Well, the fact that we know to aspire to enjoying without infringing, and suffering without complaining, suggest a moral compass of some sort. I think more, it pins this side of existence being a humiliating one as we discover how disqualified we are. But the fact we aspire (pretty much universally) means either we are all deluded, or there is an evolution or greater existence coming.

Your example of child bearing is a good one. But what came before that (most of the time) is intercourse. The ideal there being both parties suffer and enjoy the experience mutually. So then perhaps the future we seek isn't just "don't bother me and I won't bother you", but the merging of all our enjoyments and sufferings.

So then perhaps the future we seek isn't just "don't bother me and I won't bother you", but the merging of all our enjoyments and sufferings. — Ajemo

Don't know what this means or looks like. Sounds vaguely transhumanist.. unless you mean we all be empathetic. I am all for empathy, but at the end of the day, I want my "stuff" and that makes other people work.. who may not want to work but have to to survive and vice versa. We are screwing each other over simply by living. Again, existence entails from its very operation moral disqualification. The very fact that some people's views of the world get to dominate whilst others are simply ignored with a shrug also shows this.

Some people would rather not have encountered a world in the first place where people are murdered, physical and mental diseases proliferate, and work takes up most of adult life. Others find this at the least tolerable and some even find it character-building. Those people win out. And as I said:

It also leads to continual conflict between those whose preferences are being at least minimally satisfied (those who don't mind let's say working to survive), and those who would have never asked for this if the world aligned to their preferences.

With the idea of only SOME people's preferences satisfied, and those preferences entailing the infringement of other people's preferences, this makes this existence morally disqualifying. — schopenhauer1

You are completely justified to lament our current state of existence. The socio-economic and political power dynamics are set up to ignore the preferences of large portions of the human population. Then on top of that subjugating more offspring into such a situation adds further grief.

What I'm suggesting is a permutation of "I think therefore I am". I would go a step further to say "I seek therefore it exists". The only qualification to that would be "unless I am deluded". But the ideal of representing all people's preferences is something all societies pursue in some way no matter the religion or culture. So I don't think it's a delusion despite our current disqualifications.

But the ideal of representing all people's preferences is something all societies pursue in some way no matter the religion or culture. — Ajemo

Really? Where? Preferences like meeting supply and demands presuppose other preferences like how society goes about doing that.

The point is that an existence with some preference never met means that existence is not moral. Period. That’s if we believe that peoples preferences being met is the moral standard.

If it’s not the moral standard we gotta choose wisely here because now we are positing that a certain way of life is necessary and more important to carry out for those who don’t agree with it. Then that has to be discussed for why it should be THE way. Simply stating that, there is no other way doesn’t negate the moral disqualification of not meeting everyone’s preferences. It simply restates the very problem of that “squishy middle”.

The point is that an existence with some preference never met means that existence is not moral. Period. That’s if we believe that peoples preferences being met is the moral standard. — schopenhauer1

What is the moral thing to do? That’s easy. If one understands morality as a standard delimiting the way things ought to be , then in general terms the moral is
what satisfies that standard.In order for morality to work as a standard or principle , it cannot just refer to contingent , local and relative situation. The preferred standard, principle must point to a certain universality , or at least reliable ongoing identity in what it chooses.

For instance , if the notion of not-being born is conceived as a preferable alternative to life, then it is the moral choice because it is a universal. Not being born doesn’t change its stripes and become some sort of lived experience all of a sudden. It must be conceived
as pure and unchanging. It acts as a moral ground in a way similar not how God serves as the basis of all morality for the religious. In both cases there is an assumed unchanging fundamental truth to hang our moral standard on. We can rely on the never-having-been-born to always be devoid of suffering and pain, as well as joy. It is a perfect neutrality.
But I want to contrast this view of morality with the Nietzsche’s extra-moral perspective. For Nietzsche non-being and not-having-been-born are
themselves kinds of beings. For him a being is a difference in drives or affects. Never-having-been-born is not a pure neutrality that preceded life, it only exists or appears , that is , it is born as a contrast, a differentiation in one’s thinking, a desired remedy for one’s suffering, just as God serves this purpose for the religious.
Nietzsche calls this will to nothingness the acetic ideal, a drive or craving for perfect neutrality and the completely unchanging.

