Considering the unimaginable amount of physical and mental suffering that occurs every day on this planet, day by day, for millions of years and counting, as well perhaps on countless other planets, which would make the Universe essentially a giant torture chamber, the philosophical view of Efilism seems rather logical. Very extreme yes, but logical, worth giving a thought to say the least.
What are your thoughts on it? Curious to see the opposed arguments, ideally THE counter-argument that would shake my current supportive view of it. — RAW
It does sound absolutely crazy and extreme but if you manage to dive deeper into it open minded, putting immediate reactions like disgust etc. aside and under control, and look at it solely through logical lenses, for me at least, you can't help but admit it makes sense, for some more for some less maybe. — RAW
The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life. You turned a personal opinion, not only into the logically only possible objective valuation, but also into a moral duty and a political project that people should follow... thereby dragging other people down with you in the process.
You'll get a lot more understanding and respect from people if you'd just own up to your opinion, instead of covering it up with these post-hoc philosophical rationalizations in an attempt to feel better at the expense of others. And I dare say, you'll give yourself a better chance to get out of that pernicious mind-set if you'd stop spinning an entire web of justification around it. — ChatteringMonkey
if it's sound it's sound. — RAW
I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be. — RAW
1. Utilitarian calculus type ethics are crap. — ChatteringMonkey
It's like saying before every stroke one should consciously calculate velocity, spin and the angle of the tennis-ball and then calculate the necessary force and angle of the stroke before one hits a tennis-ball to play good tennis. — ChatteringMonkey
2. Even if it would be feasible, people don't agree anyway that harm should be the only value that should be taken into consideration in ethical calculations. — ChatteringMonkey
Here's a wild idea, start will real people and what they actually value to reason effectively about ethics. — ChatteringMonkey
My ethical premise is based more on deontological grounds. — schopenhauer1
It's nothing like deontology. Harm is not specific enough a concept for that. — ChatteringMonkey
Anyway there little use in continuing this discussion, I don't agree with your premise and I don't agree with your methodology, so not much to build on there... — ChatteringMonkey
So just don't debate anything? Why is this area so unique in that you can't debate if you disagree? Weird. Do you do this for everything else too? Politics, etc.? — schopenhauer1
So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective". — RAW
Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.
So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.
It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed. — RAW
Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting. — RAW
So just don't debate anything? Why is this area so unique in that you can't debate if you disagree? Weird. Do you do this for everything else too? Politics, etc.? — schopenhauer1
Because it boils down to a basic premise that isn't particularly moved by reason or arguments... either you accept it or you don't. And yes a lot of political and ethical discussions are also like that, they disagree on basic premises, that's why they almost never get resolved... people just end up talking past each other. — ChatteringMonkey
The guy was saying "let's agree to disagree". Then you proceeded to try to push him back into an argument. When I did that you called me a debate club bot. At least have some shame and don't then go on to do the exact same thing to others. — khaled
He just bypassed a lot of possible middle ground, which I am thinking is wise. I was making sure this wasn't too quick a move though. — schopenhauer1
My main question to ChatteringMonkey would then be why wouldn't he be convinced by the premises? I feel there was more there that he agrees with than he thinks, but the discussion has abruptly stopped. — schopenhauer1
Those were my questions to you. But it made me a debate class bot.
I couldn’t care less about how you behave on the forum, just drop the stupid thing you do where you randomly start characterizing me as a dogged arguer with no interest in the conversation, especially when from my perspective you’re doing all the things I do to others.
Nothing is more annoying to me when people start debating and then randomly decide to attack their interlocutor.
And were you going to respond on the other thread? — khaled
If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics, and you also think that life is mostly the former, then yea obviously you’ll end up with efilism which is why I find it so boring.
Thing is though, I haven’t met anyone who holds such simple beliefs.
if it's sound it's sound.
— RAW
Well, it’s valid. Idk about sound.
I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be.
— RAW
Logic needs premises. You picked weird premises and ended up with weird conclusions. Surprise! — khaled
The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life.... — ChatteringMonkey
.....but then they say you’re a psychopath if you don’t press a button that murders everything even if people don’t want to die? How does that make sense? — Albero
It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do. — DingoJones
"life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering." is not a subjective valuation, but an entirely objective. — RAW
It's not like ChatteringMonkey and I had multiple previous threads and he just decided this was enough after many discussions on this. — schopenhauer1
My main question to ChatteringMonkey would then be why wouldn't he be convinced by the premises? — schopenhauer1
'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. Reason's only purpose is to help us to satisfy our desires. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. — Hume
As you are unable to accept this "weird" (the word you've chosen here is revealing ) premise, this simple fact, any further conversation is pointless. You too have fun living inside that beautiful bubble of delusions until it pops. It's something to envy in a way, wish I could turn off like that and ignore the cold cruel reality. — RAW
If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics — khaled
Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first. — RAW
Ah yes. The infamous "You disagree with me therefore you are deluded" defense. One that is known for promoting truth seeking and unbiased investigation. Agreed, it is impossible to argue with someone who believes that the opposition is wrong by virtue of them disagreeing with him — khaled
I won't bother asking you what makes you so certain the whole world is deluded and the select few efilists aren't because it doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. — khaled
I know you were jesting but this sounds bizarre to me. This forum had a philosopher guest here who thought a bit like you (life is suffering, only preventing it matters) named David Pearce and even he suggested we create technology to alleviate those who suffering instead of omnicide. Why don’t we do that instead of mindlessly murdering people? At least it seems more realistic, your idea is a pipe dream no offense. — Albero
As khaled mentioned, this is why if you end up with such bizarre conclusions if you think pleasure is irrelevant. You also never answered my question about consent and how it makes no sense with this system. It seems you think “oh, well the people who are suffering only matter, making them happy is pointless” so under your system we NEVER have any reason to fulfill positive moral duties, only negative ones like “murder people instead of trying to make their existence happier.” It’s like pressing a button to kill all homeless people who nobody will ever mourn when you could’ve just housed them. You keep saying life is suffering and that pleasure doesn’t matter, but you still haven’t given us a good reason as to why this is so. — Albero
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.