Added more to last post.

"Have been" is inarguable, but I see no reason to think philosophy is the origin of the taboo against kin-slaying, for example. — Srap Tasmaner

No, but there's a difference between simply tradition and philosophizing about an action, can we agree on that? Even the judgement that tradition is what morality is is a philosophical judgement.. Now you have crossed from arbitrary what is given to what has been introspected, rationalized, and put into a dialectic of analysis.

I take your point, and I could see how someone would find the comparison to, say, veganism compelling. — Srap Tasmaner

:up:

I remember Freud describing how an overdeveloped superego could make a person miserable, insisting on standards of thought and behavior they could not possibly meet, but at the same be a source of pride, because look what high standards they have! — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting.

If AN is a matter of human beings developing a standard of morality that human beings can only meet by not existing, that's at least paradoxical. — Srap Tasmaner

I can see that. However, it really is just a standard of non-action taking place. DON'T do this. The back-and-forth goes usually something like:

N: "But I want to because if not, I will be sad."
AN: Being sad is not a criteria for if something is right.
N: (Inevitably shifts to a bizarre kind of utilitarianism).. But you see, my sadness will be somehow overall worse off than a whole lifetime of negative experiences for the person being born..
AN: A) even from a utilitarian point of view, this is probably not true that your sadness equates to all the negative experiences of a lifetime of another person.
B) A person not born will have no negative consequences, where that person certainly will have negative consequences once born.. No happiness for that person, literally matters not to no one. The due care is on the side of NOT causing negative experiences, and not not causing happiness (which matters not to no one in this situation).
C) From a deontological perspective you are forcing a negative set of situations and a game of challenges to be overcome (lest dire consequences) onto someone else. You made this decision for someone else, and deemed it right. Not having a child does not deprive any ONE from anything. The ledger is always on the side of NOT causing negative experiences for someone else.

Whether or not you agree with any of this, you should at least see that it can be a subject philosophical conversation. The point ANs often make is that it should at least be in the discourse and not dismissed offhandedly because you just don't like the implications.

You see the rest of the story as a process of realization, or consciousness raising, and that's plausible. You could say I'm just looking at the other side, at our resistance to that process. — Srap Tasmaner

I commend this effort. I too am interested in this. But just keep in mind, that there is resistance doesn't mean "Thus it's right that we resist". That is where you must make a connection if you want an argument other than, "This is what we tend to do, thus this is right".. I mean you could make that argument, but then we can bring up a lot of things we tend to do that we probably should not (get angry, put people down, overlook someone else, step on people's heads, etc. etc.). Probably daily we do some violation that if we looked back, we should have handled differently, but we did so out of our own self-interest at the time.

I find that resistance reasonable, but I want to get the facts right first.

(I could be helping your cause by figuring out what you really need to argue against, rather than just making the same arguments all the time without convincing anyone.) — Srap Tasmaner

I wholeheartedly commend the effort and look forward to any conclusions. Here is one major one I think for the resistance- cultural self-reinforcement.. a feedback loop.

Cultural meme: Procreation is good. Religious, tribal, social.. This reinforces...
Personal preference: I want to procreate.. I also don't want to "miss out" (what people mistake for "biological clock is really just not missing out) which also reinforces:
Parental/family/social pressure to have children.. "Why haven't you procreated yet...Don't you want X lifestyle?"
AN claim proposed: Disgusted at the idea that is reinforced, taken as personal preference.. Dismisses idea out of hand that procreation could be anything but good (with some exceptions perhaps that are circumstantial).

This is most depressing but existential reasons..
People pin their purpose on the immersion of taking care of someone else..What do they do at X stage of life.."Oh no is there more??". That kind of thing.

What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself, and this is scary itself. But it's not much more than Buddhism, just taken to a practical level.. Life has X negative qualities.. Why keep procreating more people that experience this?.. Now it becomes a political question of "Well, I justify negative experiences because X".. Now you are the judge, jury, executioner of why someone else needs negative experiences.. Odd from an AN perspective.

