The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, but they can also choose to tax the corporations to help the poor and vulnerable in society, as Jeremy Corbyn believes in, and presumably Bernie Sanders on the other side of the pond. — Down The Rabbit Hole

No, they can’t. That’s like saying the Pope can choose not to be Catholic. It’s possible, I suppose — but the point is that he wouldn’t be Pope if that were the case.

The government consists of people who make decisions. They’re almost all capitalists themselves. They wouldn’t be where they are without first internalizing certain beliefs. It’s no longer a choice. Maybe at some point you have the choice to believe what you’re taught, but it’s simply not so easy— any more than choosing a different religion. — Xtrix

As you have alluded to, this is the same for religion, and it will be the same for those running corporations. They all have the freedom to follow their desires (which is the compatibilist definition of freedom).

The state has the greatest potential for control, and will use it to satisfy its desires.

The State, the Church, the Corporation

If forced to choose one institution, which would you choose as the most powerful in the world today? — Xtrix

I dislike right wing politics, but this is right:

We have to look to who has the monopoly on violence and coercion. — NOS4A2

The state has the ultimate choice in controlling anything. They can choose to be guided by the corporations, but they can also choose to tax the corporations to help the poor and vulnerable in society, as Jeremy Corbyn believes in, and presumably Bernie Sanders on the other side of the pond.

My point was, it's not reasonable to treat extinction as higher stakes than tens of millions with lives of suffering. And stakes being equal, we should use the balance of probability to guide our behaviour. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Firstly, why is it not reasonable? Many people think the extinction of the human race is a big deal, and that suffering can be reduced to levels which make it worthwhile by social and political action. Do their values not count? — Isaac

The negative consequence of one position is neutral (the unborn are in a neutral state), the negative consequence of the other is tens of millions with lives of suffering. I don't think neutrality is higher stakes than tens of millions with lives of suffering.

Of course this only holds for people that's ethical priority is suffering. There are plenty of other flavours of ice cream.

Secondly, the balance of probabilities isn't sufficient. It's more likely that we'll invent the space elevator if we continue having children, so on the balance of probabilities we should support natalism... But hang on, do we care about building a space elevator? Balance of probabilities isn't enough. An unlikely outcome which we value very highly is worth more than a likely one which we value less. Most people seem to think it a good idea to strive for the unlikely, but highly valued, future society in which everyone is grateful to be, rather than the very likely but disvalued one where no one is suffering at all, but no one exists either. — Isaac

Yes, the stakes have to be taken into consideration as well as the probabilities, but if the stakes are equal or in your favour, it's reasonable to act on what's most likely.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've shown any inconsistencies in my position. We just have different ethical foundations.

Well, that's what I was asking really. Why the assumption that it won't? Once the human race is extinct you can't undo that and you're advocating that position on the basis of "it seems to me, and no one's shown me otherwise". Just seems either monumentally reckless or sociopathic. Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as someone comes up with an absolutely watertight set of figures proving the net gain in suffering is greater if we continue. Given it's a one time switch you can't undo "I just reckon" seems an astonishingly inadequate level of certainty on which to go ahead.

Imagine you're a God. You wipe out the human race to prevent net suffering. One of the other gods comes along with the figures proving that net suffering was actually increased by your actions, distraught over the loss he asks "why did you do it?", you reply "I just had a bit of a think about it and 'reckoned' what the figures might be". Would any normal person be satisfied with that? — Isaac

The unborn are in a neutral state (they experience neither good or bad), on the other hand there are millions that would live in unbearable agony. I don't think it's fair to err on the side of those in a neutral state as opposed to those in unbearable agony. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not sure how you got that from what I said. I'm comparing only actual living people and predictable effects on future living people. The current well-being of the as-yet-to-be-born doesn't factor in. — Isaac

It seemed like you were saying, in this particular case we shouldn't act on what would probably reduce suffering unless we have a "watertight" case, due to the irreversibility of extinction.

My point was, it's not reasonable to treat extinction as higher stakes than tens of millions with lives of suffering. And stakes being equal, we should use the balance of probability to guide our behaviour.

