I suspect we have insufficient information and brainpower to make the correct decisions consistently.

Good. :up:

Do you think you're any closer to an answer to your question?

Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.

I've missed your thought experiments. Remember the Willy Wonka one? :grin:

For example - a girl is 17 years old. Her brother is twice her age. When the girl is 23 years old, what will be the age of the boy? — Down The Rabbit Hole

He was 34 when she was 17. If she is 23 now then six years have past. I'll let someone else do the math. — Average

I'm not sure why anyone would use this as some kind of sign of intelligence. — Average

The math is a trick sending you in the wrong direction. All you need to know is that if she's 23 and he's twice her age, he'll be 46.

It's this ability to piece things together that is the essence of intelligence.

Training is still required. Very intelligent people are not likely to mentally reinvent the wheel and everything that followed. Even if they could, it would take entirely too much time. A 19th century genius cannot open a 21st century computer and instantly make sense of it. — Bitter Crank

Knowledge and intelligence are often conflated. People would disbelieve that anyone from the middle-ages could be as intelligent as we are today.

The correct answer to what? What do you mean by "correct"? What do you mean by "answer"? without some kind of context, even if only hypothetical, I can't really understand you. Can you provide an example? Please forgive me if my questions comes across as pedantic. — Average

It would have to be an objectively correct answer. For example - a girl is 17 years old. Her brother is twice her age. When the girl is 23 years old, what will be the age of the boy?

Unless I'm mistaken it would then be impossible for any intelligent person to be unable to "determine the correct answer" because this is by definition the very essence of intelligence. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your position or the relevant information. — Average

It's the ability to work things out or determine the correct answer. This ability can be possessed from a low to high degree.

Would you mind explaining to me what you mean by "work things out"? — Average

Determine the correct answer.

But what is intelligence? — Average

Words have many definitions. This is why statutes have a definition section (at least here in Blighty).

Is this your definition of intelligence? — Average

Effectively. This is more or less what IQ tests do; test our "ability to work things out".

There are a multitude of measures of intelligence; which is why IQ tests are not dispositive.

One of my favourite measures would be to the effect of "the ability to work things out".

So I mean atheism as a positive claim. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's how they use the word in academic works apparently. Causing lots of debate over the correct definition.

Flew put his faith in his own powers of argumentation, and they proved somewhat treacherous in the end. — unenlightened

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I suspect his late father being a minister may have influenced his change of heart. It is kind of poetic that the "most notorious atheist" finally found his deeply religious father was right all along.

The word "atheism" can be substituted for the word "theism". — ZzzoneiroCosm

Does absence of belief entail a burden of proof?

Further, this is not an objection towards God's existence because perhaps souls can prove that. Instead, this is an objection to the premise that fine-tuning is probable under theism; hence the fine-tuning argument is unsound. — lish

You pre-empted my primary objection. In defeating the fine-tuning argument as evidence for God's existence, your argument would provide evidence for God's existence (souls).

I agree with @Cuthbert. While it may not be likely that God would create a universe fine-tuned for the existence of material life, it doesn't mean they haven't.

However, I have a different opinion on the definition of the experience machine. According to the definition, people who plug in into the machine can and only can experience pleasure. — Howard

Conclusion： Experience machines cannot exist. — Howard

You mean your version of the experience machine cannot exist?

Still, I think there are many examples of pleasures that are not countering a negative experience. Sex seems like an obvious one.

The other DNA based organisms don't have nerves and brains which are responsible for the transfer and experience of suffering. In any event, more plants are fed to the animals you eat than you would eat directly.

At least you're feeling guilty about it. Most people go straight to rationalisation.

In Nietzsche view the effect outweighs the intention. For example, you see a shady guy walking around and decide to drop an anvil on their head cartoon style, your intention was to hurt them but the effect was that no one robbed. (For this say they were a known robber that had been at large) Should you be punished for the intention or rewarded for the outcome? — CallMeDirac

A lot of UK criminal offences require there to be intent. It needs to be punished as a deterrent.

"Neutral" state of affairs might be better than bad ones (such as harm), but they are also worse than good ones (such as happiness). In light of this, I do think that if it can be good to prevent harms, it can also be bad to prevent potential joys. — DA671

This makes sense to me. If we use "good" to mean better than the alternative, and "bad" to mean worse than the alternative, the axiological asymmetry must fail.

I think whether you accept the axiological asymmetry depends on whether you judge the morality of an action by its consequences.

If you judge non-existence by its consequences, it is neutral - no good or bad experienced. If not, your intuition could tell you that the absence of harm is a good, but the absence of benefit is not bad.

