I don't see why those who deem themselves vulnerable cannot isolate themselves, or have the government facilitate such isolation on a voluntary basis.

This is just another example of governments treating their citizens like children. Wear a coat when it rains outside! Don't run with sharp objects! Wash your hands before dinner!

A while back there was a thread that talked about how western society seems inhabited by adult children. My reply was; treating people like children, makes them act like children.

And that sums up this whole situation. Governments playing the role of overbearing, controlling mother and turning its population into dysfunctional children.

I think referring to what the US have right now as totalitarianism is a symptom of lost faith in your democratic system. I’m not sure if you quite realise what totalitarianism really amounts to. What you’re experiencing is a sense of lost freedoms, which is understandable in the current circumstances. — Possibility

I do not think this reaction is so strange. After all, once freedoms are lost, one also becomes painfully aware that it is not within their own power to simply take them back, and that "the powers that be" have very little interest in ever returning them.

Losing freedom is a gradual process. Gaining it, usually the result of a bloody revolution against a tyrannical oppressor.

So when people call the US totalitarian, they're essentially just looking ahead.

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

I don't think antinatalism is about "getting something".

One can come to moral conclusions that one does not like, but still recognize them as being true.

Which works if what we mean is that further experiences can tell us that some limited earlier experiences were not the full picture; I agree with that completely. But in that case you're still relying on experience generally. — Pfhorrest

To connect two experiences together and figure out what they mean, one has to rely on reason to tell the relation between the two.

Eating sugar brings pleasure. That is an experience.

Developing diabetes brings pain. That is also an experience.

These two experiences seperately do not tell us anything. We need another element, which I argue is reason, to connect the dots.

I seem to have the feeling that as the super-ego or some moral tendency defined as a good conscious concerned with truth or whatnot must find that they ought to reduce suffering in the world if they are to feel good with themselves as a philosopher. — Shawn

Some thoughts:

I don't think there is a duty to reduce suffering. That would seem like quite a large burden for an individual to bear.

Perhaps what you name the super-ego leads us to wisdom and self-realization, and the reduction of suffering for those around us is a natural result of this process. Perhaps the duty is self-realization and the attainment of wisdom.

Coming as the average Westerner it would be mostly through the political process mostly at the moment. — Shawn

The political process in western countries can be described as the individual attempting to have their worldview imposed upon others by government, generally through majority-decision. Does this seem like a suitable tool to reduce suffering?

Hedonism (specifically ethical hedonism, the topic of the thread) is about appealing to experiences (of things feeling good or bad) as grounds to call something good or bad. — Pfhorrest

And we've talked about how these experiences alone are too easy to fool to serve as a guide.

Only when we already have some known-true propositions about what's good or bad to reason from. But when we're starting from scratch, or are lost in radical doubt, where do we get any such moral propositions to start that reasoning process from? I can think of nothing other than experience, or else just taking someone's word for it. — Pfhorrest

Ok, but how does this make a case for hedonism?

Reasoning PLUS experience can, sure, but you were just doubting the reliability of experience, and when pressed for what grounds we have to doubt it, gave just reasoning alone as an answer.

My point overall is that while the conclusions reached from some experiences can indeed turn out to be wrong, the way we find that out is via more experiences, so it’s still ultimately experience that we’re relying on. — Pfhorrest

I think we can use reasoning alone to come to conclusions about what is good and bad, without having to experience it first-hand. I think we do this all the time, on this forum for example. Unless you wish to classify reason as an experience in the same way that pain and pleasure are experiences. But I wouldn't agree with such a classification.

it can't tell you any contingent things about either what's true or what's good, only about what's (not) possible. — Pfhorrest

I disagree. I think such experiences and reasoning can tell us many things that are both true and good for ourselves.

Experiences of what? Knowledge of what? That something felt good at first but later lead to greater suffering? That’s information from your senses again, telling you that your earlier senses didn’t give you the full picture. — Pfhorrest

Yes and no.