Another existential one is the depressing nature of AN. I do not deny that AN can be depressing to think about. I depress myself with it sometimes if I am writing about it in a happy mood. This doesn't take away the import or rightness of the conclusion.. "This conclusion makes me depressed.. Wah wah.. it must be wrong". Same as the conclusion must be wrong because you are sad from earlier example.

If they don't hook up, it's still just a little logical puzzle. — Srap Tasmaner

I see AN similar to veganism. Not everyone would see the morality of it. Or one can say of the "realization" one has of class consciousness in Marxist theory. Sometimes the "realization" of something's moral import is itself something one must "realize" and is not as clear cut in the cultural milieu (for obvious biased reasons) as murder or theft. But even these more "obvious" categories have been philosophized as to what "degree" what was the "intent" etc. All things that must be parsed out and not assumed but to be grappled with, even if you didn't consider those aspects prior to someone bringing up its implications. The point being with all of this is what counts as moral is not immediately realized, nor does it have to be to still be considered moral.

If your criteria is, "Morality must be immediately apparent to its import, then this is patently wrong.

It's more that a life without suffering is inconceivable, we can't imagine it, so that might be a way of rationalising it or making the best out of the situation. — Wayfarer

Exactly :up: so much of advice is simply embracing the suck because what alternative is there? Ha

False. You are still alive hence playing the game of life. If you stop snapping your finger, you will suffer exactly as you would IRL. — khaled

Fact, bears eat beets. Bears beats Battlestar Galactica...

False. That was not how I was defining the game.. This thread is about "work" in particular. that part of the game of life to do with working in an economic system of some kind to keep alive.

Yes you still do all of this in the utopia. It’s just exceedingly easy to do so. All you have to do is snap your fingers. That’s your labor. — khaled

Notice I said here to 180:

It is an unavoidable set of challenges (some known, some unknown based on factors of cause/effect/contingency). Someone must overcome these challenges or have a very hard time of things (including death). Call it a set of challenges rather than game then. — schopenhauer1

.

If snapping fingers is a set of challenges, then it would be wrong. Can we agree that the world we live in now at the least, is a set of challenges? I am not sure about your utopian world, but this one certainly is.

Ok I’m getting that what you mean by “game of life” is really just “work”. Still the example stands. In the utopia you don’t escape work. You still have to snap your fingers. It’s just that work is exceedingly easy. — khaled

Right I get your one trick pony... Like a kid who learned a joke and uses it over and over cause someone laughed the first time. What's black and white, and "red/read" all over??

That’s playing. An easy game. — khaled

Right, is that a set of challenges to overcome? Are there dire consequences? I would say no to both. If snapping your fingers is a challenge (disabled?) then it is wrong. Are the challenges so minimal as to the consequences being de facto, not dire (due to their easy obtainability)? I think that makes sense.

Exactly the same case in the utopia. If you refuse to snap your fingers all that will happen to you. But we have established that having children in a utopia is fine. Hence showing that it’s not about the sheer magnitude of the punishment for failure, but also how difficult the game is. As again, the magnitude of the punishment for failing at the survival game is identical in both cases (starve, hack it in the wilderness and die, etc) — khaled

Yes, I would agree hence "Set of challenges" was my more detailed definition as given to 180..You're not giving me the Socratic "aha" moments you probably think you're doing bud...You're just "sweeping the leg" and I'll just give you the "crane kick" every time :).

I understand you’ve emphasized this. And I’ve shown repeatedly how it makes no sense. The consequences are EXACTLY as dire in the case of the utopia. The only difference is the difficulty of the game, which you refuse to acknowledge as a variable because doing so would mean you have to show that life is too difficult which you cannot do. — khaled

I have explained the set of challenges here as I now understand more about this utopia you've created (which isn't this world, right?).

When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, you haven't prevented the injustice. Because when there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, the notion of injsutice does not apply. — baker

False, there's two parts here:
A) Someone preventing an injustice.
B) Someone for which an injustice could happen.

The part I am discussing is A.
A is causing B not to happen.
Situation is good.

Let's give an example.

A)Baker prevents a baby from being born in horrible conditions.
B) A baby was not born into horrible conditions.
Situation is good.

You would like me to think that this state of affairs is somehow off the table as far as evaluation. I don't see how. It is good that X prevented a baby from being born in horrible conditions.

