As for the man who begs for his bread, is he so despicable? so miserable? Cannot men who possess mansions and yachts afford to give a man who has nothing to eat a loaf of bread? Is this really unfair? Can we really know that a man who would rather beg for his bread than earn it is contemptible?

Maybe he is willing to buck the system and undergo what we consider shameful behavior because he has a more exalted sense of the dignity of life. Is he any more contemptible than a factory worker who earns a decent wage and supports his family and sends his kids to school, but is a sycophant to his boss? brown-noses in order to curry favor? — Leghorn

Sometimes that option is more freeing. Homelessness in this regard must rely on a larger superstructure though. It was still an injustice somewhere down the line.

Without ‘work’ we learn nothing and do nothing. So schopenhauer1 I’m just going to say you have a rather strange way of viewing life that I strongly oppose and move on. — I like sushi

Not an excuse to impose on another.. Imagine any injustice done because you think X about a situation.

But we know and have agreed previously that not all no opt out positions are wrong to impose. So how do you tell apart the ones that are ok to impose and the ones that aren't? — khaled

Inescapable, etc. You can opt out of the surprise party if you really wanted.

Thus "Work" (economic system) is an avoidable, inescapable non-opt-out situation. Thus wrong to put someone into.

That is economics and it is basically human life. — I like sushi

I don’t separate the two. Economics is a more complex version of the hunting-gathering economy. Whatever method to get food/resources then I am defining as work, NOT just the current market economic system as has been around since the 1800s in various forms.

If you mean being paid money for doing something for someone else in exchange for your skills/knowledge/time, then I don't see what the big deal is. Money doesn't even need to come into it - 'economics' doesn't require 'money'. — I like sushi

The big deal is what you said here:

I think this says it all. We don't enter it, we're in it from the get go. — I like sushi

And because it’s from the get go, it is a forced situation. If you don’t work, you’re probably in trouble. Don’t put more people in the situation. Don’t add more workers as it represents a no opt out situation. Putting someone in this no opt out position is an injustice along with all the harms of life.

As noted above, some people do believe, by default, that life is a blessing and worth living. Such people cannot relate to your concern. — baker

They can't relate to my concern, but perhaps to the injustice of a no opt out game.. The harm one subjectively feels is precisely what I am saying is not relevant. Rather, the injustice of the no opt out game, is all that matters. Here is a no opt out game.. like it OR NOT. You like X (sunsets, walks on the beach, reading philosophy), thus Jimmy should work (political agenda enacted on others).

Why seek to move the immovable with this thread then? — Hanover

Because in the end, my stance doesn't promote and condone no opt out situations.. See this very thread for anticipated response (aka happy slave response..) The dialectic has played out a bit, you just have to read otherwise repeat my already answered responses to typical type of objections that have already been addressed. You know I've heard 'em before.

Your point is that life isn't fair? — Hanover

To be anti-work is to acknowledge that you are in a no opt out game, which is indeed an injustice. Not playing along with the de facto forced situation...

Oh boy, I can predict the usual peanut gallery on this forum so well...

Insert trivialization of the issue as.. right... here:

As to the OP, being anti-work isn't wrong if all you mean is you gripe about work. — Hanover

Insert red herring of irrelevant point...right...here:

But if you mean you are capable of contributing to your own care and even perhaps contributing some amount to others, but choose to be more a burden than need be, yeah, you suck and are therefore immoral. — Hanover

End by inserting repartee...like.. right...here:

If you're the guy who waits for others to clean his dishes, and we all do have dirty dishes, you're not the roommate any of us want, especially if you try to justify your sloth philosophically. — Hanover

Anyways, no this isn't about me not cleaning the dishes or wanting to do "my fair share.." The whole point is that it is unjust to be put in a situation where you cannot opt out unless you die of depredation or suicide.. Hence I said (predicting your free rider snark):

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. The very call to not participate in something anymore is the very right taken away by the DE FACTO situation of the game itself. That is to say, sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. You don't have to worry about any of those dire consequences by not participating in this thread. However, a worker who decides they are done working cannot afford such luxury. — schopenhauer1

Plus I don't understand what political agenda has to do with that issue. — dimosthenis9

The political agenda is one of seeing enacted someone "dealing with" the challenges of life [game of life]. This game is inescapable, and one cannot opt out with dire consequences (degradation or death). A political agenda is one where one has a goal of seeing carried out a certain "way of life". Other people should be doing X, in other words because YOU want to see this happen.

a) This is a large part of life that cannot be ignored. To ignore that someone who is born will experience it, is to be extremely careless.

b) If the person is not careless, then they certainly are taking into account that the person born will work.

c) If a and b then, at the least, some consideration that the person will have to be born to deal with the challenges of life (work, game of life), will ensue if that person is born.

d) Ergo, someone wants to see enacted X from someone else and as a society (work). Thus

e) The injustice of forcing this no opt out, inescapable (except degradation and suicide) situation is an agenda that is enacted.

