What would be considered a "forced" situation?

schopenhauer1

Let's say an evil villain knabbed you from your couch one fine day either watching a football game, reading the latest science book, taking a nap, whatever, and he plunked you into an obstacle course and said that this is your new life now. You will find food along the way, and amenities, etc, but to access these items, you must earn it by moving through the obstacles the villain set up.

Let's say over time, people actually begin to find the course not so bad. In fact, the villain allows all his contestants to enter into relationships and procreate. However, these children are now forced to play the obstacle course. However, the parents teach the children that in fact, the obstacle course isn't that bad..

At first, one might say that this situation is bad because the contestants were "forced" into the game. However, many of the contestants eventually don't mind it, and down the generations have adapted their children to not mind it either. What may then come to mind as what is so bad is not (only) the forced game, but the limitations of the obstacle course. The villain is "limiting" the contestants' choices to just being in his obstacle course.

But let's change the circumstances a bit.. The villain decides that the course is too restrictive.. This villain has billions upon billions of dollars and doesn't mind simply using it for this cause of the obstacle course. Let's say in his expansion, he essentially allows the contestants the same degree of choices as one might find in what we call "life". People can choose their careers, they can choose who they want to have relations with. They can choose their hobbies, etc. The only stipulation is if the contestants don't contribute to the game, they will be homeless, be exiled to the wilderness, or he allows them to commit suicide. But wait a minute.. This is starting to look simply like life itself!

Many questions here but let me start:
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.

Srap Tasmaner

↪schopenhauer1

I'll bet I can guess without reading anything but the title.

apokrisis

What if the villain is replaced by nature and evolution? What if this game produces organisms that must have the counterfactual freedom to act in their own best interest in organising their environments? What if there could be no mysterious intelligence setting up the game and so all the obstacles are just another way of regarding the freedom to make smart choices in the world?

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?

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

Isn’t this literally what I asked you? I’m interested in how this pans out.

What are your answers to all of this?

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

You can’t be asking for a definition and also be certain that something follows the definition you don’t know.

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

I’ll try a different argument this time. 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.

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

Humans don't just reproduce by instinct alone, so this would be a false narrative. Rather, people can make a choice and do. Thus the contest creator can very much be a human agent putting more people into the game (of life or otherwise). The fact that nature itself is the origin of human agency is a different matter.

schopenhauer1

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

You are changing the premises. 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.

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

See above, I have given you the reactions over time. This is probably true of the original people maybe, other than that, the subsequent expanded edition looks and feels exactly the same. The next generation didn't even think about it. 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. 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. I think you are missing the forest for the trees in that 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.

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

I answered you that it can be subjective.. But I am trying to get at something here, if you stop making this about yourself, and actually be a charitable arguer rather than a constant combatant. I haven't seen you in any other mode when dealing with me. A troll is also a hard definition to define, but constant engagement with only combative tone without any letup seems to be part of it. Try engaging other posters too. Seem to be particularly targeting my posts..

BC

A forced situation would be if a benevolent villain pointed a loaded gun at your head and announced, "No more antinatalist threads from you until after the 2022 elections, or else!" ... Else the trigger would be pulled by an autonomous fateful finger. As an alternative, you would be allowed to discuss whirled peas; globular warming; why the unfortunately born should consume less, and less, and less; Best mutual fund managers. Or Which candidates in each congressional district will support your antinatalist agenda.

Why these draconian measures?

It's not healthy to think about the same thing all the time. Antinatalist neurons start burning out from over use. They are lost forever. And besides, somebody forced those neurons to spend so much time thinking about antinatalism that they short circuited.

schopenhauer1

↪Bitter Crank

:razz:
But honestly.. would you be willing to answer those three or at least one of those questions based on the scenario?

apokrisis

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

Like I said. We get to make choices ... as a direct result of being constrained by a game. We are free not despite some malign intelligence, but because we can understand reality in terms of obstacles to be overcome.

The constraints and the freedoms are the two sides of the one game. Each is the "force" that shapes its "other".