Is the game of life escapable in the utopia example? What is the method of escaping the game in the utopia example? — khaled

So suicide is not the escape because it is suicide. You are getting caught up on that. Rather, in this world, since there are very few options, suicide is one of the only actions to escape. However, in your utopia, you can snap your fingers and don't have to play the game of life to stay alive. The "game" is "the game of life" (set of challenges to overcome to survive.. what one must do in an economic system whether hunting-gathering or "laboring" in a mixed market capitalist society or communism or any other economic system).

I was purely going off what you said here:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

Maybe I misinterpreted how this utopia worked then?

Is the game of life escapable in the real world? What is the method of escaping the game in the real world? — khaled

In the real world, one cannot escape from the survival game. The closest one can come is independently wealthy, or free rides off something. If everyone escapes this way, the game itself is ruined and no one free rides. But really, there is no escape in this world of playing the game of life (producing/consuming/surviving via an economic system of labor/exchange etc.).

You will find that your answer to both questions is the same. Except in the one case you think having children (imposing the game) is ok and in the other you don’t. Which means that: — khaled

No, I said without dire consequences and then named several such as suicide, homelessness, etc. You can opt out of the game, but you will have a hard time of it in our world.

Isn’t a good indicator. Both the utopia and the real world are equally inescapable. The only way out is death or suicide. — khaled

Again you are misinterpreting what I mean by escape. Can one opt out of the economic game of life without death in utopia? You seemed to indicate yes. You don't have to play. You snap your fingers and you have what you want. Or perhaps I didn't understand this utopia you were describing. There ARE NO DIRE CONSEQUENCES in the utopia as I interpreted it.

Furthermore, you agreed that your problem isn’t with inescapable games, but inescapable games where it’s too difficult not to suffer. You agree right here. — khaled

That was me answering offhandedly with limited time.. The utopia has a way to escape without dire consequences. And it's true that is not this world.

So I ask you to show that life qualifies as “too difficult” and you fail to do so. — khaled

Too difficult is if you don't play the forced game, dire consequences ensue (which apparently doesn't happen in your utopia). You die, starve, hack it in the wilderness (and then probably die), or some other crappy fate.

Again, it’s tiring repeating the same thing over and over. I didn’t “change the argument” we arrived at this point through simple questioning. The utopia example demonstrates that a forced game is not in itself bad, as you’re still being forced to live in the example. Your problem is with forced games that are also difficult. But you cannot show that life qualifies as such, so you attempt to reset the conversation. — khaled

And it's tiring repeating over and over how I HAVE emphasized from the beginning that the game is inescapable because of DIRE CONSEQUENCES of not playing it. Keep up.

And it's perverse to argue that people should not procreate so that the antinatalist could get some satisfaction. — baker

An injustice did not happen to someone. Why is the idea of “bad thing did not happen to someone” somehow not legitimate? The opposite is something bad happened to someone. We are preventing that scenario.

No other act of gift giving has such a high success rate, that is, results so often in such a strong attachment to the gift received. It is the standard by which all other gifts are measured. In which case, you need reasons not to do it for the question of whether you should even to arise. If you're about to save someone's life but you know they'll live on in a permanent vegetative state, you'll have a think. If you and your procreating partner both carry some rare gene that causes a terrible disease, you'll have a think. Very little rises to the level where it's at all likely that the receiver of the gift of life will disapprove of your actions and not be fiercely attached to the life you have given them. — Srap Tasmaner

Have you ever read David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence?

He makes a distinction between starting a life and continuing a life. There are different things to consider with both.

How exactly is it doing so? Which thing have I attributed to you that shouldn’t have been attributed to you? I’m very interested in seeing you answer this. And it would be hilarious to me if you just ignored it as usual. — khaled

You said this particular argument is just a case of "no suffering" when rather it's about not escaping.. yet you clearly said:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

It is precisely those dire consequences that make the game inescapable. You took that away.

You are changing the argument to this:

Now I’m saying that in real life the game is already plenty easy to bring in more people. You disagree. So show why it’s the case that life as is is too difficult. — khaled

The argument is about the injustice of an inescapable game.

