If presented with a question I don't care for, I always consider I have the option to "unask" the question. Not always, of course, as a practical matter.

Douglas Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach... coined the word joots, an acronym for "jump out of the system." I understand it, in graphic terms, to mean that if the question is both invitation and constraint to move along a continuum, jootsing means taking the next available right-angle - orthogonal - turn, even into an entire other dimension.

And there's a bit of a zen to this, or aikido-like movement: one does not need to oppose. In fact very effective defenses can be made from moving exactly with your opponent without any resistance, for a while.

Of course a person has to pick his battles wisely. Ultimately, though, it's a life we're living, and no choice at all.

I would imagine that what is just is in the eye of the beholder. What is considered just is relative to either the one imposing options or the one who must choose. And is 'not selecting' ever off the table? Wouldn't it simply be a matter of what the cost would be not to choose?

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Great question!

Options to make sense must be numerically greater than 1. No options is about the number 1.

So, if you see on a menu, vanilla or chocolate, you have options but if you see only vanilla or only chocolate, you have no options. You don't select/choose/opt for "...the option for no option..." That would be a paradox!

So, if you see on a menu, vanilla or chocolate, you have options but if you see only vanilla or only chocolate, you have no options. You don't select/choose/opt for "...the option for no option..." That would be a paradox! — TheMadFool

In the case of flavors, you can simply choose the option for none of it at all. "No thanks". In the case of life, you cannot choose "no thanks" (only I "I didn't want this"). Less wholistic, you cannot say, "I don't want the option for homelessness, job, independently wealthy, free rider, etc. I just want none of those options". Is that just?

In the case of flavors, you can simply choose the option for none of it at all. "No thanks". In the case of life, you cannot choose "no thanks" (only I "I didn't want this"). Less wholistic, you cannot say, "I don't want the option for homelessness, job, independently wealthy, free rider, etc. I just want none of those options". Is that just? — schopenhauer1

But you ask the impossible! To make a choice, one must exist. That precludes choosing nonexistence! However, ignoring the antinomy, if such were possible, some would definitely choose nothingness! :chin: Hmmmmm...

After all, the point of Camus' Sisyphus analogy is to bring to our attention that if the rock is going to roll back to where it started then did it ever roll anywhere at all. WTF? moment for me!

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? — schopenhauer1

The entire scenario makes no sense. You've taken;

1.X
2.Y
3.Z

and complained that there's no 'not even have to choose'.

So we replace it with;

1.X
2.Y
3.Z
4.'don't even have to choose'

Now tell me how you go about selecting (4). If you select it, then it must de facto have been one of the choices (otherwise you could not have chosen it), but if it's one of the choices then you open it up to the complaint of not having the choice not to choose.

All you've done here is confused your grammar. One cannot have the choice not to choose, it just doesn't make sense.

I think the important fact here is about omission. When you are forced to choose between X, Y and Z previously you made a decision which lead you in this situation. So, for this reason, your are somehow forced to do “something” because omission could be worse.
There always be a lot of choices but I guess no human can stay without saying or doing whatever the choices show to us. I think is even part of the human nature to be in the act of “choosing” along their life.
Omission could be an interesting fact here. In some criminal code countries it is even a penalty not taking a choice when you are forced to (well probably this example was to extreme)

One cannot have the choice not to choose, it just doesn't make sense. — Isaac

Actually, this scenario can appear in digital fill-out forms, for example, where the program won't allow you to go to the next step unless you complete the previous one. You have to tick one of the options given, or the program won't let you move on.

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Apart from the above-mentioned digital fill-out forms, one can choose to conceive of the situation in a different way. Ie. not as a matter of picking options as presented by others, but instead take charge and conceptualize the situation on one's own terms. The salient point is that everything comes at a cost, and so one cannot live without the consequences of one's actions.

So we replace it with;

1.X
2.Y
3.Z
4.'don't even have to choose'

Now tell me how you go about selecting (4). If you select it, then it must de facto have been one of the choices (otherwise you could not have chosen it), but if it's one of the choices then you open it up to the complaint of not having the choice not to choose.

All you've done here is confused your grammar. One cannot have the choice not to choose, it just doesn't make sense. — Isaac

I don't mean it in the "meta" way of "don't EVEN have to choose", rather simply option 4. "Don't have to choose".. That option is on the table in the flavors example, not in the being born example. All you have is, "You don't like the flavor? Option 4. Kill yourself or find solace somehow brother!

Apart from the above-mentioned digital fill-out forms, one can choose to conceive of the situation in a different way. Ie. not as a matter of picking options as presented by others, but instead take charge and conceptualize the situation on one's own terms. The salient point is that everything comes at a cost, and so one cannot live without the consequences of one's actions. — baker

I simply mean.. In the Ice Cream example, you can choose NOT to pick anything. In the life example, that isn't an option. Is that just?

