This isn't even about being fair to others but about being fair to yourself. It didn't take Leonardo Davinci five minutes to do the Mona Lisa and Rome was not built in a day.

If I gave you an hour to paint something and you gave me a half assed drawing of a stick figure I'd know you spent five minutes doing it and 55 minutes fucking around. That's the only principle I'm trying to convey to you right now. Respect your use of time.

I'm not a professional philosopher either. So you can do better. Which you should take as a compliment. Your problem is fixable and it's relatively easy. Take more time to respond. No one here is going to rush you or take offence (at least I won't) if you don't respond immediately. We aren't a clingy facebook girlfriend you have to be prompt with to avoid a guilt trip. Just relax, set yourself goals on how much time you're willing to contribute to a creative endeavour. If your responses are based on the best you can do promptly then your philosophy will only suffer for it. Take your time.

You are answering a question I did not ask. Which is fine. I don't mind if you exercise your right to free speech. Just saying that you are hedging, but I can't fault you for that. To wit: My question is, what is it about morality that ultimately, unambiguosly, and clearly delineates it from other human considerations? I ask, because my point is that though it may exist, humanity has not found out what it is, and therefore all speeches and conversations about morality that purport to make a point is futile. — god must be atheist

I second this question. I'd like to know too.

Obviously it is not I who haven't read your 2+ pages of posts, but it is you who were too lazy or inept to read my only one post. — god must be atheist

@Aleph Numbers

Here's an example of an argument that although contains a fallacy, kind of rings true, since if pressed they would use your own linguistic reactions to honest criticism as the premises for this conclusion.

You cherry pick from parts of my responses too and ignore everything that you don't seem interested in trying to refute. Which means you're not being charitable to me and are trying to misrepresent my own words back to me even though I can literally observe you missing all the detail and nuance I didn't have to take the time to carefully craft, for you. You are literally getting a lot of what I perceive to be my and everyone elses most valuable resource, time.

All I'm really asking of you; is this your best philosophical argument? Now be really honest with yourself. Is this the best you can do?

I'll say it again then: if I define morality as "what is considered good behavior by most people some of the time" that means that if most people believe something is the correct thing to do morally some of the time it is the moral thing to do in the appropriate circumstances. Not a fallacy. — Aleph Numbers

Yes it is. If every animal on Earth wanted to destroy the potential for life on Mars and destroy Mars with a death star it wouldn't make it right. You'd be missing the whole point of the idea of majority consensus in a biocentric model.

Why should anyone have to engage with a definition of morality is majority rules? What if the majority rules to kill the minority out of an extremely incorrect assessment of that minorities ability to destroy the whole community of life?

Let's look at the Infinite Gauntlet Thanos issue, lets Say Thanos offers to let us have a vote. The first question being. Should we have a meaningful vote on whether or not thanos should kill whomever is in the minority on this question? You'd essentially consign that entire minority ti death whether they are a moral relativist or not and you assume the majority is smart enough to know what is and isn't right and wrong in any given situation. It might seem moral in the moment because everyone voted it so, but if we have a vote 30 years later to punish the majority in the last two votes for enabling thanos to kill the minority, then there is a contradiction. Time makes the difference. It doesn't matter what the majority might vote for if a later majority can find the same context and the same principles morally abhorrent later. This is why it is a Fallacy, because it leads to a contradiction.

Listen, everyone makes fallacies and you're not expected to be perfect all the time. Fallacies are what they are for a reason.

Now, it would be also be a fallacy of me to assume that because you argument has a fallacy in it, it might not have merit. The point is you have to show me that merit. So far you have in some ways but not by clinging to fallacy by majority. That's just my honest observation. You can not agree if you want but unless you have redefined a number of the words you used then what you said to me does not mean what you want it to mean. If that is the case, then you'll need to delineate on a few of your definitions in order for it to not appear as a fallacy because you've given me no good logical argument as to why I shouldn't see it as a fallacy.

"If 6 billion people claim that torture is justified in certain contexts, by way of majority it must be true." - Argumentum ad populum.

