity to rule and law, something a superior man like Holmes himself, superiorily adapted and committed to civilization on his own accord and maturity unlike the heathen, the selfish, the impulsive, the deviant, and the underclass could or even would afford, or be able to afford on their own without the necessary imposition of and on behalf of their moral betters and superiors, male and female lawmakers and superior social influencers alike, whether Holmes or Victoria.
Here are may of the reasons that this archaic and morally degenerate philosophy should be banned, perhaps even criminalized by the state as a "radical" and socially unacceptable view by the standards of any 1st world country:
1. Immorality, per the utilitarian philosophy, one could, of course justify or rationalize greater evils, archaism, primitivism, and so forth, many ideas, of course which would be entirely at odds with the Common Law system, or any of the thinking or educated men or women who make up a civilized society.
As an example, one could easily rationalize the outright extermination of homosexuals per this philosophy, if say, killing 100 gays saved 1,000 people from dying from aids, however even most idiotic and hypocritical adherents of this silly and primitive worldview would not, nor do not actually practice it in all of the radical and extreme conclusions which it could easily be taken to.
2. Anti-intellectualism - Favoring the "greatest number of people", over the superior and thinking men and women, who help make and preserve society, is patently anti-intellectual, on par with anarchy and mob rule.
It of course, goes without saying that men and women of superior morality, intelligence, creativity do more to make and keep society as what it is, than the "greatest number", who often exist or subsist in poverty, low-level morality, and anti-intellectual and creative sentiments.
The average person, of course has only a 100 IQ or a 6th grade reading level, in comparsion to a male or female scientist, entrepreneur, artists, high-ranking military serviceman, and so forth - so the idea that the "mob" and its degenerate tendencies should have, or be falsely pretended and purported to have an "equal" claim to anything at all, would merely bring about degeneracy, or devolution back to the primitive and archaic ways of a 3rd world country, entirely at odds with the Common Law system, and its philosophy of moral and intellectual hierarchy, one such as Holmes, himself a lawmaker, of course being a being of greater morality and willingness to make self-sacrifices and become the man and influencer that he was, being, of course comparatively superior to the baser, and lower level morality, character, work ethic, intellect, and creativity of the "masses" or the "average, something which more or less goes without saying to begin with.
3. Stupidity - typically the stupid nature of this philosophy is predicated simply on being an uneducated, uncreative, and immoral idiot, not acknowledging the simple reality of "cause and effect" in regards to any attempted policy proposal, much of which is likewise simply dated on archaic and antisocial "behaviorsm" and other outdated 19th century trends, which even for their time were archaic, silly, idiotic, and decrepit, by the standards again of superior legal and moral philosophical systems, such as the Common Law and its moral philosophy behind it, acknowledging realities or things such as passions, reasoning, intentions, and so forth playing a role in good or ill human behavior; archaic and simplistic behaviorism being merely the refuge of the primitive, archaic, and unlearned, as a low-level surrogate for superior moral and legal philosophy of the day and age, only relevant in the hands of the immoral or barely if not forcibly civilized, only obeying the law out of primitive and selfish fear of material punishment, as opposed to the higher level logic, philosophy, reasoning, intentions, and other concepts which better, more educated, and morally superior members of society such as Holmes himself, or as found in the moral philosophy of John Stuart Mill; or as likewise documented by psychologists such as Zimbardo, in the Stanford Prison Experiment, in which the less moral members of society were more likely to engage in immoral or criminal behavior if directed to by one posing as an "authority" figure, while those of superior morality, philosophy, character, or intentions were less likely to comply with such immoral and socially unaccatable acts due to their higher sense of morality and purpose, much akin to men (or women) like Holmes or Mill themselves, motivated by higher moral, rational, legal, and philosophical standards than lesser and selfisher men and women, unable to motivate themselves beyond the bare level of 'religion' or morality which the state rightfully imposes on those too weak, selfish, antisocial or morally and intellectually lacking to be self motivated to moral purposes an callings on their own accord as an individual and a citizen, than what they merely avoid doing out of fear of rightful punishment and correction by the state, as even one as interpersonally immoral as an intended murderer or or rapist might avoid doing were he to fear the death penalty, for example.
Let alone one too immoral or educated on the law(s) and societ(ies) they are a part of, to simply wish or want the law to serve or satiate a simple impulse or passion, rather than serve its rightful moral, ethical, or social purpose, being too heathen, immoral, and lacking basic etiquette, impulse control, manners, or even a rudimentary legal education to properly state, control, or constrain those feral and heathen impulses on their own accord, forced only into the bare and barely a minimum level of "civility" mandated by the might and force of the state, akin to a chained-up lion, rather than the pursuit of self-discipline, character, and superior and effectual self control or restraint as documented or understood by the superior members of society, such as again, Holmes, or Mill himself, who rightfully asserted that it is better to be a "man" (or woman) satisfied than a "pig" or "beast" satisfied, as is part of the intentional and rational motivations of the superior men and women demonstrating a higher and superior level of fluidity and adaptability to the superior aspects and elements of society and civilization, as opposed to those barely, and barely law-abiding immoral, if at all, who again lacking any morality, intellect, education, creativity, willpower or self-restraint of their own, are merely forced externally and out of selfish fear rather than morality into conformity to rule and law, something a superior man like Holmes himself, superiorily adapted and committed to civilization on his own accord and maturity unlike the heathen, the selfish, the impulsive, the deviant, and the underclass could or even would afford, or be able to afford on their own without the necessary imposition of and on behalf of their moral betters and superiors, male and female lawmakers and superior social influencers alike, whether Holmes or Victoria.
Last edited:
