Do you mean "your" definition? — AmadeusD

Yes, I should of wrote "I think people are not understanding my definition of violence?" to be more clear. Perhaps I am using a unique definition but I do think its a singular coherent idea I'm trying to get across.

I percieve violence as being loosely defined as the causing of harm toward another. As such, I extend the term to the intentional creation of circumstances that themselves lead to harm. For example, if you were to lock someone in a room and let them starve.

I also believe the term applies even if no harm was to be created, but the threat of harm is present. For example: If someone loads a single bullet into a revolver, spins it, points it at you, and shoots, then even if no bullet exits the gun, I'd still see the action as being violent. In the same light, I see the creation of a governmental threat against something to be inherently "violent", although I'm sure theres a more precise term for what I'm attempting to get at.

I should be clear that I recognise the term I use extends to much more than harmful force, and that I dont think all forms of violence are unjustifed or always particularly extreme in nature.

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. — AmadeusD

How would you define intolerance? Personally, I think of it as equivalent to discrimination, although I understand I could be missing some nuance as I dont particularly use the word often. Is it directly related to an extreme emotional response toward something?

I've understood empathy to be the ability to understand that another is in pain and the potential for emotion to arise in the observer as a result of that understanding. Whilst this is typically used to refer to equivalent emotions arising (eg. seeing a guy get kicked in the nuts, and clutching your own), I personally would view sadism as a form of empathy aswell (eg. satisfied when something bad happens to someone you dislike).

Sympathy on the other hand seems to refer to a purely intellectual understanding and concern for another. For example, a psychopath would still feel sympathy for their friends and family, but not empathy. Personally, I also generalised this into positive emotion (eg. understanding that another enjoys music even if you cant understand how anyone could like it).

@DasGegenmittel

I don't believe the differentiation between forced violence and coercive violence matters to the ultimate disagreement, as I dont think either is justifed in this instance and so I find such a distinction is irrelevant.

From our conversation, I find that you clearly aren't willing to argue in good-faith, focusing on flairing your moral view rather than focusing on the philosophy at hand. The sheer amount of it is quite surprisingly, considering I've not responded to it directly until now.

If you spent some time simply asking me to expand on my view of violence, rather than falsely presuming, you might have found we agree that its a spectrum, and I could have explained why I didnt find the distinction at all neccesary to my argument, which you've seemingly taken my statement out of context from.

However, it's clear you're not actually interested in taking my position into consideration, especially from your non-response to my previous comment simply dismissing me, which frankly was pretting insulting to the time I put into it. Either way, I have enjoyed spending the time to put my ideas into words, so thank you for the discussion. Although I dont think any further discussion between us would be productive.

Anywhere in the thread. — AmadeusD

Their original post was in the ban thread, but I thought responding in this thread would be more applicable. They claim that certain expressions of intolerance should be banned, which I consider equivalent to applying violence against their expression, as this is the only way a government can enforce law. I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? To elaborate, I could expand it to "physical force likely to cause harm when non-compliant", examples of such force would be tasers, K-9's, tear gas, rubber bullets etc. which are used against those who resist arrest/imprisonment. It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws.

Arbitrary intolerance is not. — AmadeusD

I'm not sure I'd agree. For example, having particular tastes in music would be an arbitrary intolerance. I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. If applied to people, I'd say everyone has particular tastes in personality types. Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds.

Intolerance which has a requisite reason can always be argued for. — AmadeusD

I agree, which is why I would consider it wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. However, I think even the most common forms of racism, sexism and the like are based off some belief relevant to group differences rather than being arbitary. The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested.

no one thinks arbitrary restrictions on speech are a good move — AmadeusD

I agree, and I think everyone here does too.

To equate this with arbitrary "physical violence" is a rhetorical trick designed to paint any form of regulation as oppressive tyranny. — DasGegenmittel

I think this is a bit of a strawman. I didnt say the physical violence was arbitrary, but I did point out that it was physical violence that is required to enforce these laws and so you must recognise that as what you are using. As I've said before, I believe certain limits are neccesary when regarding incitement, slander, harrassment etc. but I still recognise that I am condoning the use of physical force to enforce these ends. Personally, I think its powerful rhetoric, but theres no "trick" behind it. All laws are upheld with threat of physical violence by the state.

This framing is hyperbolic and frankly, insulting to actual victims of psychological torture. — DasGegenmittel

Perhaps we have different views of the term "psychological torture", but I think even the most seemingly mundane of interactions can cause a high degree of psychological suffering, and as it is done purposely, I would consider it a form of torture. While you dislike the terminology, you do seem to agree that it would cause psychological suffering, but you consider the alternative to cause even more.

I find that point to be quite interesting. Do you believe that a society should always adjust itself towards maximal happiness/ minimal suffering, even at the cost of causing suffering within others? If not, then it would suggest you believe the suffering of the "victim" to be inherently more valuable than the suffering of the "aggressor". I'd like you to explain what aspect you find to be more valuable. Personally, I've always felt that I've suffered more when I was unable to express myself compared to when someone expressed an intolerance against me, so my intuition would disagree. Perhaps this is the centre of our disagreement? If so, its seems to be driven largely by personality.

