I never said that we couldn't have an illusion within an illusion à la The Truman Show. Jim Carrey's acting was superb. — TheMadFool

It's been a while since I've seen that film. With Jim Carrey worth a review.

Presumably, if base reality turns off the illusion, the illusions within that illusion go off too.

The possibility that reality could be an illusion is predicated on our inability to distinguish reality from illusion (deus deceptor, brain in a vat, simulation). In other words reality is, in every sense, identical to illusion. If so, it doesn't matter if we're in an illusion or reality, right? Both are, if you really think about it, one and the same thing. Were they not, the question, "are we in an illusion?" would never have seen the light of day so to speak. — TheMadFool

Except those in reality could turn off our illusion at any time. :grimace:

@David Pearce

As a negative utilitarian, I agree with (a version of) David Benatar's Axiological Asymmetry. — David Pearce

Which version don't you agree with?

@David Pearce

We understand enough, I think, to sketch out how experience below hedonic zero could be prevented in our forward light-cone. — David Pearce

What makes you think we understand enough to prevent suffering in the whole forward light cone?

To follow up on a question I asked on page 1, after reviewing the material, do you agree with Benatar's Axiological Asymmetry?

Right but presumably harm is weighted as what counts or matters here. — schopenhauer1

The crux of the alleged asymmetry lies in the status of the non-existent, but all that matters to the consequentialist is what would result if someone were to be brought into existence. As I've already highlighted, at least some of the asymmetry argument conclusions conflict with the consequences of giving birth.

While I am opposed to procreation, your path to getting there is impossible for me to follow.

Then how is it that we happen to have these two distinct words? — Banno

If this is the illusion, we wouldn't know the method/s the real world uses to produce it. As @Manuel said, it could be the dream of the third turtle down, in a world in which there are turtles all the way down.

There is a difference between being hit by a truck and having the illusion of being hit by a truck. — Banno

There may be a difference, but the subject/s of the illusion wouldn't know it. The illusion would be indistinguishable from reality for the subject/s.

As we cannot prove this is reality, and we cannot prove this is an illusion, I am thinking the odds are equal, but @Manuel made an interesting point:

Things looks like either we are in an infinite number of hypothetical worlds or in the real world. So it's not even that there's an equal chance of either being the case, there's an infinite number of options on one side and only one option on the other. — Manuel

We can argue over whether or not the absence of good should be defined as a downside to being unborn, but considering that that good would be experienced should they be born, to a consequentialist it wouldn't matter.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Not for a negative utilitarian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism — schopenhauer1

A NU or indeed anyone doesn't need the asymmetry to tell them that birth leads to suffering. The meat of the asymmetry is that the unborn are not being deprived, which would be no use to a consequentialist, as the consequence of not giving birth is absence of the good that would have been experienced if the unborn had been born.

No it can certainly be used by a consequentialist. The least amount of suffering is preventing birth, and there's no downside to the absence of good in reference to non-existence. — schopenhauer1

We can argue over whether or not the absence of good should be defined as a downside to being unborn, but considering that that good would be experienced should they be born, to a consequentialist it wouldn't matter.

Thanks for coming back and providing some reassurance that I'm not going crazy :wink:

Things looks like either we are in an infinite number of hypothetical worlds or in the real world. So it's not even that there's an equal chance of either being the case, there's an infinite number of options on one side and only one option on the other. — Manuel

Doesn't look likely we are in the real world then? :grimace:

The book is fine. I mean, I think it's good to put idealism back on the table. The main problem with the book has to do with him saying that science does not tell us about the nature of reality. But he relies on science to lead him to his idealism.

But I did not think the book terrible, even if it was not persuasive to me. You might like it, or not. — Manuel

Thanks.

A lot of the bad reviews might be people that don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think this is good reason for disliking a book though - I am happy with a book that is well written and challenges my worldview.

Thanks for commenting.

@David Pearce was defending the view that our perception of reality is fundamentally different to reality in his thread, and of course Hoffman wrote a whole book putting the case. The difference is that in their argument we are assuming we are in reality, it's just our perception of it that's illusory.

