Not at all. You’re simply missing his points and/or ignoring them. He’s doing a fine job. Can’t help if you’re like a child with fingers in his ears. — schopenhauer1

All you do is throw another toy from your pram! around about 200 of them so far, according to the moderators. Make you antinatalist points, stop trying to throw your pelters at me, your efforts are completely benign.

Antinatalism will probably still fixate on their future problems while ignoring the immense progress we have made and will continue to make at ever accelerating rates. — Benj96

Well said sir! From a google search:
In his 2011 book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,” Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker argued that despite common assumptions, violence has dropped dramatically from biblical times to the present. His new book, “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” picks up on that theme, exploring how other threats to human well-being have been in similar retreat.

This is the kind of evidence that shows humans HAVE significantly progressed in their goal to make the human experience a better one for all stakeholders including the flora and fauna of the Earth itself.
Things are still very worrying, I dont want to dilute that one bit, but they have been even more worrying in the past. Can you imagine being in or around Pompeii when Vesuvius erupted? You really would have thought armaggedon had arrived. How about living during the black death plagues. I think even I would have called out 'we are doomed, doomed, WE ARE ALL DOOMED!,' as my neighbours and family died all around me. But we survived and we continued to progress.

The attention I am paying to 'his argument,' is simply shaking your little room. If you want to help him then make your points or concentrate on wiping the slabbers from your own mouth.

Sure, but not the question of whoever is a fortunate or unfortunate species. — Tzeentch

That was just a method of exemplifying your 'logic trail,' and how that trail leads to your irrational antinatalism solution.

I don't see how that would inhibit a moral discussion, which is also a human construct. — Tzeentch

It does not inhibit a moral discussion but your antinatalism solution ignores and hand waves away the very powerful natural imperative for continuation of the human species and the natural imperative to continue all species, including those produced asexually. All you are trying to do is squirm past that point by hand waving it away because you know its fact and it is strong evidence against the validity of an antinatalist viewpoint.

There is no natural imperative, other than perhaps instinctual drives, which, again, I do not view as an excuse for immoral action. — Tzeentch

Based on what evidence? Give me an example of another species that has made itself extinct through the choice of all of its members to stop reproducing, thus showing there is no natural imperative to continue species. The Instinctive compulsion to reproduce is an example of the natural imperative but its not the only aspect. Humans wish to continue the story/bloodline/legacy of their family through reproduction this is also a natural imperative. Where is your evidence that if antinatalism was applied, it would be successful in the extinction of the immorality it is supposed to prevent? Intelligent life would simply continue elsewhere or reform elsewhere. You can't guarantee your fake immorality concern wont return again, and again and again. Your invalid immorality excuse is just your poor reasoning for a solution which won't work and is futile and is just based on your own inability to find balance in your own life.

The individual is in no way obliged to care about "the species". It's not even rational for the individual to care, since they have no tangible control over whether the species survives. Nor do they have a stake in it, since they won't be around to witness an extinction if it does take place.
Additionally, even if one were to care, ends do not justify means. — Tzeentch

These are just your irrational opinions and exemplify/reveal your inability to find balance in your life.
It's up to you to solve this problem for yourself or seek outside help to do so. It's immoral for you to attempt to demand company for your imbalance.

Extinction is nothing more than an excuse to give in to instinctual drives. No individual reproduces because they are afraid the species might go extinct otherwise. They reproduce because they want to - because it satisfies some instinctual need.
That's not a basis for moral decision-making. — Tzeentch

Instinctual drives are not immoral just because you think there is something immoral about the concept of instinct. Human morality guides instinct. People do reproduce for many reasons, including a wish to contribute to continuing the species through their familial bloodline. That is a moral act not an immoral one. Do you think that human instinct has no input to offer when humans are considering an area of human morality? Are all human instincts just 'dirty, base and evil,' to you? Are images in your head of 'dirty evil human instincts,' the basis of your antinatalism?

