Monday, September 28, 2015

Something Out of the Ordinary

I usually write about philosophy and post my essays here but I thought I'd make a quick post on video games, in-part since I've already inserted the genre to my blog through bragging/reviewing the retro video games I'd beat over the summer.

The following is a link to two gents discussing a new atrocious console idea that is essentially scamming people for money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPn7r3tg8I8

First-off, the Retron V already exists.  Which plays retro carts which I already thought was a dumb idea since 80's-early 90's consoles you can emulate incredibly easily and play either on your PC or display on your TV.  What I think someone should do is make a retro CD based console that plays the majority of mid 90's-early 00's consoles.  Though I'm not sure of the hardware difficulties and the licensing fees from Sega and Sony as well as potentially others.  Emulating more advanced console's games is more complicated and it requires a more state-of-the-art computer to emulate them well.  Also they would be much easier to universalize because the Sega Saturn, Dreamcast, PSOne, PSTwo, 3DO and Xbox (and the CD-i if you want to include that piece of shit) all played games on CDs obviously.

This retro console idea is ob-veeh-s-lee terrible.  People can easily download retro games both new and old from various sources online.  Not only is it a turd of an idea, but it's being executed in a immoral fashion which the podcasters go into.  I don't know a lot about these people or their politics and ethics, but it seems like they're capitalists and egoists who realize they cannot make a profit making anything good so instead they've decided to dupe how many suckers they can.

And quickly, another advantage of my console idea is the controllers for most of those consoles had very comparable controllers.  So figuring out how to map all the different console's games onto one universal controller wouldn't be hard at-all.  I think the main reason why they don't do this is because Sony and Microsoft would sue them up the ass; particularly Sony because to my knowledge they allow PS3 and 4 owners to download old games for the PSOne, so like Nintendo making it hard to pirate Super Mario Bros they care about protecting their investment. 

Though I think it would be a shame for it to not be all it could, maybe Sega should just make a console that plays Sega CD (if they can get around the CD requiring the genesis which I suppose they could) Saturn and Dreamcast games.  The Dreamcast had pretty good technical specs on it, so they could even make new games for their new console which would be cheaper than a modern console and would look around the level of early 00's consoles in general.  Which I think would be sufficient because this was the time when 3-D games could be rendered fairly well.  Not only this, but I consider the PS2, Gamecube, Xbox the Golden Age of gaming because it was when the graphics were decent but not overly polished and everything wasn't consumed by updates and online gameplay.  That's why I was actually considering buying a PS2 or Xbox for a while even though I don't have a TV.

Is Humanity a Giant Game of Peek-a-Boo?

Might have a larger paper on the way shortly; but as for now I'll give you something quick that I think I may have stated in another essay and I'm fairly certain is implicit in some of my previous works (sure, let's call them works):

I think the notion that irritates and frustrates me the most, the notion that gives me the greatest sense of moral outrage is ignorance is bliss.  It's essentially the notion that if you're unaware of something it cannot hurt you - a notion that most individuals lose by I believe the age of three or four but as a species we've retained to a astonishing degree.

It's tragic and horrific for various reasons, the main I think being that it betrays and completely mutilates the notion of virtue ethics where there is great value and even joy in knowing what's going on in the world - and through our knowledge the ability to fix the problem.

If I have a shotgun held to your head, and tell you that in several moments I'll execute you; but, if you'd like I can rewind this scenario and hold the shotgun behind your head and blow it off before you're any the wiser would you choose the latter?  Would it make much of a difference?  The idea of ignorance being bliss is the sickly concept that it's far better, to be executed without knowing than to understand and accept one's fate.  Not only that, but if you see me with the shotgun you can do something about it. You can't do jack shit if you don't know the shotgun's there.

