Good. — Wheatley

A lot of things get overlooked when you do that. Your response is then stick fingers in ears.

It's good enough for me. :cool: — Wheatley

And you ignored my response. No problems if you ignore them.

I rather not.
^^^ — Wheatley

So just borrow another poster's response? Weak..

But anyways, I responded to him in kind explaining how a slave can be happy on a daily level, but be in an unjust situation.. The slave has a right to be happy, but that doesn't change his situation as unjust. Two things can be going on. I know, crazy.

That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life. — Wheatley

See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread.

It is a complex issue. — Wheatley

So the issue I am discussing right now is the unjust situation of the de facto fact of an inescapable set of challenges that cannot be opted out without dire consequences (death, starvation, free-riding, dying in the wilderness, homelessness etc.).

Now all you have to do is pass a law forbidding the public from having kids. Good luck! — Wheatley

Simply a moral stance not a political policy. I used veganism as an example. I'm sure many vegans would want people to stop eating meat. Doesn't mean that will be a political mandate any time soon.

As a moral imperative?. — Wheatley

To prevent injustice taking place, yes.

This is simply an oversimplification of the human condition. — Wheatley

Now who is making it complicated :wink:.

So basically you actively have a vasectomy or are otherwise willfully abstinent. That's cool. Just don't try to come at me with your legal papers and ribbons to mandate the same. — Outlander

An ethical stance doesn't mean political force. Vegans would love if people stopped eating meat.. Doubt that will become a political mandate.

It's kind of of ironic almost. By not ensuring your most deeply held belief is prolonged beyond the span of your own life by facing your fear or perhaps crossing into your taboo, you ensure and seal the fate that it will never happen. I wish I had the time to write a novel, this is as good as it gets. Pure gold. — Outlander

Not sure what you mean here.

Then I suppose I question the point of this entire discussion, to simply point out life is unfair? I can accept that proposition. — Derrick Huestis

Yes, life is "unfair".. I would say "unjust".. unfair brings about certain connotations.. In this case, I am highlighting the pervasive feature of life we call "work" or "participating in an economic system as a laborer". This cannot be bypassed without starvation, death, etc. It is unjust to give someone the "gift" of a no-opt game [set of challenges] whereby one must do X,Y, Z to survive. It is an intractable problem. It is not changed by a restructuring of the economic system, it is a feature of life as we know it. Thus, to protest, to perform a metaphorical "strike" against it, don't put more people into the situation in the first place.

All I see here is wild and vague abstraction, philosopher talk, with no relevance to our sex lives, and how we choose to raise a family.
unjust
— schopenhauer1
Another ridiculously abstract philosphical concept... — Wheatley

In what world does, "Do not have kids" count as philosophically abstract? Pretty concrete to me. Unjust in that the person cannot escape the work-game without dire consequences (death, starvation, etc.).

To prevent the suffering of X, X must first exist. You claim to prevent the suffering of X, but X does not exist. So whose suffering are you preventing? — NOS4A2

What if a baby was guaranteed to be born into a lava pit and you can convince the parent not to do that? You would, correct? The thing is you are not seeing life as properly that volcano.

I believe people can prevent future outcomes, I just don’t believe you can prevent suffering and injustice without other people involved. The question of “whose suffering are you preventing” still remains. — NOS4A2

Read all my previous responses to this. You should be able to quote it now like an English teacher to Shakespeare.

There is no "trivial" about it. If you reject the modern system, a lot of work goes into keeping food safe without the modern practices of having a house with electricity and plugging in a refrigerator. And once again, dealing with the end process, we either need running water and sewer or we deal with a lot of work disposing of waste and cleaning ourselves to prevent disease. To solve all these problems we have created a modern system which yes, requires work, but that work doesn't disappear if you leave modern society, it instead becomes harder. We have made working to live easier, not harder, hence you have the liberty to argue about working to survive. I somehow don't think this is a conversation the starving poor of the world would ever think to have. — Derrick Huestis

Why do you suppose I am suggesting we change our system?

Why should we continue discussing this? — Wheatley

See my responses to NOS then previously. I'm not bringing the non-identity problem up yet again.

Added more..

