I merely say it's inappropriate to refer to what doesn't exist as if it does exist. So, the question posed would more properly be stated (I think) as "Is it a tragedy if a person does not experience the goods of life?" — Ciceronianus the White

Not quite, I think it can be reformulated as, "If no new person was born to experience the goods of life, would this be a tragedy?". Or it could be stated, "Is a world without people to experience the goods of life a tragedy? If so, why? So if that is correct question to ask, what is your answer to it?

No, but people are going to be born into the world whether we like it or not, and so we do have a duty to maintain civilization for them. Society is a contract between those who are dead, those who are now living, and those who will be born, as Burke says. — Thorongil

But the question is whether we have a duty to bring about goodness in the first place, not maintain what we have. Is a world without people to experience goods of life a tragedy, if so why?

Well, in order to have good experiences, and indeed to know what the good is, I think some degree of trial and error, and therefore suffering, is necessary, so I don't see how this scenario is even thinkable. It seems as though you're talking about someone who will live a more or less pleasant life, but a pleasant life is not necessarily a good life. And what of those individuals who voluntarily undergo suffering? Once again, I would not equate suffering with evil or the bad. In and of itself it might be these things, but it can also be the fleetest animal that bears one to perfection, as Meister Eckhart says. — Thorongil

But you are assuming I do not mean that self-inflicted pain can be good. Exercise, though painful is good to the participant if they are so inclined to like the feeling or the outcome. Trial and error are painful, and sometimes it was worth it in hindsight but not during the event itself, so it could be time dependent. But, again, does goodness, in whatever form you take that to be, have to be perpetuated? In other words, is it a tragedy of no new people are born to experience the goods of life?

Do you think someone like this, who uses profanity at it's extremist, and cusses at everyone, deserves hate? — Rozylee

A person like this is being verbally abusive. If it is situational, then it can be helped by reminding the person that they have to control how their mood affects the people around them. If it is a deep-seated pathology, then very little can be done without extreme self-analysis and psychological self-reflection. This person will most likely get worse over time. They can hide their abusive behavior only so long before they will show it again. If it is a particularly calculative person, they will probably try to lull you into thinking that they have reformed before showing their true colors again.

tragedy can't exist in the absence of people (although the word is hugely devalued, someone's dog dying is considered a tragedy nowadays.) — Wayfarer

I agree. Hence, no people, no cry right? Thus, that there are no people to experience good things in life (including the spiritual enlightenment I know you study about), would not matter. If no one existed to need spiritual salvation, end of story. No tragedy. This is not about the inevitability of being born (and thus inevitability of maya), just the idea that if no one was born, there are no goods experienced in life, but there is also no tragedy, as you seemed to indicate.

Tragedy schmadgedy. In the fullness of time all suffering will end -- as will all the goods of life, and life itself. — Bitter Crank

This is true. So due to the inevitable death of the individual and species, this justifies suffering? Moreover, is there some duty to bring experiencers of good in the world? What makes never existing so bad for the potential individual? If there is no particular person losing out on anything, is that really bad that there would not be an actual person created that could experience good? If it is not, what makes not making people who experience the goods of life so bad? What makes never making people who experience the goods in life, ever so bad?

Tragedies befall the living. — Thorongil

Do you think that there is some duty, to bring new experiencers of good in the world? Let us say that you assumed the child was going to have over 50% good experiences. Let us assume that you also somehow knew the likelihood of this percentage was very high.

Perhaps I have been exceptionally fortunate, I don't know, but burdens can be taken as challenges - how far can you carry your cross? — unenlightened

I guess the question is, why provide that cross in the first place? To be or not to be, right? What is so bad about not being born in the first place? What are the drawbacks?

This just makes no sense to me. There is no obligation to give anything to something that does not exist. Obviously. — unenlightened

I'll say it differently- what makes the treadmill of life (including keeping oneself alive within a social context, the inevitable burdens, etc.) worth it for a new person, when that person did not need to be created in the first place?

No. But reasons have no place in procreation. — unenlightened

Why? You are claiming a notion that is not true. Just because there is no particular person that will exist, you know generally, that a person can exist. Just because you do not know the particular identity of the person that will be created does not negate reasoning about procreation. Do you not agree that where there was no particular person before birth, where there was no person to experience life, that after birth, they will indeed experience the treadmill and burdens of life? Then I simply go further and add that being that we know that life indeed is something a new person will have to deal with (keeping themselves alive in a social context, burdens of life, etc.), why were these well-known burdens (or possible burdens) worth it to create for someone in the hopes of someone experiencing love/esteem/happy experiences/flow, and most of all- self-actualization?