We both agree that thoughts themselves shouldn't be criminalised.

You also clarified that you see public speech as an action, which is interesting to me. Do you differentiate between a private expression of belief and a public expression? If so, how do you differentiate them? Ideally, would you allow private expression of intolerant beliefs?

To aid with this, I'll present some scenarios and I'd like you to express where you think the line is:
1. Writing intolerant beliefs in a personal diary.
2. Discussing intolerant beliefs with a friend privately.
3. Discussing intolerant beliefs with a group of friends.
4. Uploading intolerant beliefs to a private online community of like-minded people.
5. Uploading intolerant beliefs to a public online community.

Assume for examples 1-4 that the intolerant beliefs apply to no one present, so no one could possibly suffer directly from observing it. I'm interested in whether your idea is dependent upon someone experiencing suffering from the beliefs, or whether you believe any philosophical discussion of the beliefs themselves should be banned. If the latter, why not extend into thoughts themselves?

If a "belief," no matter how coherently argued, posits that a certain group of people is inherently less worthy of rights, dignity, or social standing, it is an act of social corrosion. — DasGegenmittel

Intolerance is not mere disagreement; it is the active rejection of another's claim to equal standing. — DasGegenmittel

I am an ethical egoist, meaning that I believe value to be a subjective quality that stems from experience and hence believe that experience is the only source of value. This inherently means that I value my experience above others. Would you consider such a view intolerant because it applies different moral worth to different groups (self vs non-self)? If so, I feel like theres nothing inherent about an intolerant belief being irrational and I'd say most people are intolerant as they will value their friends and family above others.

Do you value humans more than animals? If so, wouldnt that be considered just as intolerant? It seems one either accepts some trait of value which neccesarily rejects some humans (such as intelligence or capacity for suffering) or they accept that humanity is the condition for value (which seems rather prejudiced against animals). To value is inherently discriminatory in nature, not because one views one group as "superior" or whatever, but because value is defined by prioritisation.

Even then we may value our pets and children equally but consider it unwise to treat them as having equal legal ability for their lack of intelligence and understanding. Personally it seems to me that society holds many "intolerances" which are entirely justified and understood to be so. Hence, it doesn't even seem that "intolerance" is inherently negative under the definition you have provided.

intolerance is a normative position, not an empirical one. — DasGegenmittel

I do accept your descriptive-normative distinction, although I'd like to apply it to create a structurely similar argument to gregory to try to challenge this notion that "intolerance" is inherently negative further.

I think society would be better if in 10,000 years people were more intelligent on average than they are today.

Now, that statement is "intolerant" against humanity as it currently exists, and yet I wouldn't expect any backlash on it. Just as I wouldnt for wishing for greater health, or education.

However, inserting sex or race would fundamentally be seen as negative, as we've seen. This suggests to me that you aren't actually against intolerance, but certain types of intolerance while others are considered perfectly fine or even good.

A simple response would be, why? Why are you okay with certain intolerance but not for those traits? I personally think you'll find that there are many forms of intolerance we accept which we probably shouldn't, and that we generally reject some when there is emotional connections or disagreement over the empirical facts. For example, I reject the notion that future should be without women, because I think women have value which would be lost if we did so, but not because that view is "intolerant".

The two are different in kind and in scale of harm. — DasGegenmittel

I agree but I think disingenuous argumentation is most likey much more prevalent and attributed to more harm than hate speech, although this is simply a disagreement so theres not really a line of argumentation to go down.

They [homosexuals] must be executed to ‘protect Muslims.’”, “Kill them wherever you find them… the Jews are a people of slander… a treacherous people.” — DasGegenmittel

“Revolutionary violence is the only way to bring real change. We’re not here to talk. We’re here to fight.” — DasGegenmittel

“Burn the system down. No dialogue with fascists or cops – punch, burn, destroy.” — DasGegenmittel

These are the only ones which incite violence as a command, so are the only ones that I think are worthy of a discussion for their criminalisation.

This aphorism ignores the causal role ideas often play in motivating and legitimizing harmful actions. — DasGegenmittel

Unfortunately I dont consider this a matter of mere opinion. Ideas cannot cause anything outside of actions, and as such cannot cause anything at all. No matter how much we can correlate idea with action, they remain seperate.

According to Popper’s paradox of tolerance, a tolerant society must not tolerate intolerant ideologies when they threaten the dignity, rights, or equality of others. — DasGegenmittel

Correct, but simply expression of misogyny by itself threatens nothing. As long as someone is rational and not inciting violence, popper would be against criminalising their speech, as expressed in the quote I presented.

That is a misrepresentation of my position. — DasGegenmittel

My argument is that this paradox should inform legislative frameworks—not to justify repression, but to set necessary limits when intolerant ideologies pose a real threat to democratic coexistence. — DasGegenmittel

If by "neccesary limits" you are refering to state law, then my statement is seemingly not a misrepresenation of your position in the slightest. State power is physical violence, so if you are arguing for restrictions to be placed upon speech by the state, you are arguing for them to apply their monopoly on physical violence against the individual. I also never said you were against people holding beliefs and this is not reflected in what I said.

I do have some questions for you I would like for clarification:

- Would you consider the criminalisation of the expression of ones beliefs to be a form of psychological torture? If you believe the answer to be different between intolerant beliefs and tolerant beliefs, could you explain your reasoning.

- Do you believe that rational, coherent, and non-violent, yet intolerant beliefs are possible? If they were possible, would you still wish for their censorship despite their non-violence?

- What makes a belief intolerant? Can there be any intolerant yet true beliefs?

- You said these views are allowed until they make open discourse impossible. Are you for the criminalisation for all disingenuous behaviour? If not, could you explain why?

I've taken quite alot of time to respond to your points and to make my position more clear. I apologise for the length.

It’s ironic — you speak of the sanctity of open discourse, yet your tone is anything but open. You call my position “narcissistic,” “disgusting,” and equate it with “torture.” That’s not argumentation. That’s condemnation disguised as debate. You accuse others of being intolerant while wielding your own form of rhetorical violence — not just disagreeing, but morally indicting, pathologizing, and emotionally shaming. If you believe that open conversation changes minds, why do you model the exact opposite? You speak not to understand, but to humiliate. Not to persuade, but to dominate. — DasGegenmittel

The expression of my position does not preclude the argumentation I've provided for my position, frankly thats quite a strange statement as the latter is seemingly impossible without the former.

"narcassism": I believe it is irrational to be so certain in ones moral beliefs to ignore opposition and disregard it as holding no value. Personally, I think narcassistic is an accurate descriptor for such a trait but I dont mean it as an insult against your character.

"disgust": I may find many forms of expression to be disgusting, and yet hold the belief that one should be legally allowed to express them regardless.

"torture": I simply state a truth that to take away ones right to express their beliefs is a form of psychological torture, which essentially criminalises philosophical connection as connecting with like-minded people requires expression. If you disagree: would a law making the expression of ones homosexuality illegal, be considered psychological torture? To me the answer is clearly yes, and this extends to all forms of expression. At the very least you can understand my designation as non-arbitrary.

You are arguing for the use of physical violence by the state upon the individual for the expression of certain beliefs. Regardless of whether you describe my expression as "rhetorical violence", it does not change the fact that my belief has nothing to do with physical violence as yours. My expression does not contradict my belief, as if I openly admit I am for the free expression of all beliefs, you shouldn't be surprised that I willingly express my beliefs. You are confusing the desire for freedom of expression as a right, with the idea that I must personally agree with all expression, which isn't the case. I personally wouldn't be friends with people who espouse intolerant beliefs, but I dont believe its okay to use state violence against them.

As I've read your text, I feel as though this potentially isn't your actual belief and that you've grossly misrepresented your position when you referenced the united states in your original text. I am not sure and have continued with the above paragraph as your position.

If speech dehumanizes others or treats them as subhuman, it’s not part of the marketplace of ideas. — DasGegenmittel

Calling free speech “sacred” elevates it beyond critique — DasGegenmittel

It seems I may not have represented my position clearly, so let me explain.

I am a consequentialist, I dont hold freedom of speech as valuable because of a moral principle, I simply believe the experience of expressing oneself to be valuable within its own right and worth protecting. I dont believe freedom of expression to be purely instrumental towards a "marketplace of ideas", and in fact, this seems quite a modern conception of speech that seemingly disregards its natural use within social connection.

I am also not a free speech absolutist, although I beleieve the vast majority of expressions of belief should be allowed with the only real exceptions being harrassment/distruption, slander/misinformation, and contractual obligations, although the details will be subject to debate. So no shouting fire in a theater or racial slurs at passerbys on the street, no spreading false-rumours about someone being a rapist or promiscuous, and no uploading weapon designs on war thunder. However, a non-consequential person saying "I believe X" where X refers to no specific persons, and breaks no agreements, should be allowed to say literally any X.

John Stuart Mill defended free speech because he believed that truth emerges through open debate. But that only works when participants engage each other as equals. When someone’s humanity is under attack, the exchange of ideas collapses into harm. — DasGegenmittel

Should we criminalise all insults? Lying? All levels of disingenuous behaviour that stop truth-seeking? No. Truth should not be the fundamental value that we reduce all actions into. Such advice may be good for communities focused on truth-seeking, such as this forum, but not society at large.

Karl Popper put it bluntly: unlimited tolerance can lead to the end of tolerance. If we tolerate speech that seeks to silence, exclude, or erase others, we’re not preserving freedom — we’re dismantling it. — DasGegenmittel

"In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies ; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."
- Karl Popper, The Open Society And It's Enemies, Chp 7 notes, p.265

Popper argues, as I do, that intolerance should only be rejected when they cannot meet at the level of rational argumentation and begin to act and incite violence.