I don't see any evidence to believe humans will go extinct by the year 2100 by which 3 billion people are projected to be brought into existence, and if even 1% of those are a life of suffering, that's 30 million. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well then you don't see where I'm going. If antinatalism over this period is only partially sucessful, you'll have fewer people (and less incentive) to carry out necessary projects to reduce the suffering of that 1%, such that it might be 2 or 10% that are now suffering. They'll continue to suffer all the while the antinatalist project fails to be 100% successful, yet the more sucessful it is, the greater the percentage of those who remain will suffer. — Isaac

It is reasonable to believe the promotion of antinatalism will barely reduce the population, bearing in mind it must compete with our evolutionary hardwiring and religion. Reduction of the population is necessary to free enough land and resources to ensure quality of life, and deal with the 9 million deaths per year from pollution (16% of all deaths).

Just to be clear, I'm just getting a picture of your consequentialism here, not arguing a position I hold. I think it's mindnumbingly idiotic to set as one's goal the elimination of suffering even if there's no one left to benefit from it... I'd as soon have you committed as argue the case, but since the former isn't an option... — Isaac

Well I appreciate your patience :lol:

But then, if you start convincing people that you are correct, then many of them will feel bad - for having children, that their parents were immoral. So, then you have made living people feel bad, for the non-benefit of currently non-existing creatures...well, some of them. Which seems even worse than...
My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Bylaw

People feeling guilty and embarrassed is a cost worth paying for stopping tens of millions having lives of unbearable suffering. This tens of millions is a very conservative figure too; I'm sure humanity will survive past the year 2100.

I don't see how the incestuous couple using protection against pregnancy would be the cause of a child with a genetic disorder, but a non-incestuous couple actively trying to have a child are not the the cause of a child with a genetic disorder. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're saying you cannot tell the difference between a deliberate act and happenstance? — Kenosha Kid

I don't see how the former is any more deliberate than the latter.

There's nothing special about it, it's a general rule: that which you didn't cause is not your fault. If your child has a genetic deficiency due to a fluke mutation, no one is to blame. If they have it due to inbreeding, the inbreds are the cause. — Kenosha Kid

I don't see how the incestuous couple using protection against pregnancy would be the cause of a child with a genetic disorder, but a non-incestuous couple actively trying to have a child are not the the cause of a child with a genetic disorder.

It may be a struggle to find the data, but I would assume there to be more genetic disorders from non-related couples actively trying for a baby, compared to an equal sample of related couples using protection against pregnancy. If true, unless one is an antinatalist, this would defeat the principle objection against incest? — Down The Rabbit Hole

But those are not directly caused by the peculiar sex act taking place. Genetic disorders resultant from incest are caused specifically by incest, not luck of the draw. — Kenosha Kid

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but do you mean those trying for a baby get special treatment as genetic disorders are a consequence but not a direct consequence? Would this be a deontological case?

It may be a struggle to find the data, but I would assume there to be more genetic disorders from non-related couples actively trying for a baby, compared to an equal sample of related couples using protection against pregnancy. If true, unless one is an antinatalist, this would defeat the principle objection against incest?

I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well, that's what I was asking really. Why the assumption that it won't? Once the human race is extinct you can't undo that and you're advocating that position on the basis of "it seems to me, and no one's shown me otherwise". Just seems either monumentally reckless or sociopathic. Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as someone comes up with an absolutely watertight set of figures proving the net gain in suffering is greater if we continue. Given it's a one time switch you can't undo "I just reckon" seems an astonishingly inadequate level of certainty on which to go ahead.

Imagine you're a God. You wipe out the human race to prevent net suffering. One of the other gods comes along with the figures proving that net suffering was actually increased by your actions, distraught over the loss he asks "why did you do it?", you reply "I just had a bit of a think about it and 'reckoned' what the figures might be". Would any normal person be satisfied with that? — Isaac

The unborn are in a neutral state (they experience neither good or bad), on the other hand there are millions that would live in unbearable agony. I don't think it's fair to err on the side of those in a neutral state as opposed to those in unbearable agony.

Further, I don't know if I said something to the effect of "I just reckon", but I would say the data's strong enough to form a belief. It's pretty obvious the suffering that lies ahead in breeding billions more people (by the year 2100), and evidence of the suffering involved in stopping breeding looks very weak in comparison.

