Your OP says even those with a bad life are compelled to avoid death, and we would even saw off our arm to do so — Down The Rabbit Hole

No it doesn't. Sheesh. It says that we have 'reason to' avoid death. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Not 'will'. Reason to. Not 'will'. Not 'desire to'. Not 'fear'. Reason to. — Bartricks

And does that reason not compel us to avoid death? Your wording in the OP is "bids us".

I replied pointing out that this is because we are hardwired to do so — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, irrelevant. False. And irrelevant. — Bartricks

Do you believe in evolution? It's basic science that our genes have been naturally selected to avoid things that kill us.

you then responded to others and me that it is "intuitive" and "self-evident" that we have reason to avoid death - I reiterated that it feels intuitive and self evident because of our hardwiring. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, false and irrelevant. It's called the genetic fallacy- the fallacy of thinking that if a belief or impression has a cause, then that automatically discredits the belief or impression. It works for any goddamn belief or impression of anything at all - so it's a really dumb argument. You keep making it. Draw the inference. — Bartricks

No, we've been over this; focus! It only undermines beliefs that have no reasoning apart from feeling self-evidently true.

THus, the reasonable conclusion is that death is a portal to hell. — Bartricks

This self-evident truth is starting to look more like religious faith.

And does that reason not compel us to avoid death? Your wording in the OP is "bids us". — Down The Rabbit Hole

No. This: "you have reason to avoid death" does not - obviously does not - mean the same as "you are compelled to avoid death". It also doesn't mean "there's some chicken in the fridge" or "our car is on fire".

And if I bid you do something, does that mean you're compelled to do it?

Look, you're just reading sloppily - you're just totally misunderstanding perfectly regular English sentences. I have not said and would not say that we are 'compelled' to avoid death.

Do you believe in evolution? I — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes. Focus. Re-read the OP carefully. Read my words and stop - stop - exchanging them for words of your own that don't at all mean the same thing.

No, we've been over this; focus! It only undermines beliefs that have no reasoning apart from feeling self-evidently true. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Er, no. You're committing the genetic fallacy. I'm not going to explain why again, for explaining things to someone who doesn't understand what words mean is a waste of finger energy.

This self-evident truth is starting to look more like religious faith. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't have any religious faith. Nothing you think is correct.

If you could realise that your own argument is premised upon people's intuitions and attitude towards death (which is something you indirectly referred to when you talked about people wanting to not die even if they have mediocre lives), you would have realised a long time ago that ignoring the crux of the matter does not help anybody. "Our reason tells us to do virtually anything to avoid it" does not delve into whether or not those reasons are justified and what is their precise nature. Yet, any attempt to explain that has been brushed away by vacuous claims of me resorting to "human psychology". Since you've chosen to not look at this properly, there really is no point in this. Lack of focus must be a significant problem these days. Verily it is tragic, but it's not that surprising.
Anyway, hope you have a nice day.

If you could realise that your own argument is premised upon people's intuitions and attitude towards death — DA671

No, it appeals to people's intuitions - their rational intuitions - which is what any argument for anything does. So, you know, if that's a problem, then we better stop all intellectual investigation and just make shit up instead. (Not 'and attitudes' - that's just you and others who don't seem able to read or understand English).

Stop being so amateurish in your approach. It's what those who can't reason do in response to any argument for anything they dislike: they reject the entire project of arguing for things.

Now, I have indeed appealed to rational intuitions. If you think the rational intuitions in question are false, provide an argument. Lay it out.

If you think the intuition that we have reason to avoid death (and remember - remember - it is by reason that we find out about what we have reason to do and believe....so don't go dissing reason as a method of finding out about the world...that's what dummies do) is false, then argue that it is false. Lay it out.

And if you end up questioning how we can know anything at all, you lose.

Except that not all intuitions are rationally justifiable. There was once a time when people's intuitions would have told them that thunder was a punishment from the gods.

People whose idea of argumentation revolves around dismissing anything that does not fit their narrow framework don't seem to get very far. Whether or not they want that depends on them, of course.