Overall I think this might be one of the major problems in the human condition.  I won't say this definitively, it's just a feeling I have right now.  I need to reflect on it some more.  And you see, by being aware of the human condition, and endeavoring to know more about it, I can make decisions that I can or cannot base my life on.  I can know something, potentially be wise, and live a fruitful and meaningful life that's full of at-least the illusion of alternatives and informed choices, when a life of ignorance is a narrow one that not only lead's to bad decisions that inflict pain on the self and others, but disallows us from correcting horrendous mistakes and problems by making us unaware that they are there.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

On Self Pleasure, Egoism, and Rebuilding the World We Had as Children

 
The stigma in society towards masturbation reflects the egoism of society and the majority of human’s capacity to behave unethically towards their fellow human beings if it favors procreation.  In society, despite the waning of religion’s influence, there is still a sense of shamefulness attributed to masturbation.  It is deemed a “last resort” of the socially inept when in all honestly it not only is a far-more reliable form of pleasure, but I find it to be more pleasurable once the egotistical gratification of sex is removed.
 Ignoring the aspect of pleasure from sex, reinforcing the Ego and the notion of sentimental bonds between lovers are the main psychological reinforcers of sex.  If anything, focus on sexual activity diminishes one’s appreciation and understanding of a partner or any human being as a human being.   Instead, they are seen as a commodity to be purchased through so much labor invested in something.  Or at-least this trial of “putting up” with what women want is the sacrifice men must go through to procure sex.   Obviously these difficulties exist seldom for most women.   Seeing that the romantic element of sex is not only invalid but not as common a motivator as stimulating the Ego, I will be focusing on this in my analysis of sex and societies perception towards self-pleasuring.
When one has sex, it is deemed a conquest, a triumph, something to gloat and bolster and brag about with one’s fellows.  It is a reinforcement of the Will to Life that Schopenhauer speaks of.  Or rather, it is a necessary psychological component that assures the reproduction of the species once pure lust fails.  I would posit that pure lust is hardly ever the reason why people enter into sexual communion.  Lust is combined with psychological longing for acceptance and feeling of validity and importance.  People crave to be wanted in the most primal and absolute way.  Sexual union is a façade of being accepted in this “absolute” way for many if not most people.  It is a façade because one can never truly know a person’s motives for sex with another individual, and also that person is having sex largely to be deemed wanted just as the other individual is.  Both are in-a-sense in their own separate Universes, both in ecastasy over the false proposition that someone has peered into their own realm and deemed it hospitable and pleasant. 
This is in a way much like a market transaction though the pretension is far-more superficial and easy to see through, largely because it doesn’t play into a fundamental psychological impulse the way the illusion of love does.   What I speak of is in today’s society there is much false kindness and repeated phrases of warmth and courtesy that is seldom meant by the individuals – and all for profits for the capitalist.  We all know (especially when the employee is told idiotically to repeat the same phrase ad infinitum) that most of the people who smile and feign some level of interest or generosity are being insincere, but it still has some effect on people because though we know it lacks authenticity our Ego’s are stroked through one person acting in a way that makes us feel valued and cherished in another’s eye.
This largely is likely due-to the sharp contrast between the environment of the child’s home and the world in which the adult lives in.  The child is (if he or she is fortunate at-least in some ways) loved and taken care of by the parents.  Not only is he assured material resource for his development, but more importantly he is given the impression that his life is of consequence to other human beings.  He matters to someone else, which usually is enough for most people to not experience the notion that we live in a Universe devoid of concern or sympathy for human life.  Not only the child is loved and nurtured in the home, but in school by the teacher and by members of the community to a lesser degree as well.  This concept of the material nature of the child, that the child must be raised and loved for its intellectual and moral development is something of obvious existence in our society, and yet as we grow older bourgeois society tells us we are “radically free” and that instead of being loved we should endeavor to be highly-esteemed in a hierchical fashion – a component of which is being desirable over others leading me back to my original point.
Instead of being part of a family that is interdependent, the health of one being essential for the health and happiness of the other, we are told we must be part of a free-market capitalist system that glorifies selfishness, Egoism and self-reliance (at-least for the working class; obviously the capitalist is reliant on them for their profits, but yet he is glorified as the self-made man).  Instead of being a being that has a material nature that must be respected and deemed the author of one’s actions, one is deemed to be “responsible” for one’s action simply because one is older and is in theory capable of higher levels of reasoning and self-regulation!  But if this were the case, if one could reason highly, one would.  If one can typically but didn’t at a certain given time than at that moment he was as he was and couldn’t have been otherwise.  This fundamental truth is perhaps one of the most important facts of all reality.  If people truly applied it across the board than almost all social problems (combined with modern empirical data – though it has great utility on its own) would vanish given merely time.  An adult is merely the child as grown man or woman.  There is no magical transformation from social-material creature into independent-autonomous creature.  Political autonomy in the form of Civic Libertarianism can exist, but this is only what a man says or thinks in terms of abstract ability, it has very-little if anything to do with practical or actual ability and capacity.  That is, the distinction between Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty, or between theoretical potentiality and demonstrated and applied actuality.
Though physical masturbation is deemed “pathetic” and shameful, psychological masturbation is glorified and is a keystone of the human psyche.  Donald Trump (who I feel I shouldn’t plague this essay with the mentioning of) and his celebrity is a key example of this.  What other species throughout all existence has more hubris or Ego than that of Man?  Believing at one point to be the center of all existence, to be made in the Creator’s image, to be able to do whatever benefits him or her and do as he or she sees fit regardless of the consequences or aims of other human beings or the consequences of other non-human life.  Yet when we are savaged, when injustice falls upon us we cry and squeal of for the wrong to be righted, for the existence of a categorical imperative or universal maxim that should apply to all – and that no one is spared from the dictates of morality!  What a laughable farce are our lives and conceptions!  It almost seems at times we are the play things of a malevolent deity, who loves to give people hope and bury it, and licks his lips giving human beings at-least some degree of moral knowledge, yet doesn’t give most the proper biological and psychological motivators (that is such motivators are buried over stronger more egotistical ones) to perform what he or she knows in their hearts (for most, some really have lost the way and are fundamentally unethical psychologically) is correct.  I posit that many throughout every epoch throughout human history, on some level knew the horrors they committed were wrong, though they stated the rationales for moral and physical atrocity and for many on some level believed them.  This is why many Nazi officers who ran death camps became alcoholics and developed severe psychological problems.  Though not likely all but almost definitely some of the moral truths of our reality are imprinted on the genes of Man.  When we betray what we know to be our higher nature we suffer and degenerate into a lower state.  Many who owned slaves I’m sure did state that slavery is deemed permissible in the Bible, and some may have referred to the pseudo-science of their day; but I would still claim that many if not most were burdened with the sub-conscious realization that they are damning another human being to undeserved and unrequested toil, suffering and deprivation of the higher aspects of their nature as human beings.  Despite their luxurious life styles the capitalists (the great immoralists of the modern age) very likely feel the same sufferings that they mask with drugs; drugs and hedonistic frivolities that are superficially perceived as simply superficial endeavors, but any astute psycho-analyst, or any man that has been in such a state knows the reality of self-medicating.
Life is tragic and short.  It requires moral virtue to be truly content in a substantive and reliable way but this often isn’t enough.  Society both in their perceptions and in their actions towards us can weaken the resolve of even the virtuous man and of course can put someone on the wrong path and follow pleasure over virtue or greed and egoism over compassion and selflessness.  The hardest thing, perhaps, at-least at-times for a human being on average to do is to truly see another human being as they see themselves and as what they are.  We both rank others for our own benefit in a system that does not benefit us and rank ourselves in society to our own dismay and psychological destruction.  If we are to truly live in a virtuous society, a society where we are all loved, we must focus on moral egalitarianism not egoist hierarchies.  This can only come about through a combination of the material and psychological conditions throughout various people.  We will likely never see it as long as the human race exists, which is why I argue that if anything (at-least anything of any significance) should exist at-all it should be artificially designed sentient entities without the irreparable flaws of our biology.  Likely these entities would be both far-more joyous and far-more efficient to create if they inhabited a “matrix” or false reality.  Leading us to the conclusion of pessimism, or that a fundamentally just and good existence cannot exist – for anyone for any significant length of time.
But, though I have stated my held conclusion of good’s fundamental futility over evil (the main sources of which at-least today are egoism and apathy to other’s suffering) I would like to end this on a note of potential and possibility rather than fatalism and futility.  All human beings at-least potentially can be radically-so sources of good in this life; the most important element is state-of-mind.  More specifically the phenomenogical state of endless compassion and sympathy for all life, and seeing entities as things which truly exist in their own right and are not merely tools for our gratification. It is true this is much like the “Good will” aspect of Kantian ethics, and though there is certainly wisdom possessed here, I would like to quickly clarify that this radical shift in mind is of great importance only because of the effects it brings to our fellow sufferers and ourselves.
Radically altering society is the only hope for both our species and for all individual people’s lives and potential.  This cannot be done as the political propagandists posit however.  With well-reasoned arguments for Socialism, universal justice and fraternity.  Instead, Socialism must come about through (at-least at-first) the simple act of introducing the compassionate and endearing state of mind on all things capable of suffering.  There are endless arguments for Socialism over Capitalism but reason is almost entirely futile for most people in motivating their actions. Instead of teaching people to follow a cause outside themselves, we must reacquaint them with their true inner moral force and the feelings of tenderness and compassion that the ugliness and harshness of both capitalist ideologies conditions and propaganda have alienated them from.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

I Could've...

