But enough people do vote. — Isaac

That varies from country to country.

Yeah. I don't object to voting, or with a compulsion to vote where it's necessary. What I object to is the ludicrous notion that I have no means at my disposal to check whether I'm in such a circumstance prior to any given election. It's absurd. I know the political landscape in my part of the world very well. I know almost exactly how much use my vote will or won't be. Where it won't be of any use, there's no point in doing it. It's not magic, it's just a bit of paperwork. It either needs doing or it doesn't.

Again, that varies from country to country. I agree that in some countries, elections are an exercise in futility. In some others, not so much.

When democracy is indistinguishable from tyranny we’ve lost the plot. — NOS4A2

Again,
It seems that what you really want is that your political stance should prevail with ease.

How does a president represent the will of millions of strangers? You can't represent someone's will unless you know their will. Just getting elected by the strangers doesn't grant you some magical ability to know their will once elected. — Yohan

Representative democracy is about the elected people representing those that voted for them. Not everyone.

but wouldn't it be great to have a system for forgetting — Agent Smith

The problem isn't the remembering of painful or embarrassing past events; the problem is not knowing how to think about them wisely, what and how to learn from them.

Forgetting such events wouldn't necessarily help; but it could lead to again acting in ways that brought on those events. So that even if one were to forget the old painful or embarrassing events, if one wouldn't change one's ways, one would just recreate the conditions for those events again, provided it's in one's power to do so. For example, if you do stupid things when drunk, the solution isn't to forget those stupid things; it's to stop drinking.

As for the events over which one doesn't have control: Some studies suggest that catastrophic events like earthquakes, tsunamis, global economic crises are actually easier to cope with than the more ordinary hardships people tend to face (and over which one has much more control).

I don't vote (and never have) — Isaac

I know people who don't vote, as a matter of principle. I vote.

mainly because of the first past the post system in the UK, I probably would if we had PR, but I still would object strongly to any deification of voting. It acts, when treated that way, like an opiate, allowing people to think they 'done' politics by ticking a box once every five years, and can then rest on their laurels for the intervening time.

I suppose some people are like that. But I'm not. Perhaps it's because of the specific situation of the country I live in. Last year, there was a real danger of the then government abolishing democracy. They had gained so much power (seats in the parliament) because so many people were too apathetic to vote. But the situation here is different, than in, say, the US or UK, because we don't have a tradition of two major parties fighting for supremacy. Rather, there has usually been one major party, and a number of smaller ones which have to form a coalition in order to rule. Also, new parties spring up; many are short-lived, but they actually make it into the government. The party currently in rule (and with an overwhelming majority) was only formed earlier this year, shortly before the elections in April.
In a political situation that is this dynamic, voting does make a difference.

I'm fairly certain I'd rather live in a democracy than any of the other available options. — Isaac

Democracy isn't a given, it isn't the default. If enough people don't vote, a minority can, through what is on principle a democratic election, establish a dictatorship and abolish democracy altogether.

By voting, you, at least on principle, benefit from voting. Even if it isn't immediately obvious, and even though you cannot single-handledly change the course of politics.

Anti-social types love to blather on about markets and free trade — they’re simply merchants who lower everything to the level of transaction, because that’s all they know and thus how they see the world. Then they raise transactions among two people to moral heights.

But they always— always — ignore externalities. That’s not an accident. We’re supposed to forget about the outside world, the community, or other people altogether. What matters is ME and MY transactions.

So it goes for this sick, merchant worldview.

I’ll say it as I’ve said a hundred times: the quicker these poor saps die out, the better. For the sake of future generations. — Xtrix

But they don't die out: they stick together, they're solidary with one another. They're just not solidary with outsiders.

It’s nothing other than dressed up justification for greed, the hatred of democracy and, generally, human beings. Who knows how or why they acquired this sick outlook — I suspect early experiences and heavy brainwashing. — Xtrix

On the contrary. They simply see that their strategy works: using it, they get the upper hand, they win, they get what they want.

And they don't hate human beings in general. They are kind and generous to their own kind, to their ingroup, and they have no qualms about destroying the outgroup.

Not worth getting too worked up about. Leave them to their pathologies. — Xtrix

"Leaving them to their pathologies" is precisely what makes their strategy so effective. Letting them do what they do is convicing them that they're not doing anything wrong. And so they continue, and grow ever stronger.

If plan to be more sporty, an advertiser suggests that buying a pair of their trainers will help, I am convinced and so I buy a pair - you're saying it's impossible that I'm wrong. If I think a pair of trainers will help me become more sporty then I've somehow changed reality such that this will be the case? — Isaac

Such is the power of self-actualization.

Which helps to explain why mobilization of the working class is more difficult: its members fail to recognize their own solidarity. — Pantagruel

Solidarity is sometimes counterproductive. The weak and the poor being solidary with one another only keeps them weak and poor.

I am terrible at collectivism, methodologically and in practice. Whether by nature or nurture I lack the necessary neural connections required to see the world as the activity of groups, nations, races, classes, or communities as Stalin did, so giving any priority to these over flesh-and-blood human beings is an impossible task for me. — NOS4A2

Yet you use the English language, you are gainfully employed, you participate at this forum. All of these require communal/collectivist/social reasoning.

Possibly, you don't lack "the necessary neural connections required to see the world as the activity of groups etc.", but, rather, have so internalized communal/collectivist/social reasoning that you don't even realize you have it.

Which assessment of mine do you believe is wrong?

For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews.
— baker
Why was that maladaptive? Why were they mistaken?
— baker
As I wrote in the post you only half-quoted:
Short-term efficacy – scapegoating, genocide – at the expense of long-term sustainability (i.e. forming habits / institutions for 'othering' even their own because (some believe) "that is a way to end their suffering").
— 180 Proof
So if you still have to ask, baker ... — 180 Proof

This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler.

Why wouldn't destroying an entire social category be "sustainable" in the long term? People have always done this. What reason is there to think that it isn't "sustainable" in the long term?

Can you explain, do you have something more than mere gut feeling for this?

Even you yourself advised that a certain social category should be destroyed by suicide.

Anti-"antinatalism" does not entail pro-natalism. The "moral" arguments in favor of "antinatalism" proffered thus far have been neither valid nor persuasive.
— 180 Proof

An argument can only be persuasive to someone, to a person. It cannot be objectively, suprapersonally persuasive.

Maybe so, but I neither claim nor implied it could be

Yes, you did: The formulation you used isn't one where you'd merely state your opinion, but declares a lot more, namely, that what you're saying is an objective, absolute truth.

To denigrate a question by saying it isn't legitimate may be a way of avoiding its answer. — Tom Storm

This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler.

The person making the request could say they suffer from asthma or some sort of respiratory illness and couldn't be around smoking. — L'éléphant

And get laughed at or told to leave.

I usually vape these days, but people even complain about that sometimes. — Jamal

Smokers tend to have a diminished sense of smell. They can't tell how bad the smell from smoking is.

It's one of the reasons why it's useless to talk about it with them. They can't relate.

It's about neighbors and coworkers who smoke (at work or in break).

I open the windows in the morning to get some fresh air, and what do I get? The odious smell of my neighbors smoking.

While in the country where I live smoking is prohibited indoors in most establishments, many people ignore that. If I were to say "smoking is not allowed here, please", then, in the best case scenario, I'd get laughed at. (Not to mention that there are not just a few non-smokers who will jump to the defense of smokers.)

The question is about why the state overrides the decision of its citizens about the relative harms. — Isaac

Because for all practical intents and purposes the state owns its citizens. The citizens are subjects of the state.

And as far as it having a purpose, it is the definition of something of an ethics that can be applied, so your assessment is wrong. — schopenhauer1

Wrong how?

The power imbalance in so-called democratic countries is obscene. — NOS4A2

Yet such is democracy.

It seems that what you really want is that your political stance should prevail with ease.

blended no knee.

Heh. I blended no knee either, but I still have a limp.

Why does one do anything? — schopenhauer1

For a purpose.

Does there have to be an achievable goal?

Yes. All other action is irrational/maladaptive.

Does it suffice? — Tzeentch

For some people, it clearly does.

What you're after is objective morality, absolute authority.

Talk about it. — schopenhauer1

And talking about it accomplishes what?

Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? What makes that difference? I think people are misconstruing the idea that a person GETS to experience in the FIRST PLACE as some sort of untold condition of goodness.. But I don't see that as relevant. Thoughts? — schopenhauer1

As another poster suggested earlier in this discussion (in this or another thread), the actual issue is that existence itself is problematic.

Antinatalists (at least the variety one usually encounters in secular Western settings) don't go far enough in their criticism of procreation. It is existence itself they should be criticial of, not merely procreation.

The point is the choices are limited, the harms are known (and some unknown), and that there are immense assumptions being made for imposing them onto other people. — schopenhauer1

So what are you going to do about that?

If a leader makes decisions that the majority of people are against, then by definition, their decisions were not democratic. Simply calling it "representative democracy" doesn't actually make it a democracy. — Yohan

Which is why a democracy has the legal means to remove such a political leader from office.

I'm fairly certain I'd rather live in a democracy than any of the other available options. — Isaac

Then what exactly is your objection to the democratic system of political parties and the process of electing them via popular vote?

Anti-"antinatalism" does not entail pro-natalism. The "moral" arguments in favor of "antinatalism" proffered thus far have been neither valid nor persuasive. — 180 Proof

An argument can only be persuasive to someone, to a person. It cannot be objectively, suprapersonally persuasive.

Poverty is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering. Breaking your leg is hardship, but it does not necessarily entail suffering.
— baker

You'll need to elaborate on that, though honestly what we call it may not be all that relevant. — Tzeentch

Hardship and suffering are two different concepts.
Hardship (pain) are the external and bodily circumstances that a person is subject to: poverty, a broken leg.
Suffering is a possible (but not necessary) response to these cirumstances.


Or, as another poster put it:

Insofar as an existing person maladaptively interprets / relates to her environment, she suffers. — 180 Proof

What gives us the idea we have a right to make such a decision for someone else in the first place?
— Tzeentch

Self-confidence, a "lust for life".
— baker

Why would self-confidence suffice in the case of procreation, when it clearly does not suffice anywhere else in life?

I answered your question. Self-confidence, a "lust for life" are what gives a person the idea they have a right to procreate, ie. make such a decision for someone else in the first place.

To go back to the sky-diving example, if I push someone out of a plane being extremely confident that they'll enjoy it, but instead they crash into the ground, does my self-confidence make any difference as to the nature of what just happened?

No. But if you wouldn't be thusly confident, you wouldn't push that person out of the plane.

For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. And for at least some time, it worked. Per your formula, that _wasn't_ maladaptive.
— baker
Of course it was, and still is, maladaptive. They were mistaken and consequently acted on that mistake. — 180 Proof

Why was that maladaptive? Why were they mistaken?

Substantiate.

That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated.
— baker

No it's not. Breathing is completely unavoidable. Philosophy is avoidable. Odd comparison. — Tom Storm

Not at all. What is completely avoidable is formal study of philosophy. One can perfectly well avoid enrolling in a college program the topic of which is philosophy. One can also perfectly well avoid reading any books by or about people that are popularily known as "philosophers".

But what one cannot avoid is reflecting on the nature of things, on what constitutes truth, goodness, how it is that one knows something, etc. -- all of which are standard topics in philosophy.

The difference between philosophers and people who aren't that (or who make a point of claiming not to be philosophers) is in how systematically and how in accordance with the philosophical tradition they reflect on those topics.

Listing names isn't a description.
— baker

I would have thought that this is my point - such a description is not possible. You can't readily describe people who have chosen not to behave in the manner you have suggested without going into lengthy biography.

One of the assumptions in critical thinking is that it is possible to rationally, with arguments, summarize a person's stance on any given topic.

Am I not thinking clearly? I never said I thought clearly.

Oh, come on.

I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience".
— baker

Is this a non sequitur? Why mention concentration camps?

We were talking about the decrease of life quality in areas that are undergoing or have undergone suburbanization or gentrification. To classify this decrease merely as "largely an aesthetic experience" takes away the relevance of this decrease.

So it sounds like you won't engage with my question, but opt to dismiss it instead as poor thinking. Ok.

I've been trying to show you why your question is wrong, and why your persistent declarations of "not being a philosopher" are misguided.

I could.

Neither of which are voting. — Isaac

But perhaps your point is that you don't actually want to live in a democracy?

If vote (in a situation where I know I'm in a minority) I haven't done some small amount of good. I've done no good at all. The opposition party have won and get to enact their policies in exactly the same way they would have if I hadn't voted. Exactly the same. Not a small but insignificant difference (such as with reducing one's carbon footprint), absolutely no difference at all. — Isaac

Such is democracy.

Voting gives a slightly more accurate impression of how people feel politically than would be given if you didn't vote.

A well constructed survey would do a considerably better job of the same task.

Neither change the way things actually are, which is what determines who gets into power. — Isaac

Which is what happens when people don't believe in democracy, even though they nominally live in one.

In some cases non-voters are a large enough constituency to make moves outside of elections and with other means than the vote, so it’s not a complete waste. The problem is probably organizing other non-voters. — NOS4A2

And whose problem and fault is that?


This whole topic is about people who don't understand their role, their rights and their responsibilities as citizens of democractic countries. They are citizens of democractic countries, but they have the mentality of people living in a monarchy (or a cynical dystopia).

I question how much democracy is valued by someone who argues against participation in democracy
— praxis

I value the national health service, but I don't think unqualified people ought to participate in it.

To get closer to the OP, I might value education, but not participate in any teaching establishment because I disagree with their methods.

I can't see why this is at all controversial. One need not participate in everything one values. That seems pretty straightforward. — Isaac

You can escape teaching, practicing medicine, a hundred things. But you cannot escape being a citizen.

Being a citizen brings with it rights and responsibilities.

Voting is not a 'table' in any sense whatsoever. There's no discussion, no interaction. We're presented with choices and we decide which one we least hate. that's it.
/.../
Voting is not a fight. Not even in the slightest bit. It's an exercise in statistical bureaucracy to find out who people want to hold that office. There's not even the tiniest element of 'fight' in it. It's like filling in a census. — Isaac

Unlike professional politicians, you underestimate your role as a citizen of a democratic country and you're not willing to put in anywhere near the effort they did.

Maybe, but the question was about it's being a political position, not a protest. IF voting Labour is a political position (despite the fact that it might be only strategic, or habit, or defeatist), then so is not voting (despite the fact that it might be apathy, laziness or stupidity). — Isaac

If you don't like the current parties available, start your own. Of you don't like the constitutional system, take action. Nobody is stopping you from that.

In the UN general assembly and security council, abstention is a valid stance to adopt. What am I missing? — Agent Smith

Different deliberative assemblies or electoral bodies operate by different rules. They have diffferent rules as to what constitutes a quorum, the exact role of abstention, the value of the vote against the proposition, etc.

Some deliberative assemblies require, for example, a simple majority of votes to be in favor of a proposition in order for the proposition to pass. Others require absolute unanimity for passing. Etc.

Because of this, it's difficult to make generalizations about voting.

So the question remains, is refusing to vote a viable political position? — NOS4A2

Depends on the electoral system. Some countries have a quorum requirement even for parliamentary and presidential elections where it is the general population that votes. I couldn't find an English reference as to which, though. IIRC, it is, for example, some former Yugoslav republics that have this system. If not enough people show up for the elections, the elections are repeated until enough do. In such a system, not voting does make some difference (provided enough people don't vote).

Yes, refusing to participate would be opting out of the system, in a way. But it’s more like refusing to play baseball but having to remain in the dugout. — NOS4A2

In that case, you need to start a civil initiative, start your own party, start collecting signatures for a referendum for a change of constitution etc.

Democracies generally do have legal means of action for those people who are not content with the current system. Many people who are in one way or another critical of the system don't seem to be aware of those means. Or they think making use of those means is too tedious, expensive, or ineffective. In that case, it's those people who are at fault, though, for having unrealistic expectations.

Describe three.
— baker

Sally, Matthew, Mark, Rowena, Tony - there's five people I know well who live outside of a dog-eat-dog worldview. I know a few people who live in the nastier world you describe, but most do not. Unless you take any interaction with the contemporary world as an example of your point. — Tom Storm

Listing names isn't a description.

Is there evidence that philosophy is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated?

That's like asking whether breathing is of benefit to individuals and how would that be demonstrated.

So my question isn't about evoking a variation of Plato's cave. My question is can you (or anyone) demonstrate that philosophy is of benefit? What would it even look like for philosophy to be of use - would we see equality/world peace/environmental healing?

It seems your obsession with your status as non-philosopher is getting in the way of thinking clearly.

I think this example is a good one and this happened to us in our once rural area too twenty years ago. The quality and experience of life changes for the worse, but it's largely an aesthetic experience.

"Largely an aesthetic experience".

I don't feel like looking up images of concentration camp prisoners and such. "Largely an aesthetic experience".

Insofar as an existing person maladaptively interprets / relates to her environment, she suffers. — 180 Proof

I generally agree, but the problem with your formulation is that it is so general that it can also be applied in ways that would generally be considered immoral.

For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. And for at least some time, it worked. Per your formula, that _wasn't_ maladaptive.

If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself — Agent Smith

This is what is so dismal about the pronatalists.

If life is so great, why can't they give a good reason for it? Why the exhortation to kill yourself if you don't like it? Why the implying that you're mentally ill if you have second thoughts about having children?