:up: The effort is certainly the pertinent factor (alongside the degree of the necessity of the good).

Certainly. If something immensely good is already there, it will probably act as a source of significant value and would therefore make it unnecessary for people to make a lot of effort to create something new. Creating a positive is still good but because one has (thankfully) already been created, to pressurise others to continuously do so does not seem right.

Behind the resignation lies an approbation. The only pertinent point is whether it is always good for all individuals at all points of existence. I am not convinced that it is. For some, Shiva pervades the universe (or is synonymous with it!), which is, as wise people would know, true (satya) and beautiful (in its highest form). Many perspectives are out there—a hint that a broader approach is necessary when it comes to judging the value of existence.

:up: :pray:

If it's not necessary to cease doing something, then it's at least permissible to keep doing it. However, I wouldn't say that people should be pressurised. Natalism, to me, is simply acknowledging that procreation can be justifiable and good in at least some cases. The idea that either universal AN or absolute natalism can be beneficial does seem false to me.

Quite true.

Eerie similarities!

:up:

An ocean is made by countless precious drops!

I would agree with the suggestion that the idea of a breach of trust makes sense in the sentence. Although, I would also feel compelled to mention that in order to do so, the structure of the sentence has to be altered.

I am sure you're already doing plenty of good deeds, sir!

Ah, I would still have to say that the usage does not capture the full spectrum of what I intended to write. This appears to suggest that I was primarily emphasising the breach of trust that occurred between communities (and perhaps the faith in the ideals of religions) that occurred by calling it madness. However, my original point was that there was a commingling of madness—a deluge of derangement that included a failure to realise how severe the impact of the partition would be, an inability to let even an iota of reason or empathy take root in one's mind, and the British essentially leaving people to their own devices (which wasn't really a betrayal, since everyone expected them to leave). Much of this was not totally unanticipated. Yet, the scale and the scope was. 1947 was more than just a breach of trust. Madness, when I used it here, was a reference to the ever-growing chaos.

Of course I agree. They didn't just breach the trust; it was pulverised entirely. It took the collective effort of Mahatma Gandhi, Pt. Nehru, Maulana Azad, and countless individuals to prevent absolute insanity from prevailing. And even then, the violence only truly declined after people saw with horror as Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu who believed in pluralism, being killed by an extremist. Absolutists who don't appreciate the rainbow of perspectives that lies before us often end up causing serious harm.

The idea itself does make sense. However, in the sentence wherein it was used, I believe that the definition that I had in mind is befitting. "Breach of trust of madness" wouldn't sound particularly coherent, I think!

Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

"In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with his own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds belong to the fiduciary and which belong to the client."

So, we can see that this also refers to something being mixed.

:pray:

The definition you read seems to be a legal definition. I was using it in the sense of something being mixed or blended.

It has its own distinct identity, but it certainly shares certain beliefs with Hinduism (such as dharma, moksha, etc.).

:clap:

I, for one, would be glad if others could think for me and provide me a good that I can't solicit yet. Of course, it's another matter that the idea of calling an act a gift/imposition seems to be debatable. Perspectives will vary, I suppose. Nevertheless, it's a good thing that awareness regarding nature and scale of what we have lost is growing. Once recognition occurs, realisation of what could be would also follow suit.

I've just imbibed these words by reading people a lot more eloquent than I could ever hope to be and tried my best to enhance my lexical resource. Thank you for your charitable words! And yes, English is indeed my second language.

Oh, I am sorry. I was referring to this:

"Breach of trust, yes?"

You wrote this at the end of your previous comment. I was attempting to put forth a partially facetious response.

As long as one isn't an absolutist with a pernicious agenda (which you most certainly aren't), it's indubitably important to stand by the truth as one understands it. The alternative is to live in a superficial world with meaningless interactions.

That quote is quite apposite! Although, I would say that my knowledge about the world, in general, is fairly limited. That's why I am eternally grateful to wiser people like you and others (even those I disagree with at a profound level) for sharing their insights.

I am sorry if I accidentally betrayed you! It sincerely was not intentional.

I know too little, sir! However, from what I think I understand about the commingling of madness that happened in 1947, the violence was primarily between Muslims on one side and Hindus/Sikhs on the other. Most Sikhs fled the region now called Pakistan into the Republic of India.

Untouchability is a curse and serves as a reminder of the misery that dogma and an insatiable thirst for power can create. May we move beyond this sooner rather than later.

@Athena I hope that this is of some help!

:up: :clap:

:pray:

That's wonderful, Mr Smith! As long as good people like you keep breathing, hope for a new dawn will persist. (Also, considering that nice comments are sometimes considered to be sarcastic these days, I want to make it explicitly clear that I am not trying to be sarcastic/snarky).

From what I know, we are programmed to reproduce. However, as rational sentient beings, people can find satisfaction in something apart from that. It might be inherent in the nature of limited beings to eventually stop existing. But that also means that such beings can exist, live for a while, and also have unspeakably positive experiences that would be good as long as one is around (which, if physicalism is true, might be the only situation in which value can be there).

It's evidently difficult for some people (of a pessimistic disposition) to understand that something cannot be forced if it doesn't go against the existing interests of a being. And if it can be, then all the good in one's life may as well be considered an invaluable gift that one can be grateful to have. After all, cherishing happiness is not a matter of mere compliance. If one thinks that having true joy is simply a matter of "not minding something" instead of being genuinely happy for possessing that good, then perhaps all that does is demonstrate the limitations of their worldview. It's great to know that you like working. I hope that you can continue to find more than enough meaning in life and that others are also inspired by you. May you have a good day!

