Enough information for what? You could be claiming that being forced to experience anything is unjust. Are you? — Srap Tasmaner
Connection to what? C is only about experiences that are inevitably in part bad; would you describe having such an experience as an injustice? It's a simple question. — Srap Tasmaner
There's no birth at all in my questions. I'm trying to ask about the general case of which procreating is supposed to be an instance. — Srap Tasmaner
OK. What solution do you propose for all that? — Alkis Piskas
Your point was that life is a game where one must work to survive. The only surefire way of escaping this game is suicide or starvation. However we now know that what you are really concerned with isn't escape from the game itself, but escape from suffering within the game. Which is an important departure form your op:
Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism.
— schopenhauer1
Now it's more like: Any forced, inescapable game, where it's too difficult not to suffer, is a target for scrutiny and criticism. If so: Life as is right now, in many places, offers easy enough ways of escaping suffering within the game.
In real life the escape from suffering is pretty easy in a lot of places (which would make imposing the game ok in those places). You think this statement is false. Show why this statement is false. — khaled
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
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
I see. Stop reproducing ... But there will always be rich people who could find means to make people reproduce and governments who could force people to reproduce or forbid the use of contraceptives and abortion, as it was done in Nazi Germany ...not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thin — schopenhauer1
So what is the point of C? It is just stated as to what is happening. — schopenhauer1
I interpret Albero's idea about pessimism in that why don't I discuss pessimism in more exposition rather than making these tit-for-tat microarguments — schopenhauer1
The idea of lacking in the human animal is shown over and over in daily life too much and is too true a truism to just dismiss — schopenhauer1
life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. — Albero
That isn't necessarily the claim. Rather, it is the dissatisfaction at the heart of being an animal in the world with needs and wants. The very fact of pursuing this or that.. — schopenhauer1
People are often not as happy as they need to present themselves to others — schopenhauer1
Again, the root of the problem is the need for X at all and that it is constant except for very few moments — schopenhauer1
I want to address this because this is mischaracterizing the argument to make your point — schopenhauer1
That is literally saying that there is no forced game at all. — schopenhauer1
So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.
— khaled
Si let me know when life is that utopia — schopenhauer1
How exactly is it doing so? Which thing have I attributed to you that shouldn’t have been attributed to you? I’m very interested in seeing you answer this. And it would be hilarious to me if you just ignored it as usual. — 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
Now I’m saying that in real life the game is already plenty easy to bring in more people. You disagree. So show why it’s the case that life as is is too difficult. — khaled
Too late for the already born. However, recognizing our common suffering is one thing we can do. Of course, not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thing. Prevent future cases of injustice (in this regard the injustice of the work situation). — schopenhauer1
And it's perverse to argue that people should not procreate so that the antinatalist could get some satisfaction. — baker
An injustice did not happen to someone. Why is the idea of “bad thing did not happen to someone” somehow not legitimate? The opposite is something bad happened to someone. We are preventing that scenario. — schopenhauer1
It is precisely those dire consequences that make the game inescapable. — schopenhauer1
the injustice of an inescapable game. — schopenhauer1
So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game.