Your point was that life is a game where one must work to survive. The only surefire way of escaping this game is suicide or starvation. However we now know that what you are really concerned with isn't escape from the game itself, but escape from suffering within the game. Which is an important departure form your op:
Any forced, inescapable game is a legitimate target for moral scrutiny and criticism.
— schopenhauer1
Now it's more like: Any forced, inescapable game, where it's too difficult not to suffer, is a target for scrutiny and criticism. If so: Life as is right now, in many places, offers easy enough ways of escaping suffering within the game.

In real life the escape from suffering is pretty easy in a lot of places (which would make imposing the game ok in those places). You think this statement is false. Show why this statement is false. — khaled

The way to show that ridiculous statements are ridiculous is to show their ridiculous consequences. The point is that a utopia is just as difficult to escape as life currently (only suicide works). But I don't think anyone would be against having children in a utopia. That would mean this standard isn't sufficient to tell apart wrong and ok impositions either. — khaled

I want to address this because this is mischaracterizing the argument to make your point. By the way, have you ever read Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right?

It's about not escaping without dire consequences. In the utopia example you said:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

That is literally saying that there is no forced game at all.. You are by definition taking away the very thing that one cannot in this world.

OK. What solution do you propose for all that? — Alkis Piskas

Too late for the already born. However, recognizing our common suffering is one thing we can do. Of course, not bringing more people into the unjust situation is the main thing. Prevent future cases of injustice (in this regard the injustice of the work situation).

Enough information for what? You could be claiming that being forced to experience anything is unjust. Are you? — Srap Tasmaner

A would not necessarily be unjust. But the inevitability of B and C is going to be the case though (at least in this non-utopian world).

Connection to what? C is only about experiences that are inevitably in part bad; would you describe having such an experience as an injustice? It's a simple question. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes.

There's no birth at all in my questions. I'm trying to ask about the general case of which procreating is supposed to be an instance. — Srap Tasmaner

So what is the point of C? It is just stated as to what is happening.

Antisocial seems to mean whatever negative thing you want it. Antisocial can simply mean, not enjoying other's company. I often see it used in terms of "antisocial personality disorder" as in sociopaths. So, I am not sure we can define it so concretely.

I don't know though how exactly yourself see "anti-work", except that you are talking "an economic system that runs on work" and as a "condition of life". — Alkis Piskas

Yes I am talking mainly about that kind of "work". I am saying, DON'T create more WORKERS who HAVE to WORK to survive. It is an unjust thing to put people in an inescapable game of challenges (like work) lest dire consequences (death of starvation or suicide). There is no opt out.. once born, people (generally) must work. Do not create this situations for OTHER PEOPLE.

I can see that you mean that from the moment we are born we are forced to play this game. And that no one asks us if we wanted to. So, maybe your question is not really about "anti-work" --since there are a lot of things in our society and economic system that one can object to-- but our choice about living. I remember we have talked about that (Re: your topic "Is never having the option for no option just?") — Alkis Piskas

"Antisocial" is someone who is against the laws and/or customs of a society and also who is considered an annoyance to and is disapproved by the society. So, if someone fits these criteria, he can be certainly called antisocial. — Alkis Piskas

Exactly, this is just one example of a larger theme...

The slave has no choice: he cannot choose his job or be on strike or refuse to work.
The laborer has: he can do all of them! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Right, but what if he chooses not to work again? The dire consequences is as I spelled out:
Homelessness, starvation, free-riding (making it another person's/people's burdens), suicide, hacking it in the wilderness and probably dying there.

No. Because everything he said, everyone is already aware of.

The conversation typically goes like this:

shope: Having kids is an action of type X and actions of type X are wrong! (X can be, for example, "unconsented imposition", in this case it's "putting someone in inescapable game" typically, why actions of type X are wrong is left unexplained, but barring that...)

Me: But *insert activity here* is also of type X and you don't think that's wrong

shope: Well, this activity is not X enough to be wrong!