Projections and deliberate Ignorance don't negate the reality of the good and the joy of meaningful bonds (that cannot exist without cooperation). But it's true that there is a lot of greed. However, such people don't realise the impact of their actions and the sort of world they are creating (and could instead have helped form).

If there is no moral obligation to create benefits unless there is a need, then there is also no requirement to never create someone unless doing so causes an actual being to be satisfied and there are no additional positives. Your view might have been more tenable if the negatives were all that existed. Fortunately, this is not the case.

Impositions don't entail indescribable value. But one could call anything an imposition if they are primarily concerned with their own negative perspective, which would be a sort of gaslighting as well. For what it's worth, I don't think that life is always a gift. Suffering should be taken extremely seriously and there should be a peaceful way out.

It's never acceptable to presume that not providing unfathomably valuable experiences and a lifetime's worth of positively meaningful conditions is right just because there is a risk. You deserve to be happy even if I am sad. Of course, genuine happiness often comes from cooperation.

Unless your prevention is not causing a greater good to not exist and the individual has willingly chosen to be in a particular state of affairs (which procreation is not a case of), it is not ethical to cease the provision of all happiness. Also, non-existent beings cannot ask to exist. If creation can be an imposition, it can also be seen as a gift.

The existence of which is not a sufficient justification for preventing all good that could be bestowed on behalf of innumerable innocent sentient beings. I know the position indeed—including why it isn't right.

Except for existing beings who wish to be consistent and who would understand the value of a benefit. Life is also about celebration, not just worry. Alternatively, they could always understand that if preventing potential harms is good even though it helps nobody, it is also better to create positives.

Of course it does not. That's quite lucky because we don't have to worry about the ethical deficiencies that following a non-beneficent framework creates. I am glad others could assume (or presume) the right things for me when I wasn't in a position to take them myself. Have a nice day!

I would not comment on the purpose of the cosmos, but I am glad that we don't have to presume what it should not have despite it deserving and benefitting from it.

:up:

Amen, sir. And as long as concerted efforts and an indomitable spirit remains, perhaps there would not be a need to vote for the former aspect for much longer. At the very least, the number of those particular candidates can be reduced drastically.

I agree! By value, I was referring to positive and negative experiences. Assuming that non-existence is neither good nor bad, it doesn't make sense to always prefer the void when existence can have pleasant experience that non-existent does not. It's about the good too, not about just avoiding the harms.

It's true that the opinions of the posterity do matter for them. And because we as rational and empathetic beings care about what they think and how their lives would be, it's vital that we do everything we can to create a better tomorrow. I was only responding within the context of the value framework that some pessimists have wherein the absence of life's goods isn't bad because you wouldn't have any needs. Well, if that is true, then the fact that we wouldn't be remembered by everyone long after we are gone should not be a problem (or a blessing), considering that we wouldn't exist to lose or gain from that. To summarise, one should not be inconsistent.

If value dies with existence, then it lies in existence (obvious but still worth mentioning). The good that matters for us (which transhumanism can also help provide) whilst we exist is not diminished/improved by the opinions of the posterity. Of course, we would definitely want to do the right thing.

The Hindus seek to elevate the self (which is said to be one instead of being partitioned, which is just maya) towards the ultimate reality. It's not about utter negation.

There's a sort of comfort in the routine. I like waking up, brushing my teeth (not that they are in a great condition!), listening to the birds, and thinking about my work for the day.

Ataraxia can be quite subjective (in terms of its origin). Wealth definitely helps and so does having genuine relationships instead of the numerous transactional ones we see these days.

The absence of necessity can be a source of rapturous gratitude for the precious reality.

Some things are interesting and some aren't. I think that the more one can limit unnecessary desires and see contentment as a worthwhile goal, the better things could be. Plenty of aspects of existence, such as aesthetic value and love, don't seem futile to many people.

When there is an indescribable serenity on the face that went through seemingly insurmountable odds when spending time with someone they care about, it serves to awaken one's will towards affirming the good.

None of this detracts from the necessity of reducing gratuitous harms, however. I hope that my fellow optimists can have a nuanced perspective and be more open-minded when it comes to ideas such as a liberal right to a dignified exit and transhumanism.

May you have a beautiful day!

Agreed.

Anaesthesia can still feel somewhat pleasant. However, death is neither good nor bad for someone who doesn't exist. However, the process of cessation can be preferred/avoided depending upon an existing person's desires and what makes them happy. Ideally, it would be better, I think, for there to be a free and fair RTD that would help people not go through a life pervaded with negatives.

I agree that value and disvalue both reside only in existence. Some people seem afraid of the void as if it would bring about some terrible void, whereas others appear to seek it as if it would be peaceful. But I think that it can make sense to say that one wants peaceful cessation but, since it isn't possible, they have to choose the "lesser harm" of continuing a mostly bad existence rather than try to find a way out that could potentially be quite harmful.

I don't think I am. The good is a source of pleasant experiences that don't exist when one doesn't exist. If one cares about having those goods, then they would choose them over a valueless state of affairs. Nothingness is not bad but it isn't good either. If the end can be preferred even though non-existent beings don't gain anything when they don't exist, then it can also be rational to avoid it even if there is no need after cessation. It could be great, but it can also be terrible. I suppose the perspective will vary from person-to-person. It comes down to what possesses more value for someone when they exist. As I have said before, I believe that it isn't inherently irrational for an individual to choose the exit door. I would merely add that if certain elements of being have greater value for someone than a state of affairs that is neither bad (because you don't have any needs) nor good (because there is no fulfilment), then it can be rational for them to try to retain/conserve them. May you find the happiness (in whatever form) that you deserve!