The want of the procreator to see the "way of life" carried out by others outweighs the injustice of putting that person in a no opt out situation. They are literally "forced" to play the game (and preferably try to get good at it and like it damn it!!) or die.

but the demands of the job will make you hate it—or you will pervert what you love in order that it conform to your job. — Leghorn

Amen...But don't worry an anecdote is coming to try to correct you displaying the "exception that proves the rule" of course :roll:

I mistakenly quoted the wrong thing, that first quote should read:

I think it's rather narrow-minded and self-servingly convenient to make the distinction between a forced situation at the hands of a person, and a forced situation by the hands of circumstances of the life game. — schopenhauer1

This was a reply to @Michael. I have updated the post to reflect that quote.

You're forced by necessity to work, not by other people. Other people simply give you more opportunities to work. — Michael

I already predicted this kind of response previously in this thread.

I think it's rather narrow-minded and self-servingly convenient to make the distinction between a forced situation at the hands of a person, and a forced situation by the hands of circumstances of the life game. — schopenhauer1

You need food to live, and so some way or another must put in some work, whether that work be hunting animals and foraging for plants or employment in exchange for money to purchase food. Unless you can expect welfare and/or charity. — Michael

Yes, that is repeating essentially what I said here:

The very call to not participate in something anymore is the very right taken away by the DE FACTO situation of the game itself. That is to say, sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. You don't have to worry about any of those dire consequences by not participating in this thread. However, a worker who decides they are done working cannot afford such luxury. — schopenhauer1

The game of life itself (or call it whatever you want..set of challenges of life, etc. (pace 180's complaint of the term "game), DE FACTO creates the situation of an no opt out scenario without dire consequences. Your next move is what I predicted here:

What's funny is the very fact that this is an obvious truth makes people think it is still okay to enact on others :rofl:. Just more political agenda. — schopenhauer1

And hence, yeah it is a well known fact. Yet more injustice is enacted. More no-opt out situations of injustice are created, etc.

But then your next move will be about people being happy working, in which I predicted:

However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death by starvation or scary prospect of outright suicide makes it a legitimate injustice to be philosophically and personally against. Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism. This is quite independent to post facto subjective evaluations of liking the game. Like the happy slave, the laborer has no other choice. Peace. — schopenhauer1

Don't worry about debating, I already have answered the predictable moves in this debate for you. That is, unless you want to surprise me with something interesting and not a typical answer that I have already addressed.

Well no. Not really. — dimosthenis9

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. The very call to not participate in something anymore is the very right taken away by the DE FACTO situation of the game itself. That is to say, sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. You don't have to worry about any of those dire consequences by not participating in this thread. However, a worker who decides they are done working cannot afford such luxury.

What's funny is the very fact that this is an obvious truth makes people think it is still okay to enact on others :rofl:. Just more political agenda.

Oh, you want to opt out? You see te irony right?

You see any other alternative? — dimosthenis9

Don't put more workers (people who have to work) into the world in the first place.

Thus,

Workers of the world unite! We have nothing to lose but our chains and a world to gain. — Bitter Crank

The chains are the existential situation itself though.

I'm not deriving an ought from is, juat disagreeing with you that the human predicament of laboring to survive is a "political agenda". — 180 Proof

It is when creating more workers. Nothing is done in a vacuum. Clearly something is enacted by being born (workers working.. "flourshing" you say).

So... not only are we born without consent, but we are born into a world where we will be forced to work if we want to live. — Bitter Crank

This is it in a nutshell. You get it.

I don't want to wave this off as a naturalistic fallacy. I know what you are saying.. It is somehow what we "should be doing" as designated by "nature's way". I just don't know if anything that humans do is in the way of nature. Rather, because we make judgements on our decisions and outcomes, we are far removed from any natural version of "being". Rather, if negative judgements exist, then all of that goes out the window. All you have then, is "COMPLY" "Distract" "Ignore" etc. and we are back to Zapffe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Messiah.

It's funny. As I was looking for the text of the poem online, I came across a paper that discussed this. It was a summary of past reviews of the poem. Apparently most reviewers saw it the same way you did, i.e. as a sign of Frost's lack of charity. I was flabbergasted. So, if you want to interpret it that way, at least you're in good company. — T Clark

Glad to be in good company :D.