The more obstacles you can identify in life, the more choices you are also producing. So it is not a game imposed on the self. It is the game in which a selfhood is constructed as an opposition to "the world".

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.

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. A really pedestrian example: "These new shoes feel weird.. I didn't think that was the case when I tried them on.. I can't take them back.. That was a bad choice.. I can live with these uncomfortable shoes.. drive back and try to get them returned.. etc." I mean really really boring example of just unpleasantness, choices galore.. 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.. Anyways, there's always places to moan and evaluate, even if one can calibrate for a better decision next time. Yes the world is dynamic and iterative... doesn't mean one isn't annoyed, harmed, pained, suffering, etc.. The main point is we know of more ideal situations, even if they are not the current reality (whether of our own doing, nature's causation, social realities, or anything other cause). Our degrees of limitations are more limited than we think if we zoom out just a bit.. We are in a game.

apokrisis

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

Yes, you are free to frame your reality as if you are the helpless victim of a malign intelligence. You can choose to perpetuate that self-image. No one can stop you starting yet another thread on the same old topic.

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

Oh the cosmic tragedy! The inhumanity! Shoes that pinch.

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.

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

Right, the point was to give you a pedestrian example (feet get it..:D). Anyways, you predictably wanted to focus on its triviality, but my point is even trivialities are slightly annoying.. Shall we go into heavier shit that happens in life? We adapt, sure, but we can evaluate and do all the time.. It isn't just nature "happening to us" it's very much us having to process and deal with situations all the time, slight, moderate, or severe. Someone dying of a horrible disease doesn't need to be used here to prove that point. The question remains, why should we put more people into this game? Yes there are choices, but they are limited. We can think of more ideal circumstances, but that is not the reality. We play a game. 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. That's not an excuse, and you know it. 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.

apokrisis

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

If you have time to be bothered by mild discomfort, that suggests you actually have bugger all to complain about.

Your point argues against you.

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

Who is forcing you too?

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

But it is you who is inventing an unnatural story to frame a political response. I merely point out that choice arises because there are limits. The two go together as the essential structure of any natural game.

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

What can one say about a game enforced by an evil villain when there ain’t no evil villain?

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

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

khaled

↪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

So let me get this straight: An evil, despicable, villain is kidnapping people and giving them lives that all of them like? I thought you said something about an obstacle course at first. You’re now saying even the first victims liked the move. I’m assuming this means they like it so much they don’t mind what they lost to get to it? As in this doesn’t happen:

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

In that case: no not a villain. I’d assume you have to hurt someone or attempt to do so to be a villain.

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

No. What I said was: The villain is taking you from situation X to situation Y, and Y is either worse or equal to X. That is not justified because X was pretty good. However, putting someone into situation X is fine, since situation X is pretty good.

If Y was much better than X, he wouldn’t be a villain.

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

If the slave doesn’t, and won’t mind the conditions, it’s absolutely ok.

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

I am. You can see me quoting each one, and responding. But again: There is no set amount. It depends purely on what the victim thinks of their situation. You don’t think this is the case. You think there is a required degree of freedom for an imposition to become trivial/non-trivial. So, again:

What are your answers to all of this? — khaled

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

Maybe it simply seems combative to you because it attacks a core belief of yours. I haven’t cursed (really). Or accused you of sharing accounts. Or accused you of being a bot. Or accused you of being a troll. Or accused you of being uncharitable. And I’m the one that’s combative?

Maybe consider that when I get combative towards you it’s because you accuse me of ridiculous shit when I’m trying to be cordial.

Actually, please tell me what I should’ve edited in that last post to make it non combative and I’ll do so from now on. I don’t understand what makes it combative.

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

And you’re notorious for your presence in every part of the forum and you never ever ever spam the same topic?

I go for antinatalism posts. You post nothing but that. And when you don’t, surprise, I’m not there. And I also go to other posts occasionally. I’d bet money that the percentage of your posts relating to AN far exceeds mine.

Baseless accusations like these are what make it difficult to maintain cordiality.