I was thinking of getting Hoffman's book a while back, but the reviews were terrible.

If a doctor said I have a better chance of surviving if I do what? If I do something that takes less steps than doing what is usually done? Is that more or less what you are getting at? — Manuel

Yes.

He'd have to give some evidence that the option with less steps actually improves my odds of surviving. If he doesn't then that argument carries no force. — Manuel

Ahh, but if we are in an illusion we have no evidence as to the steps that would be in the real world. So to make the thought experiment fair, all we have to rely on in both cases is the fact that there are fewer steps. If it isn't enough for us to believe that we're not going to die, why should it be enough for us to believe that we are in reality?

But that's the point, can you give me any evidence that an illusion makes some aspects of reality more plausible? — Manuel

No, all I can say is that the odds that we are in an illusion are similar to those that we are in reality. This is not a common view.

@schopenhauer1

In any event, the wording would only matter to deontologists. The asymmetry argument is of no use to a pure consequentialist?

I don't understand what you are getting at with the analogy. Illusion-based world or not, you'd still have 50% chance to die. The "less stepped involved argument" was merely an illustration of one problem: — Manuel

I was comparing the chances of this being reality to that of surviving the terminal illness.

"Less steps" aside, there is the same amount of evidence that this is reality as it being an illusion (zero).

So if the doctor said that you had a better chance than the standard 50% survival rate, solely on the basis that there are less steps involved in surviving, would this be enough for you to believe that you are not going to die? If not, it's equally not good enough reason to believe we are experiencing reality.

However, an illusion wouldn't have to share the same rules of logic as reality. The "less steps" argument could mean nothing in reality.

But that's the point. It could be all that and much more. But why add to our situation if something can be satisfactorily stated without recourse to further complications? I don't see how postulating an illusion can help clarify the status of reality. — Manuel

Yes, it's all could be. I suppose it helps us see that many of our assumptions may not be as likely as we think they are, and we should be open to the idea that our foundational beliefs could be wrong.

Likelihoods are based on evidence. When there is no evidence, where does that leave us? Certainly not at a 50/50. — Andrew F

It does if there is an equal amount of evidence. There is no evidence that this is an illusion, but there is also no evidence that this is reality (our experience as to its realness is not evidence, as it would be the same in an illusion).

@schopenhauer1

This seems right to me:

Have a child:
Risk of suffering- bad, risk of pleasure- good

Don't have a child:
Prevention of suffering- neutral, prevention of pleasure- neutral

not

Don't have a child:
Prevention of suffering - good, prevention of pleasure - neutral — khaled

As I say, if someone dies they are deprived of life's pleasure. Is it only different for the unborn because they are not someone? Because that is what @Benkei is saying.

Hi,

How did you discover antinatalism?

It's less probable, there are less step involved in thinking that this is "normal" reality vs. an illusion. — Manuel

(Assuming that our rules of logic are the same in the illusion and reality) I think that's the only reason reality is more probable - because there are less steps involved.

If a doctor told me that I have a terminal illness with a standard 50% survival rate but on this occasion it would be more because "there are less steps involved". This wouldn't be enough for me to believe that I wasn't going to die from it. Why should it be enough for us to believe that we are in reality?

Who cares? It's real enough. — khaled

Yes it's certainly real enough.

Would you say that a person killed has been deprived of life's good? If so, the unborn are not deprived of life's good solely due to their non-existence?

That person that might be born is not "deprived of good" — schopenhauer1

Aren't you making the exact same "non-existence argument" as you are dismissing from @Benkei?

None of our experiences can be trusted as evidence that this is reality as those experiences would be the same if this was an illusion.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

Being hit by a truck is the same if it were real or an illusion? How do you know that? Wanna give it a test? — Tom Storm

Our experience as to its realness is the same. Because, by definition, we wouldn't be able to tell an illusion from reality.

I think Ockham's razor might make it marginally more likely that we're living in reality. Though, even if it was 50/50 I would prefer to err on the side of caution, and avoid any trucks.



You cannot reliably work out the probability of the illusion's origin, while in the illusion. You would need the illusion to be a copy of reality.

Ockham's razor aside, there is no reason to believe that this is reality over an illusion.

If you have toothache, what good is the idea that it is an illusion? — SolarWind

Yes, I wouldn't like the illusion of a toothache either.

This comes up from time to time. But if this were so, that is, if everything you see and experience is an illusion, then what happens when you have what people normally call an "illusion"? Would this be an illusory-illusion or an illusion-illusion? — Manuel

A "dream within a dream". Have you seen the film Inception?

We could be completely involved in an illusion; the last fleeting ideas of a dying mind. Really, since we are all in it, who would know? — Book273

Yes, even when you're in a dream/nightmare it seems real at the time. There is no reason to believe we are in reality, other than it is the simplest explanation.

Is there any way to determine, at least in principle, whether or not we live in an illusion as opposed to what you call "reality?" If not, then there is no difference between the illusion and reality. If reality is an illusion, the illusion is reality. — T Clark

I think there would have to be something built into the illusion that proves it is an illusion.

I think it's reasonable to call the original place that hosts us reality.

...right up until the truck hits you.

What this shows is that you have lost track of what is to count as evidence. — Banno

None of our experiences can be trusted as evidence that this is reality as those experiences would be the same if this was an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I'm looking to test my arguments, and I'm not that interested in convincing others of them, so insults and "poisoning the well" wouldn't make much difference to me. However I can see such underhanded tactics being frustrating when trying to put a very minority view.

I'm not sure the notion of physically realised infinity is intelligible. But even if Hilbert space is finite, it's still intuitively big - albeit infinitesimally small compared to a notional infinite multiverse. — David Pearce

Maybe not an actually existing infinity that would be subject to paradoxes, but a potential infinity is possible. Universe/s could exist or spawn forevermore?

I actually have Graham Oppy's book Philosophical Perspectives on Infinity but I haven't got around to starting it yet.

@David Pearce

Come to think of it, you may have been talking about the possibility of an infinite multiverse, where suffering is, well, infinite? Is this something you are concerned about?

@David Pearce

I remember you saying something to the effect that you dread the thought of the existence of extra-terrestrial life.

What probabilities would you put on the existence of alien life? What about the chances of meeting or communicating with them?

David, at some point after implementation of the technology (maybe after 300 years, maybe after 1000 years, maybe after a million years) it is bound to be used to cause someone an unnatural amount of suffering. Suffering that is worse than could be experienced naturally.

Is one or two people being treated to an unnatural amount of suffering (at any point in the future) worth it to provide bliss for the masses? Shouldn't someone that would walk away from Omelas walk away from this technology?

Thank you very much for the response.

I brought up the pinprick argument, as despite being a NU myself, I believe it defeats Benatar's asymmetry theory. In his book he bites the bullet, concluding that the pinprick would make it so a life otherwise full of pleasure would have been better off not being started. Surely you can't agree with this?

I also take it from your posts that you believe there are principles one must follow (sanctity of life etc), even if the likely consequences are more suffering? What is your answer to Smart's benevolent world-explorer?

It will only establish that they think they exist. How do they know it is them doing the thinking? — Tom Storm

If the lie detector shows that they think they exist, and they do in fact exist, they have proven to us that they know they exist.

You can be wrong about things but believe them to be true. A lie detector can only determine if you think you are right. — Tom Storm

Assuming that we already believe the person subject to the lie detector test exists. The result will prove to us if they know that they exist.

David, hope you are well.

Anti-natalism is regularly discussed on this forum, with members having different degrees of sympathy towards it.

You describe yourself as a "soft anti-natalist". What is your basis for this? And do you buy into Benatar's asymmetry theory? (which suggests that the pain of a pinprick would make it so that a life otherwise full of pleasure would have been better off not being started).

Yes to prove it beyond any doubt. I'm not sure it would be physically possible for a lie detector to be perfect.

If lie detectors become more accurate, this should do the job?

Great - I've been a fan of David's for years.

I'm sure @schopenhauer1 et al would be interested in his suffering focused ethics.

Thank you for everyone's comments.