It has been said that the ‘nothing’ cannot be thought, but in thought is the only place it resides. And each time the ‘nothing’ is thought , it is thought differently , in response to always different concerns and contexts. The nothing is always fecund, creative rather than a simple lack or absence. Likewise , every time you come back to the topic of the never-having-been-born, you have something new to say about it. But this having something new to say isnt just dancing around the edges and pointing to the perfect, pure never changing affective neutrality of the nothing. You are each time slightly changing the very sense and meaning of the never-having-been-born in ways that are invisible to you.
Each time you talk or think about it , you are giving birth to new life and new sense.

But even though this is so, you consider it as static and fixed , and you also think of its contrary , life , in terms that are static and fixed For you life’s suffering has a non-changing essence, so for you morality is a battle between eternal suffering and eternal nothingness.

For Nietzsche the two sides of this battle are really the same concept, truth and morality as the unchanging , the pure, the perfect. Nietzsche wants to replace this traditional morality with an ethics that recognizes, celebrates and accelerates the incessant differentiating change underlying and overflowing your static notions of the nothing and of suffering.

For Nietzsche the two sides of this battle are really the same concept, truth and morality as the unchanging , the pure, the perfect. Nietzsche wants to replace this traditional morality with an ethics that recognizes, celebrates and accelerates the incessant differentiating change underlying and overflowing your static notions of the nothing and of suffering. — Joshs

Just seems like more ways to justify suffering. I’m not on board with that. This particular thread is saying that if preferences satisfied are a moral standard than this existence entails it never being moral.

Just seems like more ways to justify suffering.This particular thread is saying that if preferences satisfied are a moral standard than this existence entails it never being moral. — schopenhauer1

That’s becuase you haven’t examined the coherence of your ‘alternative’ closely enough.
Isnt morality about imperfect choices?
Never having been born is your notion of divinity , that which ends all suffering. Therefore , your preference is for never having been born. If that were satisfied you would consider it moral. One would have to accept your concept of having never been born as a preferable alternative to life in order to consider existence immoral.

And your preference is for never having been born. If that were satisfied you would consider it moral. Never having been born is your notion of divinity , that which ends all suffering. — Joshs

“There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus).

Like Hamlet, to be or not to be. If life is not worth living then kill yourself and end it. If that is not the option then find things to make life worthwhile.

Some people would rather not have encountered a world in the first place ... — schopenhauer1

Yeah, well, it's never too late for "some people" to abruptly end their "encounter". :smirk:

The point is that an existence with some preference never met means that existence is not moral. Period. — schopenhauer1

"Moral" (or not) belongs to existents, not "existence".

Just seems like more ways to justify suffering. I’m not on board with that. — schopenhauer1

Adaptively managing suffering (attempting to do so) is not "justifying suffering" any more than to eat "justifies" hunger or to bury the dead "justifies" mortality. :roll:

This particular thread is saying that if preferences satisfied are a moral standard than this existence entails it never being moral. — schopenhauer1

And again. If you set up some bizarre moral framework, you'll reach bizarre results. Why is this still of any interest to you? Are you seeing if you run out of weird moral proscriptions? Are you waiting to see if at some point the more bizarre you make them the less weird the conclusions?

The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. That would mean by necessity everyone would have to enjoy their favored existence without infringing on other people's favored existence (if this existence was trying to be moral and it was agreed that enjoying one's own preferences was deemed as moral). But wait!!

What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence? — schopenhauer1

Almost everyone's "favored existence" would include being able to live sociably and peacefully with other people. Clearly then, almost every favored existence requires people to accept your so-called "infringement," otherwise known as friendship, loyalty, love, generosity, empathy, compassion, trust, honesty...

I mean, these types of threads lead to thinking that suicide is a good thing, because there's nothing else that can be extracted here that is positive in any way. And for some cases, I think suicide is completely legitimate.

But if that's not in the background, then all we are left with is damning this existence. What's the point? Either do something, or don't do it, but trying to get people to see that existence is suffering is silly, especially if there's a way out.

@schopenhauer1 is trying to convince everyone they should refuse to go on breathing or to breed any more little mouth-breathers because there's "too much" air pollution. :mask:

Well put

is trying to convince everyone they should refuse to go on breathing or breed any more little breathers because there's "too much" air pollution. — 180 Proof

...But sadly only convinces one that the world would be a far more charming and cheerful place (indeed, in which to unconscionably suffer!) with fewer schopenhauer1-types about, incessantly jeremiahing.



I am in no sense advising suicide to anyone wishy-washy or iffy. After all, what's the diff? Die now, or suffer horrifically now and die later? The final chapter is the same: eternal bodyless sentienceless peace.