Whether you say ratio or percent it makes no difference. You're still appealing to the majority. Which means you are harming your own argument which is probably being made out of intuition. If it is being made out of intuition, trust that intuition but figure out how to make your points without making a logical fallacy if you can. If the argument is logically sound then it should speak for itself and convince me of its strength, despite my skepticism. It's extremely difficult for me to adhere to a principle of charity and adhere to a principle of healthy and reasonable skepticism at the same time when your conclusion itself is a fallacy.

You also assume 7 billion+ humans are the majority. We declaw cats, we forcefully and without consent sterilise domesticated and wild animals. Sometimes not even for medical reasons like Ovarian or testicular cancer either, the medical consensus in terms of ethics here is that even if I have testicular cancer, I can opt to refuse all specific ball removing treatments in favour of something less mutilating if I want to. Whether that is successful or not I don't know. The point is, the consensus or ratio here among medical professionals, it's above 0.5 within that field, (at least functionally it is but I've not specifically polled that question in either that or a global demographic.) is I have the right to refuse this treatment even if adhering to a principle of retaining human dignity, which might ultimately lead to my death. Retaining Human Dignity in this case could be viewed by others as unjustifiable pride. Which would mean my death would be my fault and so would the emotional consequences of the fallout, for my loved ones and for my potential to help humanity which would be lost due to my own arrogance.

Maybe a computer could do it. :chin: — Aleph Numbers

While I did previously infer this, not the ones you or I have at the moment. Which operate algorithmically and heuristically, not axiomatically, as do me and you on a conscious level. There might be arguments to be made for axiomatic thinking on the subconscious level. In programming a group of algorithms can work axiomatically to some extent but conflicts, fallibility and bias of designer and data inputter doesn't help. Hence computer glitches and crashes etc.

Now as for Quantum Computing... Whole other ball game but might be slightly less fallible than it's designer, might be. However I suspect that even that will have shortcomings and whatever might be next after that too.

The reason conscious level thinking can't be axiomatic is something I'd like to be able to explain, but I haven't got the Time. ;) enjoy that riddle haha.

This might help explain.

Yeah, I see what you are saying. Thanks for that. I guess one would merely need to poll people about what they think on moral issues often and then discuss the resultant axioms to deal with all of the real, and sometimes intractable, moral problems we face. After all, there would be an interaction between the discourse and people's beliefs. — Aleph Numbers

To me, what you are describing here would be an interesting form of democracy and an ideal situation to me. I do take issue with the word axiom being used in talk of Ethics and meta-ethics because I don't know if we have the required faculties for axiomatic thinking. We aren't computers.

Some Kalevi Kull too.

I might not respond again today which I apologise for. This is a really good debate and discussion and I appreciate you starting it. I've got to deal with a covid emergency, family members just got positive tests back. :/

Read Charles Hockett. Then we'll talk.

anthropomorphizing — schopenhauer1

Coming down on this one word, you only use it because you are assuming that human characteristics are not just animal characteristics in the first place. Since that is actually what we are now debating, I'd like to hear your effective counter argument as to why Anthropomorphizing is wrong. Otherwise your argument in this instance boils down to "Animals can't have human Characteristics, because only we have human Characteristics, because Anthropomorphizing is wrong." Circular logic again.

I don't think you're being very charitable with my arguments here at all.

Do you really not understand what is meant by "cognitive differences of degree, not type"? because it doesn't seem like you do at all. We at least know that animals are engaging with conceptual like thinking in impressionistic terms, the way babies do. They wouldn't be able to function otherwise.

Your entire argument is just woefully unjustified Anthropocentrism So justify it.

linguistically generative way humans do — schopenhauer1

Did I not just mention Body language and the sort of information that can be imparted just by using sign language? I didn't realise you were a cryptographer who has spent all his time in the wild and has proven animals ciphers don't exist through peer reviewed journals. Would you like to link me to your work?