The less successful it is the longer the human race is around for despite your policy, the more net suffering from those who remain. Given that the human race will end anyway at some point, a long drawn out decline by antinatalism only yields a net drop in suffering if it successfully ends the human race enough years before it was going to end anyway. — Isaac

Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I don't see any evidence to believe humans will go extinct by the year 2100 by which 3 billion people are projected to be brought into existence, and if even 1% of those are a life of suffering, that's 30 million.

I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What makes you think that? You'd need numbers on the amount of suffering, the longevity of the human race, the extent to which antinatalism will be successful - all seems like quite a lot of guesswork on which to advocate the extinction of humanity, no? — Isaac

I operate from the data I am aware of, and I would and have changed my beliefs based upon fresh data (I used to be a pro-natalist).

To be honest I wasn't sure of the gross increase in suffering you had in mind. Presumably, sadness of not being able to have children, less young people to look after the older generation?

I don't see real reason to believe the human race will cease to exist by the year 2100, with a predicted population of around 11 billion. I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war.

I don't think the extent to which anitinatalism will be successful is relevant to my position that procreation is a net bad. It's not even a topic I'm that passionate about, it's just I sympathise with the antinatalist position, and there won't be many people defending it.

These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

But you said that no individual should suffer for the good of the masses. So why should those people who will suffer during the course of this 'eventually' do so just to alleviate the potential suffering of these unfortunate future people who would otherwise have miserable lives? — Isaac

I am a consequentialist. Suffering in itself is not a bad thing, and is justified if it leads to less net suffering e.g. getting surgery.

I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist.

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole

What's this got to do with natalism? It's very rare that a person has an entirely 'bad' life, and it's certainly not in any way necessary for the well-being of 'the masses'. I don't see how you're connecting the two at all. New people need to be born to sustain the well-being of the masses, they don't need to have a 'bad life'. In fact it's overall worse for the masses if they do as we're broadly speaking an empathetic species. — Isaac

Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of human life. This belief has lead to millions of people being born, a small chunk of which will have net bad lives, an even smaller chunk will have lives of unbearable suffering.

These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too.

I think the thought experiment implicit in The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas puts this kind of question to the test.

My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong.

There is no point to anything unless it can be felt. Life brings meaning to the universe.

I always thought social skills would lead to higher incomes than general intelligence. It is a common thought that those with higher general intelligence and IQ, suffer in the social skills and EQ department.

Do you not notice that folks tell each other and themselves what they ought to do, and they generally contrast it with 'what one feels like doing. A dog ought to do what it is told, and an obedient dog is a good dog. People are a bit more complicated... — unenlightened

Yes, like the "ought" just came out of thin air.

Wormholes are theoretical.

I'm not sure how much gravity they are supposed to have but it's the tunnelling through spacetime that could make time travel possible. In SG1 solar flares caused them to travel through time when using the wormhole in their stargate.

So, if my dog (who I love and is not very intelligent) FEELS like running the neighborhood free is moral, then I should allow that even though he may get hit by a car or kill my neighbor s cat, etc.?? — Trey

I didn't say we should comply with other people's (and animal's) moral standards. We should fight for ours.

Just that we can't have an objective moral standard, because each persons morals are dependent on their feelings.

On stupid people voting - wouldn’t it be better to take away these dumb peoples rights if it meant less suffering overall?! I mean that would be the higher moral. — Trey

I think so, but the only ultimate reason we think reducing suffering takes precedence over democracy is because we feel it should, which is the same reason others have for taking precedence of democracy over reducing suffering. We can't have an objective standard for morality or evil, when they are contingent on our feelings.

So, by people giving up driving to walk, the community will be safer? It would reduce traffic accidents, and the roads would be clear for emergency vehicles. On the flipside, it is safer to drive through dangerous neighbourhoods.

You would still have to have a decent rail network for long distance travel, or permit driving for long distance travel (over x mile journeys), otherwise the cost to quality of life may be too great.

So, morality would be RELATIVE to each person’s culture. BUT... can we (as open philosophers) come with a “Universal/Non-Biblical/independent”definition of Evil?! — Trey

Even people of the same culture sometimes have different morals. It is most accurate to say morality is relative to each person.

I agree with your definition of evil:

My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers). — Trey

However this cannot be universal, as other people think there are things that take precedence over suffering. For example, as you have alluded to, taking away the right to vote of those less intelligent, may lead to less overall suffering, but people see democracy as more important than this.