I could've been born a slave.
I could've been born a beggar.
I could've been born a fifteenth century peasant.
I could've been born an idiot of the twentieth century.
I could've been born without legs.
I could've been born with my heart outside my chest.
I could've been born a frog or dog or alligator.
Or an alien on another world.
 
I could've been born another plain dullard whose life is another number.
I could've been born a lot of things but I wasn't any of them which I'm not.
Or wasn't.
Or will never be.
All I will ever be is what I was, am and will be.
I don't know who I'll be tomorrow, and I can't even remember with clarity who I was.
I'm not even entirely sure who I am.

But here are a few.
I'm an egotistical anti-egoist.
Someone who realizes he has a moral duty that he falls short of every day.
Someone who takes walks at 4 AM.
And thanks whatever attributable that I'm not some average person in there beds asleep.
Only to arise to their waking sleep and go to their jobs and back home to their wives.
All trapped in their meaningless empty shell of lives.
Someone who feels that though life has not "purpose" that he was born capable truly of having a life of greatness and meaning and beauty.

See what I mean about being egotistical?

I'll really miss the empty streets of my small town at night.  But all things have to change.  And I know I need to fulfill my potential elsewhere.  Most of the people here are dead.  Though I'm not sure if it's any different anywhere else.  We'll just have to wait and see.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Chinese food and Nintendo

I love life.  Yes it sucks, but that doesn't mean there isn't tremendous beauty and greatness capable in life.  I would much rather be someone who feels all the summits and precipices of life than some common dull soul who lives life as a automaton.  And not matter how egotistical it sounds, I wouldn't rather be anyone else but me, and I wouldn't want to live life as anyone but me.  I'm born as I am, faults and all, and I live my life authentically and comprehensively feasting on the whole course of life while most people are feasting on the croutons leaving the restaurant before they even get to the good stuff.

Not much else.  Just in love with existence and appreciating this life, whether or not it's better to never have been born. 

Might have some goodies around the corner.  So next time I honk my horn get in my van.

Sunday, September 13, 2015

Back to School

Yep.  The party's over.  But who knows, maybe a whole new party's beginning?  Not a whole lot going on with me lately.  My computer wouldn't work from Tuesday to late Thursday.  It was very irritating but it's behind me.  Maybe that's why I slacked both Friday and Saturday.  Don't have a lot to do besides reading and doing some answers for my Phil Business class.  I have to read Friedman.  At-least its not Ayn Rand.  And then I can finally put the Right-wing Libertarians behind me since I'll probably never read Nozick or Hayek.  I've been procrastinating somewhat, binge-watching Louie. 

Felt kind of listless yesterday and somewhat today.  I should improve my diet but who knows if will or not.

Alright.  That's it.  Shows over.  You can stay if you want but there won't be anything to watch.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

On the Purpose of Ethics, Rights and General Functioning



EDIT:  This is something I wrote approx. three months ago. It was going to be a part of a grander essay that I've decided not to pursue further - at-least for now.  What is in this paper I consider overall obvious, and what I was going to follow it up with is questionable. It essentially would be comparing Mill with Aristotle, and asking whether both or only Mill as a Utilitarian would advise going into Nozick's Experience Machine, where one enters a fictional perfect world.  I decided against writing it because the question seems to have no answer.  Virtue Ethics proposes that to be virtuous is to be happy, and long-term happiness (or flourishing) is impossible without virtue.  We're virtuous to be happy, but to be happy they claim we need things like intellectual honesty.  But, one could argue one is escaping their moral responsibilities and not being virtuous by entering the Experience Machine.  Virtue Ethicists as in-some-sense Psychological Egoists (they argue for V.E. because its beneficial for you, as well as others) would advise to both go in the machine and not do so; to do so would be to be happy, but to do so would also to allow one's body to wither and not be practicing virtue, which they regard as equivalent to happiness.  So if anything, it merely shows that when we're dealing with the concept of leaving reality, virtue ethics loses its validity.
I hope you enjoy.

