What counts as "forcing" people into a game? Certainly the villain is doing this — schopenhauer1

Does that really matter when the outcome is the same (the person plays the game of life?). — schopenhauer1

I mean the villain's game, and life's game (after the expansion) is pretty much identical. But many people might still say what the villain did was wrong — schopenhauer1

Are the contestants like the "happy slave" that might not mind the game (being a slave in the slave's case), but don't realize their options are more limited than they think? What makes life itself so different? — schopenhauer1

What if we simply stop framing ourselves as helpless victims of a malign reality and instead embrace the responsibility of navigating our lives in a way that seems intelligent? — apokrisis

The villain is taking away a pretty good game (life) and substituting it with something worse or equal. If the “villain” was kidnapping people who were living miserable lives and “imposed” a life a comfort on them, I’m not sure he’d be a villain. He’s a villain because he’s putting you in a likely worse or at best equal situation. — khaled

Because he took people from a situation to another situation that is identical to it, without consent. Best case scenario: They don’t miss anything (neutral). Worst case scenario: They were pretty successful in life and so miss out on a lot (bad). — khaled

Again, in absence of a definition of what constitutes a non trivial imposition, you can’t be sure that life itself is a non trivial imposition. — khaled

Humans don't just reproduce by instinct alone, so this would be a false narrative. Rather, people can make a choice and do. — schopenhauer1

If you are perpetually moaning about finding yourself in a world "not of your making", you don't really get what being "a self" is all about at a deep metaphysical level. — apokrisis

Even if that metaphysical level were true, at my epistemological engagement with the world, I can evaluate the situation as negative. — schopenhauer1

At every decision there is an annoying outcome. One might lament that one should try shoes on better next time.. One can focus on that, but that doesn't change the uncomfortable shoes right now.. — schopenhauer1

Our degrees of limitations are more limited than we think if we zoom out just a bit.. We are in a game. — schopenhauer1

Yes, don't even mention the unbearable burden of having to make a choice on shoe colour as well. Those bastard shoe manufacturers and their 30 colourways on the sneaker you wanted to buy. — apokrisis

but my point is even trivialities are slightly annoying. — schopenhauer1

The question remains, why should we put more people into this game? — schopenhauer1

There is a paternalism underlying all of it. There is also a political agenda. apokrisis thinks the game must be played, so people must play it right? People just got to stop their bitching and/or accept the (non-inevitable) outcome that one must play the game.. one MUST play the game, because see circular argument here.. apokrisis says it MUST be so. — schopenhauer1

A game is forced, you haven't addressed this, only tried to red herring or ad hom about me complaining. Answer the three questions perhaps in the OP and then I'll see if you are really engaged with what I'm saying. — schopenhauer1

Life itself doesn't offer much beyond it's own game, homelessness, and suicide. — schopenhauer1

The people (mostly) like the game, have taught their children to like it, and are comfortable in it. In fact, the degrees of decisions by the generations that came after resemble life in all but origin. — schopenhauer1

I have given you the reactions over time. This is probably true of the original people maybe — schopenhauer1

Worst case scenario: They were pretty successful in life and so miss out on a lot (bad). — khaled

So you are now going down that slippery slope it looks like that if someone didn't exist at time X, it's okay to do something in time Y to them when they will exist. — schopenhauer1

I mean in this logic, as long as a slave was born into conditions of slavery, it's okay because the slave knows nothing else. — schopenhauer1

the question is supposed to highlight as to what degree of freedom a human must experience in order for a forced situation to be legitimate. You aren't answering that one. — schopenhauer1

What are your answers to all of this? — khaled

I haven't seen you in any other mode when dealing with me. — schopenhauer1

Try engaging other posters too. Seem to be particularly targeting my posts.. — schopenhauer1

Yes: Because in the case of someone being forced to play a game, there is a life they’re missing out on. There is a consequence to them being kidnapped by the villain. Not so if they never existed. — khaled

1) What counts as "forcing" people into a game? Certainly the villain is doing this, but how is birth not any different besides the fact that prior to the birth, the person didn't exist? Does that really matter when the outcome is the same (the person plays the game of life?). — schopenhauer1

2) What counts as "freedom"? I mean the villain's game, and life's game (after the expansion) is pretty much identical. But many people might still say what the villain did was wrong, whereas the life game is not. How so? It is almost if not exactly the same in terms of amount of choices allotted (play the game, or die of depredation, suicide, and poverty. — schopenhauer1

3) Are the contestants like the "happy slave" that might not mind the game (being a slave in the slave's case), but don't realize their options are more limited than they think? What makes life itself so different? Life itself doesn't offer much beyond it's own game, homelessness, and suicide. — schopenhauer1

Your point argues against you. — apokrisis

Don’t forget the uncomfortable shoes. The final outrage. — apokrisis

This then answers the question of freedom as well: If the only choices are to play or not to play, then with the ability to commit suicide, you have all the freedom in the world. — Hermeticus

So a takeaway here, there is something about the forced game, similar to the "happy slave" that is not right, or suspect. — schopenhauer1

Y'all's take: As long as there are sufficient choices in life (for surviving, entertaining, relationships with others, and even killing yourself) that is freedom. — schopenhauer1

The option for suicide, homelessness, or dying in the wilderness, doesn't make the forced game any more fair or right to make people play. We are not "panning out" far enough to see the limited choice of the game of life. — schopenhauer1