I have no issue with you making your arguments but I highly suggest you do some research in the field of epistemology because you clearly don't know that much about how to justify epistemic claims. By that I suggest you just stop claiming to know things publicly because you don't know enough to even claim to know anything about Animal Psychology, linguistics or Zoosemiotics and that is self evident.

I'm not so sure about this. I think on this forum it eventually comes down to how many people our questions offend, which is backward because the essence of philosophy is negation. — JerseyFlight

I was using this forum as an example of a place where such a belief could be argued to be part of the culture. Would you prefer the culture of an ethics classroom as an example? Or would you say that there are some justifiable taboos in all cultures in general? Including an ethics classroom? Very interested to hear your thoughts.

You'll also need to PM me at some point and explain the Polemic School of thought in more detail. I had a brief look at that and found it fascinating. Are you the organiser for that meetup group? PM soon!

As to "The essence of philosophy is negation" can you explain in more detail what you mean by that and also justify the claim for me? I don't know if I agree with that. I'd say the essence of philosophy is Delineation. Or maybe I mean the purpose of philosophy? What do we even mean by essence? Too far? It's 3 am here, so I'm honestly running on fumes, so I apologise if I've not made sense, especially for that last question, too Meta for this late at night I feel!

Descriptive Contextual Relativism is a bit harder to deconstruct. The act of punching someone being morally wrong or right is relative to the context in this view and is a form of neo-pragmatic consequentialism. — MSC

Although I think Educational psychologist William Perry might have coined the term Contextual Relativism but in relation to student cognitive development.

I've struggled with the idea of morality being subjective for quite some time now; I really want some things to be objectively moral - or to at least avoid cultural relativism. I think a good start for moral axioms is to recognize what most people most of the time would consider moral or immoral behavior (I've heard something like this before but I can't remember who said it). This avoids many of the pitfalls of cultural relativism because the "most people most of the time" bit transcends many, if not most cultural barriers. For instance, premeditated killing is condemned in the majority of cultures. One could expand the group of those that believe that one should not engage in premeditated killing to include people in every culture that have this belief and make it the numerator in a ratio. if one then makes the denominator the total number of people in humanity, given the ratio is greater than 0.5, relative to humanity, murder is wrong. Thus, cultural relativism is avoided. Is there a flaw in my thinking? The same thing would apply for determining whether or not something is immoral: the ratio would have to be less than 0.5. — Aleph Numbers

Unfortunately you've led yourself right back into cultural relativism I'm afraid. :/ What you would be attempting to describe is our global moral culture. However there is a huge problem when you try to bring numbers into it. Which is fallacy by majority. It's entirely possible for that ratio to not only be above 0.5 for murder but also belief in non-moral matters. Like physics. Just because the ratio might have once been at 0.9 for both deadly blood sports and the Earth being flat, doesn't mean that either were correct in the moral or the physical sense of the word 'correct'.

Now, it can work that way in votes for laws and such. Which you can think of as experimental ethics if that helps. Something being legal doesn't mean it is right amd something being illegal doesn't mean it is wrong. That's not a true global culture though due to our nationalism status quo and disenfranchisement within those nations of potential voting demographic. Not every country is a democracy either.

If you want to go for the Jugular of Cultural Relativism, use Descriptive relativism and focus on the Moral Culture here on this forum.

One thing I think we can all agree on, is that part of our culture here, is we are all freely allowed to question the morals of other cultures. Would you agree with that? This forum wouldn't really exist without us all having this unwritten social rule buried within the forum culture.

Yet Cultural Relativists all over the world, claim it is wrong to question or criticize other people cultures. So occurs a contradiction within the structure of the argument for cultural relativism because it is obvious that not all of us here share the same moral beliefs at all. Yet Cultural relativists would claim that our moral truths are based on our culture. A complete impossibility within the culture of this forum.