I am not denying it would be good if no one was experiencing pain. The point is that it would be good for someone, namely the person whose valuing of something constitutively determines that it has moral value. — Bartricks

Agreed. As you've said, moral rights and wrongs only exist in minds.

Benatar is assuming that there can be moral value in the absence of any and all valuers. And that makes no sense. — Bartricks

Is he not just proposing an argument and stimulating people's intuitions to gain support for it, just as we would? It is not clear that he is saying the AAA is objectively true.

es. The point, though, is that it would be good for someone.
Or are you asking if absence of pain would be good even if no one exists? In that case, no - for the reasons given in the OP. — Bartricks

It feels right to say that non-existence is neither good or bad; it is neutral. However, if everyone stopped reproducing, it feels acceptable to say "it is good there will be no more people to experience pain".

Absent pain is indeed good, but it is always good for someone, just as pleasure is good when it is good for someone. — Bartricks

You could say "it is good there is no one experiencing the pain"?

If memory serves, I heard that a background check must be done when buying in any state, and you cannot buy if you are a felon, domestic abuser, or mentally unstable? I guess this is what's called a federal law - it cannot be ignored by the states?

Your OP says even those with a bad life are compelled to avoid death, and we would even saw off our arm to do so — Down The Rabbit Hole

No it doesn't. Sheesh. It says that we have 'reason to' avoid death. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Not 'will'. Reason to. Not 'will'. Not 'desire to'. Not 'fear'. Reason to. — Bartricks

And does that reason not compel us to avoid death? Your wording in the OP is "bids us".

I replied pointing out that this is because we are hardwired to do so — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yeah, irrelevant. False. And irrelevant. — Bartricks

Do you believe in evolution? It's basic science that our genes have been naturally selected to avoid things that kill us.

you then responded to others and me that it is "intuitive" and "self-evident" that we have reason to avoid death - I reiterated that it feels intuitive and self evident because of our hardwiring. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, false and irrelevant. It's called the genetic fallacy- the fallacy of thinking that if a belief or impression has a cause, then that automatically discredits the belief or impression. It works for any goddamn belief or impression of anything at all - so it's a really dumb argument. You keep making it. Draw the inference. — Bartricks

No, we've been over this; focus! It only undermines beliefs that have no reasoning apart from feeling self-evidently true.

THus, the reasonable conclusion is that death is a portal to hell. — Bartricks

This self-evident truth is starting to look more like religious faith.

I think truth-telling is overrated. Sam Harris seems to disagree: "In Lying, best-selling author and neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that we can radically simplify our lives and improve society by merely telling the truth in situations where others often lie. He focuses on "white" lies—those lies we tell for the purpose of sparing people discomfort—for these are the lies that most often tempt us. And they tend to be the only lies that good people tell while imagining that they are being good in the process".

Your OP says even those with a bad life are compelled to avoid death, and we would even saw off our arm to do so - I replied pointing out that this is because we are hardwired to do so, and that our hardwiring cannot be trusted in light of the fact it brought tortured souls here in the first place - you then responded to others and me that it is "intuitive" and "self-evident" that we have reason to avoid death - I reiterated that it feels intuitive and self evident because of our hardwiring.

I still have issue with your premises as set out on page 5:

1. If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, including circumstances in which our lives are already sub optimal in terms of their happiness to misery balance (up to a certain limit), the best explanation of this is that death harms us and harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse. — Bartricks

Let's cut out the middle bit, to make it easier for me to accept: "If we have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances, the best explanation is that death harms us and harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse".

As you have indicated that death would be best for those in agony, the "we" would only be the majority of people. Therefore death would only harm and permanently alter the condition of the majority of people for the worse.

2. We have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances etc. — Bartricks

The majority of people would have reason to avoid death under virtually all circumstances.

3. Therefore, death harms us by permanently altering our condition for the worse — Bartricks

Death would harm the majority of people by permanently altering their condition for the worse.

I think you are going to struggle to get your argument to work for me, as I would only see death as instrumentally bad, and you clearly believe it to be intrinsically bad.

I take it you are attempting to challenge 1 by arguing that as we can give an evolutionary story about how we might have come to 'believe'that we have reason to avoid dying, we do not in fact have reason to avoid dying. — Bartricks

No, I think there are reasons to avoid dying. I am arguing against trusting our feeling that it is self-evidently true that we should avoid dying - this feeling is at least as likely to be evolutionary programming as anything meaningful.