I clearly do not have to explicate this in detail, as you know what I am asking. This is an attempt to shut down the argument so you do not have to answer the question directly. The question makes sense, and is legitimate, but you might not like the answer. It ruffles your feathers.

Yet this reply does not address the three questions directly. It's not a spurious attempt as I actually have three critiques that you overshot to put a clever quote in. Would you be able to address the questions I posed rather than red herring it? Or if you believe this is not a red herring or a handwave, how does it apply directly to the three questions?

Edit: This sort of addresses the first question I posed. If that is what it is meant to apply to, my response is how is it any burden is justified when no burden needed to exist in the first place? Also, since you are a separate person from your potential child, I'd assume that you can have widely varying views, experiences, and temperaments, and reactions, despite the genetic/environmental proximity. Perhaps you also overestimate the happiness of happy experiences because a) at present you are content and thus misapply this to all future and past scenarios (Pollyanna), or b) you simply overestimate to disprove a point you dislike.

There are women that like being pregnant more than they like having children, but in general, the notion of doing anything either for or because of a foetus rather than for the projected stranger seems incoherent. — unenlightened

Remember, the topic is whether self-actualization is an indirect reason why non-religious people have children. As Erik Faerber was saying, if you ask many prospective parents, the most "non-frivolous" reasons seems to be to raise someone to have all the things in Maslow's Hierarchy (love/belonging, esteem), as well as to be the best person they can be with the talents and preferences of that individual (self-actualized person). Along with this is the elusive "happiness" that is more associated with entertainments of sorts that fill the free time of non-survival related activities. This brings up several larger points, however:

1) Is giving a new person the potential for loving/self actualized/happy life worth the burdens that life entails?

2) Why should we endevor to give anything to something that did not exist in the first place? To quote Ligotti "Non-existence never hurt anyone".

3) Would any reason that is based on the parents' lifestyle preferences be a good one for producing a whole new life and all that this will entail for the new being (i.e. the inevitable contingent and structural burdens of life)?

"'What is "self-actualization'" and how would you know you had it? — Bitter Crank

That's a good question.. There is a list Maslow gave which sounded like a modern version of the virtuous man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization . That seems like just one version of this though.

When should one expect to achieve "self-actualization": Any day, now? Before one is 25? 25-50 years? Over 50? — Bitter Crank

I guess if one can honestly assess one is hitting the points that Maslow or other models bring up as the self-actualized person? What others think? Both?

Is "self-actualization" like circumcision or baptism--once done, it can't--or need not--be repeated? — Bitter Crank

I guess self-actualized would be like the virtuous person, it would come naturally as they cultivate good habits, but I would think it could be lost if the lower parts of the hierarchy were taken away (safety, belonging, etc.). So, perhaps it is dependent on other parts of the hierarchy being stable, something that is not always sustainable.

Is one supposed to be "self-actualized" all day every day? Or is it a fleeting event? Is "self-actualization" like a 'peak experience' -- the glow lasts a long time? — Bitter Crank

I am guessing if the lower structures are in place, it would be ongoing.

Can one die happy and have never achieved "self-actualization"? What kind of people fail to achieve "self-actualization"? — Bitter Crank

Probably almost everybody.

Can the world stand 7 billion "self-actualized people"? — Bitter Crank

I picture them being quite smug people, but I guess if they were self-actualized, they would all be peaceful and equanimous.

I suspect that it takes a concerted effort to become fully actualize; maybe Type A personalities are more likely to persist than Type B people. — Bitter Crank

Probably more Type A

Are "self-actualized people" different than people who are not "self-actualized"? — Bitter Crank

Yes, supposedly they are living their life to the fullest as defined by Maslow or other models of what personality or goals these people have.

Now, I haven't given my critique, I am answering your questions as if self-actualization is a reason to have children. I will just start off with the idea that why give a new person (inevitable) burdens to overcome, especially if achievement of the supposed ultimate goal (of some elusive self-actualization) is not achievable for many?

They simply want to have kids and don't think it's wrong. — Roke

But the want implies a reason, even if not self-actualization. At least in the first world, access to birth control is pretty easy, so sex does not have a one-to-one ratio with having children.

Perhaps try philosopher Peter Cetera?