Ok that's better. Well yes then, imo, at the very end forced work is wrong indeed. And that's why I think that some day that will change. Cause it is logical humanity to move towards that direction.
Even in the veryyyy distant future. Work will become totally voluntary, I think.Meaning that people could live and not starve without forced work. But if they choose to work, then they would gain more. — dimosthenis9

But to put more people into the situation of [having to work] would be wrong until that problem is solved.

Gotcha.. I thought this line:

But yield who will to their separation,
My object in living is to unite
My avocation and my vocation
As my two eyes make one in sight.
Only where love and need are one,
And the work is play for mortal stakes,
Is the deed ever really done
For heaven and the future’s sakes. — T Clark

Was saying, sort of even though they were "right" he still chopped the wood cause of the reasons he provided uniting avocation and vocation. Makes more sense what you are saying.. though it is a bit ambiguous.. He agreed but did he ACTUALLY give them the work?

I m not sure I got what's your actual question. Why anti work to be wrong in first place? Someone believes that having to work for his entire life is unfair and wrong. So? It is a simple matter of personal belief. How can someone find it wrong? To disagree with it?Sure Yes. But wrong? Why?

On the contrary others love working and they would be miserable if they didn't, even if they weren't forced to play the game as you mentioned,they would have invented it!
Maybe I m missing something here but I can't understand where the problem is. — dimosthenis9

Same answer as Tom above.

Is acting work? Painting? Gardening? How about anyone who is financially independent but still chooses to work because they like it? — Tom Storm

So, I should say "forced work". If you don't garden and you die or starve as a result, then that is what I am talking about. Whatever you must do otherwise X (dire consequences).

Flourishing is biological-ecological, not "political". — 180 Proof

So naturalistic fallacy then?

A game is an abstraction, life is not. Maps =/=
territory. (Taleb) — 180 Proof

I'm not hung up on the term "game". It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. This is becoming a red herring as it doesn't change the forced [set of challenges] situation, just the term of what to call it.

Persons coerced within or trapped by involuntary servitude diminish, not flourish. (Aristotle, Marx) — 180 Proof

How is this not simply a political agenda. Flourishing.. Is this something that is true like Moses getting the Ten Commandments thing? Or did Aristotle et al just come up with a term you agree with conveniently. "You MUST overcome challenges because.. FLOURSHING!!!". A political agenda. An excuse or something to be enacted upon someone for X reason (FLOURSHING!! DAMNIT!!!!).

3. On this basis, your argument is nonsensical. — 180 Proof

So no.

Life is not a game. — 180 Proof

How so? The structures are in place (see "throwness" in Existential thought). The iterative structures in place create its own game (socio-political-economic-biological-natural). Even @apokrisis would agree on the formation of such game-like regularity occurring from life. Or maybe not.. But don't care really one way or the other if he agrees or not, just thought he might add some of his triadic stuff :D.

2. Slaves are not happy. — 180 Proof

You make it categorical.. Rather a slave can be happy (at times). Does he have a right to be happy? Of course. But is he still in an unjust situation? Yes. That's all I'm conveying. How you don't agree with that, I don't see.

3. Making an argument with false or nonsensical premises (such as 1 & 2) necessarily reaches a false or nonsensical conclusion. — 180 Proof

Since I refute the nonsensicalness of 1 and 2, 3 would not follow.

Ludic fallacy. Read NN Taleb. — 180 Proof

That's about applying statistical models inaccurately to real life situations. Not quite the same.

An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade: — 180 Proof

So in my case, not to be taken literally. Rather, it is to illustrate a situation where an individual is happy despite being put in an unjust situation. Mind you, the injustice may not even be realized.

An individual who is enslaved is unjustly put in that position. However, who am I to take away any happiness he still gets from living his daily life, despite his/her injustice. Similarly, a computer programmer who really likes coding can still enjoy this forced economic game. It doesn't negate the injustice of being in a forced game.

The problem is, people don't see life as a forced game, but there's the ignorance. It's not that it's not true, it's just not realized. A forced situation is a forced situation. Yes slavery would be a more limited forced situation, but AGAIN, doesn't negate that life itself presents work, which is a forced situation upon the worker.

You can think of it like "class consciousness" in Marxist ideology. Class was always there, but people perhaps didn't realize it in the terms Marx was positing.

I think it's rather narrow-minded and self-servingly convenient to make the distinction between a forced situation at the hands of a person, and a forced situation by the hands of circumstances of the life game.