To go further.. anything short of preventing future people is basically saying
"I have a political agenda.. I WANT to see a way of life perpetuated.. and I don't care that this future person's personhood and any X injustice/suffering entailed is considered a furtherance for this agenda". Ends justify the means.. because no one THINKS about the means carefully enough.

Unfortunately differing policies or systems don't get rid of the underlying problem itself. That's where a lot of the disagreement is going to come from.. People may think'..."If we just tweak this or that or overhaul all of these things.. then problem goes away".. There's always going to be the problem of work though. People will THEN justify the injustice by saying work is necessary and good for people and thus THERE lies the political agenda being enacted on others.

This is why someone like @Bitter Crank and I will always disagree :smile:. His kind of answer will be "overthrow/reform the system!" but the underlying implication is that "WORK IS STILL GOOD FOR THE SOUL!!".. and thus he won't mind throwing more grist in the mill.. more workers..more political agenda being enacted for others.. My policy bypasses all of that by simply not starting it.. No one misses out too.

I think we'll end the conversation right here. — Wheatley

What did you expect the answer to be? Of course my main answer of the injustices of life is to prevent future children. That is how we prevent it.

I do not require you to do so. But I will state it anyways. You’re preventing no suffering and no injustice. Your behavior effects no one but yourself, so as far as ethics go, it’s all self-concerned and self-congratulatory. — NOS4A2

We went over this haven't we? I have responded to this haven't I? You don't believe people can prevent future outcomes. Essentially your (weak) argument is basically.. "I don't believe in conditionals.. wah wah wah". But even other forms of ethics relies on "Could happen IF.."

But I don't. Who are these masters who place me into economic systems? — Wheatley

C'mon, you're full of shit if you don't know that I'm going to say that potential parents should prevent their future children from entering into it by simply not having them. Injustice averted.

But what's the alternative? Is the government to serve all our needs? I would love to see a technocratic utopia. — Wheatley

Not putting anyone into the economic system in the first place. You should know my answer by now...

Its nice to see that you also identify this injustice!...and yes consciously me and my wife took the decision not have children for this exact reason and I am amazed that other people also see that as a solution to this ethical dilemma. — schopenhauer1

Glad to see! It sounds though that under different economic conditions (socialist/communist/anarcho-communist?) you WOULD reproduce though? My position would be that no economic system by de facto nature of being an inescapable condition/system/phenomenon (unless dire consequences) is going to "solve" this problem. By the very nature of having to exist in a world of scarcity and how our bodies survive, we would need some sort of inescapable system which is the injustice. It's not that this particular economic system is unjust but any economic system by de facto circumstances of what living entails.

You could never point to this “someone else” you’re saving from this so-called injustice, because they do not exist. In other words, you’re not preventing people from being put in these circumstances. You’re not preventing pain and suffering and injustice at all. You cannot save imaginary people. — NOS4A2

I am not explaining my objection yet again to this kind of argument.

It is technically work to put the food in your mouth, chew, and swallow. And then sometimes food has consequences on our digestive system and it is additional work to resolve the stomach or intestinal problems. Point being, your problem here seems to be that we are human, we can't get away from work of some type. — Derrick Huestis

So two things..
Point 1) As I asked before, can you please let me know that one can make a distinction between working-to-survive and a kind of "trivial" work of lifting a hand (unless disabled or other caveat)?

Point 2) You bring up the larger point of the injustice of the human condition. I have argued that many atime.. Schopenhauer's main argument of striving and unrest of existence. I am focusing on a sub-set of inescapable (without dire consequences) situations.

What if we're all actually reincarnated from a truly worse place, and this is sort of our proving grounds to see if we've learned our lesson, plus a few legacy punishments here and there, we simply just don't remember it by divine power yet the nature that originally damned us, rather that led to the actions that did, remain ie. our vices, bad habits, negative inclinations, etc. and the point of this life is to overcome them to truly escape this 'unjust and harmful' situation, one that can not be escaped, perhaps even perpetuated by simply not having kids. Sure you or I don't know that, but not long ago a young man just like you looked out toward the edge of an ocean shore and dismissed the possibility of anything beyond what he could see too. We'll call him Frederick. Please don't be Frederick. — Outlander

Right...Not much to say with this. Even in that scenario not bringing more people into the world would effectively end more people coming into the world.