The dictionaries effectively define evil as that which is immoral. As morals are made up in our mind, evil would be relative to each person.

Wormholes, possibly.

Benefits recipients should not be receiving benefits at all. — Book273

5% of the British population (plus unemployed not claiming unemployment benefit) are taking reasonable steps to find work. They are not choosing to remain unemployed, and neither are the disabled, deemed unfit for work by a doctor, plus an assessor for the government.

It will be the same around the world, not everyone can find or do work, and it will only get worse and worse with automation.

Please explain non-emotional suffering. Is that like...physical pain? Otherwise, it's all emotional. — Book273

Yes physical pain. Reduction of suffering is my ethical priority, and I am worried that a world void of emotions, while good for the lack of emotional suffering, would lead to more physical pain.

can't get work or won't accept what they can get? I have never met anyone that could not find work of some sort. I have met a great number that refused to accept the work they could get. "Can't work" is very very rare. "I won't do that" is far more common, and deserves no remorse as it is very quickly followed by some version of "take care of me". No chance: take care of yourself.

If that means 5% die, oh bloody well. Seriously, there are enough people. 5% less won't make me lose any sleep. — Book273

Officially around 5% of people claim unemployment benefit, and to be eligible you must take reasonable steps to find work. The government are in fact even stricter than this, considering around 70% of appeals to a judge against their decisions to terminate benefits are successful.

Don't know where you are from, but if you're in favour of stopping benefits, you'll love the British government.

FWIW, here's my blog review of Hoffman's book, and its thesis of Model Dependent Realism.

Reality is not what you see :
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

Model-dependent realism :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism — Gnomon

I didn't know Hoffman had discussed his ideas with THE Francis Crick? I'm not surprised he was a critic.

I take it Hoffman is a lot more radical than the rather tame view that reality and our perception of it are not one and the same?

I think the most popular is Donald Hoffman's The case against reality.

It's on my 'to read list'.

I know this is my hands in front of me. :clap: (waving and clapping). I am not thinking anything. — Corvus

You'll laugh that you said that when you get out of the experience machine.

There is no evidence that supports reality over simulation.

Would you even be able to tell the difference? Then being awake would feel no different to being asleep. — Cidat

I think therefore I am. Isn't that all we can know?

My question: Will/Should the descendants of slaves (basically all of us) use robots? — TheMadFool

We already do. It won't be bad for the robots, unless they develop the ability to suffer.

Bearing in mind we enslave animals for our taste pleasure, it would not be unreasonable to assume we would enslave sentient robots for our pleasure too.

I am concerned that the lack of empathy will lead to more non-emotional suffering. If you get rid of the non-emotional suffering in your hypothetical world (which may be possible with gene editing) it will get my vote over this world.

There is no logical reason for us to do anything as an end in itself.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

I think we have reached an impasse here, as by my reasoning and evidence, I cant see how co-operation cant lead to success, and how success wouldnt be preferred. — Kinglord1090

There is no reason we would prefer it - goals are not self-justifying.

I don't know what your idea of success is but say it is financial growth, or technological progress, why are these goals any less arbitrary than the goals of having as many parties and making as many banana sandwiches as possible?

if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work?

Yes.

If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources?
— Down The Rabbit Hole

If they are capable of stealing then they would also be capable of performing a level of work, therefore are not working by choice, ergo, execution would be an acceptable recourse.

Death is a fairly strong motivator to engage in life. If one refuses to engage, knowing the result to be death, that, to me, is essentially suicide. Who am I to argue with that choice? — Book273

Here in the UK the official rate of people claiming unemployment benefit is around 5%. The actual rate will be a lot higher as they are fiddling the figures.

Unemployment benefit is for non-disabled people, as there is a separate benefit for those that have a limited capability for work, and those that are unable to work.

How can the disabled people be expected to get a job if there are over 5% able-bodied that can't get work (not even counting those not claiming).

You would be issuing those poor people a death sentence.