The same is true of every culture. Disagreement from within. Untouchables in India probably don't want the Caste system. So it's not a cultural truth of Indian culture that the caste system is just okay, in fact, individuals from every caste have moral objections to the caste system. So even asserted cultural rules about whether or not untouchables even get a say don't matter since individual members of every caste take issue with them having to be called "untouchables" in the first place instead of "Fellow Indian" "Countrymen" "Friend" "Neighbour".

Individual relativism doesn't really work either. I can have the intent to morally help people, yet be indecisive about how, who or why and can still harm even if I intend otherwise. I can have conflict within both inner and external dialogues which makes me look back and say "I was wrong for doing that.". It's not that our beliefs changed and it was right in the past but wrong for you to do now. You say "I was wrong" past tense, meaning you now believe it was wrong both then and now. Unless you only believe it was wrong in that context but may have been right in another. For example punching someone unprovoked = "I was wrong" vs Punching someone trying to stab you = "It isn't wrong to punch someone trying to stab you".

Descriptive Contextual Relativism is a bit harder to deconstruct. The act of punching someone being morally wrong or right is relative to the context in this view and is a form of neo-pragmatic consequentialism.

At this point, if he doesn't mean Ideas, I'll be disappointed.

I suppose you're right but from the little experience I've had not all drugs come in the form of pills, syrups, injectables, inhalants. You know what I mean, right? — TheMadFool

I know you were addressing this to @Pfhorrest but do you mean ideas?

Then I said that the reason most people had slaves was because of economical reasons not because of hate and cruelty as you said. And the article says basically the same thing, most slavery was about having work done without having to pay for it. — Sir2u

Since we are talking about all animals, I'd like to add to your argument, by pointing out that police dogs receive no formal pay, feed, board and medical care which on the books will say "animal care", by your argument that would be "slave care" considering the dangerous nature of their work, be it suspect apprehension or Contraband searches. They also get trained for the job from a young age and have no knowledge of or choice of another life. They don't have the same sort of informed consent as police officers do and couldn't tell you what a gun or cocaine is. Discussion on that incoming because I think the topic deserves it's own place.

We have, seemingly endless generation of ideas (conceptual thinking), some of which can be evaluative as to what we must do to survive, keep comfortable, and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Let's address this more directly with the concept of Home.

Many animals seek out shelter.
Some bears like caves.
Bears make beds out of leaves.
Bears prepare winter dens during the summer and caves have been used by the same bear for up to six years as far as the longest human observed cave can make out. Some may have lived in them for longer and them spending summer prepping means they are just in and out of the cave most of the time.
The extinct Ursus Spelaeus or Cave bear may have permanently resided in caves
Bears play.
Bears have family's. Single mothers most of the time.
The fact that bears play suggests they are capable of feeling bored and entertained. Which means they also have some concept of fun.

This is why what I said earlier was really important, the mental differences between us and other animals are differences of degree, not type or kind.

I know it is incredibly boring, but we really really do have to address the concept of boredom, since you have decided to opt for evaluative conceptual ideas as to what animals must do in order to survive, be comfortable and entertained. By your argument I could suffer by being bored of every moment in life and I've got this phone that lets me stay entertained by having this conversation. The bears don't even have that! They are probably more bored than you or I.

Now, if you want you can contribute all of that behaviour to instinct, but only if you're willing to imply that all our behaviour is instinctual as well. Babies don't know words but you can tell they think in impressionistic terms at leas Animals are no different. At a safe distance, we might feel we are superior to other animals. You wouldn't feel so superior on their turf and come face to face with someone who gets the impression that your are lunch and you have nothing to defend yourself with. Hell, we aren't even the only animal that kills for fun. So it might even be the impression that you are a toy. A toy is just a form of tool. What else do some animals also do? Make tools. Orangutans have been known to join together in certain places and soap and lather their hands for no other reason than they seem to enjoy it, not all groups of them do it either, so instinct or culture emergence? Who knows, they might even believe if they do that, they'll live longer for appropriate superstition like impressions. Which isn't wrong in terms of hygiene tbh.