Anyway, I'd say that Marx's work predicts the way capital moved and has moved up to today -- by global expansion. I don't think that nationalist petit bourgeois people are objectively motivated to enact communist revolution. I'm not arguing that point. Only that what you cite as things against Marxism could also reasonably be read as predictions of Marxism, given the characterization of capital. — Moliere

So you think that based on these movements of capital to global East and West, and mechanization of production will produce some sort of communist state- one described by Marx in whichever stage of his writing you prefer to draw from? I think you indicated it would not. I am not saying he was completely wrong which I also indicated in the last part of the OP. I just think there were things that he did not consider would happen. Perhaps he did predict more than I thought, but certainly what he thought- even if predicted, did not lead to what he thought would happen as a result.

Also Marxism is broader than Marx too -- you can't just ignore the various revolutions which put the theoretical ideas into practice. Consider the Theses on Feurbach (it's short! no worries :D ) -- I'd say it points that the practical, in-the-world action is just as if not more important than the understanding of ideas. — Moliere

I do not consider the Soviet Union or China a successful example of Marxism, Communism, or the like. I see it as dictators and or cadres of dictators (politburo, etc.) taking control of a country and running it like a police state and then easing up on restrictions when it became economically necessary to allow for more free trade elements and accumulation of wealth. It was all top down. Dictatorship of the Proletariat not being a metaphor but literally a dictatorship. People "needed" to programmed to be Marxist through gulags, workforce programs, and stifling of free speech. If man was supposed to be free and self-actualized because they weren't exploited or worried about accumulation of wealth, that never really worked out. They may not have accumulated much wealth, bu they were certainly exploited by whatever the state mechanisms dictated to them. There was never a good way to implement the transition of the modes of production and accumulation of wealth without mass death and total control of people's movements and lives. More democratic socialism is just capitalism with safety nets. I do not think that as Marxist or Communist.

I think my reply to Jamalrob applies here as well:
Certainly, there are differences in Marx theory over time. Even so, the inevitability of an end communist state did not occur nor does it seem it will ever happen, and I just gave some ideas of why it does not even look possible in the near future, baring a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which case who knows what that might look like

Yes. He wrote lots of other things, and it's a very varied body of work. The Communist Manifesto is a political pamphlet written at a very specific time for specific practical purposes. — jamalrob

Certainly, there are differences in Marx theory over time. Even so, the inevitability of an end communist state did not occur nor does it seem it will ever happen, and I just gave some ideas of why it does not even look possible in the near future, baring a post-apocalyptic scenario, in which case who knows what that might look like.

I'm not against luxury, by any means., but it's just silly to say that Marx got this wrong. It ignores the international character of communism, and it ignores why lower-class peeps in rich countries would buy luxury goods (both socially speaking, i.e. capital, and personally speaking, i.e. looking for a reason to live) — Moliere

The Office Space society won't be starting revolutions any time soon. Even if the industrial cheap labor has moved to the East and South, Marx's communism was to be successful in the most industrialized of countries, which really never transpired anywhere and does not look to be happening anytime soon in America or Europe- the most industrial of industrialized regions. If anything, Russia and China set themselves back according to Marxian theory because they never fully developed into highly industrialized countries FIRST but jumped the gun due to contingent historical circumstances. As history has shown, Russia ditched its communism for oligarchic capitalism- just office space culture with little room for free markets. China has essentially been state run capitalism since the late 70s. In due time, if history bears out, China will also be a mainly Office Space nation, though where the cheap industrial base will move to next might be something that prevents this from fully happening. The West moved it East and South. Where are they going to shift it to?

What would your ideal socialist society look like? You have to take into account certain aspects of human tendencies. Studies have been done saying people generally prefer equitability in the abstract, but closer studies reveal that people care more about fairness, competition, and reward. Thus, people like to know they get rewarded with such and such compensation for being "better" at their job than the next guy. They like competing and then being rewarded for their accomplishments. Would a full communist society foster this? I am not sure, but we know that the capitalist one does. Promotion, rank, opportunities to move up and get more seem to be something that motivate people. It may fall in line with Aristotle's ideas that man is a political animal. Political not just in governance over the state, but over work and other activities involving coordinated social interaction.

