My arguments still stand from the previous conversations. I remember your analogy about preventing suffering in the future by removing an explosive someone might step on. If there is no one to step on the bomb you’re not preventing the suffering of anyone.

To prevent the suffering of X, X must first exist. You claim to prevent the suffering of X, but X does not exist. So whose suffering are you preventing?

To prevent the suffering of X, X must first exist. You claim to prevent the suffering of X, but X does not exist. So whose suffering are you preventing? — NOS4A2

What if a baby was guaranteed to be born into a lava pit and you can convince the parent not to do that? You would, correct? The thing is you are not seeing life as properly that volcano.

Why do you suppose I am suggesting we change our system? — schopenhauer1

Then I suppose I question the point of this entire discussion, to simply point out life is unfair? I can accept that proposition.

All I see here is wild and vague abstraction, philosopher talk, with no relevance to our sex lives, and how we choose to raise a family.
unjust
— schopenhauer1
Another ridiculously abstract philosphical concept... — Wheatley

In what world does, "Do not have kids" count as philosophically abstract? Pretty concrete to me. Unjust in that the person cannot escape the work-game without dire consequences (death, starvation, etc.).

Then I suppose I question the point of this entire discussion, to simply point out life is unfair? I can accept that proposition. — Derrick Huestis

Yes, life is "unfair".. I would say "unjust".. unfair brings about certain connotations.. In this case, I am highlighting the pervasive feature of life we call "work" or "participating in an economic system as a laborer". This cannot be bypassed without starvation, death, etc. It is unjust to give someone the "gift" of a no-opt game [set of challenges] whereby one must do X,Y, Z to survive. It is an intractable problem. It is not changed by a restructuring of the economic system, it is a feature of life as we know it. Thus, to protest, to perform a metaphorical "strike" against it, don't put more people into the situation in the first place.

In what world does, "Do not have kids" count as philosophically abstract? Pretty concrete to me. — schopenhauer1

So basically you actively have a vasectomy or are otherwise willfully abstinent. That's cool. Just don't try to come at me with your legal papers and ribbons to mandate the same.

It's kind of of ironic almost. By not ensuring your most deeply held belief is prolonged beyond the span of your own life by facing your fear or perhaps crossing into your taboo, you ensure and seal the fate that it will never happen. I wish I had the time to write a novel, this is as good as it gets. Pure gold.

"Do not have kids" — schopenhauer1

Is this a moral imperative?.

person cannot escape the work-game without dire consequences (death, starvation, etc.). — schopenhauer1

This is simply an oversimplification of the human condition.

So basically you actively have a vasectomy or are otherwise willfully abstinent. That's cool. Just don't try to come at me with your legal papers and ribbons to mandate the same. — Outlander

An ethical stance doesn't mean political force. Vegans would love if people stopped eating meat.. Doubt that will become a political mandate.

It's kind of of ironic almost. By not ensuring your most deeply held belief is prolonged beyond the span of your own life by facing your fear or perhaps crossing into your taboo, you ensure and seal the fate that it will never happen. I wish I had the time to write a novel, this is as good as it gets. Pure gold. — Outlander

Not sure what you mean here.

As a moral imperative?. — Wheatley

To prevent injustice taking place, yes.

This is simply an oversimplification of the human condition. — Wheatley

Now who is making it complicated :wink:.

To prevent injustice taking place, yes. — schopenhauer1

Now all you have to do is pass a law forbidding the public from having children. Good luck!

Now who is making it complicated :wink:. — schopenhauer1

It is a complex issue.

Now all you have to do is pass a law forbidding the public from having kids. Good luck! — Wheatley

Simply a moral stance not a political policy. I used veganism as an example. I'm sure many vegans would want people to stop eating meat. Doesn't mean that will be a political mandate any time soon.

Simply a moral stance not a political policy. — schopenhauer1

It is your moral stance which does not affect me at all.

It is a complex issue. — Wheatley

So the issue I am discussing right now is the unjust situation of the de facto fact of an inescapable set of challenges that cannot be opted out without dire consequences (death, starvation, free-riding, dying in the wilderness, homelessness etc.).

cannot be opted out without dire consequences (death, starvation, free-riding, dying in the wilderness, homelessness etc.). — schopenhauer1

That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life.

That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life. — Wheatley

See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread.

An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade: — 180 Proof

See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread. — schopenhauer1

^^^

I rather not.
^^^ — Wheatley

So just borrow another poster's response? Weak..

But anyways, I responded to him in kind explaining how a slave can be happy on a daily level, but be in an unjust situation.. The slave has a right to be happy, but that doesn't change his situation as unjust. Two things can be going on. I know, crazy.

So just borrow another poster's response? Weak.. — schopenhauer1

It's good enough for me. :cool:

It's good enough for me. :cool: — Wheatley

And you ignored my response. No problems if you ignore them.

No problems if you ignore them. — schopenhauer1

Good.

Good. — Wheatley

A lot of things get overlooked when you do that. Your response is then stick fingers in ears.

Yes, life is "unfair".. I would say "unjust". — schopenhauer1

What's funny about this is there is a strong Judeo-Christian connotation to your stance, and as such I'm inclined to agree but in a way you would most likely dislike. The story in Genesis is Adam and Eve had all the food they could possibly desire, but because they chose sin (injustice), they condemned mankind to hard labor. And here we are today, arguing about why we aren't still in the garden of Eden and how unjust (sinful) the world is. So there you go, I agree with you.

A lot of things get overlooked when you do that. — schopenhauer1

I don't doubt that you have valuable things to say.

What's funny about this is there is a strong Judeo-Christian connotation to your stance, and as such I'm inclined to agree but in a way you would most likely dislike. The story in Genesis is Adam and Eve had all the food they could possibly desire, but because they chose sin (injustice), they condemned mankind to hard labor. And here we are today, arguing about why we aren't still in the garden of Eden and how unjust (sinful) the world is. So there you go, I agree with you. — Derrick Huestis

I think there are a lot of metaphors in Genesis, if one allows it to be read that way. Ever read E.M Cioran's The Temptation to Exist?

To be fair, life as a sandbox where the ultimate pleasure and ultimate torment can be experienced simultaneously (as arguably the two are ultimately intertwined), can be indescribably horrible. But are there not tender, glorious, at least pleasantly tolerable moments that your philosophical rampage against life denies those who would otherwise never have the opportunity or choice? Maybe another person doesn't mind a bit of pain, even disproportional for the pleasure they experience. It's easy to think you can make a choice for other people when you think you can, and even easier when you really can, but is it right? This is the real direction of the discussion I think is being avoided. And as I stated it's not clear cut. You are not only denying the right of but also discriminating against the sadist masochist, which according to some I sexually identify as apparently.

I think there are a lot of metaphors in Genesis, if one allows it to be read that way. — schopenhauer1

Of course it can be read that way, but it isn't anti-work: if anything it's the opposite, we need to work now because of our sin (injustice) but there is hope to return to the place of peace (heaven). Whenever the new testament talks about "the world" it is talking about this game you mention. It tells us we must live in it, but simultaneously don't be part of it. Anyway, once I saw you taking a secular approach to a religious concept thousands of years old I found that interesting.

What if a baby was guaranteed to be born into a lava pit and you can convince the parent not to do that? You would, correct? The thing is you are not seeing life as properly that volcano. — schopenhauer1

:fire: What an excellent metaphor!

That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life.
— Wheatley

See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread. — schopenhauer1

An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade:
— 180 Proof

So in my case, not to be taken literally. Rather, it is to illustrate a situation where an individual is happy despite being put in an unjust situation. — schopenhauer1

But if he is happy the whole argument breaks apart because antinatalism presumes the unhappy misery of your offsprings. You accomplished nothing with your "happy slave".

But if he is happy the whole argument breaks apart because antinatalism presumes the unhappy misery of your offsprings. You accomplished nothing with your "happy slave". — Wheatley

Oh Wheatgrass, no no. You can have an unjust situation and have someone enjoy their life. Precisely why my argument is more than the simplicity you deem it as. It is hard for some people to wrap their heads around an unjust situation that people can still feel happy subjective states. Someone who feels joy despite X activity that's Y (bad/unjust) doesn't mean that X activity is a good state of affairs.