What are your answers to all of this? — khaled

1) What counts as "forcing" people into a game? — schopenhauer1

2) What counts as "freedom"? — schopenhauer1

3) Are the contestants like the "happy slave" that might not mind the game (being a slave in the slave's case), but don't realize their options are more limited than they think? — schopenhauer1

How are we defining freedom? — schopenhauer1

Another take: Even if there seems to be choices (for surviving, entertaining, relationships with others, and even killing yourself), there really isn't. It's either follow the game (obstacle course with some choices there), homelessness, hack in the wilderness, or die. The option for suicide, homelessness, or dying in the wilderness, doesn't make the forced game any more fair or right to make people play. We are not "panning out" far enough to see the limited choice of the game of life. — schopenhauer1

So a takeaway here, there is something about the forced game, similar to the "happy slave" that is not right, or suspect. I am starting to think it has something to do with a paternalistic, "But this is good for you".. The forced game of limited options (especially never having the option not to play) has the paternalistic air that this game needs to be played by someone else.. It's good for them.. But why is the evaluation correct for someone else? There seems to be an implicit political agenda of the game that needs to be played, by more players. Majority opinion, like the happy slave, doesn't really answer this, so be creative. Also, there is still something not quite right about "suicide" being a solution for the collateral damage of those who don't agree with the game's premises. — schopenhauer1

Even if there seems to be choices (for surviving, entertaining, relationships with others, and even killing yourself), there really isn't. It's either follow the game (obstacle course with some choices there), homelessness, hack in the wilderness, or die. — schopenhauer1

1) What counts as "forcing" people into a game? Certainly the villain is doing this, but how is birth not any different besides the fact that prior to the birth, the person didn't exist? Does that really matter when the outcome is the same (the person plays the game of life?)

2) What counts as "freedom"? I mean the villain's game, and life's game (after the expansion) is pretty much identical. But many people might still say what the villain did was wrong, whereas the life game is not. How so? It is almost if not exactly the same in terms of amount of choices allotted (play the game, or die of depredation, suicide, and poverty.

3) Are the contestants like the "happy slave" that might not mind the game (being a slave in the slave's case), but don't realize their options are more limited than they think? What makes life itself so different? Life itself doesn't offer much beyond it's own game, homelessness, and suicide.

I would like to understand, what in your opinion, the alternative is?

To me, the game of life is full of choice. Yes, there are certain rules to it but I fail to understand how nonexistence is supposed to be an alternative that offers any kind of freedom. Either you exist, or you don't. How are you supposed to choose whether you want to partake if you do not exist? In this way too, it's a lot fairer to be born first and still have the choice to opt out, as to never having a choice at all. — Hermeticus

And yes, life does have to sustain itself. From a human point of view, we who have engaged ourselves in such a complex system of ethics and morals - that we may fill whole online forums with them - may view some of these aspects of life as cruel, as painful, as suffering. But if you zoom out a little from the egocentric human perspective that we're stuck with and view the bigger picture, it's all perfectly fair. It's so fair that even if we ruin this planet and destroy ourselves, life will strive and allow everyone who lives to play the game. — Hermeticus

Ultimately, what solution does not being born give? An absence of life.
What do we call an absence of life? Death.
What is the root of all suffering? Death. It's either "I can't live like this." or "I will die from this."
So in conclusion, the idea of not being born serves the very poison it's trying to cure. — Hermeticus

I prefer the idea that “forcing” is when you attempt to subvert and substitute another’s will with your own. But with birth and child rearing you are creating and nurturing a will. — NOS4A2

In fact, life offers everything. It is only you that limits it. — NOS4A2

I'll go with a dictionary definition: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants". I don't think this is abundant in the unborn. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I really do think this demonstrates, in the case of people with lives of suffering, the weakness of freedom as a moral principle. It would be better for these people if they were never born despite all of the freedoms they have gained by being born. — Down The Rabbit Hole

It just doesn't feel wrong to enslave someone and make them happy. It could be my consequentialist bias, but khaled seems to agree. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I'll end on agreement though - suicide is a torturous experience for the person committing it, and all of their loved ones left behind. It can often cause more pain and suffering than the marginally bad life being ended, and it is definitely not an excuse in any way for bringing people into existence that have bad lives. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Simply what the question itself says: Any situation in which people are forced --i.e. do something against their will-- (by whatever power) to play a game.
Life is generally considered as one of them, although there’s is a widespread belief that we exist as spiritual beings and every once and then we want to play the "game of life" as a change, challenge or whatever. (I am not a proponent because I don't have a proof of that for myself.)
School attendance, serve as a classic example of — Alkis Piskas

I have never thought of a "happy slave", — Alkis Piskas

The game provides for obstacles, which consist of all the things that can act against this effort. There can't a game without freedoms and obstacles (and a goal, of course). Now, if the freedoms are too many and/or the obstacles too little, the game would be boringly easy. On the other hand, if there were too little freedoms and/or too many obstacles, the game would be boringly difficult. — Alkis Piskas

A more productive way to proceed would not be condemn, full stop, those who "force" you to play, but to try to involve yourself in situations in which solutions can be brought to the fore which alleviates the suffering of those alive, which is what matters. — Manuel

Of course, these always leave out or marginalize (quite severely) pleasure, joy, challenge, discovery, laughter, fun, amazement, love, music and everything that's good in life. — Manuel

Again, I have sympathies for existential pessimism and even pointlessness, but not AN. These AN arguments aren't convincing for a reason: they're not true for most people. — Manuel