In the less wide-ranging example, I used work/survival instead of life itself..
You can choose from options. Most people think this is justice and freedom- CHOOSING an option amongst many. BUT the option not to choose an option related to one's own survival (except slow death from starvation as default) is not on the table. Is that justice? So you have the OPTION to CHOOSE a lifestyle in Westernized economic system, homelessness, making it in wilderness, free rider, etc. But you cannot choose NOT to do any of those.

I would imagine that what is just is in the eye of the beholder. What is considered just is relative to either the one imposing options or the one who must choose. And is 'not selecting' ever off the table? Wouldn't it simply be a matter of what the cost would be not to choose? — MikeF

Interesting point.. the way the world works, everything has a cost, including the choice not to choose anything. My example is meant to show that life itself has no option for no option.. Suicide is not the same as not wanting to choose an option. Is the fact that "no option" was not an option just for the person born? It can never be the case that someone will have that option. Just because this is an impossibility doesn't mean that it is not an injustice to never have the option not to pick the options. Fitting it with what you were saying, by being born, you are just exposing people to the costs of decision-making, an option we cannot avoid as well.

The only defense to this is the "If a tree falls in the woods argument.." If no one is around to "realize" the injustice, then who cares is the usual response.. But I think preventing injustice is a thing if discussing something that exists preventing an instance of injustice that doesn't exist yet.

Of course a person has to pick his battles wisely. Ultimately, though, it's a life we're living, and no choice at all. — tim wood

But can someone pick not to go through with the battles? Never. An impossibility without not existing at all..

“So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just?”

In your supposition as stated in the OP, you specified a condition where the rational agent had a range of options to choose from and that is the condition that my comments addressed. Yes, there are many events upon which a rational agent has no choice, the choice to exist being one of them.

Is your point to ask whether it is just to bring a rational agent into existence? Again, I would say that it is relative. The one or ones bringing a rational agent into existence can certainly come up with justification for it, say survival of the species, or perhaps that those who currently exist require the continued creation of new rational agents to maintain a certain quality of existence throughout their lifetime.

As to the one being created, it would be relative as well. Depending on the environment in which one is brought into, it can be perceived either way, or in shades of grey.

I suppose I am saying that existence is neither just nor unjust, it just is. Once we begin to have choices we can then place subjective value on those available choices and act accordingly.

I suppose I am saying that existence is neither just nor unjust, it just is. Once we begin to have choices we can then place subjective value on those available choices and act accordingly. — MikeF

So with all this grey area.. wouldn't you say that "it" is a matter of just and unjust in regards to the ones who already exist in relation to choosing for something that could exist? So the justice lies in making a circumstance of no choice for someone else.

"So with all this grey area.. wouldn't you say that "it" is a matter of just and unjust in regards to the ones who already exist in relation to choosing for something that could exist? So the justice lies in making a circumstance of no choice for someone else."

Are you arguing a position that one can never be justified in bringing a rational agent into existence? That can certainly be your subjective value choice. I would disagree that it should be considered unequivocally or universally true.

Can we recognize differences in conditions and environments of existence and value certain conditions over others? Certainly. One can also consider the potential environment into which a rational agent will be brought into to begin its existence and make value choices as to whether that potential environment meets a subjective standard. However, the standards and values will all be relative and subjective Even if one could ensure uniformity of environment for all in existence, it would in no way guarantee a sense of satisfaction or worth in ones existence. A person born in poverty may value their existence more than another born to privilege. There are many complex factors that inform value and a sense of worth, including biological, environmental, and social factors.

I would guess that enough people value having been brought into existence over the idea of never having existed that the whole process of bringing a rational agent into existence without consent can be considered worthwhile, to be considered justified.

I don't mean it in the "meta" way of "don't EVEN have to choose", rather simply option 4. "Don't have to choose".. That option is on the table in the flavors example, not in the being born example. All you have is, "You don't like the flavor? Option 4. Kill yourself or find solace somehow brother! — schopenhauer1

So there's nothing new here other than the same old line that you think it's unjust to bring about a life which then cannot decide to not have been (the only choice you're concerned is not on the list)? It's not the choice not to choose (since that makes no sense), it just that you want an option which isn't on the list. What you mean to say is "Is never having the option I want just?" - Yes, it's fine, people are not morally obliged to provide you with the option you want at all times.

I would guess that enough people value having been brought into existence over the idea of never having existed that the whole process of bringing a rational agent into existence without consent can be considered worthwhile, to be considered justified. — MikeF

Hence my thread about the "Most people" defense (which I claim is still wrong): https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense/p1

If you make a choice on another because "Most people" would want it, it is only just if someone needed to replace a greater harm with a potential lesser harm. In the case of birth, no ONE needed to be saved from a lesser. It is a completely unnecessary choice made for someone else with much harm done to the other person.

