WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WANT TO PREVENT BAD THINGS

this is """""""philosophy"""""""

WHY SHOULD PEOPLE WANT TO PREVENT BAD THINGS

this is """""""philosophy"""""""

No. It's why should preventing things be imperative.

And it's not about what people want.

The fact you've just said this illustrates why it's impossible to talk about this with you, you don't understand the difference.

At this point having to explain these concepts to you in order for you to even be able to begin you holy crusade against nihilism, I'd have an easier time explaining parallax to flat-earthers. Or object permanence to a cat.

it's not just that pain is "bad"--it's that no pain, or pleasure, are better sensations

You have to establish a goal or purpose before you can say they are better. "Better" implies it works towards something more effectively. Obviously in this case the goal is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Well hmm if you just pretend that that's a given then this whole things seems so obvious doesn't it? Well the point is for you to posit why that those are the criteria of what makes "better" in ways that exist independent of the fact that things that feel pain avoid it. Because that's the very nature of pain, it's a response pattern that naturally developed in life because avoiding damage propagates genes well. Nothing about these observations produce the need to prevent pain.

if you establish the existence of sensations that are demonstrably better or worse than each other, then we have an imperative to seek out the better sensations--because they are better

Duh. The discussion is about how and why you make those established criteria.

im on verbs side

mostly

What makes a thing bad?

a distinct lack of good that goes beyond the neutral

e.g.
something that causes pain, suffering, discomfort, or displeasure--a negative sensation that you do not want and did not ask for

Quote from: Verbatim on April 19, 2016, 01:02:07 AM

Quote from: Jeremiah Johnson on April 19, 2016, 12:58:08 AM

What makes a thing bad?

a distinct lack of good that goes beyond the neutral

e.g.
something that causes pain, suffering, discomfort, or displeasure--a negative sensation that you do not want and did not ask for

But what makes a thing GOOD?

whatever you consent to, which is up to the individual

in general, things that cause pleasure, joy, comfort, happiness--positive sensations that you DO want, and DO ask for

that's "good," in reference to sensation

"good" is literally whatever you want it to be, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others etc. etc.

so are we done or what

i established what's bad, and i established what's good, like you asked

if you set "to create a suffering-free society" as your goal, which has always been my goal, these establishments seem pretty objective to me--but is there any contention

Quote from: eggsalad on April 19, 2016, 12:36:36 AM

You have to establish a goal or purpose before you can say they are better. "Better" implies it works towards something more effectively. Obviously in this case the goal is to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Well hmm if you just pretend that that's a given then this whole things seems so obvious doesn't it?

why yes, it does

Quote

Well the point is for you to posit why that those are the criteria of what makes "better" in ways that exist independent of the fact that things that feel pain avoid it. Because that's the very nature of pain, it's a response pattern that naturally developed in life because avoiding damage propagates genes well. Nothing about these observations produce the need to prevent pain.

apart from the fact that it tends to make things more difficult for us?

pain makes us less productive, it hinders progress, and it deters us from performing necessary tasks, depending on the form and severity of the pain

it lowers your quality of life--and if your quality of life is low, you will be less likely to contribute anything of value to your society

these effects are not absolute and they do vary, but generally speaking, everyone's lives would be better if they never had to deal with pain

and if you're one of them "pain is a learning tool" types, anti-natalism is the solution to that one--it is better to be unborn than be alive in a world full of pain, suffering, and stupid nihilists

You're assuming that what matters to life matters objectively.

You're assuming that what matters to life matters objectively.

Because life is the only thing that matters. Without us, the universe really does have no meaning.

Quote from: Verbatim on April 19, 2016, 09:18:45 AM

in a universe without meaning, you have to create your own

and the one you create should benefit everyone in the world--not just yourself

because everyone is playing the same game as you are

you don't have to, it just feels better to.

Wrong. It feels like fucking shit, actually.

Do you know how awesome it would be if nothing mattered? So much weight would be off of my shoulders.

I'd really like it to be true, but it's not.

Because life is the only thing that matters. Without us, the universe really does have no meaning.

How do you think this holds up when we look at life through a deterministic lens or just generally any perspective without free-will? Ones where the distinction between alive and inanimate are drawn fairly arbitrarily.

Wrong. It feels like fucking shit, actually.

Do you know how awesome it would be if nothing mattered? So much weight would be off of my shoulders.

I'd really like it to be true, but it's not.

tbh all i hear is a theist saying they'd rape and murder without god being present

How do you think this holds up when we look at life through a deterministic lens or just generally any perspective without free-will?

I'd say it's an irrelevant point. We have the illusion of free will, and that's what matters. The universe being deterministic doesn't mean that we shouldn't read our script. You have to do your little job, regardless of if it's all scripted or not. Because if nothing gets done, then nothing gets done.

tbh all i hear is a theist saying they'd rape and murder without god being present

Oh, okay. And you like to eat pig shit, and you like to savor the flavor by sloshing it around with your tongue.

Is this what we're gonna do?

I'd say you don't know what it means lmao

Because you're insecure that YOU don't know what it means, so you'll accuse me of not knowing what it means instead.

Do I intimidate you?

ayyy

k

Looks like I win.

Nihilists eat shit.

but not in vain

in the scenario i illustrated, the cancer patient's sacrifice was certainly not in vain

it was for (perhaps) the greatest of all causes

does that not matter to you

So in your mind, the ends justify the means. Since there was a good result, the fact that the cancer patient was forced into self-sacrifice means nothing to you?

Curing cancer is obviously a great cause, and it would matter to me if there was a moral way to achieve it. But the hypothetical you brought up doesn't have that way. The end result is intrinsically good, but reaching that result means throwing away the human right to sovereignty of your body. I think any decent person would kill themselves to meet the end, but if they choose not to, that's the end of it. If you supercede that wish and kill them anyway, you're murdering someone. You're not giving people cancer if you choose not to murder him, everything would be exactly the same as it was yesterday.

Quote

If you were told we could have eternal world peace and happiness if 100 people were forced to stay alive and be in constant excruciating pain eternally, then I don't give a shit what you say.

see, that's a different kind of thing, though

like, completely

you're talking about suffering and pleasure, there--and obviously, as an anti-natalist, do you think i'd have 100 people suffer the worst pain possible forever just to have a perfect society of people who feel constant orgasmic pleasure every day? no

it's important to make the scenario about life and death--not pleasure and suffering

i wouldn't keep a one rat alive to have a perfect society

Then what's the difference? In one scenario you're forcibly making a nonconsenting person die, in the other scenario you're forcibly making a nonconsenting person get tortured. Either way, you're making an imposition on someone who doesn't want it, for the good of society. Obviously an execution and prolonged torture are two different things, but the principle is identical. Someone is expected to give up their life for the lives of others. Regardless of the outcome, the means of the outcome are not morally sound whatsoever.

People die every day, from cancer to getting murdered on the street. People will always die, just like animals will always die. The only thing that makes these septillions of deaths worth anything is us moving forward as a species. And the only thing that distinguishes us as a species is our morality. No one, no matter the situation, should be forced to kill themselves or be executed. Being born in and of itself is an unfair, cruel event, and it's our duty to ensure that every human life on this planet gets all the same rights and privileges. Fairness, consent, and equality are all.

You bring up the killing Hitler example, but if Hitler allowed himself to be taken prisoner, it would be morally wrong to kill him. Executions in general are wrong. If cancer was somehow held accountable for its actions, then it would be wrong. But the person who "has" to kill themselves didn't cause cancer, and they didn't ask for this hypothetical to be placed on them. All the human lives lost to reach this point in history mean NOTHING if we're going to trample over and ignore the rights every human is born with.

and allowing tens of millions of people to suffer and die to let one live for two months is "fairness" to you

you've yet to demonstrate how indirectly causing suffering isn't as bad as directly causing it

i do not understand why you draw this line

Allowing tens of millions of people to suffer and die to preserve one person's rights is fairness. Allowing one person to suffer and die to preserve tens of millions of people's rights is fairness. The point isn't that he has two months to live, the point is that he has chosen to not sacrifice himself. Any time you take away someone's rights, you're being more unfair than allowing someone to die from a disease they would've died from regardless.

Indirectly causing suffering in your eyes is allowing things that would happen anyway to happen. Not intervening. Of course that's not as bad as directly causing the suffering. With indirect suffering, something had to be there first. And a lack of intervention is what causes deaths. But with your logic, we're all monsters and allowing tens of millions of people to die by not doing absolutely everything we can to cure cancer.

Quote

You bring up the killing Hitler example, but if Hitler allowed himself to be taken prisoner, it would be morally wrong to kill him. Executions in general are wrong. If cancer was somehow held accountable for its actions, then it would be wrong. But the person who "has" to kill themselves didn't cause cancer, and they didn't ask for this hypothetical to be placed on them.

why does that matter

Because he's not the instigator of cancer. He was simply thrust into a position where he could cure it. He has no obligation to remedy the plague of cancer because he isn't responsible for it. Is sacrificing yourself to save others good? In any sense, yes. But you only have the obligation to make that sacrifice if the suffering was from a result of your initial action.

Quote

All the human lives lost to reach this point in history mean NOTHING if we're going to trample over and ignore the rights every human is born with.

you place too much value over rights

there are more important things than rights

No, there aren't.