In his later work, at least, Marx's substantive prediction was not that the working class will become so irritated by distribution-side inequality that they'll revolt and install a worker's state. Rather, it was that technological development, on a long enough timeline, will progress to the point that less and less human labor is required in the process, and yet our ability to consume the goods produced thereby will still depend (because of the structure of the economy) on our ability to sell our labor power for wages -- a constraint on consumption which was once necessary to facilitate production, but will be, at that time, no longer so. The transition to a mode of production not organized around the exploitation of human labor will then follow as a matter of course. It will be obvious to the industrial reserve army what must be done (i.e. it will not take any political cajoling by mustache men with nationalist credos). — Glahn

How do you see that actually playing out in our modern economic system? If anything, the post-WWII social safety nets would prevent people from moving to a system that depends on something besides working for a wage. They allow for some sustainability while looking for more wage work rather than complete destitution and seeking radicalism. These social safety nets were missing in 19th century Europe. It acts as a release mechanism to allow for the general system to be sustained without people clamoring for drastic shifts to new modes of economic production- let alone any full scale commie revolution.

Also, from what I've stated before, the new wage work is white collar jobs- office spaces. It's programming software, managing financial widgets, operational administrative work, health care, sales, social services, and the rest. Some blue collar work will always remain- construction (prefabrication or on site), plumbers, electricians, etc. are needed. Don't forget the more technical jobs- lawyers, doctors, engineers, researchers, scientists. These are all wage earners of varying degrees of wage- most being considered "working class" or "lower middle class". I don't see these being phased out any time soon. Wage work does not seem to go away, no matter how many futuristic articles come out. The jobs may shift to work from home, but that is more setting and cosmetic changes. If anything the Silicon Valleys and Office Space workforce proves the long term viability of wage work and even possible worse exploitation- hustling for odd jobs (i.e. Uber, online one-off jobs).

What might change in the future is pseudo-entrepreneurship - Air BNB, Uber, etc. Companies that allow for flexibility in time management. This would also slow any radical changes if more service work switches to this mode.

The bourgeoisie consists of large capitalists -- owners of factories, warehouses, office towers, rental buildings, railroads, banks, brokerages, and so on The petite bourgeoisie consists of small farmers that own their own land, small store owners, some professionals (lawyers, doctors, dentists), etc. and a few others. The difference between the bourgeois and the working class is that the bourgeoisie earns its income from the labor of others. The working class person is dependent on his ability to work to get paid. Working class people earn a wage; they are paid for time on the job. The bourgeoisie are paid by returns on investment.

Almost everyone is working class. The relatively small number of people who own high-value production properties are bourgeoisie. — Bitter Crank

Good point. Maybe categorizing the bulk of white collar work as "petite bourgeoisie" is incorrect. The working class makes a wage but not returns on investment, true. I guess the point is that are all these things a fatal blow to his ideas? Whether wage workers are not getting enough investments or not, if there is not enough agitation for the working class to feel exploited, then Marx was essentially wrong. What do people care if capital is owned by individuals or by the state if they have their basics met? The Democrats would say that with a tweaking of healthcare, and some other social programs, some of those basic needs can be expanded, but that's about as much sympathy as you're going to get in the American system. That doesn't change things structurally.

Am I right in saying this is more like "Three Things the Communist Manifesto Got Wrong"? — jamalrob

You could be. Do you have a reason for the distinction?

The trouble with the rephrase though is that one ends up with what looks like a basic statement of utilitarianism, so it seems one has not made any progress in identifying the consequences of one's ethical premise. — andrewk

A common response to antintalism is that there are opportunities for happiness in the human project. A decision not to create life, is a decision to prevent the opportunities for happiness. Of course, why people have a duty to live a life filled with known burdens and suffering, in order so that they can pursue opportunities of happiness in the first place is never explained.

In other words, there is an implication in pro-natalism that life needs to be carried out for some X reason when the opposite scenario is nothing being around to be deprived, but this reason when held to the light of rigorous justification, fails to find any justification. Whether it be culturally-contexted knowledge, relationships, or accomplishments, why one must pursue these goods in the first place when much of life has structural and contingent suffering elements, does not make much sense. At its best, we are finding ways to fill time and survive efficiently, at its worst we suffer immensely while trying to survive efficiently and find ways to fill time.

We have a great sense that because practice and experience causes us to improve X, this means there is some grand betterment project for ourselves and mankind that must be continued, when this is just a sort of informal law of how we learn. Being better at whatever skill, does not necessarily translate to a justification for having to overcome the burdens of life in the first place. Why should these burdens be endured and life lessons be learned in first place? If the alternative is not even having to need anything to improve or overcome (because non-existence), what of it?