TheSoundConspirator

↪schopenhauer1

What is life if not an illusion concocted by our brain? Neuroscientifically speaking, we could be cycloptic deranged purple monkeys under the thrall of our "brain" having an elaborate dream which is purely fictional. Philosophically speaking, nothing exists outside of our heads. We could talk about the concept of freedom, free will, pineapple milkshakes, or interior decor, but all of these are mere concepts that exist in our heads. WIth that being said, the villain is none other than an exemplary evidence of this concept of life. He creates an obstacle course that has evolved to accommodate the rudimentary institutions of our creation. Hence, in spite of being "placed" in the obstacle course, they either could be mere "happy slaves" blissfully ignoring or being unaware of life beyond the scope of the game, or they could be us, people who monotonously go through life to simply procreate and eventually decay into the ground. The only reason we believe they are "victims" of the villain or we even call that man a "villain" is because it surpasses our understanding of free will and freedom. But what is our understanding if not an illusion with arbitrary rules?

Hermeticus

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

This captures my problem with the analogy. There is some experience to be made outside of the villain's game. As far as we know, that is not the case for life. Either you play the game of life, or you don't. There is no alternative, no game of mumbo jumbo which you get to play if you opt out of the game of life.

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.

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪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?). — schopenhauer1

People have been forced into a game when they had no choice but to have been put there - so, yes, birth has forced people into life. I don't think this makes it automatically bad - for example it wouldn't be bad if you know everyone will be glad that they were forced, and that they will enjoy life.

I think it does matter whether the person existed prior to birth, as it would be bad to snatch them from a good life to something worse, and good to snatch them from a bad life to something better. This means when giving birth, it is good if the life is better than the neutrality of non-existence, but bad if it is worse than the neutrality of non-existence.

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

I think people that are born have more freedom than the unborn, as they have more choices. It demonstrates (most strongly when looking at people with lives of suffering) that the consequences are more important than freedom.

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

I think if being a slave makes someone happier, all things being equal, their being a slave is a good thing.

Your example of someone being snatched from one life and put into another requires calculation as to their amount of choices in each, but I don't see how it limits your options by being brought into existence from nothingness.

schopenhauer1

Your point argues against you. — apokrisis

Ah yes, reading from the book of Apo as to what is bugger and what is not.

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

Granted, the point was to show annoyance at mere trivialities let alone things like homelessness, drug addictions, disease, disaster, death, non-success at work, and all the rest. You want to design life as an inevitable happy time, but it isn't, never was, never will. Not everyone will have the luxuries or care to be blissfully feeling nothing but pure enlightenment reading about the the triadic Peircean process philosophy.

schopenhauer1

↪apokrisis

↪khaled

↪TheSoundConspirator

↪Down The Rabbit Hole

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 I think Hermeticus' quote here kind of sums up everyone else's response too give or take. How are we defining freedom?

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.

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.

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.

khaled

↪schopenhauer1

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

So what is it?

I don’t think anything’s wrong with a happy slave in the first place. Neither does @Down The Rabbit Hole either from the sound of it. Idk about the others.

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

Seems close enough.

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 what does a fair game that’s ok to impose look like? And what does one that’s unfair look like? How do you tell the difference? Same ways of asking the question.

You asked everyone these questions but you haven’t answered them yourself.

What are your answers to all of this? — khaled

Manuel

As with many things AN, this assumes what it's trying to prove, by making suffering the end point of everything. Suffering is a part of everything, but far from the only component. Even from a pessimistic perspective one can speak of boredom, pointlessness, drudgery, repetitiveness, fear, etc., etc.

You can stipulate than all the mentioned emotions are suffering, whereas I could counter and say that they're actually not suffering but pointlessness or anything else.

Given these assumptions then by definition you are forced to play, can go broke, live a miserable life, have a devil for a boss and on and on.

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.

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.

I think it's an empirical point you ask most people, and they love life, they want to continue living or want a better life. It may be self-deception, but I don't think that matters.

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.

Alkis Piskas

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

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 such a game. In fact, any situation in which we are forced to obey or accept it. Including paying taxes! :smile:

2) What counts as "freedom"? — schopenhauer1

There are two kinds of freedom: Freedom from and freedom to. The first is Epictetian (meaning detached from) and it is not involved here. The other means that I can apply my will to decide and act as I wish according to it. This is of course an absolute and of course it doesn't exist. To everything I try to do there can be an opposition, a counter action, an obstacle that will prevent me to succeed. In a game, freedom consists of all the actions one is allowed to do, according to the rules of the game, that will enable him [for brevity] to achieve the goal of the game. 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.

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

I have never thought of a "happy slave", except for the (black) servants on the past who enjoyed a lot of privileges, good treatment, nice cloths and good food. Slaves had to accept the status quo. They couldn't do otherwise. Which means they had no options to realize. Likewise, I believe that most prisoners (punished by law or captured) do not think that they have any options and accept their imprisonment until they regain their freedom. On the other hand, there are some who think they have options and try to escape.

Well, not anything important ... I just answered the questions ... It's something I use to and like! :smile:

Down The Rabbit Hole

↪schopenhauer1

How are we defining freedom? — schopenhauer1

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Hermeticus

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

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.

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.

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.

NOS4A2

↪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?)

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.

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.

In most cases there is no villain, but a loving parent.

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.

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

schopenhauer1

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

The game was not chosen, period. The limits are playing the economic/survival game, lest you hack it in the wilderness, go homeless, or kill yourself. There seems to be something cruel in these alternatives. Like it or die. Most like it, so die.

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

I just don't have any other perspective than human. Even me thinking as if I am Mother Earth, is just me thinking as if I am Mother Earth.

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

Not being born is not death. It's not even the same as being born and then dying. It's never being at all.

schopenhauer1

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

Yet there was no choice for the person born. Why is someone not being around at X time, mean you can do something that affects them at Y time (affectively substituting another's will with your own, but with time displacement as to when the person is affected).

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

Except it isn't. Life is not all possibilities, but a pretty known set of procedures that one needs to do in the first place (systemic) and in which others will have the inclination and capacity to be better at (contingent).

schopenhauer1

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

Again, why is not being around at time X, but being affected at time Y, not count as a force? Any number of things can be justified with this notion.

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

Interesting. Yet this seems at odds with how we think of autonomous agents as somehow valuable. I'm proposing we may be closer to autonomous, our options are really not as many as we might think.

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

And others might disagree. Paternalism seems an odd ethical stance. One MUST exist.

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

So is it only about amount of pain and pleasure for you? Is not the collateral damage something more than a statistic? It's easy to discount it when one is just philosophizing and abstracting.

schopenhauer1

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

uch a game. In fact, any situation in which we are forced to obey or accept it. Including paying taxes! :smile:

Except all these examples happen when we are already born. Once born, some harm might be needed to ameliorate a greater harm. Birth has no people to ameliorate.. It would be in this case, completely unnecessary to create the harm for that person.

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

But why should people play a game?

It's a philosophical idea that what if people were severely limited but people didn't realize it, and yet were still happy.. Plato's Cave might be another example of this.

Ozymandy

The whole life is a kind of obstacle course, forced on us from the moment of conception and even way back to the big bang. A funny game God created.

schopenhauer1

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

I don't disagree with this, but no one has found a better way. The closest thing in a kind of scale that was massive were communist revolutions which just led to more suffering. I just think Chernobyl, Stalin, Mao, and the rest. The game is the game. One cannot escape the game.

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

And collateral damage? Why does "missed happiness" matter (if no one exists to miss it)? What are people creating more people for? If you are alive.. Be HAPPY without forcing others into the game. Why must YOUR HAPPINESS be contingent on ANOTHER PLAYER?

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

Yet, if people are individuals and are not some Borg (group-mind), why should your happiness be contingent on someone else playing the game? Are we not creative enough not to involve another person having to play the game?

What would be considered a "forced" situation?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions