Is it really veering from what I've described in past posts? — schopenhauer1
above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. — khaled
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 — schopenhauer1
Ok, now another question, would having a child in a utopian society, where there is 0 suffering be wrong? — khaled
You have a point! If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool
Ok, now another question, would having a child in a utopian society, where there is 0 suffering be wrong? — khaled
This is swinging to the other extreme. — TheMadFool
If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool
What are the implications as far as dire circumstances if no X? — schopenhauer1
The way to show that ridiculous statements are ridiculous is to show their ridiculous consequences. The point is that a utopia is just as difficult to escape as life currently (only suicide works). But I don't think anyone would be against having children in a utopia. That would mean this standard isn't sufficient to tell apart wrong and ok impositions either. — khaled
By the way, you have conceded the point expressed in the following question cum statement: — TheMadFool
If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool
Answer the question Khaled, friend, is Utopia possible? — TheMadFool
is it possible to make life, on balance, happier than sadder? What say you? — TheMadFool
But my whole point is simply this: schopenhauer1 Thinks that certain impositions are "not bad enough" to impose. Things become bad enough to impose above a certain level of "inescapability". Point is, it is possible to lead a happy life, or at least one that the individual thinks is worthwhile. And also, that life will be just as inescapable as one full of suffering. So by shope's standard, even a life you know will be good (by a utilitarian standard, or any other) would be wrong to impose from the outset. But that's ridiculous, no? — khaled
There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled
False. I just didn't reply to it at first because it wasn't addressed to me. — khaled
This makes as much sense as "If bikes are fast why are there cars???!?!??!?". See my full reply. — khaled
That wasn't the question. And it is an insignificant question for what I'm trying to say. — khaled
And the answer is: Obviously. — khaled
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. — Outlander
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. — Derrick Huestis
So is it Utopia or not? Are there dire consequences of not doing X? — schopenhauer1
Yes it is a utopia. No there are no consequences to not doing anything. I don't understand what you're asking? — khaled
So does this make it ok to impose life in this scenario? — khaled
If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)?
— TheMadFool
Because it's not perfect. And those are ways to a better life supposedly. — khaled
Bikes just don't cut it when you mean business - a comfortable, smooth and pleasant trip. — TheMadFool
Are you taking back what you said about children and Utopia? — TheMadFool
And the answer is: Obviously.
— khaled
How? Details or at least a sketch of your strategy? — TheMadFool
But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inescapability of suffering within the game. If it is sufficiently easy not to suffer in the game, then it's ok to impose the game. Agreed? — khaled
Wanting the unjust situation doesn't make it magically unjust. — schopenhauer1
I am sure many a slave master wanted to keep slavery. Doesn't make it right. Their "right" to want slavery is negated. — schopenhauer1
But who are you to call something clearly the majority of people enjoy (seeing as they don't check out) — Outlander
Lots of people enjoy life. It's not your place to decide that life is "too dangerous" to be lived. What on Earth makes you think you could place such definitive and absolute definitions on something no person has even yet to adequately explain? — Outlander
This only furthers my point, you deny the option that some people appreciate the way things are, more often than not. Who are you to dictate that pleasure is not worth the pain? An individual? Sure, that's fine then, for you, as an individual. But please, let others choose. — Outlander
If people can snap their fingers and leave the Utopia without any problems (internal strife).. — schopenhauer1
The ultimate argument is not lost, in a scenario when possible outcomes are liable to be worse than a guaranteed positive, you call that unwarranted, unwise, or cruel. That's reasonable enough. You're not a gambling man. Yet, like we continue to ignore, or at least shy away from admitting, if you care so much about ending suffering by ending all life on Earth, you can't (at least it's extremely unlikely that you will) do that in the span of a single lifetime. So, it's kind of a self-defeating philosophy, really. — Outlander
That they cannot do. But they can snap their fingers and leave any suffering they may be experiencing and thus, no one has ever complained. Call that what you will, utopia or not. Now what? — khaled
I'm not defending it because I think — schopenhauer1
But seriously, just because you think of an idea that resolves or otherwise manifests itself as concrete and measurable affect in the real world, what makes you think it's anything less than transient? — Outlander
Caesar ushered in what is arguably the basis of modern society, reliable agriculture via advanced irrigation, popularized indoor washrooms, and not the least of which that allows us to communicate to and fro now, a more or less open and democratic system of government. And now, his former stomping grounds are either in ruins and/or being quite literally defecated upon by invaders. Not the most powerful counterargument to your original suggestion of the futility or cruelty of life at first glance sure, but just an opportunity for some introspection to your own views. — Outlander
But seriously, just because you think of an idea that resolves or otherwise manifests itself as concrete and measurable affect in the real world, what makes you think it's anything less than transient? — Outlander
Actually now that I read this again, you are just saying, things are futile in the long run.. The vanity of existence, etc. — schopenhauer1
No, no. Not quite. Just that as even a man of eternal prestige and power has to question his own beliefs, perhaps so should you. At least, that your own may not be as infallible and unquestionable as you may believe. — Outlander
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.