They are only doing it because the opportunity has provided itself to them.
— Down The Rabbit Hole

That’s a really bad argument. This is like saying rapists only rape because they see attractive victims. — Pinprick

Rapists can only rape when opportunities for doing so arise. When we're talking about factory farming, it is our actions that creates fresh opportunities for the animal abuse.

In the meantime, if you can, eat ethically sourced food, otherwise you are choosing to give money to animal abusers. If you cannot afford it, there is no ethical decision to be made*. — Kenosha Kid

Not eating animal products is the cheapest, but I take your point.

"Is producing factory farmed animal products ethical?" I think is the better question - because the consumer cannot be expected to bear the cognitive burden of knowing how everything they consume is produced. — counterpunch

My question was more whether the action of buying factory farmed animal products was ethical as opposed to the intent of the person purchasing it.

Allow me to rephrase it “is the purchase of factory farmed human (An Animal) products ethical?”

It’s well know that human commodities exist in economics. We would have to first establish the “likeness” or level of “kinship” Between humans and animals. Do we both deserve the same rights? Freedom? - From exploitation, from Harm, from objectification. One must ask themselves if they feel all life forms are deserving of certain levels of respect. Considering we barely respect each other I don’t expect that we will soon respect our perhaps lesser informed/ knowledgeable counterparts - the animal kingdom in the same light as each other.
On one side we have the “one must eat” ie. survive in a competitive “eat or be eaten” sense. But on the other hand we have the question “can we do better than that?” Is the human capacity to empathise or relate to others important and should we apply it to what we consume.

We often grapple with a guilt- superiority dynamic. “We can” (we are potently capable of many things) but “should we” (ethics and moral implications of living). In my experience much like a gardener tends to their herbs and botanics or a Shepard to their sheep or livestock... their is an element of reciprocity that is essential to the health of both parties. Eating mistreated food is to the detriment of the consumer. But to not eat is to fail to thrive. It’s a balance. Perhaps one we are losing to material desire.

I would ask oneself “what can I eat and feel good about eating it while preserving my health?” And if animal products currently don’t meet that standard then there is your answer — Benj96

Yes, what's the trait that justifies us treating non-human animals this way, but not human beings?

Is it intelligence? If so, would it be okay to slaughter severely mentally handicapped people if we liked the way they taste?

Absolutely. Changing to an electric car after the Exxon Valdiz catastrophe is logical, buying gas from Shell and boycotting ExxonMobil is not. — LuckyR

We know the factory farming industry causes tremendous pain and suffering. To clarify, your view is that it's not wrong for us to fund this, as long as we or the business owner don't intend for the suffering?

So you’re saying that people who enjoy, or feel compelled, or whatever, abusing animals would not do so if we didn’t buy meat? My inclination is that even if these factory farms were shut down, the abusers would simply find other animals, or perhaps even people, to abuse. — Pinprick

They are only doing it because the opportunity has provided itself to them. No way would they go out and find that amount of animals to abuse. And they know they would be locked up for doing it to humans.

The OP brings up several semi-unrelated issues. Namely, abuse of factory farmed animals is by definition not the intention of the business. Thus it is rightly condemned but it is reasonable to purchase products from the business since it is not the intent of the business owner. Separately, it is also reasonable to boycott factory farm products because small farm animals experience a better life, though one could forgo the boycott if the plight of factory raised animals was not of importance to you. Lastly while it is completely reasonable (on many fronts) to be a vegetarian, it is illogical to prohibit the culling of domesticated animals, since that is the purpose of animal domestication. — LuckyR

So, you believe it is the intent that matters as opposed to the consequences?

It entirely depends on what one believes to be ethical. Therefore, I don't think there is any objective answer to this.

Furthermore, one's ethics are informed by one's upbringing and in my opinion more importantly one's socioeconomic status.

Suppose two people were to equally believe that eating factory farmed animals is unethical yet one is economically disadvantaged and chooses to eat it anyway since alternatively raised animals is too expensive, would we judge the latter for being unethical? — avalon

Yes, either there is no objective answer, or it cannot be proven. The only way to argue against someone's ethics is to show that they're being inconsistent.

The OP was to see people's subjective view on if it is ethical. It is interesting, the amount of people that have ethical positions that allow for them to discount the likely consequences of their actions.

While not eating animal products is the cheapest of all, I understand your point. If eating factory farmed animal products was the cheapest, and it was all they could afford, that could well justify it. @TheHedoMinimalist gave another good justification. However, I cannot find justification for almost all of us in the west doing it.

I don’t really see the connection. When I buy meat, that’s the only thing I’m paying for; food. My desire to eat meat in no way necessitates animal abuse. That occurs because some people are abusive, or controlling, or whatever particular issue the abuser has. That has nothing to do with me. I’m not asking farmers to abuse animals, or preferring meat from abused animals, so how am I culpable in any way? Why should I give up my craving for cheap meat because some farmer is sadistic? — Pinprick

The abuse is a consequence of us buying the products.

We may be talking about two different things. Intentionally abusing animals is wrong, and is very often what is shown in documentaries, but I don’t think abuse is necessarily entailed by factory farming. In no way is it necessary for farmers to beat, starve, or otherwise harm animals. So, I’m not trying to argue that cattle don’t feel pain, or experience suffering when they are abused. I was thinking more along the lines of things like animals being kept in cramped spaces. But determining whether or not this affects their overall happiness seems like a grey area. We often keep pets in much smaller spaces than their natural habitats (I.e. goldfish, hamsters, rabbits, etc.), but there doesn’t seem to be much of a negative effect on their quality of life, at least as far as we can tell. The same would apply to zoos. If you could expand on what conditions specifically you’re against, then I could probably give you a better reply. — Pinprick

Yes, I am talking about the abuse.

My point is that the animals are only suffering the abuse because people are paying for them to be factory farmed. Shouldn't we stop doing this?

Your argument resembles those of antinatalists: "being born means forced suffering". No matter how you start, you end up with livestock suffering. There's no nuance in your argument.

Animals suffer--period. Wild or farmed, cow or human being, there is no escaping suffering. Abuse can be avoided but suffering can not.

There are solid arguments for vegetarian diets--the strongest one is the ecological argument. Farming animals produces more CO2 than farming crops only. You'd be on solid ground with that approach.

(within limits) suffering is compatible with a good life--for any animal, human or other. Suffering isn't compatible with some rose-tinted "perfect life", which is OK, because there is no such thing as a "perfect life" for any creature, anywhere. — Bitter Crank

I think to be consistent in their principles an antinatalist would have to be in favour of veganism.

My view is that it is not always wrong to procreate, and that suffering can be justified if the life is overall good. Many if not most of the animals in question have an abominable life, full of unbearable suffering - and that's what I am seeking justification for.

I am sorry, but I like to eat meat. And I can't afford expensive meat.

I figure the meat I buy is factory raised.

I am an asshole if you ask any chicken, cow, or pig.

So are you for making me feel bad. — god must be atheist

:naughty:

The problem with this is that it’s hard to quantify qualities such as suffering, even among ourselves, much less other animals. How can you be sure that factory farmed animals are indeed suffering at all? — Pinprick

I don't know for sure, but it's extremely likely considering that they have nerves and a brain, and they scream and cry, and show signs of trauma.

If you can stomach some of the footage, check it out. It's pretty convincing.

Thus, there’s no reason to think that factory farm animals are necessarily suffering more than the average human due to their discomfort. — TheHedoMinimalist

No way. If you can stomach it, check out some of the footage.

It’s a luxury of the west to sit around discussing the ethics of rearing animals to eat and meanwhile thousands of animals are killed so we can buy a Big Mac. — Brett

I wonder how many Big Macs would be sold if people had to watch the process before buying it. As I say, it didn't even occur to me that I was contributing to cruelty.

If however you think being cruel to animals is wrong then eating factory farmed animal products is ethically wrong. Any other answer is merely self deception so as to allay feelings of guilt so animal products can continue to be consumed. — infin8fish

I thought I would be getting some tougher arguments to deal with, but I am becoming more convinced that the cruelty involved in the process cannot be justified.