Rounding back to our instincts, babys come out crying, if they are healthy. If they are crying it means they aren't unconscious so it's the first good sign they have made it through the difficult part. Crying uses vocal chords, we all instinctively know how to cry out.

Birds migrate, plan migrations, birds have even been known to change the migration schedules due to how bad they think a hurricane season in the gulf of mexico might be. Which they seem to be able to predict with better accuracy than even we can and we can't even explain how they can do that. I can't quite remember the name but it's found in Delaware. Begins with a W I think.

I can communicate entire concepts to you in sign language, if I hypothetically knew any sign other than thank you, pretty much everything I've said here can be signed. I don't understand what deaf and/or mute people are saying in sign language but I know it's a language.

I know I have thrown quite a lot out there but everything I have said is verifiable.

My conclusion is this;
You can't speak another animals language, whether you're human or not, if the language is conveyed in sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch. Then how in the hell would you or anyone else know whether or not animals pass complex or abstract concepts between each other? Do dogs not maybe learn how another dogs day was by sniffing each other out, or even how yours was? If I got 26 different perfumes could I not tell you a story, in Scent-English just by waving a series of silk clothes in front of your face, in the right order after teaching you which scent applies to which letter of the alphabet? I could even add punctuation Fragrances. It would be hard to learn at first but that's no different than learning how to write. It's just a matter of conditioning.

Good luck figuring out how to explain antinatalism to the Bear! ;)

Edit; Sorry if it kept changing while anyone might have been trying to read. Had to do a number of edits.

True, you never know for sure. We've seen protests and lootings and burnings across the country and only some the perpetrators have been identified as ANTIFA. — BitconnectCarlos

One of the things you mentioned, protests, isn't a problem and by law the people have a right to protest. The majority of the protests have indeed been peaceful. This brings me to another point, ANTIFA is an ideology, a statement you and I have both agreed with. So individuals who identify as ANTIFA, are not members of a group but are individuals espousing a belief in an ideology.

Pro-Life is also an Ideology. Do you think every pro-lifer spends their time outside of abortion clinics shouting profanities at employees and scared women seeking abortions? I'm Pro-Life, but I don't do that. I also identify as ANTIFA (Now don't rush to judge or throw the baby out with the bathwater because what I have to say is monumentally important and it would benefit you and everyone on all sides of all ideological debates to hear it) but I am not out Looting or burning or assaulting anyone and even if Trump wins a second term, I still probably won't be doing any of that. I'm human and I've been angry at times and when we get angry we think of doing stupid things, sometimes we do those stupid things to different degrees. I wouldn't judge you in the slightest if you told me that the thought hadn't crossed your mind to go out and assault people you see protesting. We all have those kinds of thoughts from time to time, especially about the things that mean a lot to us.

Why is this? Because the modal quality of my ANTIFA ideology and my Pro-life Ideology are personal and based on my individuality, just like ANTIFA who are out on the streets looting and burning, and the ones PEACEFULLY protesting... Or, like you. In the last few messages to me you have expressed ANTIFA ideology, yet you're not out looting and burning either. Instead you are having a collaborative, open, equal, equitable and honest conversation on the internet with people who disagree with you. On a philosophy forum no less. You might say that the Modal quality of our ANTIFA beliefs are like a super hard Titanium alloy, while the looters and burners are but lithium, a soft metal.

No, that's not luck. You read it multiple times in a critical fashion. Bravo. If only we could get more critical thinking into the world. — JerseyFlight

Agreed. I wish it was a heavier focus in schools. Philosophy should be part of the core curriculum. I've never been to University though and I dropped out of highschool.

Well thank you! I just got lucky though, I read his response three times before I noticed there was an assumption.

Thank you, I think? Sarcasm or sincere? Always hard to tell in writing.

I never said antifa started the forest fires. What I am aware of is tons of footage on youtube of black clad men either assualting journalists or looting/burning stores — BitconnectCarlos

If that is all you're aware of, aren't you making the assumption that they are Antifa? If you don't know either way then mighten they not be a false flag? Hypothetically.

The thing that bothers me is that many are jumping to conclusions prior to police investigations being finished and are conjecturing all sorts. On both sides really. For all you or I know, there are personal disputes or normal crimes being labeled as Antifa or Right wing extremists.

Are you of the opinion that neo-nazis don't exist in the USA? Sincerely asking.

Since we are talking about killings, what did you think about the killing of BLM activist Oluwatoyin Salau?

I’m thinking of this all as a philosophical thought experiment divorced from the practical details: basically “if you could directly stimulated pleasure centers in your brain would you want that ability?” In actual practice no, I’m not getting brain surgery unless I really need it. — Pfhorrest

That's fair, I'm a pragmatist though so I don't tend to divorce from the practical details as I see them as being relevant to the philosophical thought behind it.

That’s the kind of thing I was thinking of.

If it can be made so that just existing at all in and if itself feels like at least a slight net positive, regardless of what else is going on, then it seems that that would go a huge way toward relieving anxiety, depression, and existential dread. — Pfhorrest

I agree to an extent in terms of if these mental health conditions are treatment resistant by way of traditional methods.

It's important to weigh up the risks between say an orally taken SSRI vs a procedure to have the dial/button installed.

No procedure is without risk and brain invasive procedures usually carry the most risk. A slip up on the part of the medical professional carrying out the procedure could leave you in a vegetative state or potentially damage ones ability to feel any positive emotions at all. This would also be a factor in if a patient whom the implant works for wishes to discontinue treatment as the procedure to remove the device would carry the same risks as implementing it in the first place.

Then you have the issue of neurological diversity and the assumption that the device would be a success for everyone.

Then we have other brain abnormalities and the dangers surrounding them. For example people without the capacity to feel pain are in danger of not knowing whether or not something is wrong with them. What that may mean is that a patient themselves who has the implant could potentially mismanage pain related to a malignant tumour. Masking that problem wouldn't eliminate it and the doctors best early warning symptom of something being wrong is actually your own ability to feel pain.

If the button would give relief to someone suffering from bone cancer, then yes; the rest, maybe not. — jorndoe

My thinking exactly. End of life care or treatment resistant pain issues would be fine so long as there are a panel of professionals making decisions on it.

What about Mental health issues? Depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation etc

It helps, when avoiding a deadly spiral into drug addiction, that drugs are not easily or legally procured. — Kenosha Kid

Mostly agree but not with the legally procured part. There are a handful of chronic pain issues I could claim I have that a Dr can't reliably test for, opiates can be legally prescribed and in some cases are directly pushed onto patients who would do better with other pain management therapies.

Sorry for the brief answer but I'm arguing against 4 other people here... I was referencing the brown shirts in the early 30s, before the wide scale assaults/killings started. My point was that a movement can be violent - as the brownshirts were - before racking up a high body count. This was in response to one of Kenosha's points earlier. — BitconnectCarlos

It's all good, we've all been there where we get overwhelmed with engaging with multiple people. My Push the button post yesterday did that to me too. Reply at your leisure and take your time. I'm not going to rush you.

no i characterise them as violent based on their beliefs and also actions. antifa is more of an ideology than an organized group. it's the belief that we ought to be quick to be use violence if "fascists" are active because their very presence is a threat. they are very openly quick to violence. no they don't have a giant death count but neither did hitler's brownshirts in the early 30s. would you even consider the brownshirts a violent group before they killed anyone? or was it fine because they were just assaulting some people and doing some marching and chanting? — BitconnectCarlos

Not really a good comparison. The brownshits were assaulting jews, gays, the disabled, Jehovah's witnesses and sympathizer of those demographics, plus others, whom they went on to kill in their millions. 6 million jews and 5 million of those other demographics were killed across nazi controlled Europe.

Antifa are assaulting people who ideologically align with the Brownshits, the right wing extremists would and do target those same demographics and they have a death count in the united states. The fact that their have only been assaults on the Antifa side and no killings just demonstrates restraint on their part and a desire for the fascists to change their ways rather than just outright condemning them as evil and killing them. The brownshits condemned their victims as evil and used that to justify their brutality. Lets not forget that the brownshits practiced voter intimidation during Hitlers rise to power which was a clear attack on democracy and already there are news stories of attempts by right wingers to intimidate early voters at the polls. Maybe when fascist extremists show up at polling sites with guns you will understand.

Changing the meaning of Anti-fascism to fascism for fascists doesn't really make much sense. It just sounds like you're saying "It's fascism to say people can't be fascists.

The Brownshits = Prejudicial and offensive tactics toward groups that are now deemed protected.

Antifa = preemptive defensive tactics used to protect the demographics the brownshits would have us enslave/murder.

So the whole "both as bad as each other" narrative you are trying to push doesn't really make much sense as the very reasons and motivations behind the existence are entirely different. To put it simply, if there were no Fascists, there would be no Antifa. If there were no Antifa, we would still have fascists.

If you are violent towards others, you can hardly blame others for responding and reacting violently as a means of self defense. Violence begets Violence. If your priorities are to reduce violence then your focus should be on Fascists, not Antifa. If your priorities are to empower fascists by ignoring their violence in favour of coming down on the people who are defending themselves and others from this very violence, then you are a fascist and also have a violent ideology.

I simply love how the antinatalists in this debate are behaving as if the antinatal conclusion is and always was self evident. It most certainly is not and it seems that you all try to derive your own pleasure at assuming you are all so clever while calling everyone else stupid and sadistic for not allowing themselves to be manipulated by your circular logic and self referential, self congratulating egos.

If any of you really cared about reducing suffering, you would be kinder to others and wouldn't try to figuratively jerk each other off in an attempt to shame people for being alive and doing what literally every animal does.

I am curious as to where you all think free will and moral responsibility comes into play in your weird little worlds where up is down and right is wrong.

Keep that hatched-in-hell-button away from me. — Bitter Crank

Don't worry, the button is hypothetical and even if I was a neuroscientist, I'd never really hook anyone up to this unless it was part of some end of life care for the terminally ill. Even then, the moral issues involved would only allow me to do that if a panel of ethicists give the green light and evaluate on a case by case basis.

However, one thing I observed with many of these comments, is the rather ubiquitous idea that human life needs pain so that we can have the pleasure of overcoming it. I just find this theory lacking in any ethical claim. To assume that people need to experience pain so as to overcome it, and then to go so far as to create a being who was not there to begin with to actually live this ethos out, is quite cruel in my estimation. I don't think that overcoming pain gets some gold star of goodness. This is what people say to pressure others into not having negative feelings towards the pain that they are supposedly supposed to overcome to feel like a better person. Putting people through a game unnecessarily, or because you want to see people overcome pain (or use weasel phrases that mask the negative aspect.. like "grow from pain") is not ethical. So yea, sue me.. I don't buy the very popular "no pain, no gain.. do the Dew" bullshit. — schopenhauer1

I don't believe human life needs pain at all. It's not really in any of our control and not a single one of us is responsible for designing this diabolical maze. We all just live in it and short of suicide there is not much we can do about it.

No parent gets any joy out of seeing their offspring suffer (well, I certainly don't at least but I can't speak for sadist parents). However, I already know that I suffered in my childhood in ways my kid has not. I was physically, emotionally and sexually abused (not an appeal to emotion just stating the facts of my childhood.) I've not repeated those cycles of abuse. Some of the things my kid has been upset about recently and has felt they have suffered over; Having to do schoolwork (which with the coronavirus has had me playing learning assistant for online learning), having to throw out what little remained of a cardboard box that we had already used for multiple arts and crafts projects, not being allowed to play video games all day.

I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking I am an optimist. I'm really not. I believe in working smart, not hard.

Life simply is. It doesn't need any justification to be the reality we find ourselves in.

I'd agree that we maybe callously have children. Even if we accept an antinatal moral position to be the only good one, it is not as if that is in any way an obvious conclusion for anyone to arrive at. It's not as if every parent internally acknowledges this position and then has a kid just to piss you or anyone else off that happens to be an antinatalist.

Yes, we are able to overcome both kinds. Doesn't mean I'm going to start taking heroin anytime soon or take up an unhealthy masturbation habit, just because I know it is possible to overcome both. Yes we can overcome these addictions, but how long will it take and at what cost? A year? Ten years? Half a lifetime? How many relationships ruined or lives destroyed for it? I lost ten years of mine to Marijuana. You might say that this was my version of the button. If so then I most definitely regret that first push.

This is pure assumption. — Outlander

Not really, I meant "no catch" as in I won't do anything to harm you if you agree, make you sign all your wealth and property over to me or I won't just use you for sex or something like that. So no, it's not an assumption since I'm the one creating the scenario so I'm the one creating the terms. Unless you are suggesting that I am making a pure assumption about my own beliefs and my own scenario? Which makes no sense. Try and be a bit more substantive in your responses and read carefully as to what is meant.

If I had meant what you thought I meant, then I'd just agree with you. There would probably still be negative consequences like addiction and long term physiological and psychological effects if you chose to accept the button.

All I meant by no catch, is that I won't do anything to you and in making the choice to have the button/dial you are accepting whatever long term consequences may arise from that. Since no one has ever undergone such a thing over a long period of time, there is no telling what effect it may have on a person.

Depends what you mean by addiction. Behavioral addiction is not the same beast as chemical addiction but it is similar.

How could I ever appreciate the good without some knowledge of what is bad? Does that answer your question?

Pleasure is not the end goal. Equilibrium is. Most of us might not be aware of this revelation -- but upon examination, this is truly what peace is about. Equilibrium after a painful experience is what our mind wants, not necessarily pleasure. We are happiest when we have equilibrium, which pleasure cannot provide. — Caldwell

What does equilibrium mean to you? I'm not disagreeing. I do see what you are saying, I don't necessarily want pleasure when I feel pain, I just want the pain to be gone. Just feeling balanced is a worthwhile reprieve from some forms of suffering. The forms of suffering and pain that harm me. So pain in my legs while I am exercising is a good thing and in the long run is beneficial, not harmful.

Free pleasure is worthless pleasure, just like farcebook and twatter bring you. It does nothing for your life. If there is no reason for the pleasure then it is senseless to have it. — Sir2u

Sir, I love you. I'm gonna be borrowing those terms. Watch the Social Dilemma on Netflix. You. Will. Love. It!

It's stupid to admire a fictional character, but the character Chmeee and his sense of duty, loyalty, and integrity resonate strongly with me. If there is a "good life" to live, those qualities are essential. — RogueAI

Is it stupid to admire a fictional character? I admire loads! Even if I don't always admire the writer of that character *Cough*JKRowling*Cough*.

What you said really resonates with me and also matches surprisingly well with the Inspiration for this post. which I think you'd enjoy reading simply for it's parallels to your own words.

But Republicans want you to be worried about ANTIFA, a tiny unorganized group that no one even knows how to join (otherwise I would have) and sometimes beats up a few Nazis. — Baden

Antifa isn't a group as far as I'm aware but an ideology. You're already Antifa bro! There are organised Antifa movements all over the world but there is no centralised Antifa leader nor direct communication between each group. For obvious reasons relating to what Fuhrer means.

Antifa operates similarly to the French resistance during WW2 except it hasn't killed anyone. The French Resistance was the collection of French movements that fought against the Nazi German occupation of France and the collaborationist Vichy régime during the Second World War.

Collection of movements.

Sorry if the correction comes across as rude. I'm with you on this though. The new American Nazis should just consider themselves lucky that Antifa doesn't employ the same tactics that the French resistance did. Otherwise there would actually be a fucking death toll.

You don't need anyone's permission to beat up a few Nazi's. Although I would wait until we find out the results of the 2020 election before you grab your baseball bat. If we lose, I'll lend you mine, just don't remove any of the nails.