This is a historical / political condition, however, not an ineluctable existential fact. — 180 Proof

This is where I think we disagree. Even as you decry one form of exploitation (Capitalism) you turn away from another (forced game of life). Like the happy slave, any form of necessary X (eg work) is unjust (pace happy slave- your subjective happiness with the necessity doesn’t negate the injustice).

So the tramps go penniless cause the wood chopper was cheap :razz: . But more seriously, besides that most work does not unite the two, the fact of work is the issue.

So are you just pro work or anti anti work?

Added more.

Perhaps someone who's not you doesn't view life and it's benefits, rewards, and yes as you obsess over it's negatives, drawbacks, and moments of torment as a 'game' but something greater? I'd wager many non-theists would agree with me and others as this fact being relevant enough to spur religion itself now, wouldn't you? — Outlander

To create someone and have them go through challenges for no reason other than “views life as some grand thing” is still wrong. Not an excuse to make people deal with a lifetime of the overcoming challenges game just because YOU (the procreate) have some agenda you want to see enacted. Mind you I think this is wrong to create, even if someone reported “I like the game created for me to play”. I simply view the forced game as an injustice similar to the “happy slave” who is happy as a slave but is in an unjust position.

So you are bordering on my previous thread about the "forced game". There is no way around the need for survival, which requires some system of work and cooperation. We don't seem to survive easily Robinson Crusoe style (which is still its own single player game). Anyways, my point is that there is no way around an economic system which by its very nature causes strife and challenges. The problem has to be rewinded to an earlier point.. the point of birth itself. Simply DON'T put more players into the economic game with its inevitable "dealing with" aspect. Once born, we MUST deal with the game.

So this gives the larger context, is forcing people into a game wrong? Absolutely. The cost of not playing correctly (or at all) is death. You must "deal with" and "learn to like the game" or live other sub-optimal options. It is an injustice to put people into a situation of a forced game, even if that game is the whole of life itself. No one said because it's "life" it's default "good" to be put into the situation of life. That should not be assumed.

There are no other options, aside from enslaving others. How is this a socially acceptable debate? — Outlander

There are other options of course- don't put people into the game in the first place. However, you are right in the sentiment that once born, there are no other options but to play SOME economic game. The game itself doesn't matter. The injustice of having to play ANY economic game is what I'm interested in. That is brought about from the condition of birth, which is my biggest concern as that is the first injustice. Everything else follows.

@darthbarracuda, I added more.

Indeed, though one objection, and I mean no offense, but wrapping a word in quotes makes it suspiciously imprecise. Either someone is forced to live by having been born, or they aren't; "forced" is questionably ambiguous, IMO. — darthbarracuda

But see isn't this your argument. I am making the case in another thread that life is indeed a "forced game". Whether or not the contestants are happy playing it or not, the injustice lies in forcing another to play the game of life at all (or opt out and commit suicide). You are arguing that people will never come to a conclusion as to what the objective side of a "good life" is, just like you are arguing over my forced game argument now. Thus it points to more evidence that people can never know "the good life" or if they have it.

All your argument needs is the recognition of doubt as to what a good life is. My argument is a little harder to prove because now I have to demonstrate via analogies, anecdotes, generalized logic of what a game is, and what forcing a game onto someone is, and how this is indeed an injustice in all cases. I think the evidence is strong but it requires more robust argumentation. Your argument simply needs to meet the threshold of "there is doubt".

@darthbarracuda@DingoJones

I am going to see this similar to the "Happy Slave" scenario. A slave is put in the unjust situation of being limited in freedom, but is somehow subjectively happy. Is the slave living the "good life"? If we were purely taking into account subjective attitude, then yes, absolutely. However, we don't judge situations by this alone. If we have all the relevant information, we use other criteria beyond subjective feeling like justice, rights, freedoms, consent, capacity, and a host of other relevant matters we deem important. Clearly the slave isn't allowed to live up to his full human capacities, his rights are being violated, and the situation itself is overall an injustice. These are things that don't necessarily constitute a good life, and they are relevant to the situation of being a human and being born into life.

The same goes for antinatalism. You can have people subjectively feel good they were born, but were still "forced" into an often harmful, inescapable game of life which was an injustice. There can be totally relevant non-subjective factors that relate to the "justness" or "rightness" of a moral/axiological situation. Surely having a just/fair life is something that factors into a good life, for example. Someone who is allowed full capacities versus someone who is not, let's say.

Stacey is in pain. Is that a fact or an opinion?

I can posit an alternate theory here.. Homo sapiens generally have identities. Once something gains an identity, it starts to become less likely (more horrifying) to eat that being.

Alternatively, whatever the root to general aversion to cannibalism might be the root of this as well.