Si tell me when life is that utopia — schopenhauer1
Is the game of life escapable in the utopia example? What is the method of escaping the game in the utopia example? — 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
Is the game of life escapable in the real world? What is the method of escaping the game in the real world? — khaled
You will find that your answer to both questions is the same. Except in the one case you think having children (imposing the game) is ok and in the other you don’t. Which means that: — khaled
Isn’t a good indicator. Both the utopia and the real world are equally inescapable. The only way out is death or suicide. — khaled
Furthermore, you agreed that your problem isn’t with inescapable games, but inescapable games where it’s too difficult not to suffer. You agree right here. — khaled
So I ask you to show that life qualifies as “too difficult” and you fail to do so. — khaled
Again, it’s tiring repeating the same thing over and over. I didn’t “change the argument” we arrived at this point through simple questioning. The utopia example demonstrates that a forced game is not in itself bad, as you’re still being forced to live in the example. Your problem is with forced games that are also difficult. But you cannot show that life qualifies as such, so you attempt to reset the conversation. — khaled
When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, you haven't prevented the injustice. Because when there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, the notion of injsutice does not apply. — baker
However, in your utopia, you can snap your fingers and don't have to play the game of life to stay alive. — schopenhauer1
set of challenges to overcome to survive.. what one must do in an economic system whether hunting-gathering or "laboring" in a mixed market capitalist society or communism or any other economic system — schopenhauer1
But really, there is no escape in this world of playing the game of life (producing/consuming/surviving via an economic system of labor/exchange etc.). — schopenhauer1
In the real world, one cannot escape from the survival game. — schopenhauer1
You don't have to play. You snap your fingers and you have what you want. — schopenhauer1
The utopia has a way to escape without dire consequences. — schopenhauer1
Too difficult is if you don't play the forced game, dire consequences ensue (which apparently doesn't happen in your utopia). You die, starve, hack it in the wilderness (and then probably die), or some other crappy fate. — schopenhauer1
And it's tiring repeating over and over how I HAVE emphasized from the beginning that the game is inescapable because of DIRE CONSEQUENCES of not playing it — schopenhauer1
False. You are still alive hence playing the game of life. If you stop snapping your finger, you will suffer exactly as you would IRL. — khaled
Yes you still do all of this in the utopia. It’s just exceedingly easy to do so. All you have to do is snap your fingers. That’s your labor. — khaled
.It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. — schopenhauer1
Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. Still the example stands. In the utopia you don’t escape work. You still have to snap your fingers. It’s just that work is exceedingly easy. — khaled
That’s playing. An easy game. — khaled
Exactly the same case in the utopia. If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you. But we have established that having children in a utopia is fine. Hence showing that it’s not about the sheer magnitude of the punishment for failure, but also how difficult the game is. As again, the magnitude of the punishment for failing at the survival game is identical in both cases (starve, hack it in the wilderness and die, etc) — khaled
I understand you’ve emphasized this. And I’ve shown repeatedly how it makes no sense. The consequences are EXACTLY as dire in the case of the utopia. The only difference is the difficulty of the game, which you refuse to acknowledge as a variable because doing so would mean you have to show that life is too difficult which you cannot do. — khaled
False. That was not how I was defining the game.. This thread is about "work" in particular. that part of the game of life to do with working in an economic system of some kind to keep alive. — schopenhauer1
Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. — khaled
Right I get your one trick pony... Like a kid who learned a joke and uses it over and over cause someone laughed the first time. What's black and white, and "red/read" all over?? — schopenhauer1
If snapping fingers is a set of challenges, then it would be wrong. — schopenhauer1
Can we agree that the world we live in now at the least, is a set of challenges? — schopenhauer1
I am not sure about your utopian world, but this one certainly is. — schopenhauer1
Right, is that a set of challenges to overcome? — schopenhauer1
Are there dire consequences? — schopenhauer1
If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you — khaled
Are the challenges so minimal as to the consequences being de facto, not dire (due to their easy obtainability)? I think that makes sense. — schopenhauer1
Yes, I would agree hence "Set of challenges" was my more detailed definition as given to 180.. — schopenhauer1
It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. — schopenhauer1
Are the challenges so minimal as to.... — schopenhauer1
You're not giving me the Socratic "aha" moments you probably think you're doing bud. — schopenhauer1
You're just "sweeping the leg" and I'll just give you the "crane kick" every time :). — schopenhauer1
You would like me to think that this state of affairs is somehow off the table as far as evaluation. I don't see how. It is good that X prevented a baby from being born in horrible conditions. — schopenhauer1
Would you think it’s wrong if someone genetically engineered a severe disability into their child? Because in this case, similar to the birth example, at the time the act is done there is no one to suffer an injustice by it. Yet it’s clearly an injustice no? — khaled
When do you believe that life/personhood starts? At conception, birth, 18 years of age ...? — baker
Let's say life starts,idk, 8 weeks after conception such that abortion after that point is wrong. Now, say the genetic modification was done on week 0. Does that make it ok? Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled
In your scenario, everything hinges on where you place the beginning of life/personhood. — baker
Point is, if the genetic modification was done before life starts, is it then ok? After all, there is no one to suffer an injustice right? — khaled
Secondly, your scenario is partly analogous to putting poison in a well and claiming that as long as nobody drinks from the well, there is no injustice. — baker
When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice. — baker
It doesn't matter when you say life starts there is always a point before that when the genetic modification could have been done. — khaled
The key terms in such a case are intention and attempt. — baker
When would you say someone intends to do harm? — khaled
If this genetic modification is some religious ritual, and so the intention isn't to harm, but to fulfill the religious duty, in other words, there is no malice behind it, would it still count as "intent to harm"? — khaled
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.