Such speech doesn’t expand discourse; it drives people out of it. — DasGegenmittel

I dont think this is the case at all. In fact I believe philosophical debate at large to be pretty exclusive to disagreeable personality types, as these will be the people who enjoys conflict the most. Personally, I also dont think debates should be filled with overly sensitive people. Everyone gets dehumanised by someone, I know that billions of people would most likely kill me if given the choice, simply because of differences in ideology. If someone cant handle that then I dont think such discourse is meant for them in the first place. I know that if a radical feminist mentioned a future without men, I wouldn't be dissuaded in the slightest.

You say “ideas are powerless” — but history tells us otherwise. Ideas shape societies, justify atrocities, mobilize violence. The belief that “ideas do no harm” ignores how language constructs power. Would you really argue that “The Holocaust didn’t happen” is just an idea, detached from its historical consequences? — DasGegenmittel

If the consequence of an idea cannot be seperated from the consequence of an action, then the idea was not the cause, the action was. Ideas dont kill people, people kill people. I wouldn't say its detached from history, but I would say it is just an idea. In fact I think we have an even greater responsiblity to provide evidence when requested for historical events and make the historical reality clear. Alot of conspiracy theories can be unraveled by simply engaging a person with some questions and some basic facts.

And no, I don’t want to suppress you or anyone else. You have every right to argue for maximalist free speech — and I’m engaging with you now because I believe in dialogue, too. But that doesn’t mean all speech belongs everywhere. Context matters. Goals matter. Some lines must be drawn — not to silence thought, but to protect the possibility of it. — DasGegenmittel

I agree. I don't think any type of thought should be allowed here. Personally, I'm a bit more open, but it's not my community so I have no right to complain. I'm only arguing against you applying this onto a society at large (you mentioned the US).

I thought responding in the ban thread wouldn't be in line with its purpose and this thread seems active and relevent so I'll respond here.

Free speech isn’t sacred. It’s instrumental. — DasGegenmittel

Free Speech is sacred! Free Speech could only be seen as instrumental for someone who has never held views held in comtempt by the majority populous. Most modern ideas would be heretical in the past, yet their truthhood or lack thereof would remain. I reject that narcassistic notion that we live in an age where our morality has been perfected, that there could never be any moral injustice we vehemetely defend. In fact, the world seems yet full of such intolerance and your solution seems to be more of the same. Every intolerant ideology holds their rejection of others to be moral through some mechanism, you've simply claimed your intolerance is somehow tolerant.

There is absolutely nothing "self-defeating" about being open and inclusive of all ideas. Ideas are powerless, and they only gain power through people. People cannot change if they never converse with anyone outside of the ideas they are born into. Your rejection of conversation dooms them to those default ideas, giving them not even a chance to understand and change, which I find rather intolerant and distasteful. Conversation is how you bridge the gap, it allows people to understand your ideas and allows you to strengthen your own arguments.

The alternative you provide to those people you intend to strip their freedom to simply speak from, will simply hold that ressentment inside, with nothing but political violence being their outlet. Afterall, they cant even state their belief without your ideal world implementing force against them. Insert the expression of any belief you even slightly believe in and this torture should be clear.

Personally, I find your idea disgusting. However, I think you have the right to say it, and I wouldn't imagine placing that torture on you.

I believe that philosophy is fundamentally the study of psychotechnologies/narratives/frameworks/worldviews/conceptions, whatever semantics you prefer. Regardless of whatever "philosophy" you hold, you can understand, analyse, and critique all ideas and their relations.

I believe that narratives can be both coherent and complete, given basic assumptions. While there will be multiple coherent frameworks given different assumptions as their basis, the more complex an assumption is, the less likely it is to be both complete and coherent. An assumption also requires its own expansion within itself, otherwise people would disagree about the conclusions and another assumption would be required. It seems entirely possible that given enough time, philosophy will eventually converge on one simple assumption, from which all else follows. Although I dont think this will ever happen even if technically possible.

There's two definitions of disagreement at play here. Disagreement can be applied as differences in belief or as differences in values.

If person A enjoys metal and person B enjoys classical, and they are both objectivists about aesthetic value, then they have a disagreement in belief and it does imply an objective conclusion.

However, if they are both subjectivists, then while they disagree with their values (as in they hold seperate values), they dont find anything 'incorrect' about the other so theres no implication of objectivity.

Disagreement only implies objectivity if objectivity is already presumed within the point of disagreement. I think it's an unfortunate equivocation rather than a self-refutation.

It is wrong to murder. — Hanover

This statement cannot be objectively true because it's incomplete and thus, at present moment, meaningless. Its essentially saying "It is bad to do bad killings" which reduces to "bad is bad", which is meaningless without a definition of "bad" to refer to, hence requiring subjectivity to fill the gap. However, each person simply maps their conception of what constitutes "murder" and thus the statement becomes definitionally true, because "bad is bad" is logically true regardless of definition. The only other way I can imagine the statement is "It is wrong to kill" which I think the vast majority of people would disagree with, as there is seemingly many justified reasons to do so in various situations.

