Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. Reason's only purpose is to help us to satisfy our desires. Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions. — Hume
In other words, it's not worth arguing about. — unenlightened
You really disagree with that fact, now with me. I didn't invent it, I don't like it, but it's there. How much ones eyes will be opened standing in front of this "monster" and how far one is ready to go in terms of the solution, depends on the individual obviously. You or the majority just isn't willing (some perhaps unable to for other reasons) to face the fact and accept the most ethical solution. — RAW
doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. Just something you'll proudly and loudly restate. — khaled
Please, no more, I'm leaving the discussion, I do get people like you, it's fine, I know it's hard to accept the scary truth and all, it is what it is. — RAW
If you think the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters when it comes to evaluating ethics
— khaled
You need this premise. There are plenty of people with your doomer attitude that nonetheless aren't efilists. Where did you get the premise that the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters? — khaled
Ok but this is not an argument. It's just lame. I don't care if a particular philosophy comes from a drunk guy on a toilet seat, if it's sound it's sound. — RAW
But instead of discussing this you chose to characterize me as delusional. — khaled
So they look for the most pessimistic outlook they can and pick that one thinking that makes it true. I think it's very sad. — khaled
Is it that there is no correct answer? Or we just can't prove it to each other? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Is it that there is no correct answer? Or we just can't prove it to each other? — Down The Rabbit Hole
The former.
I prefer vanilla, you prefer strawberry.
I prefer the pricking of my finger, you prefer the destruction of the world.
De gustibus non Disputandum est. — unenlightened
Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Evidently the Efilist believes there is such an imbalance. But is there? How can you establish that these measurements are reliable, and persuade people with the opposite intuition that these quantitative judgments are correct?Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive? — RAW
Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don’t think it makes it all the way to moral nihilism. Sounds more like humanism. The source of morality is humans and their preferences, not some “answer” that’s “out there”. Though there are certainly answers that fit more or fewer preferences. And ones that are sustainable and others that are not. Etc — khaled
Evidently the Efilist believes there is such an imbalance. But is there? How can you establish that these measurements are reliable, and persuade people with the opposite intuition that these quantitative judgments are correct? — Cabbage Farmer
On the basis of my own experience, including my experience of the lives of other people, I would reject the Efilist's claim that life is more "negative" than "positive" on balance. — Cabbage Farmer
On the grounds that the Efilist's assessment seems completely unfounded to me, and utterly lacking an objective basis, I would reject your claim that Efilism is "logical". It seems more like an unwarranted intellectual projection motivated by something like the pain of depression or the fleeting pangs of disillusionment. — Cabbage Farmer
I don't believe I've ever heard of this view before. My response here is directed at the characterization of the view I've just gleaned from this thread and from a glance at a few search engine hits.
Perhaps you can recommend a more thorough treatment of Efilism, in which the concerns I've raised might be addressed? — Cabbage Farmer
Ultimately, is a daily severe suffering of a single hungry Yemeni child worth your daily happy time quota? Daily severe suffering of a single sentient animal? Your logical honest answer would be NO. Your delusional dishonest illogical ego-centric emotional would be YES. — RAW
Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others? — RAW
“Life IS pain your highness, and anyone who tells you different is selling something”
Selling something like Elfism for example. :wink: — DingoJones
Q: What premises are necessary before I am open-minded enough to consider/accept Efilism?
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.