I don't care about Neandertals, or reducing human suffering. — Tzeentch

The fact that you have just admitted you don't care about reducing human suffering is a very important admission for anyone reading this thread to cognise regarding someone who fly's the flag for antinatalism. Human suffering is put forward by antinatalists as the main reason for their adherence to it.

I care about the morality of individual human actions (which is the only rational way to approach morality - individuals and their individual choices). In this case the choice of individuals to reproduce. If that choice cannot make moral sense in their individual context, it will not make sense in any wider context. — Tzeentch

But the decision to reproduce is problematic for antinatalists because they suggest this is an innocent self-aware lifeform, who was not consulted (impossible to do anyway) that MAY now experience UNACCEPTABLE levels of suffering, but YOU have just admitted YOU DONT CARE ABOUT REDUCING HUMAN SUFFERING. Can you really not see the contradiction?

But if we birth something human in mind but not in body, something metallic perhaps, then we need to tread carefully, not to assume that because it is different to us in appearance, it is not the same as us in sprit. — Benj96

In the timescale laid out by the cosmic calendar we are still an infant species. 10000 years of significant human cooperation and civilisation, is a few seconds in the cosmic calendar. Many humans still suffer horrendously from generation to generation but we have improved things since the days of the first cities, Jericho, Uruk, Ur etc. So I would say to the antinatalists that before we vote for our own extinction. GIVE US A F****** CHANCE! Say another few million years (which is less than the dinos had) before you offer us antinatalism again.

Here is an even tougher one from Babylon 5.
Your death in certain circumstances will be the action that will improve the lives of millions, permanently. But you will never be credited. In fact, your memory will be despised, as the circumstances mean that you will have to seem to be the traitor, the judas, the evil one. You will be forever damned. No one will ever know that you were in fact the saviour. Would you do it? no martyrdom, no credit, no memorial other than as one who is hated and utterly damned?

Nature always creates such opposites. That which is pure chaos and that which is pure order.
Their interaction and dynamic with one another, is the basis for evolution, for the struggle between control and lack thereof — Benj96

So, perhaps we are indeed natures/the universes best attempt so far, to be able to figure out what and why it is existent. Another reason why we can't vote to end our story, as the antinatalists request, as the universe may never know what or why it is other than through the efforts of a species like us. I am not a panpsychist, but do I think that some kind of emerging panpsychism is happening within the linear time we experience? ....... meh!

Your typings remind me again of a dilemma dramatised in an episode of Babylon 5.
A student 'warrior of light' (a Minbari Ranger) is having a crisis about what he thinks is worth dying for.
His mentor asks him;
'If I tasked you to climb to the top of a mountain to retrieve a rare flower that grew only there, and I told you that you would be successful, but you would die, would you do it?'
'No' was the reply.
When asked why? The student said, 'because it would be a futile way to lose my life.'
The mentor said, 'well if I now revealed to you that this flower is the worshipped symbol of a subjugated people and the sight of this flower will inspire them to revolt against their oppressors and free millions of them from abject slavery and horrific suffering, would you do it then?'
'Yes' was the humble response.
We just don't know what effects our actions and our words may have on others, that's why we have to think about our actions and our words deeply and carefully.
Something I don't think antinatalists are very good at.

Is it not then possible that there is an ultimate reason and ultimate ethics that are one and the same? A maximum we can reach through discourse. And have done so many times in the past. — Benj96

I can only place such a question into the same file as the one that holds questions such as. How close will we get to KNOWING the actual speed of light in a vacuum with complete accuracy? Which piece of info, if known by the human race, would mean a human could completely transcend human existence and 'become' or 'ascend, ' to ........... (to be filled in when we know what should go here :naughty: )
'Ultimate' is another one of those 'concept' words. I think we are still a lot closer to the early hominid species that we are to the omnis Mr Benj.

So the choice when faced with reality is do I choose to benefit myself by manipulating others, or do I choose to share it and empower them to be more informed and therefore less likely to be swayed by manipulation. — Benj96

Yep its akin to the two questions we must always ask ourselves.
1. Who am I.
2. What do I want.

Not a shy god, a god that presents its true nature as the whole/the everything, in a means/format understandable and accesible to humans, a human voice, a human that beholds and shares the true nature of reality. — Benj96

Perhaps even a panpsychist who believes that some humans are more 'in touch' with the 'universal mind' than others are?

Precisely, it would be to the detriment of those that hold power, fame, recognition, authority, beauty, knowledge, révérence in all its formats. It would pose a threat to those that fancy themselves as gods and others as beneath them by proxy. — Benj96

But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe). — Benj96

For me, a prophet is just a human who is trying to dupe others that god speaks through him/her.
It's an old ruse, first used to establish the divine right of kings to rule over the masses. A prophet is the biggest bullshitter there is. Especially a political prophet.

But a prophet is no mere lay person though. They have a deep knowledge of the relationship of them and others (fractions of a whole) to the actual whole (god/the universe). — Benj96

Are you going to admit you are a panpsychist Mr Benj or am I totally off the mark?

Exactly what i said earlier! You're right Universeness. — Benj96

Yep, we agree on that one!

One question though. Is that not possible, for God to have an existent? A channel of its ideals through a person, a conduit. — Benj96

A god which is shy? and needs to communicate by proxy? Not a description of a god which inspires much respect from me. I seem to be more self-assured than this god you describe. Such a channel/conduit would not be a god existent it would simply be nothing more than a communications relay. Even if you decided to be nice and call it a prophet it's still not an actual god incarnated into an existent.

Suppose someone channelled an ultimate ideal, described their truth (this ideal) to others in hope that they agree, and because their truth is so blindingly convincing others took it on board and spread the notion of such an ideal. — Benj96

Many have done so yes, from Plato to Hitler to Martin Luther King.

Then, naturally it would come to a point when that truth is spread far enough, wide enough ("spread the word so to speak") that it encounters rebuttal, abject denial and Intolerance, perhaps by those that can't imagine their own existence in a world where that ideal prevails (antinatalists perhaps, or something worse) , and thus they do everything in their power to stop it. They would ask "who said this?! Who is responsible for infecting everyone with this intolerable belief?!" — Benj96

Absolutely, especially if the ideas being communicated will prove to be to the detriment of those who hold power.

You go on to describe people who have died rather than speak contrary to what they believe is truth. A rendition of what is called 'martyrdom' yes but such is just an aspect of the human psyche. I see nothing in what you type that supports your initial question:

s that not possible, for God to have an existent? — Benj96

Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
— universeness

Maybe? That's not a question of antinatalism. — Tzeentch

Yes it is, as it establishes that only those who reproduce sexually as opposite genders have the CHOICE to reproduce or not and that is what antinatalism pivots on. The execution of that choice is the prime focus of antinatalism, is it not?

Sure. I don't think nature is an excuse for immoral action. — Tzeentch

But the point is that the origin of the reproduction choice a human has, had no inherent intent, so any moral question you impose based on the existence of that choice is a purely human construct and has no natural imperative. Yet all species on Earth demonstrate the natural imperative of reproduction even to the extent of the removal of that choice, as is the case for asexual species so surely you see the power of the natural imperative to reproduce as a defence against extinction regardless of any human constructed moral imperative you think has value.

No, morality is about individuals, their intentions and their actions. That's what I am talking about. — Tzeentch

But you are ignoring the result of your imposed moral imperative. EXTINCTION, which as I have already suggested is contrary to the much more significant natural imperative of reproduction as a defence AGAINST EXTINCTION. Evidenced further because of the existence of asexual reproduction, which as already stated, REMOVES THE CHOICE that antinatalism depends upon.

No, because that question is not relevant to my take on antinatalism. — Tzeentch

It is very relevant, you just don't want to admit it is because it destroys the foundation your antinatalism is based on, human choice to reproduce. It shows that choosing antinatalism would result in extinction and extinction is against the natural imperative. If we went extinct and there was no other intelligent life in the universe, then combinatorial biology would just reproduce it in time. Can you not understand that this makes your antinatalism futile and pointless.

Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?
— universeness

I don't even know what that means, so I'm going with another "no". — Tzeentch

It's simply a statement about the concept of morality/immorality being merely a human construct.
Before life became existent there can be no issue of morality. Every happenstance before life in the past 13.8 billion years has no moral aspect to it. So, life in its infancy has no moral aspect to it. Do you think that early hominid species such as Neandertals should not have engaged in reproduction? Did they really have a choice? Most humans can never support antinatalism as it is contrary to the natural imperative to be an existent and continue our species. The alternative is a return to an earlier state of the universe that has already been, and if there was a return to that earlier point, we would just progress to this point again in some variety of what currently is. Antinatalism is therefore utterly futile.
Using our time and effort to reduce all human suffering is the more sensible choice.
Try to think about it a little deeper and you might arrive at the same correct conclusion or stay fogged. Your choice.

You are just travelling through the human psyche like the rest of us, trying to apply reason, logic, sense whilst taking into account history, primal fear, origins, emotions, mental illness etc etc.
If you are good enough at that stuff then you can become a 'head doctor' etc. YOU the almighty, ME the immortal, US the creators, they are all part of the human psyche which we project onto a manifestation of some divinity either a mono god or a whole pantheon of gods. Human create god stories. God has no existent, if it did, it would confirm its existence easily and irrefutably.
We progress from generation to generation when we correct the errors made in previous generations. That's the only way forward that I can perceive.

Sure. — Tzeentch

Well, if they are the unfortunate species then those species that are able to employ sexual reproduction, must be, if we follow that logic, the fortunate species as they have choice to reproduce or not.
So, you hold your anti-natalism viewpoint, despite the fact that the method of reproduction for humans, evolved through natural selection, which science has shown HAS NO INHERENT INTENT.
Do you blame the first 'spark of life,' for want of a better phrase for happening? Parent can blame parents who can blame parents for the immorality of their existence all the way back to that first vital spark of life.
Do your antinatalism musings enable you to follow your logic back to that question?
Do you think the fact that the universe experienced a moment when life became an existent was a moment of immorality. Is that what you are trying to sell?

But we should not ever arrive at the destination for then the journey is over. And usually the journey offers a longer hit of dopamine than the final brief reward. — Benj96

To me, that's where Plato and Aristotle went a little skewed. I think the concept of Platonic perfect forms and Aristotelian ideals are an almost natural progression of the thinking of the atomists such as Democritus. The concept of infinite variety in infinite combination would obviously result in projection towards some idealised, perfect form. But we have to be existents to progress towards such. The omnis and the god posits are no more that human projections of what humans think they may one day achieve as a totality or a networked collective. But they probably never will as the universe will probably end first.
The antinatalists just want to terminate the human story early for the most selfish of reasons it's possible to conceive and that reason, is because they can't come to terms with their own oblivion.
If they could then they would have already gone.

So you would consider all species on the earth such as starfish, komodo dragons, bees, wasps and many plant and microbial species to be in your revered judgement, unfortunate species?

A perfect utopia would be as pointless as a hell. It would have no purpose to improve or change anything m, people woukdnt know what to do with themselves as all knowledge, all innovations, all challenges would be already complete. Nothing left to do except twiddle our thumbs and wait for death. — Benj96

I think Christians and Muslims call that heaven, but you don't even have the possibility of escape via death!

It would be exactly the same, with the same critical questions asked to whomever decides another being should be thrown into the crucible of life. — Tzeentch

Based on what argument? Humans would have no choice regarding reproduction, if it was asexual.
Some living species do reproduce asexually, no intelligent species does so yet but if humans went extinct then who knows what species will fill the gap. How can an antinatalist posit that its immoral for a parent to reproduce, if it's a natural imposition via parthenogenesis. No choice involved!

Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction that does not involve the fusion of gametes or change in the number of chromosomes. The offspring that arise by asexual reproduction from either unicellular or multicellular organisms inherit the full set of genes of their single parent. Asexual reproduction is the primary form of reproduction for single-celled organisms such as archaea and bacteria. Many eukaryotic organisms including plants, animals, and fungi can also reproduce asexually. In vertebrates, the most common form of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, which is typically used as an alternative to sexual reproduction in times when reproductive opportunities are limited.

While all prokaryotes reproduce without the formation and fusion of gametes, mechanisms for lateral gene transfer such as conjugation, transformation and transduction can be likened to sexual reproduction in the sense of genetic recombination in meiosis.

Animals that reproduce asexually:
The Komodo dragon, the Whiptail lizard, Bees, Wasps, Starfish and many more, even some Shark species reproduce through parthenogenesis.

Where would your antinatalism argument be if we developed a tech that allowed transhumans to reproduce asexually? How about a sentient alien species that reproduces asexually? If antinatalism is based on any natural imperative the why does asexual reproduction exist?
Would the burden of blame for procreation be lifted if a human could reproduce asexually?
If so then perhaps all you antinatalists should be compelled to pool your intellect and study biology and see if you can offer asexual reproduction to humans of the future and then you would have helped humans remove some of that guilt for reproducing that you feel so happy about trying to impose on them.

If humans go extinct and the next sentient species to dominate the Earth reproduces asexually, then that would be the termination point for anti-natalist BS, yes?

Thanks for the interesting exchange. I'm away offline for a while to do some other stuff and lick all those wounds you inflicted on me. :joke:

Remember! You are not allowed any exclamation of BS or your more polite 'Totally absurd!'

I sure did.
I quite like living tbh. Despite what they may say. — Benj96

Looks like the aim is at you. Enjoy the spotlight. I think you can easily handle it.

People drift towards antinatalism and people drift away from it again based on the persuasion of others. — Benj96

I think you summarise the situation correctly, regarding the anti-life topic.

I think we just saw a flash of popon-popoff antinatalism. Anyone else notice?

Yep, no life, no anti-life people to complain about their self-awareness.

Yes, but in your Scenario, it turns out that Anna actually did find out the truth of Johns situation because he trusted only her as his confessor.
So, to me, you are suggesting that 'the truth is out there,' but you have to approach with a sceptical mind. Just because YOU THINK an anti-life poster is making logical posits about antinatalism. Do your own dissection of every word they type and their combinatorial interrelationships. If you cannot tear their argument to pieces, then look at the attempts of others to do so. If you still find their arguments compelling, then join them. I suspect this process is the reason why they continue to have a tiny number of convinced followers.

I too am an optimist but look what can happen if you don't combat the nonsense peddled by others as truth and fact. Recent examples include the storming of the congress building, personal attack on the family of politicians (Nancy Pelosi's husband) or on the politicians themselves such as the killing of MP Jo Cox in the UK. I could start to list historical assassinations and talk about the rise of fascism in the lead up to WW II but suffice to quote the old favourite. 'Evil thrives when good people do nothing.'
I personally consider antinatalism to be an evil trope which does nothing but attempt to dismiss all human attempts to improve themselves. I will forever combat it.

Perfection is for the discrete. It is something that can be applied to limited finite things that cannot get any better. But not systems of constant change or infinities. — Benj96

But do you agree that it is concept areas such as infinity, paradox, perfection, the omnis etc which are the few remaining places that characters such as antinatalists and theists still find their pulpits.

See these two terms many people would argue can be contradictions. For example "Anna observes John and determines he is upset. She says his sadness is fact because she observed it. — Benj96

Well no, as Anna's output can be incorrect despite her input having a measure of validity when described as empirical. John does look upset/sad but perhaps he just ate something that didnt agree with him and he is not actually mentally sad, just physically compromised. John can provide verbal conformation either way. We know about observational relativity, and we consider it when dealing with empirical evidence. We know observers in space can report CORRECTLY, different results for the same observation such as the particle was observed or there was no particle based on their frame of reference.

Haha I like your humour. Yes I suppose its the formal academic equivalent. — Benj96

:up:

We are all fallible in this way. I have already made erroneously assumptions about what you meant by the words you used in this thread. So I can totally relate. — Benj96

:up:

But to dismiss them as BS without going to the effort of examining and arguing them is naturally not going to lead to understanding by the other as to why you think the belief is erroneous. If anything they will just consider the person touting BS as being inconsiderate and invalidating others without reasoning it. They will think such a person is arrogant and rude. — Benj96

The problem here is that you are assuming that your interlocuters always have honourable intentions and that is just not the case. If you were debating Donald Trump in front of a mixed ability audience. You would leave yourself almost defenceless, if you are unwilling to attack him. His fake news and conflated logic would defeat you in the minds of many of the audience because you were too busy making sure you were not 'inconsiderate' towards him and meantime so many minds are being poisoned by his BS.

What I actually said is scientific method is limited - in that it cannot pervade our innate ethical principles. We are human. They're human ethics. If a scientist did experiments like that the very great majority of humanity woukd agree that its unethical/immoral. We don't need to be theistic in that regard. — Benj96

It probably suffices to type that we both agree that the word 'perfect' (as in perfect method/system/person etc) is another one of those concepts, it is not a measure.
What is the most accurate measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum?
Is it 299,792,458 metres per second?
Surely we can get much much more accuracy that that!
Given another million years of science, will we get the 'perfect' measure?
What would be the significance if we did?
My current answer? YEP, you guessed it, I have absolutely no f****** idea but I certainly wont use that to suggest that the fact that it seems that the human race cannot reach any perfections, depite the fact the concept exists means that we are forced to slot in an omni god of the gaps, declare that humans will always be imperfect and will suffer for being so and therefore we should surrender to the BS peddled by the anti-life posters. Hah! Those pessimists can take a running jump off the highest cliff on Earth along with any other mindless lemmings. Sorry, if you find my 'turn of phrase' pressing.

I don't think any one single observer (you or I) are the only minds that exist. That's totally absurd. But I think the consciousness that underlies our ability to have minds is innate to nature itself. You're free to disagree. — Benj96

Is 'totally absurd' merely your polite version of BS? :naughty: So you agree with me that solipsism is nonsense? Are you declaring yourself a panpsychist?

It may "sound theistic" to you but that's your interpretation. Your words not mine. I don't really know why you're suggesting I meant morality can only come from a god. — Benj96

Ok, I accept that my interpretation of what you typed did not suggest you were a secret theist.
I fully accept my status as a fallible mind, after all, if I don't admit to being wrong at times then you will continue to label me an arrogant prick who thinks he 'knows it all.' :grin:

Yes you're right. That was the confusion I had, I needed clarification that you used the 2 forms depending on situational context. — Benj96

:up:

Empirical is defined as:
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic:
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms:
observed · seen · factual · actual · real · verifiable · first-hand · experimental · experiential · practical · pragmatic · hands-on · applied · heuristic · empiric

So, empirical evidence is not exclusively tethered to the rigor demonstrated in the scientific method. We also have the ability to apply a 'credence level,' or error margins etc.

Ah okay yes it was just confusing as scientists base their empirical evidence on objectively measurable/replicable/repeatable results that can be performed by any other scientist and get the same outcome. — Benj96

So, if we consider the application of rigor in the scientific method and the broader range that may be applied in general terms for the label 'empirical evidence.' When posters like @bartricks try to employ propositional logic, to help posit the existence of an omnipotent, which either has a desire to create lifeforms which can suffer horribly (akin to the problem of evil) or he posits, it cannot have such a desire, as it is also omnibenevolent. He then suggests that his conflation of logic actually proves that any theist who considers the problem of evil, a challenge to their theism, MUST declare themselves antinatalist because such an omni god would not create this world. So therefore, they MUST vote for our extinction as he would.
You are moaning at me for calling his proposal and the logic he is using, bullshit. I think I am quite justified in using that term as an emotive way of emphasising how intensely I think he is wrong. Why does my need to express that emotional intensity, warrant your, in my opinion, over the top response to it. You felt that it was valid to express your own emotive reactions, such as;