I have already mentioned that the intuitions aren't merely about avoiding death in isolation. Investigating them in detail, one can see that pain and loss alongside a lack of thought regarding the nature of nonbeing (aside from societal influence) also play a role in the existence of these intuitions, which is why the idea that they hint towards the alleged "badness" of death is illogical. But as always, one can dismiss evidence that they are uncomfortable with.

I did not question reason or our ability to know things. I merely pointed out that not all of our reasons are adequately developed and neither do they necessarily have everything to do with a single factor instead of a bunch of factors. I also did not claim that the intuition to avoid death is "false", since it obviously involves pain and loss, both of which can be avoided rationally in light of our nature. My point was that the intuition does not have to include considering death itself being a horrible state of affairs, and a few justifications for this intuition might not be accurate.

Loss and gain are inevitable, but the former will be found in copious amounts with those who do not revise their views in light of reality (and there is no evidence for nonexistence being a terrible state of affairs other than a misunderstanding of intuitions). I remain grateful to you for sharing your valuable thoughts. As always, have a good day and best of luck for your future endeavours.

Except that not all intuitions are rational. — DA671

Again, we're getting into general issues. Most people have the intuition - which is a term of art that I, like most philosophers, am using to refer to a representation of our reason - that we have reason to avoid death under most circumstances.

The default is that an appearance is accurate, not inaccurate. That's called the principle of phenomenal conservatism and without it you're not going to be able to argue for anything at all - you're just going to be a lazy sceptic.

So, our reason (which is a faculty) tells us that we have reason to avoid death. That's evidence that we do have reason to avoid death.

If you think it isn't because there is the brute possibility that what our reason tells us, and what is actually the case, can be distinct, then you're just saying 'how can we know anything?'. And you lose.

So, if you think that these particular intuitions and not all representations of our reason are false, then provide an argument for that claim. That is, show me that there are other representations that our reason makes that contradict this representation and that we have as much or more reason to trust than the one I am appealing to.

"Reason" does not tell us that death itself alters our being or is a terrible hellish dimension. Perhaps it does to you but that's a separate matter. Not everything is how it appears to be, because the information that we have with us also alters our intuitions. As I've said before, when people did not understand our world that well, I am sure that it would have seemed quite sensible to think that solar eclipses were an evil phenomena or thunder was a supernatural intervention. Yet, greater understanding changed our perception and consequently our reason. We may still fear thunder, but probably because it could hit us or make us dead, not due to it being a divine/hellish force. Similarly, we may indeed have a reason to avoid death, but this reason need not involve perceiving non-existence as being something that alters our state. It could also be simply due to the fact that one's well-being lies in continuing to live instead of going out in a potentially painful way. Other reasons, such as actually thinking the void to be a horrible state are usually a result of external influence and ideas that we haven't delved into in a thorough manner (and you and I both know that most people are not comfortable with confronting their own mortality). As our experiences with other natural phenomena show, blindly trusting instincts we haven't critically thought about may not be the best idea. Lazy dogmatism is as problematic as lazy scepticism.

I've already mentioned ad nauseam that it's important to look into the nature of this intuition (alongside the nature of reality, and it does not give us evidence of a hell post existence). Once we do, it would become quite obvious that this intuition stems from a desire to avoid harm and preserve whatever good one's life does have. It's also formed due to societal influence, so the truth value of the intuition that nonexistence itself is bad is also doubtful, considering that it may be a larger result of nurture. Also, questioning how we know what we do is a fairly common thing in epistemology and philosophy as a whole. This does not mean that one has to doubt everything. They could rationally see that there is a particular instinct that they haven't really thought about. Then, they could look into the precise nature of that intuition (does it involve X, or something closely related to X?) and whether available evidence lines up with that intuition (such as whether or not there is a reason to think that there are people in painful altered states in inexistence). Finally, they can see that while that general intuition could have merit, it could also have flawed elements that can be discarded in favour of a more comprehensive understanding. I haven't even mentioned the fact (or maybe I have) that most people who do think about these issues do not seem have the intuition that death (the state itself) is something that alters us in a painful way as opposed to something that eradicates our being (which is what most people seem eager to avoid).

I've already provided the reasons innumerable times. I cannot read and understand them for someone else. This has become excessively circular. As ever, thanks for the discussion. Have a fantastic day!

Our "reason" does not tell us that death itself alters our being or is a terrible hellish dimension. Perhaps yours do, but that's a separate matter. — DA671

Do pay attention: that's a 'conclusion'. Our reason does not tell us it directly. We have to 'infer' it.

Once more, my restaurant example. The waiter in this example is playing the part of your faculty of reason. You're in a restaurant. You have to order something from the menu. There are lots of things on the menu - some things you like, some things you know will make you a bit ill, and some that are mysterious and you've never heard of before. One of those is 'shit soup' and the other is 'razorblade soup'. You ask about these. The waiter - who is bit cryptic - insists that you really shouldn't order shit soup. He doesn't tell you what's in it, but he insists that virtually anything else on the menu would be better. You say "but what about mushrooms - I am allergic to mushrooms and if I eat them I'll be sick for a week.....would mushrooms be better than shit soup?" The waiter says "yes, certainly - you're even better off ordering the mushrooms than the shit soup". Now, what is the waiter implying? That shit soup is great? That shit soup is so-so? Or that shit soup is really, really horrible?

Really horrible, yes?

The only - the only - dish the waiter says shit soup would be preferable to, is razorblade soup, which the waiter does explain is a soup full of broken razorblades.

Now, if shit soup is something the waiter is recommending you avoid at all costs bar razorblade soup - a soup that is full of broken razorblaes - and is recomending you avoid even at the cost of eating mushroom soup instead - a soup that will make you sick for a week - then shit soup is really foul and really bad for you, yes? Even someone with an iq of 70 could see that.

That's what your reason is telling you about death.

Your reason could be corrupt.

But it's what virtually everyone else's reason tells them about it too.

Their reason could be corrupt to.

But if you think your reason and everyone else's is corrupt on this issue, but not on others, then you need to justify that belief.

One could certainly "infer" it, but they would be irrational in doing so if they ignore the fact that there are also other factors that can support other inferences. Paying attention is definitely important, and a severe lack of it has been displayed here. Also, considering that my intuitions disagree with yours, I wouldn't want to be a "lazy sceptic" and deny "reason" ;)

Your analogy is problematic. In this case, one clearly has many reasons for avoiding the soup. Firstly, they know that bad food can make them sick which is clearly not good for them. No such evidence for the intrinsic badness of death exists. Secondly, the waiter, someone we presume to know exactly what the food is (as opposed to someone merely having some strong intuitions about the food that they never bothered to investigate), so it would be reasonable to trust them. The larger intuition that the bad soup should be avoided could be true. But it's exact nature could differ based upon our reasons, not all of which are rational.

1. I want to avoid the soup because I suddenly feel that it would transport me to hell. This makes little sense and is uncritical.

2. After having considered the clear possibility of illness and the fact that a waiter working in the restaurant surely knows the food there, I would want to avoid this soup because I do not want to incur significant harm. I could retain some of my health even if I had a bad but slightly less bad soup, and since I value my health, it would be rational for me to pick that option.

I am pretty sure that rational intuitions would drive us towards the latter choice.

A more appropriate analogy would be to consider a somewhat knowledgeable friend going with you to a restuarant that neither of you have ever visited before. You see an item labelled X on the menu and your friend immediately tells you to not eat the item because it would give you cancer. You ask your friend for reasons behind his claim and he replies that this is what he feels to be the case. Now, you could simply accept his claim at face value and perhaps abandon this restaurant that could potentially have excellent food. Or, you could start looking for evidence. Is there are evidence for some deadly food being served in your locality that immediately gives you cancer after being consumed once? Should I trust the word of my friend who, despite knowing a lot, still has little to no understanding of the food being served at the restaurant there? Ultimately, you could still decide to not eat the food, but this wouldn't be because you think that the food would give you cancer. It could merely be that you don't want to waste money on an unknown dish labelled X that you've never hears of and might not like the taste of. At worse, it could also make you sick.

What changed here was not the larger intuition of "avoiding the food", but the intuitions that were associated with it (that it would cause cancer) and consequently the reasons for going with that intuition (not wanting to waste money or become slightly I'll). Rational inquiry gave us reasons to not have a particular view about something whilst still considering it to be bad but to a different degree and for different reasons that did not have much to do with the intrinsic badness of the food (such as the purchase of the dish being a waste of money).

In my opinion, it's necessary to realise that:
1. Not all strong intuitions are correct. Good examples of this include our ancestors' fear of natural phenomena as being acts of divine punishment.

2. We could retain that overall instinct but for vastly different reasons (avoid thunder in case it hits you and causes you immense pain instead of running away from it due to a belief that it would condemn us to hell or something). Additionally, we could discard the parts of it that we know to be indefensible based upon the evidence we possess.

The difference remains vital and potent, irrespective of whether or not people see it. Also, it's peculiar to talk so favourably about certain intuitions (such as death being bad) whilst going against others (like reproduction and life being good). Arguments for antinatalism frequently involve such arbitrary double standards.

Not everybody shares the intuition that death alters us and brings us to a terrible state of affairs. If you want to accuse countless people's intuitions and rational faculties of being corrupt, then you're the one who needs to justify that claim. Prevarication and obfuscation won't help as far as that is concerned.

I am going to go and explain this to a horse now, as that would be a better use of my time. Tara.

Fortunately, the horse won't have to deal with unjustified arguments premised upon intuitions that haven't been adequately understood ;)

Anyhow, I appreciate your thought-provoking ideas. Thanks for giving me your precious time. May you have a wonderful day!

That's a great post. You re-articulated your position well, and I feel that I understand it much better after reading it. Well done.

Your argument is based on value judgements, not facts. Whiney, cowardly value judgements. — T Clark

The squeaky wheel gets the grease! The situation is relatively better now than in the past precisely because people like antinatalists have been kvetching about the problems with life (tiring - machines, too hot - AC, too cold - heating, too painful - analgesia/anesthesia, so on and so forth), making it possible for people like you to denounce, in degrading terms, people like us who complain! We're the ones who stimulate positive change in the world! Prove us (antinatalists) wrong - improve life; we'll keep whining until we're satisfied that life is worth living. :smile:

I feel sorry for the horse.

Let’s say you go to a restaurant and order a course of five dishes. You’re planning to eat all of them, one after another. You can tolerate one or two bad dishes, but if the waiter serves you literally a shit soup, you will instantly walk out. Luckily, that doesn’t happen. You finish all five dishes and leave.

At the end of the day, you ended up departing from the restaurant. Does any of these follow?

• Departing from the restaurant was equal to eating a full bowl of shit soup
• Departing from the restaurant was equal to being served a shit soup

I am going to go and explain this to a horse now, as that would be a better use of my time. Tara. — Bartricks

:rofl:

Antinatalists or those whose main complaint about the experience of life as a human being is suffering or
intensity of suffering. Are you able to conceive of a human existence that you would be content with?
A life experience within which you would no longer be antinatalist.
If there were no more suffering. A paradise on Earth, would you then no longer be antinatalist?
Can you describe your ideal living conditions for the antinatalist?

Zero suffering would be the ideal we should be aiming for. I don't know if life is even possible after the abolishment of suffering (the trasnhumanist holy grail). If it isn't then that bolsters antinatalism, predicated as it is on the equation life = suffering.

Minimizing suffering to tolerable levels is another, more doable, option (negative utilitarianism).

Alleviate/Eliminate Suffering should be the mantra for natalism. Until then, don't birth children: they won't like life and they'll blame you for it! Double whammy: you're responsible for someone else's suffering and your good intentions - taking a chance for the sake of a better life for your kids - backfired.

Until then, don't birth children — Agent Smith

So, you are not advocating that the end of all life in the Universe is a moral imperative due to the existence of suffering. You merely suggest that the Earth is over-populated and due to the fact that resources are not equitably distributed we need to stop producing children that we cant nurture adequately.

Zero suffering would be the ideal we should be aiming for. I don't know if life is even possible after the abolishment of suffering (the trasnhumanist holy grail). If it isn't then that bolsters antinatalism — Agent Smith

So you would agree that some suffering is needed as a comparator, a learning tool.
we will always some bad around so that we can still recognise what good is,
Do you agree?

Sorry, missed out a word.

So you would agree that some suffering is needed as a comparator, a learning tool.
we will always NEED some bad around so that we can still recognise what good is,
Do you agree?

So, you are not advocating that the end of all life in the Universe is a moral imperative due to the existence of suffering. You merely suggest that the Earth is over-populated and due to the fact that resources are not equitably distributed we need to stop producing children that we cant nurture adequately. — universeness

I'm not Thanos! :grin:

Suffering is a real problem! Luckily or not, the issue is complex enough to induce analysis paralysis. I just met someone from work who complained "I don't know where to start!" I suspect we're all in the same boat.

Coming to overpopulation, I simply echoed the views of others. They seem to make sense as far as I can tell.

I remember a Neil deGrasse Tyson video on how a tabletop (2D) quickly runs out of space, but that once you start stacking items into 3D, we can fit more stuff (area becomes volume). Birth and death at different times (4^th dimension) is the same principle in action. We pack more people in the same 3D space by using the 4^th dimension. In other words, the overpopulation crisis can be solved by timing births (deaths can't be controlled for to do so might require us to legalize murder of the elderly aka senicide).

:chin:

Based on a time frame of approximately 14 billion years, the Universal state you advocate existed for the vast majority of that time frame. Then at some relatively recent point, life stated to form in the Universe.
There must have been a moment after that when the concept of 'suffering' started.
Was this moment, for you, the beginning of evil?
Can your 'reason' suggest any other need for the invention of suffering?
Does your reason offer you anything on 'what the purpose of the Universe was' before life formed?

I'm not Thanos! — Agent Smith

Ok! good to know.

Suffering is a real problem! — Agent Smith

I know!

I just met someone from work who complained "I don't know where to start! — Agent Smith

I would need more context before I could respond to this

Coming to overpopulation, I simply echoed the views of others. They seem to make sense as far as I can tell — Agent Smith

I concur

I remember a Neil deGrasse Tyson video on how a tabletop (2D) quickly runs out of space, but that once you start stacking items into 3D, we can fit more stuff (area becomes volume). Birth and death at different times (4th dimension) is the same principle in action. We pack more people in the same 3D space by using the 4th dimension. In other words, the overpopulation crisis can be solved by timing births (deaths can't be controlled for to do so might require us to legalize murder of the elderly aka senicide) — Agent Smith

I don't think our overpopulation problem needs a 4th dimensional 'pack em, stack em, rack em, and remove the old ones' approach. I think we need better 3D global politics and equitable distribution of resources.
You seem to be attracted to 'flowery rhetoric' which has, in my opinion. little practical value.
I am not convinced you are an antinatalist. It seems to me that like the rest of us, you are just concerned about global human affairs and our current way of doing things. You don't actually advocate for the end of all life in the Universe due to the existence of suffering. Am I correct?

:lol:

The squeaky wheel gets the grease! — Agent Smith

And you are the forums resident squeaky wheel.

The situation is relatively better now than in the past precisely because people like antinatalists have been kvetching about the problems with life... We're the ones who stimulate positive change in the world! — Agent Smith

Talk about delusions of grandeur.

making it possible for people like you to denounce, in degrading terms, people like us who complain! — Agent Smith

You; in your self-righteous, self-serving, self-satisfied smugness; say that having children is evil. You deserve to be denounced in degrading terms.

And you are the forums resident squeaky wheel. — T Clark

I'm not alone in exposing the flaws in our universe - just talk to any atheist worth his salt on the topic of intelligent design.

Talk about delusions of grandeur. — T Clark

:smile: A fact is a fact! If people had never complained about the awful heat/cold, no one would've ever thought of inventing the AC/heater!

Too, I don't see why anyone would get an ego boost from constantly seeing the dark side of reality. If anything, it makes us morose/despondent/melancholic.

You; in your self-righteous, self-serving, self-satisfied smugness; say that having children is evil. You deserve to be denounced in degrading terms. — T Clark

Hey, don't fly off the handle! I thought you said it was great to be alive!

No comment!

I think if we looked past your current tendency towards a negative vibe about life, we would find a good person just trying to make sense of it all, much like the rest of us.

Have you read the op? Clearly not. Focus on the argument in the op.

No, neither of those follows.