The English utilitarians of the past saw good in benefit and happiness, and evil in harm and suffering. It would seem that it is. Doesn't good bring pleasure, and evil brings suffering? But the ancient sages already sensed something was wrong here.
First, if the good is in enjoyment, then why does the pursuit of pleasure, whether it be food, wine, wealth or power, lead to suffering from satiety and from other people's insults? It turns out, on the contrary, that the good lies in abstinence, in the suppression of the flesh, of human nature. Epicurus and Aristotle already see happiness in a special kind of enjoyment — spiritual, and the Stoics and Christians opposed happiness to pleasure, hedonism turned into asceticism.
Secondly, if there is good in following human nature, then why does it lead to discord between people, even to antagonism, when good for one person is evil for another? What if the robber got more benefit from the stolen item than its owner could have gotten? What's the use of her money to a naughty old woman? That's how Raskolnikov reasoned. And yet, as a student, he needs them for his studies and socially useful work. It turns out that if it's profitable, then you can be dishonest? But if a human good can be evil to another, then what is the nature of man? Is man inherently good or evil?
The original utilitarianism, starting with Hobbes and La Rochefoucauld, was misanthropic: people are egoists by nature, and the state itself is only a "social contract" concluded for the sake of self—preservation from this "natural" "war of all against all." The enlighteners took a step forward, realizing the need for social transformations to resolve moral antagonisms: if the basis of human behavior is the pursuit of one's own pleasure, then such arrangements are necessary so that private interest coincides with general interest. Here is the idea that inspires the treatises of Helvetius "On the mind" and "On Man." French educators hoped that such social harmony would be established by the monarch.
However, reason remained the lever of all transformations for the enlighteners, and the resolution of contradictions was not real, but ideal: their "natural man" meant either a revolutionary who destroyed all contradictions, or a bourgeois who avoided all contradictions. By taking care of his own power and profit, and at the same time giving others jobs and useful goods, he acts as a benefactor to the whole society.
The practice of the society has dispelled illusions about the coming social harmony. The philosophers of the German burghers sobered up earlier than others, vegetating under the heel of their princes and kings and deprived of the rosy dreams of enlighteners. Vice triumphs in life, and virtue is humiliated. In short, morality does not correspond to either nature or happiness, either personal or general. Watch USA online porn https://mat6tube.com teens, milfs, matures!
First, if the good is in enjoyment, then why does the pursuit of pleasure, whether it be food, wine, wealth or power, lead to suffering from satiety and from other people's insults? It turns out, on the contrary, that the good lies in abstinence, in the suppression of the flesh, of human nature. Epicurus and Aristotle already see happiness in a special kind of enjoyment — spiritual, and the Stoics and Christians opposed happiness to pleasure, hedonism turned into asceticism.
Secondly, if there is good in following human nature, then why does it lead to discord between people, even to antagonism, when good for one person is evil for another? What if the robber got more benefit from the stolen item than its owner could have gotten? What's the use of her money to a naughty old woman? That's how Raskolnikov reasoned. And yet, as a student, he needs them for his studies and socially useful work. It turns out that if it's profitable, then you can be dishonest? But if a human good can be evil to another, then what is the nature of man? Is man inherently good or evil?
The original utilitarianism, starting with Hobbes and La Rochefoucauld, was misanthropic: people are egoists by nature, and the state itself is only a "social contract" concluded for the sake of self—preservation from this "natural" "war of all against all." The enlighteners took a step forward, realizing the need for social transformations to resolve moral antagonisms: if the basis of human behavior is the pursuit of one's own pleasure, then such arrangements are necessary so that private interest coincides with general interest. Here is the idea that inspires the treatises of Helvetius "On the mind" and "On Man." French educators hoped that such social harmony would be established by the monarch.
However, reason remained the lever of all transformations for the enlighteners, and the resolution of contradictions was not real, but ideal: their "natural man" meant either a revolutionary who destroyed all contradictions, or a bourgeois who avoided all contradictions. By taking care of his own power and profit, and at the same time giving others jobs and useful goods, he acts as a benefactor to the whole society.
The practice of the society has dispelled illusions about the coming social harmony. The philosophers of the German burghers sobered up earlier than others, vegetating under the heel of their princes and kings and deprived of the rosy dreams of enlighteners. Vice triumphs in life, and virtue is humiliated. In short, morality does not correspond to either nature or happiness, either personal or general. Watch USA online porn https://mat6tube.com teens, milfs, matures!