I wasn't aware you knew every single concept of/interpretation of god possible? — Benj96

Are you universeness prepared to proclaim yourself a "know it all" — Benj96

Bring it on. Give me all you got. — Benj96

I'm eager to hear all about it. I'm not one bit intimidated or afraid of having such an argument. Let it all be put out there. — Benj96

Nothing is BS — Benj96

And I suppose you're the be all and end all déterminer of what is BS? That's quite the claim. I hope it holds up to rigorous discourse, not simply because "you said so". — Benj96

I accept that you did apologise for some of the above attacks, but I just list them to highlight your own choice of 'turn of phrase' when you feel incensed and yet your annoyance is based on displeasure at my use of the term BS and that you think I pose as an arrogant 'know it all.'
Can you see the contradiction here?

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering?

Which definition of empirical do you use then exactly and can it be applied both to physical objects through scientific standardised measurement and also unique individuals with there individual experiences, feeling and emotions simultaneously? I think you contradicted yourself in your previous arguments and didn't spot the contradiction. — Benj96

Empirical in that it can be tested/investigated by experiment.
Yes, you can test the emotional responses of individuals, either in a lab or even personally in a social environment. We do it every day in our relationships, do we not? I still don't see the contradiction you are suggesting I have made. I am sure you can clearly highlight it more convincingly.

In order for there to be neurological evidence that humans have emotions the hard problem of consciousness would have to have already been resolved. Which it hasn't. So I'm calling your bluff on this one.. — Benj96

No bluff involved, I am only reffering to my basic understanding of what neuroscience has and is investigating. A very basic example from wiki:

Jenny sees a snake.

Jenny cognitively assesses the snake in her presence. Cognition allows her to understand it as a danger.
Her brain activates the adrenal glands which pump adrenaline through her blood stream, resulting in increased heartbeat.
Jenny screams and runs away.

There has been a lot more detailed work done in the field of neuroscience to identify which parts of the brain light up during certain emotions and then much more detailed work on what is going on in those particular brain regions etc. I have only a laymans knowledge of the area but they have made a lot of progress. Have a look at my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13222/consciousness-microtubules-and-the-physics-of-the-brain

You said you only believe in things upheld by empirical evidence and yet naturally assume people have emotions. — Benj96

No, I typed that I give more credence to information backed by empirical evidence than I do to information not supported by such. There is plenty of evidence that people have emotions.

What do you mean by "empirical" support? Do you mean objectively measurable by scientific method? — Benj96

Well yes, especially for 'important information,' about the structure and workings of the universe but I also consider as empirical, my own empirical evidence for such information as 'She can be trusted,' 'He is a good guy,' etc. My empirical evidence would be my own observation of what they do and say. No doubt you apply a similar approach yourself, yes?

And if so how do you go about objectively measuring/proving empirically the existence of ethics? Or the existence of the observer that applies empirical method/scientific method for that matter. — Benj96

Ethics are memorialised as words on paper and you measure by observing attempts to apply them.
I can act as an observer which convinces me that observers exist. I already typed to you that I think solipsism is nonsense.

If you cannot prove empirically ethics then I suppose we have no use for it as it doesn't exist. And we must open the doors of science to all avenues and cut up living people to collect the empirical evidence we can't collect when theyre dead. Maybe the empirical evidence pertaining to chemicals/ neurotransmitters released during pain, suffering, fear and murder. — Benj96

This sound like a theistic viewpoint that posits morality can only come from a god.
Human morality and human ethics would not allow such behaviour. I would not vote for cutting up living people to collect some perceived evidence we can't collect when they are dead, would you?
Your statement is a bit mad, is it not?

Or perhaps there are things beyond the grasp of empirical collection? Things we should consider not to commit atrocities in pursuit of all empirical evidences. — Benj96

I don't follow your logic here, Perhaps you could reword it. The last sentence makes little sense.