Utilitarianism is a philosophy that contends that the only thing valuable “in-itself” is pleasant phenomenological states of being.  Because human beings are material creatures, and are endowed with reason, they are capable to study the human animal and his environment to create an environment and being (for human beings are quite malleable and are largely products of their environment) that will live a long, healthy life filled with the intellectual and psychological capacity to both create for others and experience themselves many pleasant states of existence.  Most of the reasoning and actions required to create this “enlightened” and prosperous state of existence have nothing to do with “ethics” (e.g. being nice to people, don’t steal, don’t kill etc.) as conventionally understood by society, and instead, are merely the results of benign activities of men such as plumbing, electricians, computer repairmen and the scientists and inventors who created and advanced the fields of plumbing, the fields of physics broadly and specific trades relating to wiring among others and computers to name merely a few.  It is the stance of the Utilitarian that though these actions are not viewed as “ethical acts” (e.g. feeding the homeless, volunteering at the Humane Society, or for some going to Church etc.) it is these acts combined with the acts necessary to create the political system that would enact and enforce the smooth transference of knowledge into action (the only thing that must go about uninhibited in the Utilitarian philosophy) to create that greatest-of-societies, where reason and knowledge are implemented to the benefit of all affected.
I will now flesh out the Utilitarian’s project as I see it, conflicts ‘tween Utilitarianism and Classical Liberalism and finally a brief note regarding Hedonism and philosophies compatible with Utilitarianism.
Thesis I:  Utilitarianism has the ultimate aim be the greatest “good” for all.  However, it is morally acceptable (even required) for us to establish momentary “end-goals” of utility due to the transitory nature of time and human beings among other things.
One may ask how we can accomplish the “utilitarian project” of the greatest good for the greatest number (details of which I shall elaborate on later)?  Is this project not utopian, fantastic and incredible if ever such words to be used regarding earthly affairs?  If we are to attempt to achieve this project “directly” yes, it surely is. However, it stands to reason that we have had material and therefore all forms of improvement (e.g. psychological, moral, intellectual, aesthetic etc.) over a given period of time.  And that certainly further improvements are possible and desperately needed for many.  Therefore, it stands to reason that we can work towards the fulfillment of the “utilitarian project” simply by taking rather meager and simple (but in some ways drastic from the present course) steps in the right direction towards greater levels of human activity and living. 
These are what I have labeled “end-states.”  A logical marker in the broader utilitarian project for a given area of human life (e.g. education, health care, fungus removal, etc) or a given geographic region (typically country due-to the nature of laws and the cultural borders established in-part by national borders).  Though many have not gained the enlightenment of the Utilitarian philosophy in their steps (that is, they act solely for themselves – Hedonism – or for some supposed higher purpose than the greatest good for all that is possible – such as for God, Government, or other things which people have struggled for as fundamentals) everyone on the planet does this in-effect by things they call “goals.”  No one (not even Nihilists) conscious is without a type of goal or intention of some kind or another; most do not follow their “true” earnest goal (their dream) however because they deem it impossible, improbable, they are afraid of failure or they have been conditioned by bourgeois society to be content with “material” fulfillment (which no human being naturally craves first-and-foremost).
Thesis II:  Utilitarianism views actions as a type of “moral revenue” and psychological aspects of morality as simply “moral resource” to “purchase” an overall enjoyable situation for humans.
However, in detail this involves a deep and complicated chain of values where food, for example, is valued for it is both a requirement for human sustenance and survival and because it (if the food is savory) brings momentary states of joy which are to be valued in-themselves.  This is where we would do the calculation of a Epicurean and weigh the momentary satisfaction of a large and greasy feast with both the short-lived pain of eating something awful (but delicious) and the long-term medical ailments that could be brought about by consistent consumption of the morsels of a fast-food giant.  Though Epicurus focused on the increase of individual pleasure (and decrease of pain of course as a Negative Hedonist) the fundamental aspect and philosophical accomplishment here is viewing our actions and morality itself as a type of “tool” or guide to create a better future for others.  It is fundamentally empirical and based on sensation rather than the notion of Self. 
This is to be in contradiction against a Liberal (Libertarian) notions of ethics.  According to a strict Individualist, Negative-Liberty approach to ethics, there is nothing unethical in harm to one’s body for one is not applying force to anyone.  In this approach, human beings are always “ends in themselves” and morality is a matter of absolutes (whether the “self” feels penetrated and one’s rights infringed upon) rather than empirical calculations.  But I’ll be going into further detail on this distinction later-on.
Many things are to be valued in a Utilitarian system, for many things (many of which we don’t give presence of mind to and shouldn’t give presence of mind to – such as cellular activity – unless it is necessary to sustain health or itself creates a euphoric, serene or otherwise pleasant or “healthy”- something that creates either more joy or the capacity for more joy – sensation or conditions) are necessary for the organism of Man to live well and reach his highest-most potential and by doing so continue both his joys and the material conditions of others lives and loves (potentially for eternity if Man mastered space-travel and cosmic colonization).  Many “material” conditions such as education, friends, shelter, healthy psychology and many, many others are necessary, however, if the Utilitarian philosophy is to claim the only thing valuable in-itself is “enjoyment” largely speaking, and that all things are to be deemed tools, instruments or resources to bringing about the best possible state-for-all, then freedom, knowledge, self, familial bond, rights, personal achievement and all other things we both intuitively and through cultural absorption value fundamentally psychologically must be deemed as tools and things we do not fundamentally value in-themselves.  This, above all other things, is the bold and definitive statement of the Utilitarian philosophy.
Thesis III:  All moral sentiments (liberty, religion, etc) are therefore merely factors in the U.C. and should not be deemed as “fundamentals” or valued in themselves.
Mill is great in showing how “Liberal values” of valuing freedom over tradition and freedom-of-thought over faith and religion work well under a Utilitarian framework.  However, he does not I feel state clearly and instead runs away from the bold declaration that though Utilitarianism typically value “Liberal values” it is incompatible with Classical European and American traditions of Liberalism through not viewing freedom as “fundamental” or something that is a “good” or “right” in itself.  There needs to be a clear distinction here between insane hypotheticals and reality. 
Often people, either not wishing to have a serious intellectual discussion or not being capable of doing so say, “so, if it would make everyone – asides from one – in the world happy you would rape and murder a little girl?”  Or, “if it made everyone in the world prosperous and overjoyed you’d chop off everyone’s arms and legs?”  And to answer their bizarre query, in a word:  yes. If the impossible suddenly became possible, and the laws of human psychology, biology, physics and the basic mechanics and demands of human beings suddenly were altered so radically it would put every episode The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits to shame, and people could in-deed live well, nay, even better by being quadriplegic, then as long as you agree subjective states are all that matter fundamentally, then grabbing the axe would be the moral thing to do – if this were the case.
Also, there is another radical distinction to be made, and it involves volition and consent.  Those who are functioning off a fundamentally Liberal view of ethics and view maintaining rights (whether positive, negative or both – though positive rights typically have a utilitarian argument for them) is fundamental might criticize that we would ban drugs and put a man in jail (taking away his freedom and ruining his life) for doing cocaine. But following the verdicts of empirical reality this is not so. Though drugs (including legal ones such as alcohol and tobacco) are harmful to the body and mind, Progressives realize that it is far-more harmful to both A) deprive a man of freedom and put him in a cage for doing as he pleases and B) create a State where there is such hostilities, tensions and mistrust ‘tween Man and Government because of ludicrous laws that dictate behavior.
With that being said, there is a question of possibility that must be raised.  I mentioned how a “true” Utilitarian would be against the making illegal of drugs based on the harmful effects to many individuals it would bring (and to society as a whole).  However, if we could wipe out poppy fields and remove the access to or even knowledge of heroin, or go in a time machine and prevent the Abrahamic faiths from ever starting, this would be a fundamentally different action than banning Christianity, Judaism and Islam which would be a crime both on Liberal and Utilitarian grounds.
This highlights a fundamental truth of political psychology; namely that both Progressives and Conservatives are a mix bag of Utilitarian and Liberal (or Libertarian to use the more modern American term) and both are unable to be logically consistent with the grounding of their political notions.  This is ultimately due-to something that Hume points out:  human beings fundamentally are (particularly when they do not receive an adequate education) beings of sentiment who use whatever limited reasoning capacity they have to argue for their cause (e.g. God, personal freedom from varying perspectives, lower taxes, higher taxes, less business regulations, more social regulations of behavior, less regulation of private conduct, more regulation of economy and resource, etc) and completely ignore or quickly rationalize away any arguments or data against their political or religious creed.