Sensory experiences combined with our reasoning faculty, where the latter can provide us with an understanding the sensory experiences cannot.

Then how do we know that there is any reason to doubt them? — Pfhorrest

Hopefully one wisens up to this fact as they grow up, through their experiences and gathered knowledge.

How do we know they have been fooled except by further use of them? — Pfhorrest

We don't, which is why I think the senses are a bad guide for moral conduct in the way hedonism seems to prescribe.

What is bad about being poisoned if not the suffering it causes? — Pfhorrest

What I am trying to point out is that someone's subjective idea of pleasure and pain can vary greatly over time. Eating all that sugar may feel good in the moment, but it will not when one develops an illness because of it. Similarly, physical exercise can feel bad when one is doing it, but be very healthy.

So the premise of hedonism that pleasure and pain determine what is good and bad seems to me inherently flawed. Our senses are simply too easy to fool.

What makes conduct moral, if not refraining from hurting people (not inflicting suffering), and helping them (enabling enjoyment)? — Pfhorrest

I can for the most part agree with this idea of moral conduct, however I do not think that those things you named are, in the context of morality, necessarily connected to subjective sensations of pain and pleasure.

I can feed my child all the sugar it wants, and I am sure they will enjoy it greatly, however I would be slowly poisoning them, regardless of their enjoyment.

A guide to what? — Pfhorrest

Moral conduct, starting with me, an individual.

How can we talk about morality without considering what feels good or bad (for me, you or anyone else). — I like sushi

With reason, I suppose. The senses will simply have to follow.

The pleasure/pain system in our bodies is so deceptive, I don't think it can serve as a useful guide.

For anyone to say it is irrelevant to morality must have said so with good reason ... I cannot fathom what that is and will be simply down to their personal understanding of what ‘morality’ means. I can understand the view that the ‘pleasure’ is in the journey, but the ‘pleasure’ is still ‘pleasure’ rather than some cold-reasoned way of living morally that may actively pursue pain and suffering ... — I like sushi

My view:

Something that feels good can be immoral, and something that feels bad can be moral.

So whether something feels good or bad does not seem to determine whether something is moral or immoral.

That isn't to say that living morally cannot feel good. It simply is not relevant to it.

I = 1 of course. — TheMadFool

What is one?

I guess TheMadFool referred as sticks but it also works with counting with your own fingers. This is the most solid proof of why 2 + 2 equals 4. — javi2541997

Sticks, fingers, luxury yachts. They don't answer the question of what is one.

I I [2] + I I [2] = I I I I [4] — TheMadFool

I = ?

Joe Frazier famously went on record, long after his rivalry with Muhammad Ali ended, and asked "Who really won that fight?"

Adoption is an incredibly expensive, tedious, and even exclusionary process that can take years to complete. Adopted kids also come with their own issues, and I don’t think every parent is properly prepared to deal with it. — Albero

Sounds like that should prompt exactly the kind of prior thinking required for making such a decision.

If one is unwilling to make such sacrifices for an orphan, what makes them think they would fare any better at raising their biological child?

Perpetuating the human race, I suppose. Though, I would not believe anyone who proclaimed to care enough about the human race as a whole to procreate for this reason.

The obvious question to ask is, why not adopt a child and provide a loving home for an orphan?

It's a well-known phenomenon in psychology that people who are treated like children, start acting like children.

And in the case of citizens and governments, I'd say it's an abusive parental relationship.

message removed, posted it in the wrong thread!

What would curb an initial personal desire? — schopenhauer1

An understanding of that personal desire.

But insight into one's own psyche doesn't seem to come naturally to most.

I wonder if this would cause someone to stop and think more when considering procreation and putting more people into the world. — schopenhauer1

A personal desire for having children seems to be a far greater drive than the well-being of said children. No matter how dire the living conditions, wherever there are people, there are people multiplying. So no, I don't think it would make people stop and think. If only.