So your argument is actually - we have no reason to believe or do anything. As well as being obviously indefensible and itself unbelievable, it applies to any argument for anything. So, it is silly. You haven't engaged with my argument so much as rejected the whole project of arguing for anything. If that's what you are reduced to doing, then my argument is very strong. — Bartricks

Only stuff we believe to be self-evidently true is untrustworthy. Our urge to reproduce is a good example - except you didn't fall for that one.

@Bartricks

It's not controversial that we are evolutionarily hardwired to avoid death.

This is why it seems self-evidently reasonable to avoid it.

My view is that there are far too many guns of all kinds in the USA. However, they are here now -- at least 1 per person, averaging out the total supply, and there isn't any acceptable way to round them up. — Bitter Crank

What do you think outlawing guns (like the UK does) would do to the US murder rate?

And yet no one I know has ever known a person who was murdered, much less who was shot. What do you make of that? 55 years in this crime ridden city, and never even been pickpocketed. — Hanover

I'm guessing you're in one of the safest areas on Atlanta's crime map?

https://s3.amazonaws.com/crime-maps-aws.neighborhoodscout.com/atlanta-ga-crime-map.png

It's just sad you're allowing your DNA to control your beliefs. Especially considering that it's responsible for reproduction, the greatest con of all time.

In any event, doesn't your premise assume the conclusion? The premise that it is self-evidently reasonable to avoid death, assumes the conclusion that death is worse.

@Bartricks

No, I'm not getting it. Why is it reasonable to avoid death (save to avoid missing out on a good life and causing grief to our loved ones)?

The reason we avoid death is because of our selfish genes, same reason we reproduce.

No I don't think so. Our DNA wouldn't care about our miserable life thought, all it cares about is spreading.

Do you think you have reason to avoid death? — Bartricks

Yes, to avoid missing out on a good life, and to avoid causing grief to our loved ones.

Your point about the after-life potentially being worse is something I've gave serious thought about before. I see it as an equal possibility to the alternatives.

It's our DNA that compels us to desperately avoid death. And how can we trust our DNA when it's what's compelling us to drag poor souls into existence?

It may surprise some, but a majority of Americans do not own guns.

About 40% of Americans say they or someone in their household owns a gun, and 22% of individuals (about 72 million people) report owning a gun, according to surveys from Pew and Harvard and Northeastern. This figure has declined over time, down from 51% of gun-owning households in 1978. Gun purchases, however, have hit historic highs in recent years and during the COVID-19 pandemic. — Bitter Crank

On the contrary, 40% of households with guns is surprisingly high to me. From American movies, I would guess guns are rampant in the South, but uncommon in California and middle class area.

If you wanna know, murder rates may not give the complete picture because it counts only completed killings i.e. there's a dead person, a body count.

Why not look at attempted murder rates? I'm sure all countries are more or less the same on that score. Access to lethal weapons means the fatality rates are higher, exactly what the data in the OP reflects. — Agent Smith

Good idea. I might struggle to find the figures, but worth a go.

There are those within my state and my county that have had drastically different experiences though. — Hanover

I'd say - the stats for Atlanta show 20.2 murders per 100,000 people (more than 12 times that of London). Guns were used in 82% of the homicides.

And it's not that I live in walled community or among the rich and famous. I live in middle class suburban Atlanta. — Hanover

Not schmoozing with The Real Housewives of Atlanta? Even we on the other side of the Atlantic watch them. :lol:

Believe it or not, but I live in the US among many gun fanatics, and I have never known a person who was murdered. We can divide cultures and societies in many arbitrary ways. One of those are by political systems, which the OP does, by asking why things are the way they are in the US as a whole. If you divided it in other ways , as in those who I associate with, the murder rate is zero.

The question then is why is the murder rate where I reside is as low as Sweden's, but not too far from me, it's very different, despite the fact that we live in the same country under the same laws? I'm not the first to point out that there are two Americas, but it's probably like 5 or 6 or maybe more.

Don't misread anything I've said here to be some fucked up comment about violence being caused by race. It's not. My comments relate to class and the causes of the classist system. — Hanover

The gun laws are the same, or essentially the same, throughout the United States?

San Diego, El Paso, San Jose, Austin, Virginia Beach, and New York City don't have a significantly higher murder rate than London (the highest of these, New York, has almost double that of London). But Detroit, and New Orleans, have about 22 times the murder rate of London, and Baltimore 31. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I assume Detroit, New Orleans and Baltimore are some of the poorest areas in the United States?

If so, I am tempted to say the stark difference in murder rate is largely due to wealth inequality.