Does their disagreement demonstrate that there is no fact of the matter here? — Count Timothy von Icarus

C. Too little familiarity - this problem occurs when we have no context to place an aesthetic experience within. If we have heard very little music, we might find jazz or a symphony overwhelming on a first exposure.

If the aesthetic value of an object can be driven by psychological interactions rather than perception itself, then surely even if there is a objective property being observed, one cannot point to a single response as correct/true. If person A see's beauty where person B see's ugliness, and they are both seeing the same object, then surely they are both correct? Otherwise, this line of argumentation would seemingly imply that there is no aesthetic property, hence the disagreement despite perfect perception.

While I agree that disagreement itself does not negate the possibility of an objective answer, disagreement in psychology despite perfect perception implies at the very least that aesthetics responses are not objective, even if there is some true aesthetic property being seen. Hence an object could be both beautiful and ugly simulataneously, and this could be considered objective. Although I consider this is equivalent to aesthetic subjectivity at this point.

Game Theory assumes purely self-interested agents, and with the knowledge of all possible states following the given actions, it would be irrational for a self-interested agent to not confess.

If the game is played iteratively, then the tit for tat method is shown to be the most successful and long-term cooperation becomes rational.

However, game theory is not meant to map onto reality in the way that you seemingly provide examples of.

Seemingly your issue with the original idea was with the idea that one could fully control their psychological deposition to any response, and I agree this is a flaw. Mental illness is a very clear example, although this flaw would also apply to regular minds.

Just as we cannot rationalise ourselves out of physical pain, I dont think every person can rationalise themselves out of all forms of psychological pain/distress/dissatisfaction (the word used here doesn't actually matter to the idea at large).

You seem to agree with this but simply disliked the term 'dissatisfaction'. If I'm misunderstanding you, could you provide some reasoning for why you believe my statement is imprecise? So far I agree with the statements you've given.

You can replace "dissatisfaction" with "preference away from" if you would prefer a more technical statement, I was not trying to employ any emotional or poetic language. I think its silly to argue over terms like this though.

I didnt say it was just your issue, nor did I say it was solvable for you. However, I am saying that it's your problem, not mine. And society is not going to collapse.

Unlike the other two forms of suffering, mental suffering is fully within one's control. — Martijn

Unless they have a mental illness. — Tom Storm

I think a more precise statement could be "mental suffering is a form of psychological suffering caused by dissatisfaction with experience."

For example, being cheated on causes suffering not due to physical pain but due to the immense dissatisfaction when processing such information. I think it would be wrong to say that since its purely psychological that it's within our control. Afterall it should be noted that all experience could be reduced as "psychological" and yet we are still trapped within our own conceptions.

However, I do understand what the idea is getting at. Not all conceptions are equally foundational, nor is the ability to shake them given to all equally. Some struggle with feelings of jealousy, anger, pride, while others clearly dont, or at least not to the same extent. I do think some personalities are inherently less flexible than others and more prone to this type of psychological suffering, which explains why some people can effortlessly adapt to a modern world while others suffer greatly.

I genuinely believe society itself is ill, not just me. — Martijn

The issue with this statement is that current society works well for some whilst others cannot handle it. Neither you nor society is ill, but you are potentially incompatible. However, this incompability will exist no matter the society as long as differences in personality persist.

Personally, I quite enjoy society and It only seems to be getting better. While there are issues, all of them seem to be avoidable given basic contemplation. While I dislike common morality and anti-freedom positions which are rampant, I find it quite easily to just skirt around these and live my life in accordance with my own values.

Most importantly though, you shouldn't expect people to extend their empathy to you at the cost of their own values. I personally dislike the ideals you spout since they almost always lead to totalitarian measures, not from a place of ignorance, but a complete disregard for the benefits that unfairness and injustice can have. Conflict and competition creates a more interesting world where people are forced to mature, I find it to be a general good. For example, I would say my enjoyment of conflict has been a driving factor in my interest within philosophy.

My immediate thought after reading this essay is just shock at the blatant contradiction within it.

Life isn’t a value. It’s the condition for value. That’s not opinion. It’s structure. If you deny that life is good, you use life to make the denial. That’s self-defeating. — Moliere

You claim "Life isn't a value" but then immediately state "If you deny that life is good, you use life to make the denial. That’s self-defeating." which is a completely seperate claim.

Life being a precondition to value is not equivalent to life being valuable. In fact, if life was the precondition for value then any statements of value must come from life itself and so cannot make any objective claims about value from a perspective outside of life. This suggests that the claim is inherently subjective and that you'd have to justify why it applies onto me.

The essay also fails to define its terms so I can't say with much precision what "Life" even is, let alone why I shouldn't value my own experience above other experiences, regardless of this principle.

If you value X, then you ought to promote X in your actions.

If you dont value X, there is no argument that could ever convince you to act for it. Anyone suggesting otherwise is deluded by the idea that their values somehow extend beyond themselves.

You only ought to be good in your own eyes.