...But sadly only convinces one that the world would be a far more charming and cheerful place (indeed, in which to unconscionably suffer!) with fewer schopenhauer1-types about, incessantly jeremiahing. — ZzzoneiroCosm

@schopenhauer1 is a bit of a one-trick pony and I have disagreed with most of his positions over our time together on the forum. On the other hand, I have noted him branching out from his usual anti-natalism to broader subjects, although admittedly still focusing on the same set of issues. Also, he always comes to the discussions prepared with specific positions and arguments, unlike 63.459% of the other members. He writes well.

If I'm not in the mood to cross swords with his brand of pessimism, I avoid the discussion. You can't say you didn't expect what you get.

schopenhauer1 is a bit of a one-trick pony — T Clark

We've done the back and forth a bit and I'm rarely surprised by the trajectory. As a psychotherapist-to-be, my instinct is to try to help. But neither kind love nor tough love has had the feck to pierce his armor.

So it goes. — Vonnegut

Thanks for the heads up.

See you over on the Tao side soon. :smile:

As a psychotherapist-to-be, my instinct is to try to help. — ZzzoneiroCosm

A bit of a nasty implication. Or a nasty bit of implication. Or an implicatory bit of nastiness.

A bit of a nasty implication. Or a nasty bit of implication. Or an implicatory bit of nastiness. — T Clark

It's clear to me he would benefit - as would most of us (I consider it nearly universal) - from contact with a skillful counselor or psychotherapist. I don't mean to ring nasty. :smile:

nasty — T Clark

I suppose the nasty is another bit of fallout from the stigma attached to seeking help.

It's clear that schopenhauer1's best first step to improve the state of the world would be to improve the state of his psychology.

If that were satisfied you would consider it moral. One would have to accept your concept of having never been born as a preferable alternative to life in order to consider existence immoral. — Joshs

The whole claim is that this existence contains a considerable amount of preferences not met. And if we are to get empirical about it, it isn't just non-trivial things but whole ways of life for whole swaths of people are not met. Some people's tolerances for preferences met are at a minimum.. They will accept anything as long as they are not physically being tortured or starving to death.. Some people would have preferred a completely different mode of living. All that needs to obtain is that at least SOME people do not have preferences met.. and major ones at that.. In fact, as you are pointing out, by default, some preferences CAN NEVER be met.

The slow burning evil of the squishy middle is also an element here. The people whose tolerances (and perhaps preferences) for a world that "doesn't meet other people's preferences" will ALWAYS beat out people who are not tolerant (or have absolutely no preference) of a world that "does NOT have the feature of "doesn't meet other people's preferences"." And thus, that makes this world morally disqualifying..

Remember, morally disqualifying doesn't mean people can't be moral, or that goodness doesn't exist. It just means that this world can never be characterized as a moral/good existence due to these features. There is always "encroaching on other people's preferences". It also means the most tolerant of (or even embracing of) pro-suffering preferences will always win out to those who would prefer that no suffering existed at all.

Yeah, well, it's never too late for "some people" to abruptly end their "encounter". :smirk: — 180 Proof

See, your preference for my killing myself is not met.

"Moral" (or not) belongs to existents, not "existence". — 180 Proof

I would have agreed prior but I think that this isn't true anymore even on the face of it.. If there was a world characterized by people being tortured for eternity, that may be characterized as morally disqualifying existence. Perhaps as a feature of that existence, it was such that once born, immediate torture ensued. In that existence you can say all you want, "existences aren't evil, only people", but I would say, the very fact that agonizing torture is a feature of that existence would qualify it as being an evil existence.

Now look at existences that allow for only some evil as a feature of those existences. Just because they are not the most extreme cases of evil, doesn't mean that those existences are not qualified as bad. That is why I characterized them (e.g. our existence) as the "slow burning evil of the squishy middle".. As I said earlier, our existence is:

statistical, and varies in intensity of preferences not satisfied. And this may be for the worse for humans as there will be slow realization of it being morally worse off. It also leads to continual conflict between those whose preferences are being at least minimally satisfied (those who don't mind let's say working to survive), and those who would have never asked for this if the world aligned to their preferences.

With the idea of only SOME people's preferences satisfied, and those preferences entailing the infringement of other people's preferences, this makes this existence morally disqualifying. — schopenhauer1

Almost everyone's "favored existence" would include being able to live sociably and peacefully with other people. Clearly then, almost every favored existence requires people to accept your so-called "infringement," otherwise known as friendship, loyalty, love, generosity, empathy, compassion, trust, honesty... — T Clark

So are you saying people wish to have other people's preferences thwarted to have these things (love, friendship, loyalty, etc)? If so, more evidence for my case.. preferences had means having other people's preferences thwarted.. Thus morally disqualifying the whole thing (because it is a feature of the system and an intractable conundrum..other people's thwarted preferences allows for our preferences met).