Even worse though is we cannot endure existence on its own bare naked, we must dress it up with more goals so we don't think about it. This all translates to some idea that at our best we are "self-actualizing" and that this is the reason people need to exist. Somehow self-actualizing is important for an individual to be born in the first place. This overcomes any idea that suffering is important not to be suffered in the first place.

I also suspect that there is a psychological dilemma that one does not want to look a gift horse in the mouth. If one is having a relatively good time at the moment of this posting.. why question existence when it is working out at this exact moment? Why would you tempt fate in such a precarious manner? Won't the gods listen in and then knock your blocks down and make you regret questioning their kingdom of existence? Do not look a gift horse in the mouth, you might say lest ye get the wrath of the various fates/gods/luck.

So i've found myself in a loop hole of questions , i've been trying to find out what is the purpose of life, but there are thousands of "purposes" some say happiness, some say love. But that brings up the question, why do we need happiness and love. happiness and love is a feeling created in our brain by certain chemicals and is a part of our anatomy. What is the purpose of any life existence, however i presume there is no answer for this question we just are, as everything is.... — joachim

I call the term instrumentality- the idea that we do stuff to do stuff to do stuff. Essentially big brains with complex minds has given us the self-awareness to know that we are surviving on one hand and finding ways to entertain ourselves/ keep from being bored on the other hand. Survival entails a plethora of inter-related activities depending on the complexity and stratification of society- but we are certainly knee-deep embedded in it. The focus for most except the top is the details of any given job we get compensation for and all the entrappings of this, consumption, investments, monetary, taxes, compliance with government regulations, etc.. The remainder is focus on entertainment.. reading, writing, books, debate, hanging out with friends, relationships..

The common theme here is focus.. We have to focus on this or that to keep our minds occupied. When the mind is not occupied, life itself may appear naked an bare.. that is to say the instrumental nature that it is.. The doing just to do just to do.. This usually makes people flee back into their focus on entertainments.. Sometimes people get good enough at the focus to have "flow" which is a state of complete involvement in an activity where time seems to fly. Most states of focus are mediocre and a bit of a slog I would say. What do you do about the instrumental nature of existence? There is nothing to do about it. You exist and you find ways to focus on this or that survival or entertainment related activity.. then your mind comes back to the instrumental nature of reality, and then usually has to refocus on the survival and entertainment again.

Antinatalists might say you can reify your rebellion of existence by symbolically not supporting the instrumental nature of things by discontinuing the next generation. You can also live with the awareness that you know that things are simply instrumental and that we are simply focusing on survival and entertainment as that is what existence demands from us.

What do you think of this excerpt from the philosopher George Simmel's book?

“Valuation as a real psychological occurrence is part of the natural world; but what we mean by valuation, its conceptual meaning, is something independent of this world; is not part of it, but is rather the whole world viewed from a particular vantage point”

I'd appreciate your thoughts... — River

Spending itself can be a desirable act as opposed to the goods/services it buys. Spending provides the illusion that what one is buying is their preference. Something free may not seem as desirable as something bought, because the act of buying itself is imbued with some sort of ritual of identity. My money buys this product and identifies my preferences in a way that getting something free may not. Consumption through spending becomes the desirable ritual along with the actual consumption of the good and service. It's all part of the package it seems.

Capitalism is another way of arranging economic activity. In capitalism, the operation and direction of the economy is the responsibility of those who own factories, mines, railroads, etc. The object of capitalism is to extract a maximum of profit (surplus value) from the labor of workers. Capitalists are generally a small proportion of any community. Capitalists hate the idea of workers being in charge. — Bitter Crank

Capitalist-enthusiasts would try to say that the workers, by saving, smart investments, inventiveness, and gaining business acumen, can become capitalists themselves. I am not saying this is what ordinarily happens, but this is the incentive that is often given as justification. People who defend very free-market capitalism would say that, as long as the opportunities to save, invest, be inventive, and gain business acumen are available, the people with the best ideas, business know how, and inventiveness will deservedly rise to the top.

Of course, capitalism produces inefficiencies which even capitalism has to recognize- monopolies, poor opportunities to rise to the top, and people on the bottom getting priced out of a decent living situation. Unfortunately, capitalism seems to work on supply/demand models that don't take into account the fact that human preferences don't necessarily match what is economically "efficient" or most suitable for their situation.. People on the bottom tend not to lie down, play dead, and provide themselves with economic austerity regimes. Rather, people want as much as they can get- the most luxuries, the most most comfort, with or without the means to do so.

I like some of the ideas here, but what is the main claim you are trying to promote here? It looks like you are saying that everyone has a fantasy vision of themselves as having grandiose power, but the reality is that we are pragmatic thinkers, moving through a world already set-up for us; we are but a minimal player, circumventing the mazes of social reality one mundane day at a time.

If that is the claim, what do you think this means? What is its significance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

What are you talking about? Are you denying that my phenomenological experience is in fact a balance of the positive and the negative? — apokrisis

The key word here is BALANCE. You are sneaking in a tricky word. Balance usually indicates some sort of tranquil flow or resolution. But, bad experiences, even if there is some good interspersed is not pleasant, desirable, etc. unless that was my goal and most times it is not.

Does personal, first-person experience with complex variety not occur for you? — apokrisis

Yes, and often times the bad parts of that complex variety can be quite unpleasant.

Anyway, you were addressing my question about paedophiles and crack addicts. Do you think their "is" should be our "ought"? No matter how good they think something is, would you not wish to draw a moral line on behalf of society? — apokrisis

I just don't get the reason you asked the question. You have to explain how this somehow enters the picture, and then maybe I can know how to provide a reply. Are you suggesting that I take some ethical stance that whatever someone believes is the right action must be the right action? Where would you justify that I would claim something like that? My point earlier is that bad experiences are unpleasant to the person experiencing them and are not just some instrumental harm for some greater sense of balance later on. Harm may be "good" in some vague evolutionary sense, but at the moment the harm is occurring it is bad for the individual. I also do not consider the pain involved in exercise or learning something new a "harm" so you don't have to include that red herring, which you are prone to do.

So how, in your solipsistic ethics, do you handle paedophiles and crack addicts? They are just doing what makes them feel good, right? Should you be able to curtail their pleasures by introducing some kind of constraint on their lives?

And is virtue not a good even if virtue means some degree of personal sacrifice?

Where do your ethical simplicities stop and some real moral theory start? — apokrisis

What are you talking about? I think you misinterpreted something along the lines. The point of the last post was that you cannot discuss this "balancing act" of good/bad and the lab of human lives lived and testing "what works" without acknowledging that the person experiencing actually has these things in real time, as a person who must feel these things, deal with them. These are real people going through real things. Are you a zombie or something? Does personal, first-person experience not occur for you? Do phenomenological experiences of life events not make sense to you?

What I explain is both what we need to care about and what we don't. The world is a hierarchy of increasingly generalised constraints. So something like gravity or thermodynamics are global constraints on our freedoms. And yet if we work within those bounds, that by definition becomes our degrees of freedom.

It's hardly rocket science. But the difference lies in accepting this is the logical structure of nature. Humans aren't nature's exception. We play by the usual cosmological rules. And so even ethical and aesthetic complexity can be explained as pragmatic. Organisation that reflects the "spirit" of the Cosmos.

For anyone interested in the actual application of dissipative structure theory to social order, books are being written about it — apokrisis

The problem is that you want to believe that the balance of good and bad experiences somehow make the process generally "good" because that just "is" what happens. However, while being the phenomenological agent experiencing the good and bad, it is much different than looking at it from a disinterested observer who simply notes the interplay of the two in experience from afar. I'm going to call your approach "Nietzschean" simply because you want there to be an ethics beyond "good and evil" or in this case "good and bad". However, whether or not the two interplay in nature means nothing to the individual experiencing it.

No matter how much Nietzschean logic you apply to the situation, there will always be a measure of a more ideal situation. Even Buddhism and Stoicism or any system has a better situation, which may entail not judging something better..but that more ideal state is something that is not happening NOW and is continuously foisted upon the practitioner to "better themselves" against their system's ideal. Anyways, the point is that even if there is the interspersed balancing act of good and bad and intertwined mixture of the two, the ideal of better is going to be there, because humans naturally have counterfactual analysis of what could have been or could be the case (but is currently not). This in itself shows this Nietzschean approach is not "good" because it "is" how things are. We would have had it differently, but it is not that way. One can paint the yin/yang Tao symbol and say "see" this is elegant, except the fact that when the actual phenomenol Dasein experiencer goes through life, it is not a disinterested Tao but an actual organism that is experiencing the good and bad. It is not elegant, it is the tumultuous nature of living in power structures, living in social structures, living in psychological structures, living in existential structures. You have again gotten too carried away with your maps and forget the terrain.

Sounds like you still don't want to answer some questions from earlier.

I think you've got your threads crossed. — apokrisis

It's all related in this case.

What do you mean? Is there some other conclusion to the argument as I laid it out? — apokrisis

Yes, any other. The assumption that the goals of the majority are the "right" goals because they are the majority, is an appeal to the majority. It's not justified.
1) The majority can have a lot of horrible consequences. Many examples can be used here (war, human rights violations, etc.). The balancing factor that may or may not work out when this is resolved in some dialectic manner... doesn't negate that horrible consequences happened. It doesn't get resolved in the magic of the balance of the universe (aka.. secular Taoism).

2) You assume what is right is what is tested. How is that assumption justified? I argued in the other thread that the very question of whether more Being is better than non-being is already assumed in your approach. You have a hypothetical imperative and assume this is what is good. You have an irrational Platonic value for testing I guess.. something you railed against.

3) Even if we went with your assumptions (survival is good and desired), testing has costs.. even if in some utopian future when all the testing lead to a more finely "calibrated" result.. the testing had collateral damage to get there. This of course is assuming one can have a utopian-like result.. Of course if you think suffering is structural, it never gets dissolved.

4) What currently exists isn't always the best option.. what is, is not always what is optimal. What happens if one has the wrong judgement of what is optimal? Who is the judge of this? What if something could have went better, but it was unknown as to what this could be? What happens if luck, accidents, and simple preference will always prevent true optimal choices? Then what is chosen by the majority is not optimal either. And if we say, that does not matter, because optimal is only survival no matter the costs or how it gets there, then that still begs the question of why survival. If you say its some other X reason.. it still begs the question. And then that brings us back to point 2 which is why value more Being?

We have to pay attention to fostering the generalised conditions from which a concrete reasonableness is just the way of our world. — apokrisis

We have to...is just the way.. Interesting how you combine those two. Why does anyone have to do what "is just the way".

Sure. And we can feel the opposite. So from which "is" should we derive the "ought" here? — apokrisis

So you defend yourself by attacking my argument? I don't think I should defend my arguments until you actually come to grips with the critiques I laid out in the previous post. That seems only fair in this debate. Then, maybe I can address some points here. Why even put time into the previous post if we are going to do a switch based on the affirmative claim that I made and ignore the critiques of your claims?

The antinatalist thinks suffering is not necessary; we could simply cease to exist.

The entire point behind antinatalism (and pessimistic philosophy in general) is that suffering is necessary and, more importantly, it is not worth it. As pointed out, mere survival for survival's sake is pointless. We want existence to go somewhere. If there is no really worthwhile goal to go towards or something that makes the suffering worth it, then there is something there. However, the pessimist says that life is not worth it and that, at a fundemental level, nothing can change this fact. If you do not challenge this assumption, then you are not dealing with the pessimist. — Chany

Good point.

I don't think so. You can think suffering shouldn't exist and also understand the necessity of suffering for the survival of life as you have described it. It would just require you to commit to antinatalism. Nothing wrong with that.

To get around your conclusion another way I could also claim that pessimists understand the necessity of suffering in life as well as anyone, and that's what makes them pessimists. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Good point.

How are you defining naturalistic fallacy? — apokrisis

It's some form of the is-ought problem.. If this is what "nature" does, it must be good, because nature does it.. This is a circular argument. It even applies to goals- because person A has goal B, means that he can achieve it with C, so C must be good because it causes him to achieve it. Of course, the goal is not justified, simply how to attain it is identified. In your case, this problem applies because continued survival is not justified simply because it is a preference or because nature tends to produce creatures that continue to survive.

Humans have self-reflection (ability to reflect on our existential situation with conceptual thought) and deliberation (ability to choose out of a variety of choices). Though humans were caused by natural forces, and are a part of nature, we are different from other parts of nature in the abilities to self-reflect and deliberate. Do you dispute that we have these abilities? If we both agree, humans are part of nature, but different than other parts in at least these abilities, it can be argued that humans can reflect on their existential situation, evaluate it its positive or negative value (or nature), and deliberate on what action to take on this evaluation.

You claim that

If you ask me what is the good, I would have to say look to nature and see what it is doing. It seems to like entropification but also negenentropic stucture (as you can't have one without the other in fact). It seems to like homeostatic enduring balances (as what else could exist?). — apokrisis

This right here is an example of the is-ought.. "Looks to nature see what it is doing". Before I go further, first, I must say you don't connect your scientific-laden jargon with the context of evaluation of life, which is the question we are debating- "Is human life (along with its institutions) worth maintaining/continuing"? You talk of "entropification/negentropic structure" and and "homeostatic enduring balances". You leave too much to the reader to misinterpret your intention here. I can try myself, but if you come back and say that I have misinterpreted it, then you have failed to convey your meaning to your audience.. and would rather name-call than actually write concisely and clearly (possibly hiding a weakness in your claim).

Entropy- Thermodynamics.
(on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
(in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S.
2.
(in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3.
(in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death) — dictionary.com

In a biological context, the negentropy (also negative entropy, syntropy, extropy, ectropy or entaxy[1]) of a living system is the entropy that it exports to keep its own entropy low; it lies at the intersection of entropy and life. In other words Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness or chaos. — Negentropy in Wikipedia

So by this definition, I can only extrapolate that what you mean is that humans, having the ability for negentropy, are trying to maintain this negentropy among a backdrop of the general tendency towards entropification. If I was to take this interpretation as true I see the following flaw:

1) This lacks much efficacy for ethics. This in no way entails a justification of ethics simply because biological systems tend to be negentropic.

1a) To extrapolate an ethical meaning from this would be committing the is-ought error, as your claim takes an observable physical fact of systems, and raise it to the level of ethical heuristic for human guidance. In a very roundabout way, it's like saying "The Eagle flies swift to catch its prey..so I must fly swift to catch my prey" or some such thing.

1b) The concept of negentropy does not entail a Taoist-like ethics that you promulgate. You are conflating human psychology and behavior with a concept of physics making a category error. The burden of proof is on you to explain how human behavior MUST achieve this or that goal. The problem here is that you are equating human concepts, goals, preferences, and motivations with some sort of natural principle of negentropy. Just because the outcome of what we do is negentropic does not mean our goals, preferences, and motivations HAVE to somehow "help this outcome along" or "not help this outcome along" (whatever direction you theory wants to say). This again, is unjustified, a category error, and is committing the is-ought problem.

Now, what I propose would have little to do with your negentropy/entropy based ethics altogether- as it is a non-sequitor in the realm of human ethical/aesthetic/value judgements in terms of what one MUST do. It really does not fit and is shoehorned into the equation. Rather, what is the case is that humans are self-reflective and deliberative beings. We can evaluate our very own existence, and judge it accordingly.

If we look at human life- we see that there are necessary harms entailed in being self-reflective. We can feel an emptiness at the end of pursuits, a disappointment, a world-weariness. If you have never felt this way, I cannot dispute it, but I know others have. It goes away with yet other pursuits and goals and pleasures to evade and distract, but it is the feeling when none of this is stimulating the body/mind. It is the feeling that we are pursuing to pursue, maintaining to maintain, doing to do. This is the structural harm of instrumentality. Our minds are complex and need more entertainments and novelties, but it cannot simply BE. Being itself is not enough and thus we pursue all these "intra-worldly" pursuits but the problem of Being itself- the never being satisfied is still there. This is compounded by contingent harms. These are harms produced by the intra-worldly things. It can be internal (pathology) or it could be external (harmful experiences and situations). These contingent harms ride on top of the already harmful nature of the dissatisfaction we have as complex self-reflecting animals. We are dissatisfied and harmed, yet we maintain it and continue it. We maintain to maintain.

So you've reverted to full-blown childish comebacks to avoid answering any question that makes you uncomfortable or strays away from your little hermetically sealed philosophy patterns.. You mine as well say, "No, you're stupid!". Anyways, I'll get back to your last post soon. I'm just thinking it will be in vain.

What jargon were you struggling with exactly in the bit you quoted? — apokrisis

Here are some things that should be explained more clearly:

Why does life even exist if physical existence is mechanical and meaningless - as its entropic story appear to suggest? And that naturalism explains why negentropic structure is needed to allow entropification to occur. The basic unifying dynamic of existence has been exposed. And it turns out that the mechanical view was wrong. The cosmos itself is organic in being a semiotic dissapative structure. — apokrisis

It just so happens that nature itself affirms its own immanent organicism - existence as the universal growth of "reasonableness". — apokrisis

This also has to be explained without using Romantic, or labeling, or general ad hominems.. In other words real analysis:

One is either a immanent naturalist or a transcendent romantic on these issues. You've made your choice. You believe the mind stands apart from its own conditions of being. You are not interested in being part of nature. Well fine. — apokrisis

I am especially interested in what you mean by "not interested in being a part of nature". How does that not fall in line directly with the naturalistic fallacy? This is what nature does, so it must be good, seems to be what you are saying.