Is it really veering from what I've described in past posts? — schopenhauer1

Seeing as you've refused to commit to any position no matter how many times I asked you "How do you differentiate between ok and wrong impositions", and instead preferred to "delineate the arguments" the whole time, yes it's a breath of fresh air.

I'll take this as a "yes". So your criteria, so far, is:

above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. — khaled

Ok, now another question, would having a child in a utopian society, where there is 0 suffering be wrong?

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

You have a point! If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)?

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. Let's start small - is it possible to make life, on balance, happier than sadder? What say you?

By the way, you have conceded the point expressed in the following question cum statement:

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

Can you define utopia here? What are the implications as far as dire circumstances if no X?

This is swinging to the other extreme. — TheMadFool

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.

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.

What are the implications as far as dire circumstances if no X? — schopenhauer1

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.

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

Answer the question Khaled, friend, is Utopia possible?

Surely, before you get any takers for your offer to put children in Utopia, you'll have to show them that it's not all in your imagination. Ridiculous? :chin:

By the way, you have conceded the point expressed in the following question cum statement: — TheMadFool

False. I just didn't reply to it at first because it wasn't addressed to me.

If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool

This makes as much sense as "If bikes are fast why are there cars???!?!??!?". See my full reply.

Answer the question Khaled, friend, is Utopia possible? — TheMadFool

That wasn't the question. And it is an insignificant question for what I'm trying to say.

The question was:

is it possible to make life, on balance, happier than sadder? What say you? — TheMadFool

And the answer is: Obviously.

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? A utopia is used to highlight this, nothing more.

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

But you asked about Utopia.. In this case:

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

So is it Utopia or not? Are there dire consequences of not doing X?

False. I just didn't reply to it at first because it wasn't addressed to me. — khaled

Then why bring Utopia up at all? Make the case that life can be made happier than sadder in this world and not some hypothetical one.

This makes as much sense as "If bikes are fast why are there cars???!?!??!?". See my full reply. — khaled

Yes, it does make sense. Bikes just don't cut it when you mean business - a comfortable, smooth and pleasant trip.

That wasn't the question. And it is an insignificant question for what I'm trying to say. — khaled

Sorry for the mix up. Thank you for correcting me. Are you taking back what you said about children and Utopia?

And the answer is: Obviously. — khaled

How? Details or at least a sketch of your strategy?

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

Wanting the unjust situation doesn't make it magically unjust. I am sure many a slave master wanted to keep slavery. Doesn't make it right. Their "right" to want slavery is negated. However, in a milder sense, this goes back to the idea of the "political agenda" of some "way of life" is favored above the injustice.

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 how is this situation just, because it is a biblical reference? This seems like a biblical version of "Is something good because the gods like it or do the gods like it because it's good"?

What a petty game this god has set up.. Work for your salvation or suffer the consequences.. and sometimes working isn't good enough... because Job.. right? So even the petty game (systemic suffering) isn't enough, there is the contingent harm (statistical suffering) as in the case of Job, who apparently did all the right things. But, fuck it right?

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?

Yes it is a utopia. No there are no consequences to not doing anything. I don't understand what you're asking? — khaled

If there are no dire consequences, then it wouldn't be violating the injustice I am talking about, at least in the example of work.

So does this make it ok to impose life in this scenario?

So does this make it ok to impose life in this scenario? — khaled

If other contingencies were met, sure (no impositions of harm, etc.).

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?

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

The point is "If this is X, why can it not be made more X? Therefore this is not X" is not valid at all.

Bikes just don't cut it when you mean business - a comfortable, smooth and pleasant trip. — TheMadFool

Depends on your standard I guess. In other words, life is not pretty because you choose to compare it to something better.

Are you taking back what you said about children and Utopia? — TheMadFool

For the purposes of discussion, sure, since you seem so convinced utopias are impossible and I don't care to argue that. They serve well enough for a thought experiment.

And the answer is: Obviously.
— khaled

How? Details or at least a sketch of your strategy? — TheMadFool

Experience and observation of others' experience.

Also the fact that it's physiologically possible should imply that it's possible.

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

Not really.. I don't know the nature of this nebulous Utopia. If people can snap their fingers and leave the Utopia without any problems (internal strife).. So the opt out would have to be there.. In other words, it would literally have to be world where questioning the very basis of opting in can never be on the table.. That would be similar to how most non-human animals work.. One cannot even know one's own position.. But then Utopia just seems like non-human humanity.. But since Utopias are inherently not feasible.. Sure.. Let's just assume this Utopia has all contradictions inherent in it.. If all these contradictions of somehow never having the ability to question the game...Or alternatively, if one doesn't like the game, one dies with no inherent internal struggle or strife.. and no big deal... just snap fingers and gone, and no one is negatively affected..

Wanting the unjust situation doesn't make it magically unjust. — schopenhauer1

But who are you to call something clearly the majority of people enjoy (seeing as they don't check out) 'unjust' in the absolute sense, as in the eyes of any other than your own? 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?

I am sure many a slave master wanted to keep slavery. Doesn't make it right. Their "right" to want slavery is negated. — schopenhauer1

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.

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.

But who are you to call something clearly the majority of people enjoy (seeing as they don't check out) — Outlander

It's some sort of fallacy to think that because people don't go through with suicide that thus life is great..

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

Simply put, I am asking people not to put other people into an inescapable game (without dire consequences). I am not talking about only suicide, but in the case of work, following the rules of survival in some sort of economic system, lest slow painful consequences. The path of "least" resistance is following the system, but doesn't mean it was just to be in the system. The slave's path of least resistance is also to simply follow the system. What on Earth would make you think you should put someone else through that kind of no-opt out scenario? Following my way leads to none of these outcomes on behalf of other people.. No no-opt out situations in my scenario.

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

Excuse me, but "who" is actually being "denied" the option? The non-existent person not born? Bentarian asymmetry...look it up.

If people can snap their fingers and leave the Utopia without any problems (internal strife).. — schopenhauer1

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?

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

I'm not defending it because I think it will take like wildfire, I just think it's right.

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

It seems to me in this world that they can sufficiently change the game without dire consequences. In effect, they can sufficiently "escape", so barring other information, this seems permissible.

I'm not defending it because I think — schopenhauer1

Exactly. And let's be honest how many times have your thoughts resolved to anything of use. Just kidding. :razz:

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? 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.

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

Under this criteria, anything goes as long as it spreads like an internet meme. I'm after something different.

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

Not sure your point, but you are right, nice examples of futility and history :).

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.

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.

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

Funny you ask that.. I just asked this in the Philosophy of Religion:
Who here thinks that if they question the "game of life" that god setup and call god immoral, that they will be cursed by that very same god for calling him immoral? I am just wondering how deep-rooted people's superstitions go.. I suspect even atheist-types have some deep-rooted superstitions.. Perhaps a feature of human life even, but certainly institutionalized and redistributed en masse under religion. Yaweh seems very pissy, and doesn't like being called immoral.. He has "things" in mind for little peons who call out the king....

If you found out there was a god and let's say you deemed him immoral (let's say he set up an unjust and petty little game of working for salvation and doing X, Y, Z). As Socrates asked, "Is something good because the gods like it, or do the gods like it because it's good"?