Perhaps buy a gun? — Isaac

So much for "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".

What good serves unity -- if not survival?

Where exactly is the dividing line?

Altruism, in the sense of cooperating with and helping others in your tribe would certainly materially benefit the tribe, and thus be a good survival strategy. But today, in our overpopulated world, protecting and sustaining those who cannot contribute or even help themselves is no longer a good survival strategy. The question is whether we should be concerned predominantly about serving the survival imperative, or about appeasing human ethical principles and feelings. — Janus

Yes.
Humanist morality is becoming something that fewer and fewer can afford.

The compromises made to our evolutionary defense structures and the steady increase in capacities such as altruism and diversity over millennia suggests that we’re not evolving for survival. We’re evolving to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Increasing awareness, connection, and collaboration -- to what end? For their own sake?

What evidence do you have that we only have one lifetime? How is that a known thing? — RogueAI

Indeed.
This is one of the reasons why I think that the strongest position that the antinatalists can take is something like this:
"I do not want to cause any suffering to others." (Formulated in 1st person singular.)

Ie. focusing on the intention, on the desire not to cause suffering. This way, one also skirts all the issues of when exactly does a person come into existence, potential rebirth/reincarnation scenarios, calculations of how much suffering a potential new person is likely to experience etc.

Not sure your point... — schopenhauer1

It's a simple question. How has expressing your particular antinatalist stance worked out for you?
Are you happier now? Do people respect you more? ...

Although research reveals infants demonstrate a preference for caregivers of their own race — FrankGSterleJr

1. But is this already evidence of racism being innate?*
2. How do they even conduct such studies, given that experiments with infants can quickly become ethically prohibitive?


*Infants also show a preference for caregivers of the same language. Do you know of a study that contrasted the infants' preference for caregivers of the same language vs. the infants' preference for caregivers of the same race?

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with?
— baker

No, not particularly. Why do you ask? — Isaac

I want to see what you consider "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others".

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that.
— baker

What an odd thing to want.

Not at all. I want to put your humanist notions to the test, seeing how you'd deal with someone who doesn't care whether you live or die and who has no qualms about endangering your property and your person. And the authorities side with them!

A negligible price to pay.

Hardly. You would only ossify the very beliefs you oppose. And someone could use the same argument to expel the minority. — NOS4A2

It's what people do, every day, and it seems worth it to them. Just blame the victim, just blame the one who is worse off.

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.
— baker

Fair enough - what belief are we expelling him for exactly? Could the neighbor retract that belief but still hang onto other offensive ones? — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure we understand eachother.
I'm saying that if you're black in a white neighborhood and a white supremacist moves in and tells you that you don't deserve to live, but that he will not take action against you, then, if this becomes known to the other neighbors, chances are that _you_ will be the one to get expelled. Not the new racist neighbor.

Not necessarily because your old neighbors would become racists, but because they don't want trouble.
People generally tend to blame victims and those that are in any way in trouble, and so they want to get rid of such disliked, troubled people.

But do you now understand why "so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people still fail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"?

Doing something meaningful for others often provides purpose and healing for the helper. People dealing with depression, trauma and substance issues, for instance, can find healing in volunteering and community work that they may not get from counselling or introspection. Three decades of work in the area of addictions and mental ill health has demonstrated this to me many times. — Tom Storm

Which doesn't yet mean that healthy people benefit from volunteering etc.

The mentally unwell person needs to do a number of things in order to feel a measure of sanity and wellness; yet those things are not what normal people do in order to maintain their normalcy.

For example, a former smoker who is now practicing abstinence has to do a number of mental, verbal, and physical practices in order to successfully resist the urge to smoke (e.g. repeating affirmations, avoiding people who smoke, visiting a 12-step group). But a normal person who doesn't smoke doesn't need to do any of those practices in order not to smoke.

It's questionable whether one can become normal by doing those things that normal people don't do.

I see the unfairness of bringing suffering into the world and I am impelled to give my perspective due to this. — schopenhauer1

And how has that been working out for you?

On average individuals in groups survive much better against natural hazards — 180 Proof

Sure, what you say holds for natural hazards. But not for the dangers posed by other humans.
We're not in the wilderness.

I've always failed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent, even scientifically & historically literate, people stillfail to understand that Darwin was concerned with the evolution (i.e. origin) of species by natural selection vis-à-vis "survival of the fittest" and N O T the evolution (or dominance) of "rugged individuals"? — 180 Proof

That's easy. People try to derive lessons from facts, or from what are purported to be facts, for the purpose of their own benefit and advantage.
Touch a hot stove plate, you get burned -- fact. Lesson: don't touch hot stove plates.

What can one learn, for one's own benefit and advantage, from the theory of evolution? That one needs to see to it that one beats natural selection, as much as possible.

Expelling them is to rob the community, and the believer, of any chance of reconciliation, redemption and compromise. — NOS4A2

A negligible price to pay.

How ought a community deal with such a neighbor? Do we expel them? — BitconnectCarlos

The chances seem to be that this new neighbor will inspire the community to expel the minority.

And that's IF you could show that weed affects driving with significant diminished safety which the data doesnt indicate. — DingoJones

If you end up in a wheelchair after being run over by a pot smoking driver, we can then have a discussion about the relevance of "significant enough" probabilities.

We have a natural anti-dote for suffering, this is what Schopenhauer forgets or ignores. — Caldwell

Really, what antidote is that?

What do you think this universe would look like? What do you think would happen to people? — Benj96

I suspect they'd all go crazy from having to operate with too many variables.

Their universe would look like one of those circular, self-referential M.C. Escher pictures.

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . . — FrancisRay

Of course, Buddhists will typically say that I have distanced myself from Buddhism "for the wrong reasons" or that my "reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor". Always blame me, what else.

But there were also Buddhists who told me flat out that I had no interest in the Dharma and that my time would be better spent in other pursuits.

The sticking point, and the point at which I'm afraid I have, and will, lose my civility, is this neo-liberal bullshit about individual harms being the only matter in moral decisions. I'm afraid I just find that kind of view toxic and can't just discuss it as if it were a reasonable option. We're social creatures, we don't just think for ourselves. Even a six month old child shows degrees of empathy and concern for others, it's deeply ingrained in our core being. It matters. I mean, how many great stories have been about people caring about their own suffering and screw everyone else? — Isaac

I'd love for you to be in my shoes, to have a neighbor like I do. I really do. I want to see how you'd handle that.

Hyper-individualistic notions like "why should I suffer any inconvenience for the sake of others" are toxic. Your philosophy boils down to the principle that we cannot expect anything, even the slightest inconvenience, from any individual, for the benefit of their community. — Isaac

There are not just a few people who believe that they suffer more than enough for "the community" because they put up with some particular person being alive and that they are doing this person a favor by not killing them. They also score as "normal" on a psych evaluation test. I've known such people.
"Toxic"? Yeah, right.

Do you believe that you are "suffering an inconvenience for the sake of others" when you read posts here that you disagree with?

so you're saying it's like masturbation? — Benkei

*sigh*
Now where did that come from ...

So it becomes a challenge of vocabulary and semantics to translate between the meanings of different perspectives of deeper wisdom.
— Pantagruel

Why would you bother with that challenge? — Isaac

Some people are naturally inclined to mediation and translation.

So we might as well try to learn all of the lessons that life teaches us. — Pantagruel

Life doesn't teach lessons. It's up to us to learn them.

benefitting who? If that decision doesn't benefit anyone, it's not a moral choice. — Benkei

Benefitting you. If you believe that producing children is evil, and you refrain from producing children, then you have successfully omitted an evil action.
It's possible to take pride in refraining from evil actions, to have a sense of dignity based on refraining from evil actions.

Have you distanced yourself from Buddhism?

I've actually found that by saving someone else people save themselves. — Tom Storm

Do explain and illustrate with an example.

As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al.
/.../
My question is this: do you think that this version of masculinity has a place in the modern world? — BigThoughtDropper

Did it ever?
Was it ever practiced??

My question was about the system benefiting. Doing the right thing only benefits the corrupt system by making it less corrupt. That would benefit the system, but not the corrupt system. — James Riley

I think the OP meant "benefit the corrupt system" in the sense that the corrupt system benefits by not doing what they have otherwise legally obligated themselves to do, by finding ways not to pay what they would otherwise have to pay for, by perpetuating itself.

I'm having the impression the OP is implying that the corrupt system is being kept alive by wellmeaning, naive "good citizens" who are honest, humble, and obedient.


Take, for example, covid-19 vaccination. The system is telling us to be good citizens, to do the right thing, and to get vaccinated. But all covid-19 vaccines are currently still just experimental medications and health insurance does not cover the treatment of negative side effects of experimental medications. If you get negative side effects from the vaccination, you're on your own, and left to the mercy of doctors and their willingness to twist the facts a bit and say "Oh, but we're not sure it's from the vaccine". The companies making the vaccine are also not liable. They get to make money, but you have put your life on the line.

According to the official policy, the damage would be for them to pay for and they would have to ensure safety at work. Now they can blame you and wash their hands.

doing the right thing in a corrupt system benefits that corrupt system
— Tex

How so? — James Riley

Say that you're working in a construction company where the official policy is to report all damaged tools, all accidents and near-accidents. If the company is corrupt, you following the official policy will be bad for you as you will be held responsible and will have to pay for the damage and the accidents.

The whole meaning of materialism is that there’s no essential difference between people and things. — Wayfarer

Inasmuch does this view overlap with the concept of anatta, where do they differ?

Well smoking weed wouldn't be what caused the car accident and wheelchair harm. Pretty obviously it was something to do with the driving, possibly from the weed but not necessarily. — DingoJones

What are you saying? That the driver was a poor driver anyway, and smoking weed was only the final straw in their driving ineptitude?

Running people over isn’t a victimless crime, but smoking pot is.

People who smoke pot hurt themselves, so they are the victims, so smoking pot isn't "a victimless crime".

Also, people critical of smoking pot or its legalisation have to be critical of drinking alcohol or its legalisation first if they want to be taken seriously.

I'm critical of all substances and activities that in any way diminish a person's ability to drive safely.

I think you've failed to see the point. — Wayfarer

I was refering to this:

So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained. — Wayfarer

An 'ontological distinction' means 'a difference in kind'. I'm saying, there are differences in kind between mineral, organic, sentient and rational beings. In old-school philosophical parlance, they're different substances. Whereas the general consensus is, I believe, that there is only one substance, that being matter (now, matter~energy) and that organic, sentient, and rational beings are simply permutations of this single substance. That is what I'm calling into question.

Sure.
What do you think are the moral implications or the implications for a theory of morality for each of the views?

It seems to me that the reason we have an ontology, the reason why we list "what is there", is because this has bearing on how we relate to that which is there and how we justify our actions toward it.

It's not clear what is going on here. What does it mean to say a bat has an identity? That the bat knows who it is? That Baker knows it is a bat? What is it you think is taken for granted? — Banno

The being.

Suppose the bat does not have an identity - that that make it OK to inflict pain on it?

This is moot, because if one assumes that something doesn't have an identity, then one also assumes that it doesn't/cannot feel pain to begin with.
When you chop would, you don't think "Oh, I'm inflicting pain on this log of wood". It simply doesn't occur to you that a log of wood could feel pain. Descartes thought that animals were much like logs of wood in this regard.

And this assumption about the lack of an identity or a diminished or damaged identity is the justification that people give for slitting throats, throwing stones at, hitting with sticks, and so on.

For example, a commandment says "Thou shalt not kill", but people who profess to abide by said commandment may see no problem in slitting the throats of cows or burning alive the members of another tribe. Because for them, "Thou shalt not kill" only has meaning in reference to (valued) members of their own tribe, while every other being is deemed necessarily lesser (and thus, it's not actually possible to commit a crime against it, even if one were to slit its thorat).

If identity is attributed, then can't it be attributed to a tree or a rock?

Of course. Consider, for example, works of art or craftsmanship, or even just ordinary cars: these things have an identity attributed to them, with a unique serial number. And while there are generally not assumed to be able to feel pain, there is a big issue when it comes to damaging them.

There's a big difference between breaking rocks at a quarry and hitting the Great Star of Africa with a hammer.

So do they have moral standing because they have an identity?

Without an identity, they wouldn't be eligible for moral standing.

Aggression is normal, but this thread is about a specific kind of aggression with a specific kind of motivation. — Judaka

Hold on. Are you also saying there is a kind of aggression that doesn't have a specific motivation?

Life, however, is not like being caught in a trap. — Isaac

So what, you're God?

For some (many?) people, life is like being caught in a trap. You can say that for you, it isn't; but for some, it is.

Most libertarians believe that there are certain things that are illegal that should be legal because they are victimless activities. Smoking weed is a perfect example of the kind of activity they normally have in mind. — TheHedoMinimalist

Does marijuana use affect driving?

Marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time, and studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability.7–9

Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones.10 Two large European studies found that drivers with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash than drivers who had not used drugs or alcohol.11,12

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving

Smoking weed is not a "victimless crime".

How do you feel about being run over by a pothead and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life?

I can flick you off, call you any name I wish, and insult anything about you or how you are and you can't call a cop or pursue legal action for that alone — Outlander

Actually, you can, at least in some jurisdictions.