Gotcha, but wouldn't this be a distraction from the point that injustice can happen whether people view it as a blessing and like it or not?

By that standard, eating is unjust. — Derrick Huestis

Indeed. He that doesn't work should not eat. — baker

Yes, now you are getting it.. Know of Schopenhauer's position on the matter?

But also, do you see a difference between food that was absolutely always available no matter what and the set of challenges of work to get the food (possibly what baker was alluding to).

I was actually furthering your point. — baker

Ok, can you just summarize your main point in a simple paragraph then?

A good essay on anti-work is Bob Black's The Abolition of Work. — werther

Yes I think I've read parts of it long ago.. I believe he is for anarchism of some sort. I still don't think it solves the inescapable work problem. As I've stated here:

However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then. — schopenhauer1

While many people will eagerly criticize anyone who is in any way pessimistic about life as such, they are quite unable (or just unwilling?) to persuade them otherwise. They'll even go so far as to claim that something is genetically or otherwise physiologically wrong with the pessmist and dismiss them. — baker

This is just a weirdly veiled ad hominiem on me.. And doubly so here:

Are you slothful by nature, but have managed to overcome your sloth philosophically? — baker

How is it slothful? What do you even mean? Why does that even matter? Is this relevant to anything? Can you provide some context to this odd remark?

What makes this post frustrating is you are not paying attention to the argument. The persuasion here would be that it is okay to procreate people in X circumstances (like needing to work) that lead to dire circumstances if it is not followed. Is that just? Obviously my position is that is unjust, whatever people feel subjectively about work post-facto, like a happy slave scenario. You may not convince the happy slave (worker) they are in some way exploited, but that can be the case non-the-less and the non-recognition of this has no bearing on the injustice.

However, the weird ad hominem way you are making your argument seems like this point itself is not relevant. So what is your fuckin point? That clarification my help first, unless you are too slothful to fully make one.

Apparently there's something worth talking about and promoting, that is your version of the truth. What makes your version greater than that of another? Something of value to you, that doesn't warrant life, whereas something of value to another does warrant life. You see the dilemma an observer faces when trying to process your argument.

You sound downtrodden. What makes you so certain life isn't like a sandbox or a community pool, just because you showed up when it happens to be full of piss, doesn't mean it wasn't once before and never can be again, despite those who preach the same. — Outlander

Because in one instance (the antinatalist), no new person is put in an unjust (and harmful) situation. In the other instance a new person is put in an unjust and harmful situation. As my example of the happy slave shows, you can have unjust situations despite people's subjective reporting post-facto.

Anything that does NOT recognize the injustice of this situation simply has their own political agenda.. They want to see X society/way of life enacted just because they think it's somehow "good" or "necessary" (when it is neither).

Food is not going to just rain down from the heavens and into your mouth, will it? Shelter isn't going to manifest itself as you need it, nor will it repair itself, even if you're fine with a cave you still have to search for one. What if it becomes too hot or too cold or arid or flooded? What will you defend yourself against the beasts of the Earth with and who will make and repair it? You can't avoid work with any economic model real or imagined. — Outlander

I'll just answer with what I said to someone else.

However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then. — schopenhauer1

Life as a game or otherwise not worth living is far from a new concept, though any biases can be identified by a truthful answer to a simple question: Have you never experienced a moment or period in your life you enjoyed and wish to repeat? — Outlander

This doesn't justify unjust positions on someone else's behalf (like putting others in a lifetime of X situation, like work, otherwise they die or other dire circumstances).

I personally don't see the need for work as wrong, — Derrick Huestis

This is where I'd disagree then. It seems unjust to put others in a circumstance X whereby X means if they do not do X, they will die or other dire consequences. Solution, don't put more situations of X in the world (don't procreate and thus don't put more workers in the world in the first place).

As you know, I can never follow your injustice angle because when the supposed injustice occurs there is never any victim of it. At no point in the continuum of procreation is anyone forced to do something against their will.

So I think it’s wrong to say someone is placed into this situation, as if taken from the city of god and positioned in the world by the whims of someone else. It presupposes a different existence. Rather, in the world is where we begin. Each of us start and end here. There is no other state of affairs.