That being said, I believe there is utility in quickly expressing just how much freedom is brought to us via a Utilitarian framework despite the fact that it boldly rejects fundamental freedoms and rights.  Essentially all the freedoms of our Liberal Democratic tradition would be retained routinely (but not indefinitely and not of course as absolute) and we would have far more.  The right to work for example, would be a no-brainer utilizing the Utilitarian Calculus.  Only the stupidities of Capitalism would allow a minority of individuals to reap in billions off the labor of others (essentially indirect slavery) while billions starve, live in poverty, and work meaningless jobs (if they’re lucky) that exercise little to no virtue.
It could even be said that Social Anarchism could be founded (perhaps even be argued it is founded, but I won’t make that argument here) entirely on Utilitarian principles.  For Anarchy does not mean “no rules” as most Americans being ignorant of Political philosophy believe it does.  Instead, it is simply an non-hierarchical social construct typically based either loosely or absolutely on the Non-Aggression Principle and Communitarian principles in-regards to Social Anarchism. 
Clearly crimes must be deterred, but this is actually what makes Anarchism and Utilitarianism so compatible. Evidence shows the most effective way to prevent murder or to prevent people from doing dope is not making it against the law or putting someone to death.  It is to increase the material conditions and nature of everyone in society using the benign secular tools to create a Utopia that I mentioned earlier.  One of the most significant applications of said “tools” being giving every man, woman and child the actual opportunity and ability to pursue and become their best selves (i.e. positive liberty).  Straying from Neo-liberal economic models and Capitalism in-general, both Utilitarianism (not by definition, but typically, considering it is directly attached to Empiricism and social health) and Social Anarchism understand that Man is a mechanism or a material thing in whole, and functions poorly or well based on the material variables around and within it.
Clarification – ‘tween Hedonism and Utilitarianism and why Negative Utilitarianism is necessary for “Positive Utilitarianism.”
Before I end this paper, I deem it necessary to give a few final details to prevent the crime of vagueness and the gift of briefness.  More specifically to distinguish Hedonism from Utilitarianism and explain why Negative Utilitarianism is necessary for a truly ethical and humane system.
Though the two at-times are coupled together, in some regards I cannot find two more antithetical philosophies.  If there is one overwhelming and obvious aspect to Utilitarianism as I described it, I think it would be clear to the reader that it is a social and sober philosophy that wishes to maximize the well-being of society collectively.  Hedonism however is more a type of personal philosophy along the lines of Egoism that claims what is good, or rather what one should pursue, individually is one’s own base individual pleasures and well-being.  Even if such is not the case in-regards to the history of philosophy, for the purposes of linguistic practicality, there must be a divide between selfish pursuits of pleasure and collective endeavors for flourishing of being, as-to raise human potential, as-to create higher and more reliable subjective states of being through both alterations of society and cultivation of the “self.”
And now in conclusion I wanted to state why Negative Utilitarianism is necessary, and it’s the same reason why, at-least to my own understanding, Utilitarianism is not the cold, unfeeling and “mechanical” in the derogatory sense of the word philosophy that it’s often depicted as.  The main reason being, as Schopenhauer among others acknowledge, that pain is far-worse than pleasure for it is far-more vivid in the mind and the worst pain is felt with far-more clarity and agony than the best joy or serene bliss is felt. 
It destroys not only any subjective feeling of cheerfulness; it can erode hope, confidence, mental stability and has been shown to have disastrous effects on someone’s psychology, intelligence (particularly on children) and brain generally speaking.  Pain destroys a man far-more than pleasure can ever lift him.  In-fact, the main goal of society (and this is something the Utilitarians like Mill understand) is not to create a “happy” society following the Negative Hedonism of Epicurus say, but to create a good society of moral and enlightened people who both embody and express all that is necessary to create the best society for all, namely that which has those who feel the best phenomenological states of being. Such persons generally being the most virtuous souls who are materially necessary to bring about their own society of maximized utility and prosperity.