What you mean to say is "Is never having the option I want just?" - Yes, it's fine, people are not morally obliged to provide you with the option you want at all times. — Isaac

But it's not just they are not obliged.. They are forcing the situation and then post-facto saying "Oh I'm not obliged". It's not obliging it's enabling the situation. That's different.

If you make a choice on another because "Most people" would want it, it is only just if someone needed to replace a greater harm with a potential lesser harm. In the case of birth, no ONE needed to be saved from a lesser. It is a completely unnecessary choice made for someone else with much harm done to the other person. — schopenhauer1

And since what is just or unjust is purely subjective, you can certainly hold the above opinion. To state that every birth will result in "much harm" being done to the one being born cannot be reasonably supported, in my view.

Calculating value and harm is multifactorial. If everyone is born without choice, and an overwhelming majority value having been born, then the risk is low that any one birth will produce someone who perceived their existence as causing them great, and irreconcilable harm. That risk is then weighed against any and all perceived benefits of continuing this process of life. Based on my observation it seems most people subjectively value this process of bringing new life into the world, that it is justified in spite of potential risks.

If it's a forced choice with high stakes, then refusal to choose is the choice to suffer arbitrarily. If it's not a forced choice, then it's idle and doesn't matter much which option is chosen or not chosen, and possibly another set of choices are available to consider (i.e. joot).

'Existence' is fundamentally facing a forced choice: to be or not to be? It is always too late for us the already-born not to have been born, so (A) live by reducing gratutious suffering as much as possible, which may or may not include being "antinatal" or (B2) choose, as Silenus says, "to die soon" (and, in the meantime, (B1) narrowing your 'consciousness' to near zero by heavily self-medicating (e.g. heroin, booze) or with the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy aka "philosophical suicide" à la religious fundamentalism or political nihilism).

But it's not just they are not obliged.. They are forcing the situation and then post-facto saying "Oh I'm not obliged". It's not obliging it's enabling the situation. That's different. — schopenhauer1

So return the favor; or disfavor, in this case.
Wimps don't win.

I simply mean.. In the Ice Cream example, you can choose NOT to pick anything. In the life example, that isn't an option. Is that just?
In the less wide-ranging example, I used work/survival instead of life itself..
You can choose from options. Most people think this is justice and freedom- CHOOSING an option amongst many. BUT the option not to choose an option related to one's own survival (except slow death from starvation as default) is not on the table. Is that justice? So you have the OPTION to CHOOSE a lifestyle in Westernized economic system, homelessness, making it in wilderness, free rider, etc. But you cannot choose NOT to do any of those. — schopenhauer1

So who or what is the instance to whom or which you can file this complaint?

So who or what is the instance to whom or which you can file this complaint? — baker

It's a double-bind. YOU made the bad decision and its YOUR fault!

then the risk is low that any one birth will produce someone who perceived their existence as causing them great, and irreconcilable harm. That risk is then weighed against any and all perceived benefits of continuing this process of life. Based on my observation it seems most people subjectively value this process of bringing new life into the world, that it is justified in spite of potential risks. — MikeF

Right, I guess everything is subectivized.. So the boss exploiting the willing-worker is okay in doing so because, the worker doesn't perceive his own exploitation.

or (B2) choose, as Silenus says, "to die soon" (and, in the meantime, (B1) narrowing your 'consciousness' to near zero by heavily self-medicating (e.g. heroin, booze) or with the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy aka "philosophical suicide" à la religious fundamentalism or political nihilism). — 180 Proof

True.. I can't disagree too much with this.. I find it funny that we are on the lookout for all sorts of exploitation except the major one ha. It's too much to wrap people's heads around.. Better to sublimate, medicate, and commit as you say "philosophical suicide".

Whether or not the work environment is exploitive, or whether exploiting workers is ok, are both value judgements and subjective, yes.

Whether or not the work environment is exploitive, or whether exploiting workers is ok, are both value judgements and subjective, yes. — MikeF

Well right, so let's say you judge "working at X" to be good. Why is it good for someone else? That's where the trickiness of it lies- when dealing with others. To go further, it's not that why is it good for someone else, but why should you then proceed to force the situation for someone else?

Well right, so let's say you judge "working at X" to be good. Why is it good for someone else? That's where the trickiness of it lies- when dealing with others. To go further, it's not that why is it good for someone else, but why should you then proceed to force the situation for someone else? — schopenhauer1

All I can say is once one is brought into existence, one can begin making choices. That first choice will always be out of one's hands. And really, there will be many factors out of one's hands. Can't choose parents, can't choose parents circumstances, can't choose your physical characteristics, potential for illness or disease, etc. One cannot choose the hand one is dealt. One can make the best of it, or not. The choice is theirs.

political nihilism — 180 Proof

What do you mean by this?

Mob-like tendencies which can be characterized as e.g. reactionary populism, ethno-statist nationalism, anti-civli society (e.g. anti-facts, anti-history, anti-science ... anti-intellectualism), revolutionary vanguardism, "terrorism", depoliticizing demobilizations, etc.