Anthony

You both like existentialism.

Stranger: Hey

You: hi

Stranger: How're you doing?

You: good, why existentialism?

Stranger: It's interesting. It's quite useful

Stranger: It's been liberating for me, personally

Stranger: And you?

You: Are you religious?

Stranger: No

You: Then what's your philosophy?

Stranger: I'm an absurdist

You: oh, ha

You: What do you do for a living?

Stranger: I'm also a pragmatic hedonist

Stranger: I'm a student

You: hugh, haven't heard of a pragmatic one

You: What are you going for?

Stranger: Haha. Perhaps, you should read Michel Onfray

Stranger: Philo undergrad

You: I may

Stranger: You've not yet answered my question. What's existentialism to you?

Stranger: And, are you religious?

You: =) I'm more religious than most! But, no.

You: preverence utilitarian is my choice

Stranger: What does the preverence refer to?

Stranger: Oh

You: preference

Stranger: Preference

You: sorry

Stranger: Sorry

You: lol

Stranger: Haha

Stranger: So, you've, perhaps, read Singer?

You: I don't think I've read one of his books. But I read probably just as much. I tried to get him to speak at my college too.

You: What book of Michel Onfray's do you recommend?

Stranger: I've not actually read Onfray. I've only heard of him, today, actually. But, he seems to be a pragmatic hedonist and a great thinker

Stranger: I've personally read Nietzsche, and Camus for my own philosophy

Stranger: And talked with a bunch of people

Stranger: So, why are you a pref util?

Stranger: What's the appeal?

Stranger: Ayn Rand is a pragmatic hedonist

You: I was just kind of always that way, just didn't know what it was called

You: Isn't Ayn Rand many things?

Stranger: Yes

Stranger: Like many people are

Stranger: I'd consider her egoism a pragmatic hedonism

Stranger: Hedonism is egoistic

You: Oh, I think I know know.

You: Pragmatism is what my prof left us with

Stranger: Left you with?

Stranger: To explore, you mean?

You: More like, this is today & it's the best (for 'common people' ~ who think philo is useless)

You: He didn't say it like that

You: He didn't know who Singer was

Stranger: Okay, I see

Stranger: So, have you rationalised your pref util as it is now?

Stranger: That is to say, do you adhere to it out of choice or simply cling onto it from being conditioned to adhere to it without rationalising it yourself

Stranger: ?

You: just a sec

Stranger: kk

You: I don't believe I rationalize it.

You: deontology

Stranger: Okay. You haven't felt the impulse to?

You: There's nothing impulsive about it

You: What are you trying to say?

Stranger: I'm asking whether you've felt the need to rationalise your philosophy?

Stranger: Ignore the '?'

You: I don't need to. I don't get understanding out of anyone I know, but that's just how it is.

You: Why would I need to rationalize it?

Stranger: To justify it for your personal adhering to it

You: Ohhh, justify is a much better word!

Stranger: Haha. Okay

Stranger: I'm glad we're on the same page

You: So, in a word: deontology.

You: I was born into good circumstances

Stranger: You feel obliged to be a pref util?

You: Very much so. Can you guess my preference?

Stranger: Not without some more context

Stranger: Liberalism?

Stranger: Justice?

Stranger: I'm throwing out ideas

You: Hint: it's a cause

Stranger: I'm in a very ignorant position

You: Ok, I give up too.

Stranger: Haha

You: Before though, do you know poverty?

Stranger: Yes

You: What kinds?

Stranger: You're speaking very generally

You: (I know.)

Stranger: I know of homelessness

Stranger: Of poverty in the Third World, so called

Stranger: Is it that, perhaps?

Stranger: You want to ameliorate the welfare of Third World peoples

Stranger: /

Stranger: ?

You: Yes, the poverty where they cannot meet basic human needs to survive. Immense suffering

Stranger: I see

You: absolute, extreme

You: abject

Stranger: Where is that occurring, do you perceive?

You: ?

Stranger: The immense suffering you refer to, where is it occurring, according to you?

Stranger: Could you give me an example, perhaps

You: You just told me, but you would like specifics?

You: ok

Stranger: I was unsure whether I was exact or not

You: Kenya, Sub-saharan Africa, Brazil, India, etc

You: I've never seen it though

Stranger: What is an example of this, so called, immense suffering?

Stranger: In terms of what is actually happening

You: 19000 die every day

You: under 5

You: tropical diseases infect one of every six people

You: including more than 500 M children

You: ringworm

You: roundworm

You: hookworm

Stranger: Okay, I see. That suffices

Stranger: Lots of fucking worms

Stranger: xD

Stranger: Ever watched Upstream Colour?

You: well, I was going to go on to other non-worm...

You: I've not.

Stranger: I understand. I was just remarking at the worms

Stranger: It's quite like a David Lynch film

Stranger: Has a plot involving worms

You: aww

Stranger: And little piggus

Stranger: Anyway. Why care for those people?

Stranger: What value do they have to you?

You: It's not like they have value to me personally.

You: I don't get why distance has to matter

Stranger: So why care for them?

You: Because distance doesn't matter

Stranger: I'm not talking about relationships with them

Stranger: You seem to value them, since you care whether they die/suffer

Stranger: I'm asking what that value is exactly

Stranger: Utilitarianism is contingent on the assumption that human life has value

Stranger: What is this value to you?