The simulation argument has the same issue with theism based upon faith. Any epistomological framework has to neccesarily presume all unfalsifiable statements to be false until proven otherwise, otherwise it collapses.

Our experience in a non-simulated world is equivalent to our experience in a simulated one.
Our experience in a world with no God is equivalent to our experience with one.
However, the God explanation and simulation explanation contradict eachother.

In fact, one can create any list of unfalsifiable statements and so each one has its own counter.
Hence, we have to presume all to be false until our experience is able to confirm it (at which point it's no longer unfalsifiable).

I recommend meds and a program of therapy. And that you wear a warning label. — tim wood

Calling people mentally abnormal because they enjoy surprise parties is quite ironic.

I dislike if a lie affects me negatively, otherwise I might not care or I may even like the lie. Value only has meaning when attached to a perspective, it doesnt exist independent of me. A surprise party is good, a cheating partner is bad, there is no contradiction.

I cannot think of any way to respect your comment. — tim wood

If you find my comment disrepectful, its not because of the way I worded it. You merely conflate "respect" with "agree", which we dont.

A society which values "truth" as the opposite of "post-truth", is fundamentally a society which forces conformity and crushes disagreement, and thus is a dogmatic society which is inevitably flawed and unable to change. A skeptical society where individuals learn to discern truth from lie, in their own lens, will always be healthier. Adversery breeds Strength.

The reason I ask why we care, is that the only reason you care is because people dont accept your conception of truth, and dont value you with their framework to be honest with you. This has nothing to do with society, you simply wish to force your idea of truth upon others and consider political violence a potentially viable tool to do so. You are the parasite.

Why should we care if people lie and are dishonest? This merely provides a challenge which will be adapted to. One should only trust what should be trusted. Its quite silly to say that the world should change to be entirely truthful, when in reality you need just change how gullible you are.

An entirely truthful world would only ignore the problem of irrationality and gullibility that prevades through humanity.

By "efilism", I mean action taking by you to move the human race towards extinction. I think most antinatalists realise that humans will not voluntarily stop having children, so its effectively the only strategy. Theres a number of ways it could be done, but the most effective would probably be to launch nukes to every country on earth. At the very least you'd probably save 10's of billions of people from coming into existance, and humanity would be set back so the population would remain low for probably thousands of years. This doesn't really apply to most people (seeing as it would require a will probably even greater than the suicide route). However, if one cares about others, the person with the will to commit suicide, should probably do this instead. It'd be pretty selfish to view the majority of humans as not understanding the suffering they are in, and yet decide to focus on your own salvation by suicide.

I agree with your argument though, I think any valuing of suffering above desire logically concludes in antinatalism. Although I see the flaw in the valuing of suffering as inherently bad, or not worth it to obtain desire.

Contra popular wisdom, social entanglements almost always lead to worse outcomes, despite the initial "highs" one gets from their initial engagement- in preventing the "lonely" feelings of the isolated individual. — schopenhauer1

I agree with the sentiment that relationships can and often do contain deeper hardships than the emotional highs they provide. However, I dont see any issue with this. I dont want a happy relationship, I want a deep and complex relationship which can provide me with a variety of experiences. I wouldnt want to live without my sadness, without my anger, without the progress that arises through the conflict, and the choices I make in order to experience even more.

I am an egoist, and a big part of my philosophy is that one should preserve and expand instances of their qualia. Purify the deepest and richest of ones experience, both the greatest highs and painful lows, and continue to search for even more purity. This can be as simple as building a collection of music you enjoy and purifing it over time with constant experimentation, whilst enjoying your current collection; or it can be as complex as a trip around the world to meet others and see different cultural customs and art. I believe that whilst all value derives from ones experience, that our experiences are too complex to simplfy them into the hedonistic principles. Afterall, at my core is not a dream of happiness, or a fear of pain, but an insatiable desire to satisy my ardent curiousity!

Eh, withdrawal can also be from what you describe your avocation/vocation which you pursue. If it brings you joy, cool. Suppose the code was deleted mistakenly, and all your hard work was wiped out? Suppose your boss/owner rejected your code as insufficient, inelegant, and trash? Suppose they rejected every attempt, even if you are convinced it is genius? Anyways, strife can be found anywhere, just as much as joy. Pursuits of joy are temporary. That's the point of Schopenhauer makes of goal-seeking, attachments, and all of it. — schopenhauer1

I have a general hatred for humanity, I see the vast majority of humans as being unintelligent, and even when they are intelligent they are so occupied by their emotion that they become irrational. I see how the emotion of disgust turns people in animals advocating death, and how this mechanism of reaction is so similar between people that it makes them look like machines. Im autistic, and I would easily identify with the label "misanthrope".

However, there exists people who I can enjoy hanging out with, and there are people who can actually understand the perspectives I hold and are willing to hear it. It doesnt matter if we have endless fights, I will always want a friend in a world that that rejects me. The mere knowledge of others existance can create a loneliness that dwarfs the benign issues found within relationships.

And yet, I do not wish for a world where I was ignorant of this. I am okay with holding onto suffering, because it means something to me. I dont want to fall into ignorant but happy compliance with the world, I want a gory and painful fight, and I want to come on top.

Social engagement leads to more attachments, and more conflicts, and more frustrations, litigations, manifestations, allegations, contortions,
and complications, in short, drama and disappointments, all of which serve only to entangle the individual further in the suffering. — schopenhauer1

Generally this seems to be a buddist type argument.
P1. Desire breeds suffering
P2. Suffering is bad and ought to be reduced
C. Therefore, we ought to eliminate our desire
Not an entirely invalid argument, but alot of people reject the 2nd premise, including me.

However, there doesnt seem to be any reason for why suicide isn't the conclusion here, since non-experience will always have less suffering compared to the little in withdrawl. If you factor in the value of others, then it implies efilism (action towards human extinction). The fact you dont come to these conclusions suggests to me that you either dont realise this is the logical conclusion, or that you do have some value for desire aswell, although I dont know how that factors into your belief that withdrawl is still positive (seeing as that seems to imply suffering is valued more than desire).

However, I think the western, liberal principles of tolerance and inclusiveness, although to some degree are perfectly warranted, have gone too far: there is such a thing as having an inferior culture (e.g., the Nazis), and there is such a thing as having a view which should not be tolerated (e.g., a supporter of sex offenses). — Bob Ross

The success of liberalism lies in it's individualistic approach to values, and the formation of a government which doesn't force a set of values upon its population. Any belief that a set of values should be forced onto the population is an extremist and anti-liberal belief. The extremity of the ones value is of no regards to such a society, as long as the individual acts within the lawful framework, they should be free from any unnecessary government action. The liberal government enforces neutrality in actions, not in minds or communication.

We are still in a jungle: the in-group is more important than the out-group—even though no Westerner likes to say that anymore (although they will still act like it when push comes to shove). — Bob Ross

The in-group is the individual, their friends and, their family. If an individual was to extend their care to all factors that effect them, then you wouldn't get nationalism, you'd get globalism (since countries are no longer distinct, not even in culture). I think you are confusing conservative values for classically liberal values. A conservative wants a common culture, a classical liberal wants a government that allows him to be left to his own values. Individualism is a primary goal of liberalism, it is antithetical to this conservative goal.

------------

However, I agree that liberalism should be spread and enforced globally. Individuals should have rights and freedoms everywhere.

Thats only a problem if you believe value derives from evolution, a proposition you presented but which I dont hold. You even mentioned social and cultural factors yourself, but then you immediately overule them with the gene propagation idea.

I already presented why I think people hold these values, and its mostly a case of religious philosophy, not some innate emotional reaction that derives from their biology.

And a repeat of the mistake of suggesting that values must be justified. — Banno

Values dont *have* to be justfied. However, you cant expect anyone to understand your perspective without an explanation of that perspective. It seems rather silly to sit in a forum and say that people are making such a "mistake", when the point of the forum is to discuss ideas in the first place. Its equivalent to bringing up solipsisim when talking about charity, its completely irrelevent to the level of conversation occuring.

implied conclusion that if you value it then it ought not be aborted. — Banno

Your correct here that valuing a zygote doesnt mean someone neccesarily believes it ought not to be aborted. Afterall, I can value human life and still believe in self-defence. However, you somehow got an implication that didnt exist at all.

You didnt provide an argument for why you have a value, but a vague and blanket scientific explanation for why values exist at all. If your entire position is without any rational thought and is simply driven directly by your genes, then Im not sure how you would defend it or even justify it to yourself. It also is a false scientific explanation, since zygotes are a part of modern knowledge that couldnt have evolved into our psyches, which you can see by the vast majority of humanity having no emotional issue with zygote termination. Typically its instead driven by a philosophical grounding in "humanness" which you commonly find in religious thought that tries to map the concept of souls and divinity onto this scientific understanding of human development.

Im confused by this response. I am asking you why you value zygotes because I dont understand why you see them as valuable, and so I wish to evaluate your reasoning and see if I can provide a counter to it. Not sure why you require a meta-analysis here, its generally an assumed state of affairs on a forum like this.

5. Minds have no perceivable structure of their own.
6. Thus, minds cannot be perceived or perceive themselves (from (4) and (5)). — Brenner T

I am not equated with Berkeley's theory, but within this theory couldn't a mind be equated to the perceptions it holds? If all that exists is qualia, then the mind must *be* the totality of such qualia, right? It side-steps the issue with assuming they are seperate and that both must precede the other. (I think your argument works well against the seperated position though).

lol, I see. Well, why do you value zygotes?

Wasnt trying to make a point but asking a question to understand your moral system better. However, I thought you were saying that you value newborns but dont value zygotes. From what you just said, I'm assuming I was wrong and that you value life from conception?

I already explained because I recognize it as such. — praxis

Im assuming that you value the newborn but not the zygote because of their difference in personhood. This simply pushes the moral question back, does it not? You recognise a newborn baby as a person, but why should we value persons?

I exist therefore I exist.

checks out.