I find the whole antinatalist project, at least insofar as it makes ethical claims, to be humbug on those grounds. There are many reasons to not procreate, but to not procreate in order to protect a person from suffering and pain and depression is nonsense. — NOS4A2

This is simply self-servingly convenient ignorance.

Someone is placed in this situation as if taken from the city of god and positioned in the world by the whims of someone else.

That is more accurate.

There is no difference if the injustice is caused by the de facto situations of being alive in the world as a human animal or by the hands of a person. That is the big leap that's hard for people to understand. Do not put people in these circumstances in the first place. Why is that so hard? Can a human prevent this for someone else?

Also, why the hell would it matter if everyone started from the same unjust position? It's still unjust, just for everyone, instead of one particular set of people. Global antinatalism doesn't discriminate.

So above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. That's your current criteria?

No I'm not going to ask you what "dire" means and pretend that suicide does not qualify as a "dire" consequence, we can agree that it does. But just want to know if this is the current criteria by which you judge when an imposition is ok or not. — khaled

Is it really veering from what I've described in past posts?
Unnecessary
Inescapable
Other people take more due care

The inescapable can further be examined (at least in the case of work) to mean -If not done, leads to dire circumstances.

The best way to understand what work is within modern human societies is to check the Greek word.
Δουλειά=work
Δουλεία=slavery.
the only difference is at the intonation of the word.Within human societies the act of working was always a way for a third person to gain profits from other people's efforts. — Nickolasgaspar

Noted, thank you. However, I think it is a human condition. Hunting-gathering or anarchism or communism or whatever non-industiral-capital form won't change the condition of the needs of survival. It is life itself that puts (de facto) us all in a position of need, and work is one of the biggest (de facto) inescapable set of needs that cannot be overcome without dire consequences. You don't want more people put into this injustice, don't procreate more people (workers) then.

But that's patently false. It is not inescapable. You've cited multiple ways to escape it: — khaled

Stop taking it out of context...

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

I just wanted to add that even though you don't write much, when you do, I usually enjoy how you elucidate the human predicament. You seem to describe well the Schopenhauerian understanding of the world, which of course makes it pleasant to read for me.

Why is it you think that people often look away from these ideas? How is the injustice of putting someone else in the de facto nature of working-to-survive, not realized?

One of my main ideas lately is that people make a huge fallacy with how they view pessimism which goes something like:

"All injustices are immediately realized easily." As this injustice shows, it is not always the case that people catch on about what is indeed an injustice in this world.

You can also opt out of life if you really wanted. So "inescapable" doesn't seem to be it (in quotes because neither is inescapable). What else? Or are you saying a certain difficulty of escape is required for something to be wrong to impose? — khaled

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. The very call to not participate in something anymore is the very right taken away by the DE FACTO situation of the game itself. That is to say, sure, you can opt out of work but the consequences will eventually be starvation, homelessness, hacking it in the wilderness and dying a slow death, MAYBE free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. Of course everyone cannot free ride otherwise even more dire consequences for the whole system of (used) workers. You don't have to worry about any of those dire consequences by not participating in this thread. However, a worker who decides they are done working cannot afford such luxury.

What's funny is the very fact that this is an obvious truth makes people think it is still okay to enact on others :rofl:. Just more political agenda. — schopenhauer1

I agree entirely. Frankly I think your posts are the most valuable and insightful on this forum. I have nothing further to add but to agree. It gives me a sense of community knowing others out there feel the exact way I do as well. — Inyenzi

:up: Thank you Inyenzi. The same for your posts too.

The problem is of course - I was borne out of my mothers womb into this world having perpetual biological needs that REQUIRE work (on threat of violent death - starvation, thirst, violent by other animals, etc) to maintain. There is no choice. It is, once embodied (or as I think of it - once humanized), we work to address our needs until we die. — Inyenzi

And in this regard you do seem anti-work in the idea that it is an injustice. Of course, you bring up the larger and deeper existential problem of striving at all (pace Schopenhauer) here:

That is to say - no me, no pain and therefore no work to mitigate it. If I were never embodied there is no need to drive trucks to mitigate of unstructured time in the first place. No womb, no father whom ejaculates within, no conception, no child, no seeing the whole embodied striving played out in the next generation, no more work, no more perpetuation of the family, social, or political structure that ones forefathers cared about so much.

No humans - no pain nor suffering. — Inyenzi