Would we leave the disabled that cannot work to die, or give them financial assistance? If the latter, what logical reason is there for doing so?
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Unfortunately, the cold harsh truth is that, they will have to die, if they cannot work.
As this is the most logical choice.
Before, you say that it is harsh and immoral, do not forget that the very reason humans are the apex species is because of this reality.
The species that couldnt survive in a harsh world by evolving were simply lead to extinction, and those who survived by evolving flourished.
The same logic and fate will follow such a world. — Kinglord1090

Well, I appreciate your honesty.

Outside of your hypothetical post emotion world, if a referendum were held today, would you vote to stop all payments to the disabled that cannot work?

If they resort to stealing, housing them in prison would be a waste of resources. Wouldn't execution be logical to preserve society's resources?

It is our emotions that compel us to help humanity. Why would it be logical for us to help humanity as opposed to just our self in a post emotion world?
— Down The Rabbit Hole

This topic has already been discussed in this post, and thus, i will just post the few necessary points here.
Feel free to peruse the entire thing, if you want to.

Helping humanity leads to faster development.
The more people can work in development the better.
In a world void of emotions, development becomes an important factor for life.
As a result, anything that can block development will be removed and anything that can help development will be appreciated. — Kinglord1090

We are only motivated to help ourselves and others by our emotions (given to us by evolution). There is no logical reason for us to do anything as an end in itself.

What do you mean why is it logical to preserve resources?
The more resources we have, the better we will perform, and the btter we perform the better we will be able to help humanity.
Helping humanity has nothing to do with emotions, btw.
As humans, we only have 2 goals in life, and both goals are scientifically proven to be void of emotions. — Kinglord1090

It is our emotions that compel us to help humanity. Why would it be logical for us to help humanity as opposed to just our self in a post emotion world?

And no, in a world void of emotions, there would be no need for killing per say, disabled people.
Because they no one will be against them, nor with them.
If even after being diabled, they find a way to earn money, (without breaking any rules), people wouldnt care. — Kinglord1090

Would we leave the disabled that cannot work to die, or give them financial assistance? If the latter, what logical reason is there for doing so?

I'm basically an agnostic when it comes to the notion of god. I firmly believe that there are higher forms of consciousness in the universe, probably much higher. After billions of years of universal evolution, perhaps billions of iterations of billions of years, how could there not be? Even so, I doubt whether the characteristics of those higher forms rises to the level of plenipotence that is typically attributed to god. I think they might appear godlike. — Pantagruel

I'm an agnostic too. I don't think there is any reason to believe universes tend to give rise to life, let alone multiple spawns of life - we could well be completely alone.

But when I was riding a tiny motorcycle home from the city at 3 am in a late October sleet-storm on a six-lane highway, slush piling up six inches deep, nothing on the road but me and transport trucks, and me wearing a smoked helmet visor, let me tell you, I did some pretty hard-ass praying to a god that I sure hoped was listening. I guess you'd call that, "motivated belief." — Pantagruel

Pascal's wager comes to mind.

I remember having a debate with @fishfry over whether a quantum field can be an ultimate explanation. I argued it is as good of an ultimate explanation as any.

Looking at the complexity of their posts on other threads, I'm lucky I didn't embarrass myself.

Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? And when do we give the fetus moral consideration? Better question when do we give anything moral consideration? — Oppyfan

In my view, the fetus should get moral consideration at all stages of the pregnancy, as abortion will prevent its future pleasure and suffering. It is either morally right, wrong, or neutral to prevent its future pleasure and suffering.

Yes, there is. Long ago when I was attempting to write a philosophical proof of God I came upon an interesting logical conclusion. There must exist a "first cause". What this means is that there is a point in the chain of explanations for why something must exist, that the only answer is, "Because it does."

There comes a point in which there is no prior explanation for somethings being. What does that logically entail? There is something that has no reason for being, and thus anything could actually be. Now there may be stepping stones of reasons for why we are, but at the end of this road the answer will necessarily be, "It just is." — Philosophim

Is something coming from nothing any more absurd than something existing forever?

Your point still stands though. Whether something or nothing gave rise to everything else, it has no cause, no explanation or reason for being.

Ok, give me 1 reason on how a life without emotions wouldnt be peaceful, and if i am not able to solve it logically, i would accept that emotions are necessary. — Kinglord1090

It wouldn't be peaceful as people could still suffer?

If you're getting rid of suffering, it defeats my foregoing objections.