A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. — Brendan Golledge

I dont think benevolence, or love should be confused with relationship. Relationships exists within our experience as interactions with another which provide some form of value. Stronger relationships provide more value and so this justifies more sacrifice in order to maintain them. However, sacrifice of ones life is a sacrifice which can never be repaid, so it has no such rational justification. Therefore, its either motivated by an emotional connection so strong that someone cant bear to live without them (at which point it's effectively suicide), or its that they are subjugated to an idea (it may be benevolence, loyalty, bravery, obligation etc.). At no point is this sacrifice motivated by a valuing of the relationship, as one cannot experience the relationship when dead. One can sacrifice themselves for an idea, but they cannot sacrifice themselves for a relationship. Ofc, you could claim you value the idea of their experience, but then you'd need to somehow justify that without connecting it back to the relationship.

True loyalty lies in the rejection of these ideas and emotions in favour of recognising someone for the value they provide you via your experience, not via some principle or rejection of life without them.

Anyone can value whatever they want, but if one lives inside a system which cannot provide that value to them, then having the value is meaningless. I can act to maximise my own values, but unfortunately I can do less when I only have access to myself, and this is the case for most humans.

Collaboration within society allows an individual to maximise their values more, with specialisation and collective advancement of technology. Rights are meaningful because they provide certain values as a baseline for members of a society, where humans who wish to go against the established law are punished so that the system can be maintained. Without a governing body to instantiate rights with force, they will be left unfufilled.

For example, the right to own property is a prerequisite for a successful capitalist system. Without a governing body to enforce rules, people would have to provide their own protection (this would inevitably increase costs to run a business, and would provide a massive drain on the economy as a whole).

Regardless, the biggest issue with anarchy is that it inevitably collapses into another type of state, as power vaccums are ripe with opportunistic and violent actors who strive for control.

What's the point of being on a philosophy forum if you're just going to deny positions which disagree with you? It seems completely irrational.



Rights *arent* just values. It seems you havent understood my post. Rights are values instantiated in the world through physical force. I can value anything I wish, but I do not have the power to enforce my own values in the world.

In your conception, what does it mean to be entitled to something? and why should anyone care for if your entitled to certain "rights"? Also, how do you differentiate rights from values?

As for the concept of a right, what you say there is again just plainly false. By your logic, the Nazis did not violate the rights of Jews, but instead made it the case that they had none. And thus by your logic the Nazis - and indeed, any and all governments that are in power - are incapable of violating the rights of those whom they govern, as they are the arbiters of rights. — Clearbury

They didn't have rights, hence the violence against them. A rights violation occurs in comparison to a legal code. A state or individual can violate anothers rights when an act is illegal under the laws of that nation. However, it seemingly makes no sense outside of that definition. If you wished to say that someone *should* have rights, then why not just say that?

Defining a value as a right does not suddenly imbue it with some objective foundation by which you can force or convince others to recognise your claim. If I can simply deny your "right" then it's nothing but a value, an idea you hold within your mind. However, if I cant deny your right without some threat of material consequence to myself, then its not just a value anymore, its been instantiated through physical force. Of course you could privatise such force, but you'd still be requiring an external organisation to protect your rights by giving them money (recreating a government, albeit smaller and with an elite in-group).

An idea which has no basis in the physical is fated to fade, for regardless of how elegant it may appear to you, it holds no bearing on anyone who doesn't percieve it the same. To put it another way, a thief does not care for words.

1. There is no such thing as entitlement, the universe does not have an inherent karmic system. No one is entitled to anything.
2. The concept of "rights" only makes sense in the context of a governing body which can establish and protect those rights against negative actors. Otherwise its simply a value you hold, which has no bearing on anyone else but yourself.

The state exists to act as a mediator between people and their values. It protects people against the threat of a "might makes right" system. Any power vaccum without a state will inevitably be filled by some ruling system, and typically the rulers are under no obligation to care for such cultural concepts as "liberty", "property", "rights" etc. The state is justified in its monopoly on violence because of the reality that would ensue if the state did not have such a monopoly.

Imagine that someone constructs a bomb that will explode unless someone dismantles it. If a person dismantles their bomb, they have damaged the property of the bomb creator. The creator might respond with "How dare you destroy my property, it hasnt caused any harm!", and under your argument against state collapse as a valid rejection of anarchism, this is a justifed reason to allow the bomb to tick down. It should be self-evident that the right to own property does not exceed the right for innocents to live, and that pre-emptive action is justified in the protection of higher rights, even when it may override lesser rights.

To lose any aspect of myself would be to become less than what I was. Every forgotten memory, bad relationship, failed project, every single aspect lost is a reduction of who you were. There is no core, there is simply an experience that changes. The notion that any aspect is more central than another is a valuing you place upon those aspects, not evidence of a metaphysical reality.

The self is a pattern of value, not substance. If you replaced me with a perfect replica, this would not be me, because I value the un-ending and dynamic pattern. I am myself now, because I was myself a second ago, and my experience links the past and future into a chain.