By that formulation wouldn’t having children count as negligent? — khaled
Why would it be permissible then?
However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death by starvation or scary prospect of outright suicide makes it a legitimate injustice to be philosophically and personally against. — schopenhauer1
Being born is also a "forced game" in the exact same manner as work, so where does that line of thought actually take you besides moral nihilism? — Sheffwally
Our current economic position (in most of the world at this point) allows us more freedom and choice than every other time in human history. — Sheffwally
Your lack of imagination here, makes you look like the "unhappy" slave in your ending analogy. — Sheffwally
Ah, this makes it a lot more clear. I have a question for you then. Do you find it likely, in any sense, that your way of framing reality distances you from obtaining "objective truth" about the nature of life? As a philosophy your antiwork argument works very well. However, in a pragmatic sense it is the most detached conception of the world one can actually have. A philosophy born in absolute detachment from the world and it's more artistic elements. A philosophy that assumes far too much about the origin of things. In your willy wonka example, there's no way to be clear about his intentions and that's where it seems like you fall short. The arrangement of society/reality does not necessarily make the intentions behind that arrangement clear and so we have to do some serious digging here. Almost finished, I think what I'm struggling to understand from the two posts that I've seen from you is, what element of life do you apply the most value to in both your anti work argument and your Willy Wonka example?Well yes, I am an ardent antinatalist. — schopenhauer1
Well yes, I am an ardent antinatalist. — schopenhauer1
However entering the economic system itself was a forced game. Yes it has to be played to survive but the fact that we are forced to play it at all lest we die an agonizing slow death by starvation or scary prospect of outright suicide makes it a legitimate injustice to be philosophically and personally against. Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism. This is quite independent to post facto subjective evaluations of liking the game. Like the happy slave, the laborer has no other choice. — schopenhauer1
Almost finished, I think what I'm struggling to understand from the two posts that I've seen from you is, what element of life do you apply the most value to in both your anti work argument and your Willy Wonka example? — Sheffwally
So it's a forced game indeed, and you're absolutely correct in raising it for criticism. — Xtrix
But the thought of having to work all my life for the major sole purpose of survival does feel like a massive trap as well.
Think our need to eat to survive has been a major curse for us. If we somehow transform into beings that don't need to eat, think we'll see a major shift in how the human society functions. — Echoes
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.