Me: So how can you tell between activities that are X enough and ones that are not X enough? We all agree that activities that are too X are wrong (true by definition of the word "too"), but we just don't think life qualifies as too X.

shope then proceeds to either "delineate" the argument for 20 replies, or outright not respond, then comes back in another week with another X and we do the same thing all over again. Repeat ad nauseam. — khaled

I interpret @Albero's idea about pessimism in that why don't I discuss pessimism in more exposition rather than making these tit-for-tat microarguments (like the ones we have)..

Thing is, it has never been my experience that this is the case. Never has it seemed that way in my own experience or others' experiences.

But even if we accept this, it is absolutely not the case that: — khaled

I don't have a name for this fallacy.. But if there is a rabbit and you say it is a dog, that doesn't make it not a rabbit. The idea of lacking in the human animal is shown over and over in daily life too much and is too true a truism to just dismiss. I understand you need for such global claims of denying "animal lacking nature" to make sure you refute any argument that makes a positive claim (at least if I or other people of similar views are making them).

This has 0 proof. If it were the case that we're all deeply dissatisfied animals only pretending to be happy, you wouldn't expect anonymous happiness polls to come back positive. You'd expect people to "break" and show their "true feelings" of deep dissatisfaction at a much higher rate than they are. — khaled

That isn't necessarily the claim. Rather, it is the dissatisfaction at the heart of being an animal in the world with needs and wants. The very fact of pursuing this or that..

However, interestingly, the weaker argument you do bring up has some validity too. There are reasons for therapists and all the self-care things.. People are often not as happy as they need to present themselves to others. There are constant reminders of that.. which is why pessimistic comedies/comedians resonate with people (part of the reason anyways).

The consequence of "life is an escape from boredom or dissatisfaction" isn't necessarily "we're all deeply unsatisfied animals pretending otherwise", there is 0 evidence for that. Even if we accept the first statement, it could just be the case that NOT everyone is a lying Oscar worthy actor, and instead, it's just easy to escape boredom and dissatisfaction so on the whole people find the game worthwhile. — khaled

Again, the root of the problem is the need for X at all and that it is constant except for very few moments (pendulum in middle moments, sleep, unconscious states).

I’m just pointing out there is no recipient to your behavior. It affects no one but yourself. The suffering you prevent, and the beings you’re saving, are imaginary. So why pretend? — NOS4A2

I just don't find this argument relevant of the morality of preventing future person from suffering. The fact that no person exists with an identity doesn't take away from anything.. We talked about ridiculous conclusions.. You can do whatever you want as long as they don't exist yet under your conception. That is very weird.

Anyways, if it helps you out, what you are doing is preventing an injustice. I agree that this isn't anything heroic. You are simply taking due care.

Regardless of whether I agree with them, hasn't shop1 shown tons of reasons in other posts why life is too difficult a game to be played? — Albero

Thank you.. This should be noted. It is good to know someone else is also paying attention :).

Schopenhauer himself stated that no matter where you are, life sucks because the pendulum swings from striving for goals because of boredom, and feeling boredom after you've strived for it. He thought (and I'm guessing Schop1 does too judging from these posts) that life was just dealing with dissatisfaction, annoyance, toil, and seeking comfort and entertainment to avoid boredom that's always hanging over our heads. To me this sounds like the game shouldn't be played for anyone. I would like to see what you think since I've been enjoying your debate here. I remember you stating you don't agree with pessimistic arguments for AN, but I've honestly been wondering why? Where I disagree with Schop1 is that these seem way more convincing than injustice, pain/pleasure asymmetries, consent, etc — Albero

I also agree that the more convincing argument is one from a Schopenhaurean perspective, but as you noted, I have written a lot about this already, and am sort of looking at other arguments as well.

So, back to my original question which perhaps is already answered, what needs to be changed? I suppose the stock question would be, if you were God and wish to make this possible, suffering free world to your hearts content and your minds eye, what would have to happen? What would it be like? How would it differ from now? — Outlander

I don't think I have an answer for that. All I know is this is not that world. I guess if the main problem is lacking in a self-aware animal, it would be not lacking. No need or want for anything, yet somehow knowing it. No contingent harms and no religion too (sorry.. I felt like I was in the lyrics for John Lennon's Imagine...Imagine all the people.... :D).

who are you to think so let alone do so in a life you claim to be negative and worthless? And more importantly why should others listen to you? You have to have some worth and positivity from somewhere, even if you choose to ignore it. — Outlander

To put this another way that you don't seem to see..
Who are other people to claim that life, with its entailed harms needs to be lived out by X person? My path assumes nothing on NO ONE. The other way assumes everything for SOME ONE. If you are trying to raise the specter on antinatalism of presumption, my whole point is the presumption is actually the burden of those who are the ones who presume they should affect someone else (by procreating them).