You:https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3uu8ky/is_all_human_life_equally_valuable/

Stranger: You want me to read the OP?

You: na, it's just there

You: so

You: all human life

You: a 5 year old

Stranger: What's just where?

You: ?

Stranger: 'na, it's just there'

You: for you if you want

Stranger: Ah, okay

Stranger: Continue

You: All human life, whether it's a five year old drowning in a puddle a foot away or drowning in a puddle 100 miles away, is worth equal value

You: generally speaking

Stranger: According to what standard?

Stranger: Is this the base assumption?

You: hold on...

Stranger: kk

You: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/

You: it's been a while since I did this...

Stranger: I've seen that one

Stranger: I like that site

You: well then, what are you asking about?

Stranger: I'm asking what your views are

Stranger: Haha, it says 'It is necessary to make a couple of things clear before we get going. The first is that if you're a moral nihilist - i.e., if you think there's no such thing as right and wrong - then this activity probably isn't for you.'

Stranger: That's me out

You: =J

Stranger: Am I unclear in what I'm asking of you?

You: Did I make "all human life is worth equal value" not apparent?

You: So what are you asking?

Stranger: I'm asking why you believe that

You: Tell me how it's not.

Stranger: I'm not making an argument

Stranger: You are

Stranger: You require propositions

Stranger: (Side note: Are you studying philo?)

You: (Lightly, do you visit StackExchange?)

Stranger: (No)

You: I believe all human life is worth equal value because, any child simply deserves a chance to live in comparison to ten rich haughty fat American--hell, even in comparison to one.

Stranger: Why does the child deserve that?

You: Is that what you want?

Stranger: (You didn't answer my question on whether you study philo)

You: Why does every child born deserve to live longer than five?

You: (lightly)

Stranger: (StackExchange seem useful)

Stranger: (Ah, I thought you used that to open your question)

Stranger: No, no. You said 'any child simply deserves a chance to live in comparison to ten rich haughty fat American--hell, even in comparison to one'

Stranger: I'm asking how they deserve it

You: Because they were born

Stranger: Flies are born

Stranger: Do they deserve to live simply because they are born?

Stranger: Or the worms?

You: Yes, why shouldn't they? Although, again, for humans as sentient beings I mentioned consequentialism as a synergetic component

You: http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/4506/adam-uraynar

You: like I said, lightly

Stranger: What's ee?

You: Buddhism is intriguing me recently

You: Electrical Engineering

Stranger: Ah

You: my other interests show that

You: along with psychology

Stranger: You didn't mention consequentialism

Stranger: So, all life inherently matters?

You: "deserves a chance to live in comparison"

You: feel so pretentious quoting myself

Stranger: No worries

Stranger: On what grounds though?

Stranger: Deserve by what standard?

You: the standard to lessen suffering (which Buddhism points out)

Stranger: For what reason do you adhere to this?

Stranger: reason(s)

You: Are you asking for a personal reason?

Stranger: Yes, of course

Stranger: Otherwise you're just outlining Utilitarianism

You: I could say, to live an ethical life or to be a "good person" but that's just fluff really

Stranger: Then, what?

You: I'll give two quotes, then barrage me with analysis...

Stranger: Okay

Stranger: Would you like to move this conversation to a call?

Stranger: (btw)

You: (na) The first is from a mathematician and engineer

You: "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."--Ludwig Wittgenstein

You: & the second by a poet

Stranger: That's not an argument

You: "We are here to help others; the reason the others are here, I have no idea." -- WH Auden

You: hhahhaha

Stranger: Neither is that

You: synergy man

Stranger: What do you mean?

You: Ok, let's backtrack into a little more of my subtle mentionings...

You: Do you know much about Buddhist philosophy?

Stranger: A little

Stranger: But, I do not understand why you are not presenting me with the reason(s) why you adhere to pref util

Stranger: You're following tangents without resolving any previous ones

You: =J

Stranger: You're just throwing quotes at me

Stranger: I told you my analysis

Stranger: And you've ignored it

You: I said, two quotes

Stranger: Yes?

You: those quotes together both share one thing

Stranger: Yes, the absence of argument

You: haha

Stranger: They both suppose that life is valuable without establishing why

You: I mean literally

You: more literally, nihilism--essentially

Stranger: Yes, they literally have no argument

Stranger: Could you clarify what you mean

Stranger: They share nihilism?

Stranger: Is that what you're claiming

Stranger: ?

You: "I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order to enjoy ourselves."--Ludwig Wittgenstein
"We are here to help others; the reason the others are here, I have no idea." -- WH Auden

You: I don't know why = I have no idea

Stranger: So, you cannot justify your preference utilitarianism

Stranger: ?

You: entertaining armchair philo

You: Ok, I'll go back to that.

You: My justification is that I was born into good circumstance

Stranger: Nihilism is only a criticism of subjectivist epistemologies

You: sorry, that's more of a tangent

Stranger: Okay. Continue, and I'll follow

You: What? That's it: circumstance.

You: I have to do some things before sleeping for work tomorrow

Stranger: How does it follow from your good circumstance that all life is valuable?

You: It doesn't those are two separate ideas =)