|
Blockade posted:I don't know a single guy with a phd that hasn't gotten a vasectomy. Sounds like they're not very smart then, eh? Joking aside, I think it's a bit if a fallacy to equate PhDs with intelligence, and despair that we are doomed to a rising tide of stupidity. Dedication to navigating the world of academia for a decade with dubious personal payoff doesn't actually mean you're the best and the brightest. Huge numbers of intelligent people escew graduate degrees because they have other priorities. Hell, I know farmers who know more about biology, business, and mechanical trades than I ever will, and I know professors who are so far up their own rear end they haven't made any worthwhile contributions to the knowledge base in decades. We have children because there is no other option. Is it unethical to bring someone into a world of adversity, if the alternative is non-existence? No. 95% of all human existence through history has been poo poo. The whole human story is about being thrust into a world of poo poo and trying to overcome it. Maybe it's a Sisyphean task, but I think there is more triumph than tragedy in making an attempt. LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Mar 30, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you've got a justification for why the world is mostly nice I'd be interested to hear it. Because "suffering" is quite an arbitrary concept, and more or less completely in the eye of the beholder. The fact that people aren't throwing themselves off bridges en mass is a pretty good indicator that they see a net positive in continuing to breath and reproduce. Like, we live in a world where millions of people believe broadband internet is a human right, and that denying people free access to that service is barbaric. Our modern concept of "suffering" is radically different than someone from 25, 50, or 100 years ago. To suggest that now is the time for the species to lay down and die because life is poo poo seems kinda wierd. It's like a specifically bougie ennui. Boguennui? Beaujolais?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Well, no I'm arguing specifically that the fact that people think their lives are good is not a trustworthy metric, because if people didn't think their lives were worth living they would die, which suggests that the people who are alive are the ones most resistant to believing that their lives aren't worth living, not necessarily that they are the ones with the best lives. Do you think it is more likely that humans have objectively good lives, or simply that they have evolved a cognitive bias to make them incapable of recognizing that their lives are bad? While still experiencing pain constantly? "Objectively good lives" is an irrational concept, especially if your measurement is something as nebulous as "suffering". Does a "brain in a jar" that experiences no pain and only constant bliss have an "objectively good life"? Why is coping with or rationalizing pain a universal negative? Maybe learning to deal with suffering and adversity is actually key to having a good, resilient worldview. One that leads to a "good life" and some deeper sense of happiness or satisfaction beyond simple comfort.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Or perhaps all of that is after-the-fact justification to align your ability to think and philosophize with your overriding, animal instinct to not die above all else. If you ditch your dualistic premise of a discrete "animal" instinct and "rational" mind, this falls apart. It's the same "after the fact rationalizing" by our sapient mind that equates bodily and mental discomfort with "suffering" in the first place. The "rational" concept of suffering is rooted in the same instinctual directive to "not die" as is the ability to cope. And again, what is an "objectively good life"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
There's a whole other group of problems if you assume a dualistic mind, but I'm phoneposting and don't want to dig into that right now. OwlFancier posted:One which does not require cognitive bias to be recognized as such. But this is a circular argument for reasons already pointed out. Tying it back into the original question of the thread, if you hold that: 1) "Suffering" is not an objective, universal, or measurable concept. 2) Whether you call it "cognitive bias", or simply learning to cope", people can be content within their own experience despite pain or adversity. 3) That, given #2, most people decide that life is worth living for their own reasons, and due to #1, you can't objectively tell them that they're wrong. Then procreating is not that ethically controversial. Most people cope, and in the end, coping is sort of a personal responsibility anyway. You're not forcing the decision to experience life on someone, but merely giving them the decision in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:Only if they do so without my consent, much in the same way as if you have a child they cannot consent to being born. This I think is one of the core problems with your (and OwlFancier's) argument. Consent prior to existence is an irrational and impossible concept. There is no violation of consent when one creates a being that is able to consent. Actually, if we want to talk about consent, we should bring up implied consent. For example, if you come across a person who has lost consciousness and is in a life threatening situation, legally (and morally, for most people), you can act to save their lives, because it is implied that most people do not wish to die. To take this a bit further, lets apply your logic to Singer's drowning child problem. You would be ethically obligated to allow the child to drown because you can't get consent from them that they wish to continue living. That seems a bit absurd, doesn't it? Helsing posted:If happiness is actually possible and in fact achievable for most humans then the private miseries of the average goon would be robbed of their significance. I wonder if people like OwlFancier recognize the self-flattery they are engaging in when they insist that life is constitutionally miserable for everyone and that they just happen to be part of the select few who are sharp-eyed enough to recognize it. I think you may be on to something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:20
|
|