> [!tldr] A philosophy I more or less subscribe to, apparently. I described my philosophy in [this blog post](https://aarongilly.com/Columns/490#a-philosophy-for-life). Afterwards, I got curious about "what school of traditional philosophy most closely resembles this?" After searching - it turns out the answer is *Utilitarianism*. > [!warning] Disclaimer > My understanding of utilitarianism is bad. I've not read any primary sources. I'm not studied in any of this. My crap surface-level understanding of utilitarianism leads me to believe it would say that things are only good (or bad) in as far as they are able to be *utilized* to bring about **joy** or to prevent **suffering**. Makes sense to me. I've read criticisms that "pure" utilitarianism can justify amoral acts - for example: > A poor man stealing money from a wealthy one to ensure he can feed his family. This is, on its face, "amoral". I think my *slant* on Utilitarianism would include the realization that *value*[^1] is only *valuable* to those who *value* it... and that we each are entitled to our own set of *values*. So it's a wrong assumption to say "my worldview of values applies globally". It's too bad that [[Defining life & consciousness is hard.]] **** # More - [[The Tree on the Moon]] ## Source - self + skimming various Google results + ChatGPT & Claude [^1]: "Value" is how I'd encapsulate both "joy" and "freedom from suffering", as well as security, etc