Is it ethical to drive a car?

Cars pollute the atmosphere and by driving one we contribute to the suffering of countless living beings in the same death-by-a-thousand-cuts manner as buying animal products. — Tzeentch

As a lot of things would be different if people didn't use cars, I don't feel confident giving an answer either way. As @infin8fish indicates, although counter-intuitive, it may be that driving is wrong.

I'm willing to consider the ethics of things like this, but I can almost guarantee you that the logical conclusions of these ideas are irreconcilable with modern life, and perhaps any kind of life.

So lets have this discussion, but without any attitudes of moral superiority. — Tzeentch

As I sympathize with your views on antinatalism, you, @schopenhauer1 etc probably have the best chance of convincing me.

Sorry for the delay on the reply. Saying the purchase of animal products is the cause of animal abuse, is not a logical conclusion. People choose to purchase animal products, and workers can choose to do so humanely, or inhumanely. — Philosophim

I appreciate you commenting.

I can't remember saying that the purchase of animal products is the cause of the animal abuse. As you have quoted, I did say:

The aforesaid beatings and torture would not happen if people didn't pay for the animals products.

Surely one should stop purchasing it, thus eliminating any suffering that was resulting from you doing so. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I would go further and say, although not the sole cause of the animal abuse in question, it is a necessary part of what causes it.

People need/want meat and other animal products. We can advocate that this is done ethically. But because some choose to do so unethically, we should not purchase any products, even from those who do so humanely? That is not a proper conclusion. — Philosophim

As @infin8fish indicates, we don't need animal products. And as @Bitter Crank and @TheMadFool have alluded to, "humanely farmed animals" suffer cruelty and abuse too.

I would actually experience more conflict with my family if I refused to eat factory farmed meat than if I told them I was gay. To put this in a thought experiment, suppose that it was the case that animals will suffer greatly for some strange reason if gay people don’t come out to their entire family. If you have a very religious and conservative family that also greatly supports you financially, then would it be wise to sacrifice your relationship with them by coming out to help sentient beings that you never even met. I happen to think that it would be better to keep your mouth shut. Unfortunately, keeping your mouth shut is rarely an option for those with dietary restrictions because unlike sex, eating is typically a communal activity. — TheHedoMinimalist

:grimace: To be honest, I probably wouldn't have been able to refuse in that position either, especially if I wasn't financially independent.

In my view it all comes down to if your suffering will be worse than the animals'.

The first point to consider is that quality of life is often determined by internal factors rather than external ones. — TheHedoMinimalist

I remember from reading positive psychology years ago, that extra wealth only becomes meaningless to happiness after a certain point. You need enough for a comfortable life, and so would the animals.

In addition, a single individual not buying factory farmed meat doesn’t guarantee that the production of such meat will be reduced because meat production is pretty insensitive to demand. — TheHedoMinimalist

A lifetime of not buying factory farmed meat will have an impact.

So, free range farming is probably not much better than factory farming in reality. It’s also worth noting that free range usually just means the animals get like 1 foot of space to walk around in and they not laying on top of the other animals covered in feces. Is that a huge improvement? I don’t think that it is. — TheHedoMinimalist

Maybe not in the grand scheme of things, but it must feel quite a bit better for them to stretch their legs, and not get infections from the feces.

I’m pretty sure it’s more expensive as it usually doesn’t fill you up as much. — TheHedoMinimalist

Your grocery bill will drop dramatically if you substitute your animal products for potatoes, rice, bread, beans, pasta etc.

I like pasta dishes, which are super cheap, and filling because of the amount of water absorbed.

Plus, eating healthy is easier if you also don’t abstain from healthy meat products. Being healthy would lower your medical expenses and increase your lifespan and this would allow you to donate more money in the long run. Donating lots of money to charity also requires you to be a busy person and it’s hard to find the time to be a vegan if you are busy making money. — TheHedoMinimalist

Some meat might be healthier than others, but it all has saturated fat and cholesterol which contribute to heart disease - the biggest killer in the USA. A vegan diet is supposed to be healthier, and I don't see how it is any more time consuming.