It is because force can legitimately be used against those who are violating another's rights and also to make sure people pay restitution. — Bartricks

A case can be made for the use of force being just in the case of self-defense, but other than that I am not so sure.

Violence is truly an unholy tool. It's reason that seperates man from animal, and violence that makes him more like it.

An interesting point of view, though why would the state in this case be justified in dictating in what way parents shall provide for their children?

In addition, you state others are entitled to protect other people's rights. However, if that were the case then someone can use their subjective idea of rights to justify literally any action.

No.

Sure.

Just put your fucking mask on and stay the hell away from everybody else -- 6 feet. And wash your hands, too. Get the vaccine, too, or else. Can you manage all that? — Bitter Crank

No.

Like it's impossible for a government not to do those things? — Isaac

The use of violence, coercion and the process of corruption and wherever those may lead it, yes. Undoubtedly.

The whole raison d'être of centralised government is to prevent a repeat of the very bloody process of centralisation happening all over again. — Isaac

Centralized government has to do with consolidation of power, not with preventing bloodshed. And it has done none of the sort over the course of history. Again, the greatest atrocities in our history have been committed by centralized governments.

You're basically willing to risk mass warfare and global environmental crisis just so that a government can't use your taxes to support gay marriage (or whatever progressive government scheme it is you disapprove of). — Isaac

That's a bit of a hyperbole, but just like in any other system based on unjust means, there's a chance of citizens using those same unjust means against it. Violence is self-perpetuating. Hence, why I fundamentally disagree with its use.

And so far centralized governments have shown quite the opposite of preventing mass warfare and environmental disasters, so pick your poison.

Also, I thought we were past your shameless attempts of trying to frame me.
Now I am some homophobe as well? Puh-lease. Show some class. So far you've been wrong in all your assumptions about me.

"This person said words I don't like, so they must be a despicable person."

Nonsense. Amazon provides appalling working conditions, comes close to breaching human rights in developing world sources and pollutes common resources. None of this is done by appropriating government coercion. It's done because the laws allow it. Worse is not done because governments prevent it. Without centralised government, what is to stop Amazon from removing even further worker's rights, from ignoring sustainable resource limits in their supply chain, from driving developing world workers into slavery? How do you propose to prevent these things without centralised government? — Isaac

Developing countries usually struggle with a myriad of other problems, government corruption undoubtedly one of them. And your answer is to give such corrupt governments a further mandate for violence and coercion.

The problem you sketch is a complex one, and I don't see how centralized government contributes to a solution.

Black, white, man, woman. These are meaningless labels that fill our heads with assumptions about a given individual we may encounter, but in fact tell us next to nothing. The individual largely has no use for them. Such labels that echo same- and otherness are however of great use to those who seek to hold power over others.

The appeal of these labels for the (sadly misguided) individual is that they are given a false, external source of self (ego), because they are yet unable to reach their true, unique identity, which cannot be defined through such generalizations.

Thus, the embrace of external sources of self is ultimately a form of rejection of the self, and only leads to anger, resentment, projection, etc.

In some ways, that's the point I'm trying to draw out. That you criticise government structures simply because you don't like some of the things your current government is doing. — Isaac

I think the things we have discussed are all fundamentally a part of government structures.

All of which are perpetrated by democratically elected governments. The people of your country elected these spineless morons to run things. So what on earth makes you think that putting decisions back into the hands of these very people is going to improve things? — Isaac

Governments hold centralized power, which is something individual citizens of a nation do not. I do not expect anyone to run things well, because power inevitably draws the corrupt and breeds corruption.

Decentralizing power ensures that those in power have a minimal capacity to force their will onto others. I'm not arguing it's a perfect system. As long as man is imperfect, his systems will be imperfect. But I see absolutely no argument for giving governments and individuals within governments the power over millions of citizens. We know where it leads.

You have to also demonstrate that one of the other would handle it better. If you want power returned to provincial governments, you have to show that provincial governments, collectively, make less of a mess than federated governments do, otherwise you're just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. You've yet to make such an argument. — Isaac

The argument for decentralizing power, is that ultimately it makes dysfunctional power structures escapable. The question may become, how do we keep decentralized power from centralizing itself? Perhaps it requires a continuous effort.

Yes. And political power is not the only form of power. so you make your small government... whose then to stop Google, Amazon and Facebook from accumulating vast power? — Isaac

The only reason one even needs to worry about these types of companies, is because they try to control people by trying to control powerful governments who have the mandate to violence and coercion. Powerful government is the enabler here, not the remedy.

Even without communism it seems the Chinese Communist Party has plenty of dangerous ideals to export.

Morality being subjective can serve as its own moral guideline.

The harder question would be, why anyone would be moral without believing in a religion that rewards (or punishes) them for it.

During our discussion we have worked from the assumption that governments produce mostly positive outcomes, to counterbalance their usage of unjust means. In reality, we see corruption, propaganda, shameless disregard for individual (and sometimes human) rights. We see governments that with every attempt to solve a problem create a dozen new ones. What we see is governments playing political games with often war as a result. Wars that have only increased in scale since history has been recorded, that have killed hundreds of millions in the last century, and that during the Cold War were literally on the verge of wiping out humanity.

I do not need more proof that governments cannot be trusted with power, and that everything must be done to curb what little power they should be allowed to hold.

In addition, with the idea of government, comes the problem of individuals having to hold large amounts of power. Again, history shows what power does to individuals. It inevitably corrupts. First it attempts to consolidate, then it attempts to grow. Corruption is a process that simply cannot be avoided, and it ultimately secures the fate of a nation, just like is now visibly happening in the United States.

A small government that protects those individual rights that we deem important enough to accept the necessary evil of coercion. Protection from physical violence certainly is one that comes to mind.

We've talked a while about why I believe the fundamental principles underlying government are flawed, but we haven't yet gotten into why the practical implication of those principles are much worse. Shall we?

So if someone were attacking you, you wouldn't fight back, you'd just let them kill you because if you cannot convince them and they win, let them "win"? I'm guessing you'd answer no, and I'm guessing you'd justify that answer with some mumbled caveat about violent force being an exception without ever giving any account of why, as if that were the only force that mattered for some unexplained reason. — Isaac

You guessed wrong, because it cannot be justified. Obviously I cannot sit here and claim I would let myself get killed. I do not know what I would do if someone were to try and kill me.

Evidently you do, otherwise you could not conclude that the taxed portion of any transaction was not the rightful property of the government. — Isaac

We have been over this. Whatever one's opinions may be about property, having it taken does not justify violence or threats thereof.

It doesn't. Generally it takes it through the tax code. You've had a seriously unlucky experience with some very overzealous tax collectors if that's your impression. The overwhelming majority of tax is collected peacefully. — Isaac

Because the threat of violence underpins it all.

We agree there. I think the state has exactly the same claim to property as individuals have. — Isaac

And the reason the state can take whatever it wants, is because it acts on the principle might makes right.

State-on-state violence is decreasing and has been for many years, mainly because of the diplomatic efforts of democratic governments. — Isaac

That is a very rose-coloured interpretation of the most violent century in human history. Virtually all of which committed by governments, I might add!

Your solution is more violent because the most violent elements in society are unrestrained. — Isaac

Incorrect. I am not an anarchist.

So that your charade of moral concern is never seen as viable by those who seek to use it as a mask for basic greed and bigotry. — Isaac

Quit lying to me, Pinocchio.

I've yet to encounter a single 'small government' enthusiast who isn't also a big industry supporter, opposed to progressive action toward minorities... It's always the same. They bleat about 'small government' but basically they just want some way, any way, of pushing their neoliberal agenda. — Isaac

All these assumptions about me are wrong. So there's that.