Is that a no to both then, neither of the others are in themselves unjust? — Srap Tasmaner

A is lacking enough information and C is ignorant of the connection. Unjust remains but the connection of the birth to the situation of inescapable situation is not recognized.

what, in your own words and opinion, is the root cause of the suffering that you seem makes life unjust, other humans or nature? — Outlander

Please read my profile, it explains essentially the answer to your question, both the general description and the quotes I provide from Schopenhauer.

I will add to what you read there this:
I find it funny that one of our needs is the need for overcoming challenges to give our mind engagement.. Flow states or simply taking up mental space with X. Schopenhauer described this phenomena when he said "What if every Jack had his Jill.. everyone had what they wanted".. People would kill each other (read as make more strife for themselves) because our wants and needs are never really satisfied. There seems to be a "lack" at the heart of everything..

Most people are sort of aware of this.. However, because of group-think and the need for social pressures to keep "things going" in its own self-perpetuating fashion via culture.. People try to pretend like this is something to embrace and a "good" when, in fact, it is simply existential/metaphysical turmoil within our self-aware animal nature.

I have focused less on this core philosophy lately because I think there are simpler ideas like the injustice of putting more people into an inescapable game, and inevitable harmful experiences that can and should be argued for. No amount of economic or political change overrides the negative existential situation itself. The animal with the pendulum between pain, boredom always needing that pendulum to get in the middle somewhere but it never stays.. as Schopenhauer analogized.

It could be said that his efforts go as far as preventing fertilization, or maybe pregnancy or birth, but that’s about it. His efforts cannot be stretched beyond that. — NOS4A2

You must be conservative, you really don't think what happens to people after birth :rofl:. That whole "conservatives only care about the "person" prior to birth with focus on abortion" argument. You seem to be doing that here. Anyways, so I am saying life presents certain negative experiences that will happen to the child after birth (analogous to the danger of the volcano). You would have prevented that baby from burning up in a volcano pit. You would have prevented that person from experiencing the negatives of life.. Same in that regard.

How do you differentiate between when a game is “too hard” (too hard not to suffer) and not? In other words, what makes someone who says that “escaping suffering in life is easy enough such that having kids is ok” wrong?

Beforehand you made it seem like the difficulty of escaping the game is what determines whether or not it’s ok to inflict. Obviously a game that requires you to kill yourself to escape is too difficult to escape. But now we know that what you’re really concerned with is the difficulty of escaping suffering within the game, not the game itself. So it’s not at all obvious anymore that life is “too hard” in that sense.

I would think everyone agrees that forcing people into a game where it’s too difficult not to suffer is bad. It’s true by definition (that’s what the word “too” is used for). And the majority still aren’t AN. — khaled

So I'm going to essentially disregard the "Most people" argument at the end there because as we've discussed at length, I don't think that a majority of people thinking something at a particular time makes it right.

As for the "too difficult" question and the "suffering" vs. "escape" dichotomy, your utopia example gave plenty of ways to escape the game. You are automatically thinking escape means suicide. That is one escape, and it's a DIRE one. That is the key word there. I said "without DIRE consequences". Suicide is a dire consequence (along with others that I mentioned). The example you provided gave escapes without dire consequences. That world is precisely the world I am saying this is not. You are more proving the case, if you will.

You are arguing that (B3) represents an injustice. What about (A2) and (C3)? Are both or either of them unjust? — Srap Tasmaner

Not sure where you are going, but A would be an injustice if that something was bad (like B). If C is a known fact, then it conflates into B, essentially.

So again, your issue is not with how difficult it is to escape the game, but how difficult it is to escape suffering within the game. — khaled

Si let me know when life is that utopia

If you found out there was a god and let's say you deemed him immoral (let's say he set up an unjust and petty little game of working for salvation and doing X, Y, Z). As Socrates asked, "Is something good because the gods like it, or do the gods like it because it's good"?

No, no. Not quite. Just that as even a man of eternal prestige and power has to question his own beliefs, perhaps so should you. At least, that your own may not be as infallible and unquestionable as you may believe. — Outlander

Funny you ask that.. I just asked this in the Philosophy of Religion:
Who here thinks that if they question the "game of life" that god setup and call god immoral, that they will be cursed by that very same god for calling him immoral? I am just wondering how deep-rooted people's superstitions go.. I suspect even atheist-types have some deep-rooted superstitions.. Perhaps a feature of human life even, but certainly institutionalized and redistributed en masse under religion. Yaweh seems very pissy, and doesn't like being called immoral.. He has "things" in mind for little peons who call out the king....

But seriously, just because you think of an idea that resolves or otherwise manifests itself as concrete and measurable affect in the real world, what makes you think it's anything less than transient? — Outlander

Actually now that I read this again, you are just saying, things are futile in the long run.. The vanity of existence, etc.

But seriously, just because you think of an idea that resolves or otherwise manifests itself as concrete and measurable affect in the real world, what makes you think it's anything less than transient? — Outlander

Under this criteria, anything goes as long as it spreads like an internet meme. I'm after something different.

Caesar ushered in what is arguably the basis of modern society, reliable agriculture via advanced irrigation, popularized indoor washrooms, and not the least of which that allows us to communicate to and fro now, a more or less open and democratic system of government. And now, his former stomping grounds are either in ruins and/or being quite literally defecated upon by invaders. Not the most powerful counterargument to your original suggestion of the futility or cruelty of life at first glance sure, but just an opportunity for some introspection to your own views. — Outlander

Not sure your point, but you are right, nice examples of futility and history :).

That they cannot do. But they can snap their fingers and leave any suffering they may be experiencing and thus, no one has ever complained. Call that what you will, utopia or not. Now what? — khaled

It seems to me in this world that they can sufficiently change the game without dire consequences. In effect, they can sufficiently "escape", so barring other information, this seems permissible.

The ultimate argument is not lost, in a scenario when possible outcomes are liable to be worse than a guaranteed positive, you call that unwarranted, unwise, or cruel. That's reasonable enough. You're not a gambling man. Yet, like we continue to ignore, or at least shy away from admitting, if you care so much about ending suffering by ending all life on Earth, you can't (at least it's extremely unlikely that you will) do that in the span of a single lifetime. So, it's kind of a self-defeating philosophy, really. — Outlander

I'm not defending it because I think it will take like wildfire, I just think it's right.

But who are you to call something clearly the majority of people enjoy (seeing as they don't check out) — Outlander

It's some sort of fallacy to think that because people don't go through with suicide that thus life is great..

Lots of people enjoy life. It's not your place to decide that life is "too dangerous" to be lived. What on Earth makes you think you could place such definitive and absolute definitions on something no person has even yet to adequately explain? — Outlander

Simply put, I am asking people not to put other people into an inescapable game (without dire consequences). I am not talking about only suicide, but in the case of work, following the rules of survival in some sort of economic system, lest slow painful consequences. The path of "least" resistance is following the system, but doesn't mean it was just to be in the system. The slave's path of least resistance is also to simply follow the system. What on Earth would make you think you should put someone else through that kind of no-opt out scenario? Following my way leads to none of these outcomes on behalf of other people.. No no-opt out situations in my scenario.

This only furthers my point, you deny the option that some people appreciate the way things are, more often than not. Who are you to dictate that pleasure is not worth the pain? An individual? Sure, that's fine then, for you, as an individual. But please, let others choose. — Outlander

Excuse me, but "who" is actually being "denied" the option? The non-existent person not born? Bentarian asymmetry...look it up.