It's clear now that I don't know what you're whinging about, man, because you don't know what you're whinging about either.

It's clear now that I don't know what you're whinging about, man, because you don't know what you're whinging about either. — 180 Proof

Existences can be characterized as good or bad.. not just people. If you lived in hellish conditions at all times..you would call it bad. If as part of living in those conditions, everyone had to be immoral.. it can be characterized as an immoral system/existence.

. Also, he always comes to the discussions prepared with specific positions and arguments, unlike 63.459% of the other members. He writes well.

If I'm not in the mood to cross swords with his brand of pessimism, I avoid the discussion. You can't say you didn't expect what you get. — T Clark

Thank you for the nod. I don't just write something and not defend it. I do try to rebut objections, even if people think it unsatisfactory. I write in good faith.. even when met with complete snark and ad hom from the other side. I might focus on different lenses of understanding philosophically pessimistic topics but I have written on many other topics as well, both on this forum and the previous one.. I don't begrudge someone discussing a topic or taking a position that they especially find to be true- especially if it elucidates yet another angle/or feature of that central philosophy they hold. That is not to say, one must hold onto their views, but that doesn't discount that people can find certain views to be the correct ones, and then because of their truth, be used as a methodology for understanding a whole host of issues ranging from metaphysics to ethics.. If Kant endlessly used the CI to solve ethical issues, I don't resent him for that. If Plato and Socrates endlessly solve problems of metaphysics with the notion of Forms, I don't denigrate them for being consistent. I might find them to be wrong in their conclusions, but I don't resent them for using them if they find them to be true. As long as they are arguing in good faith, I say and willing to defend their positions.. As long as it's not all troll and invective...

Some people endlessly discuss Wittgenstein's points over and over.. I don't especially find it that interesting, but I don't metaphorically throw fecal matter at them in their threads for bringing it up.. Along with several members (e.g. 180proof, Bitter Crank, Jamalrob, Benkei, etc.), I am in the category of one of the longest-participating members.. even if one of the most hated :wink:. At least it's a consistent tradition...Hate on schop1 with his tired old pessimism. You mine as well get the pitchforks and force the hemlock while you're at it.. but don't worry, I'm used to it. As @Bitter Crank characterized it:

We have both gotten used to being voices howling in the wilderness. We wilderness howlers are dismissed out of hand, even if our howled message is right on the money. Dressed in rags, eating locusts, (roasted. salted, nutty, crunchy, nutritious), howling, of course; and harshing the mellow of the bourgeoisie just doesn't make one popular,

"Blessed are the shat upon." Simon and Garfunkel — Bitter Crank

The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. — schopenhauer1

That is an egological point of view. Not egocentric, necessarily, but the perspective of one individual as dinstinct from another. You're depicting absolutely everything in life as (1) either getting what you want or (2) not. And from that perspective, it is indeed a hopeless situation. As St Mick of Jagger said, you can't always git what you want. But maybe it's the perspective that is wanting, here. Maybe there's a perspective other than the egological.

The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences — schopenhauer1

:up:

Live and let live. — SYT

What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence? — schopenhauer1

Aut neca aut necare (kill or be killed)

With the idea of only SOME people's preferences satisfied, and those preferences entailing the infringement of other people's preferences, this makes this existence morally disqualifying. — schopenhauer1

:fire:

A person...either gonna hurt or gonna hurt! No point to being born!

Maybe there's a perspective other than the egological. — Wayfarer

You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need. And this "need" I find to be a problem.. If it simply means "need" as in "needs of survival" that's one thing.. But I think it is a moral claim from St. Mick Jagger.. That is to say, there are certain people whose "needs" are being met more because they don't MIND what is going on versus other people.. It is those other people who do mind that somehow have to shut up and ya know, get what they "NEED". Not self-justifying at all :roll:. Who is in control here? Well the masters who make the rules of course.. and they tell you what you NEED. And thus you get posters in here claiming that those who DO MIND are just being "weird" and "stop being weird" stop having "weird conclusions".. There are things that NEED to happen apparently...And I am contra this NEED.

It's clear now that I don't know what you're whinging about, man, because you don't know what you're whinging about either. — 180 Proof

:snicker: