Read Husserl.

There is no problem. Nothing refers to absence. Kant did a pretty good job of highlighting this in terms of noumenon.

Nothing exists ionly in a ‘negative’ sense not a positive one. So when you frame the term as what think is in a ‘positive’ sense you are just fooling yourself and others as well it seems. You may as well ask about thr existence of ‘colourlessness’ or ‘emptiness’.

So you think a modern Luddite (mor form of one) is one that attempts to recuperate nature? In what ways may this return jobs to people? I get that taking down dams can serve ‘nature’ but how will that replenish the workforce?

Thanks for the answer. Bye bye

I continually work to enunciate existential ontological precepts in the plainest possible language. — quintillus

Is this sarcasm or stupidity?

The actual Luddite activity lasted less than a decade and the real important movement was the workers movement, trade unions etc. — ssu

They had the same concerns though didn’t they?

Plain English might help you out if you want a sensible response to whatever that is meant to mean.

I guessed. If you were trying to say what I stated above you failed to get it across clearly. I just thought about what may or may not be the underlying thought/idea of what you were thinking/saying.

Note: Satre was a dickhead imo.

I have a feeling what you are getting at (albeit in a round about manner) is that agreed rules set out by people have limited jurisdiction … meaning in smaller communities people can negotiate and trade effectively all under the umbrella of common ‘rules’/‘laws’ that are somewhat pliable, whereas once we begin to talk about greater numbers of people over greater distances and areas the ‘meaning’ of the ‘rules’/‘laws’ falls away into the distance for most.

The ‘ignorance’ of laws/rules makes people vulnerable to persecution. So ‘law,’ aimed at millions of peoples across thousands of miles, will inevitably result in chaos.

Desiring not to have desires is still ‘desire’.

I generally avoid/shun anyone who adheres to any ism with rigidity and persistence.

As a general rule it helps to pursue ‘pleasure’ where you do not expect to find it and measure the lasting ‘pleasure’ gained through work and commitment. Advice given though is usually due to one’s own failings in following it! :D

Just to be clear … I am interested in this from an anthropological and psychological perspective. The question can be asked about whether or not someone may or may not be regarded as a ‘philosopher,’ an ‘artist’ or some other such title/label/whatever.

I have strong opinions about who I would call and artist just like I would about what I would call art. I am quite willing and open to except that other people will undoubtedly use these terms differently to me and that at the end of the day is doesn’t really matter as long as we understand each other enough not to degrade, belittle or abuse one another (with exceptions therein too of course!).

Should I care is someone calls themselves ‘gay’ or ‘Brian’? I have no reason to care therefore the ‘should’ is irrelevant to me. If someone ‘demands’ that I address them as such and such I am far less likely to comply because I have certain ‘anarchistic’ tendencies - it is more about the context than the ‘demand’/‘request’.

Note: I do find it peculiar how some people ‘request’ somethings and then act ‘abused’ when such a ‘request’ is denied. If something is genuinely ‘requested’ it should be done so with the expectation of a refusal (depending on the request and the explanation of the person being asked of).

It depends and there are exceptions. That just about sums up reasonable social interactions I think.

My point was you assume it is a yes/no answer? As always ‘it depends,’ and even then it may be revealed that to declare what ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be done is in error in and of itself.

Should we police thoughts and beliefs? Or more to the point CAN we and to what degree? That is what I read in the question of ‘should’.

The problem word loaded into the question is ‘should’.

We are all far more alike than we like to think we are. I sometimes wish we embraced this more than we seem to at times, yet still I am far more scared of mobs rather than singular persons.

He is certainly entertaining if nothing else.

Either you are not really taking this seriously or you hve some kind of strange mental block.

Anyway, bye bye. You just did away with any future interaction from myself and, I strongly suspect, many MANY others.

So you are asking a redunant question.

If you are framing certain kinds of burden as unnecessary and then asking people to name an unnecessary burden that is necessary … well, you can see the problem.

I would add that it is also better to burden some people with somethings and others with other things to lessen the burden for both - each being more or less accustomed to said ‘things’. As an extreme example one might ask someone to kill for food and in this circumstance some people are more able to carry this burden than others whilst if the tsk was different those more able to handle the burden of killing would be less able to deal with other tasks.

So ‘that person’ (as you put it) is not society at large nor a community. The individual exists as ‘part of’ not ‘apart from’.

So,

Would you be okay if someone went around causing unasked for burdens upon people and with no reason tied to mitigating a dire circumstance for that person? — schopenhauer1

It depends. As for examples of circumstances I just laid out the frame work for endless examples of this. It was not difficult.

X states an apple is an apple then claims that an apple is an apple.
Y asks what the point of this is.

That is a basic breakdown of the exchange we have had.

So, YES an ‘unecessary burden’ is ‘unnecessary’ … what is or is not considered as necessary or unnecessary is a matter of opinion. Specific examples can be expanded upon and explored via hypothetical scenarios. The abstracted the scenario is from reality the lower the resolution.

From a purely ‘natalist’ perspective there are undoubtedly situations where one ca argue that it is not particularly viable to have children and others where it is. ‘Necessity’ used in this realm is a slippery term.

No dude, that's not how ethics works. If you want to debate meta-ethics, cool, but not what this particular argument is about. — schopenhauer1

There is nothing here then. Just you expressing an opinion.

If something is unnecessary it is unnecessary. It depends. Not much to talk about then. We could go back and forth proposing various theoretical scenarios and argue why one is necessary and another is not … so what?

Obviously if you define something as unjustified it is unjustified. Some given ‘burden’ that is ‘unnecessary’ is an extremely abstract proposition.

You are not really saying anything. I know the point stems from some extreme antinatalist stance so I am safe to guard against it and prod you to provide some actual reasoning that is not merely an empty opinion.

‘Harm’ is a term that has relative meaning. ‘Wrong’ too. It depends. Fin.

It would depend on the circumstances. There is no ‘wrong’ done just because I am burdened with something. There are circumstances where I would personally call it ‘wrong’ though.

The statement that is it flat out wrong to burden anyone with anything is ridiculous.

Your opinion. You have to accept you are expressing an opinion here rather than offering an iron cast argument that backs up your opinion.

It is ‘wrong’ in your opinion. It is not justified in your opinion.

I cannot really take your opinion that seriously. Yet if you are expressing this as if it is a solid position to hold and holds logical weight, alongside being justifiable, I will just keep saying ‘no’ until you give something other than raw subjective opinions.

At the end of the day this is what it boils down too. That and the difficulty of trying to ‘measure’/‘rate’ suffering and balancing such out against probability and such. I think we all accept that suffering is a necessary part of living. If one truly wishes to eradicate ALL suffering then extinguishing ALL life would be the best route to take … only a zealot would go down that road though.

I think people have problems with it due to low resolution understanding and/or because fanatics of antinatalism also possess low resolution views.

As a thought experiment it has value. As an ethical template it is both irrelevant and contrary.

It is a positive philosophy that says no to suffering and false hope. — Andrew4Handel

Just like many a tyrant has claimed on the past. Ironically they pursue obliteration and/or various forms and extensions of human suffering rather than tempering them. An aim with an absolute solution is always fanatical and often antithetical to its proposed purpose.

Nations don’t actually exist in a physical sense. You scenario does a decent job of bringing this to people’s attention … or does it? I will have to read responses above mine.

@Benj96 A SLIGHT exaggeration maybe. It simply depends con whether or not one is fanatical about any proposed philosophical position.

There is a significant use in contemplating how your actions effect others and your personal motivations for having children.

People value that which confirms what they believe. They call this ‘truth’.

The gamer’s dilemma was created in 2009 by the philosopher Morgan Luck and boils down to the basic argument that if in and of itself virtual murder in video games like the kind in GTA is morally permissible because no one is actually being harmed then in and of itself virtual pedophilia and rape in video games must be morally permissible also for the same reason. — Captain Homicide

As I cannot read the article a couple of caveats … ‘virtual’ anything comes in degrees and levels. Games are not meant to simulate violence accurately.

I would argue they are ‘okay’ if low resolution representations. Context is also VERY important.

I don't think that is realistic, but if we live in a complete utopia where even the human condition is not its own worst enemy (boredom leading to more strife), sure. — schopenhauer1

Again. Imposing your view onto others. You are fairly unique in your pessimism.

I wouldn't want to burden people to get to a utopia though. — schopenhauer1

Of course. You hate guilt/responsibility. You are not willing to do mar your perfect soul.

There exists states of affairs where no people are burdened. — schopenhauer1

Yes. This is called extinction. Life without burdens is NOT life. You are imagining something impossible over and over (even ‘rights’ of people who have not been born!) and acting like it is perfectly fine to do so … why do you have this mere notion?

I have never heard of anyone being imprisoned for planning to kill someone who does not exist. People who do not exist have no burdens and those that do have burdens. Is this hard for you to grasp?

Okay, let me put it like this. Because YOU say something is unnecessary it does not make it so. Something being ‘unnecessary’ is not necessarily ‘wrong’ either. Imposing some ‘burden’ on someone can be done with good intent yet still almost certainly result in a negative, just as some ‘relief’ can result in a negative.

As a hypothetical it is a point worth exploring privately. How do I feel about having a potential child in terms of the ‘burdens’ it will bring them. I am completely fine about that. It is necessary for life (which I am fond of). If you are talking about projecting this into the future (some imaginary being to be born) then are you willing to project further and admit it is necessary to have children to continue human life? Or would you rather robots produced children to maintain human populations to make you feel better about inflict the gift of life upon the world?

I do like the hypothetical of all people living a good life whilst one suffers utterly and eternally. That makes you think about how powerful an influence ethics can have over something previously deemed ideal/good.

The topic is whether or not it is moral to unnecessarily burden someone. — schopenhauer1

To repeat. Loaded question. Clearly if something is unnecessary it is unnecessary.

Teaching and learning are ‘burdens’. They are necessary ‘burdens’. Think of a courtroom where someone is being sentenced for committing murder … the judge takes into account the circumstances before sentencing there is not a universal sentence for the crime of murder because ‘it depends’ on the situation.

Someone imposing burden X on someone for reason Y is nothing to go off. It is like saying person X committed crime Y then asking whether or not it is ‘just’ to send them to prison for 20 years. It makes no sense to argue against or for this sentence as we have no idea what it is we are talking about.

Then it does not matter. If there is not ethical quandary then why bother gesticulating about it?

It is perfectly justifiable to have children for people who wish to, see it as mutually beneficial and/or want to. There, no ‘morals’ involved whatsoever.

Is it justifiable to create unnecessary burdens? That is a ridiculously loaded question but you have already used the term ‘necessary’ to describe the ‘burden’. If you had asked to what degree is it justified to creat burdens for others then you have a chance of a reasonable discussion. If that it what was meant I can only answer with ‘it depends’.

Because we don’t attend to the obvious unless there is a reason to. I pay no heed to how I inhale or exhale … except now I am doing just that. ‘To Question’ is probably best replaced with ‘To Ken’.

It depends what is meant by ‘doubt’. I think it is fair to say anything in direct conscious attention is being ‘questioned’ to some degree. Otherwise it would not be held consciously as some given item.

If not having children amounts to 'avoiding responsibility' that implies we have a responsibility to procreate - I would disagree with that. — Tzeentch

It doesn’t imply that. You read that into the words I wrote.

I also dislike the characterization of people as fearful, 'refusing to live', 'zombie state of existence' for asking the question - I think those amount to little more than thinly-veiled personal attacks. — Tzeentch

Nothing thinly veined about it. It was a direct attack on someone espousing the idea that life is merely to be viewed as a ‘burden’.

And it is a little ironic, when in the next sentence you say this about procreation — Tzeentch

I never used the term ‘procreation’ once. I merely stated that it is highly questionable (repugnant if genuine) to claim it is ‘selfish’ to have children. Does this ‘imply’ that it is selfless to not have children and/or a morally superior stance?

As for the claim to be looking out for humans (that do not exist) and assuming that if you view this position as ideal - which I would doubt greatly even if you insisted.

In my view, there's nothing self-serving about it, considering the above-mentioned dilemma. — Tzeentch

Avoiding responsibility is basically what I think he is referring to. No responsibilities means you cannot be blamed for anything or have the ‘burden’ of guilt.

Actual LIVING is not a ‘burden’. Life is an assault of problems and you frame these ‘problems’ is quite often due to personal attitudes. Attitudes can be altered.

We could all be paralysed by the idea of stepping foot outside fearing some calamity may fall upon another. The very same can be argued for NOT stepping outside. Being paralysed by fears, guilts or whatever is to refuse to live … it is akin to performing a zombie state of existence where you abscond from any sense of responsibility and dress it up as ‘ethical’.

Needless to say I think it is a faulty position to hold. I should add that having a child is not a choice anyone should make lightly. Equally so, it is certainly not a ‘selfish’ ploy although it has countless positives with the responsibility it brings. Only someone evil would purposely bring a life into this world and focus on ‘burdening’ such a life rather than focusing on the potential for joy and engagement in the world.

It has been addressed by others well enough I think. It depends on whether you wanted to talk about transgenderism or Motte and Bailey in particular I guess. I assumed it was the latter.

When the only value we share in common is the value of the dollar, and the bottom line is "how much something cost", it is as deadly for a nation as brain cancer is deadly to humans. — Athena

Yes. Thankfully not everyone is swayed by the belief in monetary value above all else. When it comes to the US (looking in from the outside) it does appear to hold more sway over there than in Europe. There are other differences too, and I believe it is mostly connected to a stronger sense of patriotism (which I personally dislike).