But in this case life remains inescapable. So clearly your problem isn't so much with the inescapability from "the game" itself, but rather the inescapability of suffering within the game. If it is sufficiently easy not to suffer in the game, then it's ok to impose the game. Agreed? — khaled

Not really.. I don't know the nature of this nebulous Utopia. If people can snap their fingers and leave the Utopia without any problems (internal strife).. So the opt out would have to be there.. In other words, it would literally have to be world where questioning the very basis of opting in can never be on the table.. That would be similar to how most non-human animals work.. One cannot even know one's own position.. But then Utopia just seems like non-human humanity.. But since Utopias are inherently not feasible.. Sure.. Let's just assume this Utopia has all contradictions inherent in it.. If all these contradictions of somehow never having the ability to question the game...Or alternatively, if one doesn't like the game, one dies with no inherent internal struggle or strife.. and no big deal... just snap fingers and gone, and no one is negatively affected..

So does this make it ok to impose life in this scenario? — khaled

If other contingencies were met, sure (no impositions of harm, etc.).

Yes it is a utopia. No there are no consequences to not doing anything. I don't understand what you're asking? — khaled

If there are no dire consequences, then it wouldn't be violating the injustice I am talking about, at least in the example of work.

Of course it can be read that way, but it isn't anti-work: if anything it's the opposite, we need to work now because of our sin (injustice) but there is hope to return to the place of peace (heaven). Whenever the new testament talks about "the world" it is talking about this game you mention. It tells us we must live in it, but simultaneously don't be part of it. Anyway, once I saw you taking a secular approach to a religious concept thousands of years old I found that interesting. — Derrick Huestis

So how is this situation just, because it is a biblical reference? This seems like a biblical version of "Is something good because the gods like it or do the gods like it because it's good"?

What a petty game this god has set up.. Work for your salvation or suffer the consequences.. and sometimes working isn't good enough... because Job.. right? So even the petty game (systemic suffering) isn't enough, there is the contingent harm (statistical suffering) as in the case of Job, who apparently did all the right things. But, fuck it right?

It's easy to think you can make a choice for other people when you think you can, and even easier when you really can, but is it right? This is the real direction of the discussion I think is being avoided. And as I stated it's not clear cut. You are not only denying the right of but also discriminating against the sadist masochist, which according to some I sexually identify as apparently. — Outlander

Wanting the unjust situation doesn't make it magically unjust. I am sure many a slave master wanted to keep slavery. Doesn't make it right. Their "right" to want slavery is negated. However, in a milder sense, this goes back to the idea of the "political agenda" of some "way of life" is favored above the injustice.

But my whole point is simply this: schopenhauer1 Thinks that certain impositions are "not bad enough" to impose. Things become bad enough to impose above a certain level of "inescapability". Point is, it is possible to lead a happy life, or at least one that the individual thinks is worthwhile. And also, that life will be just as inescapable as one full of suffering. So by shope's standard, even a life you know will be good (by a utilitarian standard, or any other) would be wrong to impose from the outset. But that's ridiculous, no? — khaled

But you asked about Utopia.. In this case:

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that. — khaled

So is it Utopia or not? Are there dire consequences of not doing X?

Ok, now another question, would having a child in a utopian society, where there is 0 suffering be wrong? — khaled

Can you define utopia here? What are the implications as far as dire circumstances if no X?

But if he is happy the whole argument breaks apart because antinatalism presumes the unhappy misery of your offsprings. You accomplished nothing with your "happy slave". — Wheatley

Oh Wheatgrass, no no. You can have an unjust situation and have someone enjoy their life. Precisely why my argument is more than the simplicity you deem it as. It is hard for some people to wrap their heads around an unjust situation that people can still feel happy subjective states. Someone who feels joy despite X activity that's Y (bad/unjust) doesn't mean that X activity is a good state of affairs.

What's funny about this is there is a strong Judeo-Christian connotation to your stance, and as such I'm inclined to agree but in a way you would most likely dislike. The story in Genesis is Adam and Eve had all the food they could possibly desire, but because they chose sin (injustice), they condemned mankind to hard labor. And here we are today, arguing about why we aren't still in the garden of Eden and how unjust (sinful) the world is. So there you go, I agree with you. — Derrick Huestis

I think there are a lot of metaphors in Genesis, if one allows it to be read that way. Ever read E.M Cioran's The Temptation to Exist?