The philosophy is simple, communicate better with your family and its ok to be ordinary because average people makes the multiverse go round. lol

What good are geniuses and CEOs and presidents without billions of average people working on ordinary things?

The Tao [Way] that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things.

This is the most important thing about Taoism, minus the mythical things.

Its basically the scientific method and accepting the vastness of reality, antithesis to certainty and religion.

lol, first of all, define free will, properly. /s

wow, you actually read it? I commend you.

I'd just ask OP for a summary of his main points. lol

google it? lol

Axiom is a very basic claim of most philosophies, its valid when you have no objective ways of proving it "wrong".

>Life? Existence? Are those such throwaway things?

You know about the repugnant conclusion?

Life and existence itself are not the things people value, its the quality of it.

If most lives are horrible with no prospect of betterment, I doubt we would want it to continue. lol

This is not the case, hence we persist, but this IS the case for some unlucky victims, which is why some philosophies argue that we must evaluated life from their perspective and concluded that we should end it to spare future generation of victims.

It is an extreme position, but it is not without merit.

If we want to argue that something is so valuable that we have no choice but to accept the existence of these perpetual victims, then it better be something really worth it, but what would it be?

Positive conscious experience for the "majority" of luckier people? Is this drug addictive enough to continue our existence and risk the suffering of millions?

According to their arguments, it is because the victims never asked for it, they were forced into such horrible fates because we continue to exist, meaning we are deliberately perpetuating their suffering knowing that a percentage of them will always suffer.

Therefore we have a moral obligation to stop this once and for all, if we cant create a suffering free Utopia (which is near impossible), then it would be easier and more practical to just blow up earth or something similar.

They have basically compared the options and found total annihilation of life to be much more achievable so that's why they went for it.

To be fair, a suffering free Utopia is not totally impossible, its just very hard to achieve and will probably take thousands of years if not longer, it would be much easier and create much less victims if we just blow up earth. lol

lol I doubt suffering is just mental.

Stage 4 bone cancer, raped to death by gangs, tortured and murdered by ISIS, a lifetime of abuse, violence and deaths for some of the most unlucky people on earth.

Its both mental and physical.

The argument here is that if some of them have to suffer so horribly unworthy existence, then non of us have the right to exist. lol

>I feel like all these are built on the same foundations that suffering should be minimised to the extreme and suffering is unavoidable for life (at least some of it) so the only way to totally remove suffering is to remove life. If you reject the extreme minimisation premise then you don't have this dilemma. Perhaps we need to accept suffering as unavoidable and our philosophies should aim to avoid the creation of any avoidable suffering instead (and accept that we may not be able to get 100% of it)?

So if extreme minimization is not the goal, what is/are the goal(s)?

There has to be something much more valuable? Enough to make us accept the sacrifice of these unlucky sufferers? What is it though?

To become a zombie matrix is not the goal, the argument is to remove extreme suffering from existence, so that nobody has to go through it.

Of course, if suffering far outweighs pleasures, most of us would prefer that life ends, this is objectively true as far as we can tell.

However, it doesnt address the axiomatic claim that if SOME have to suffer, then NONE should exist to risk this suffering in perpetuity, especially when nobody asked for it, we were all born without a chance to weigh the risk and reject or accept our births.

It may be a minority moral claim, but it is still a valid claim that requires proper counter.

How do you counter this argument? Majority rule?

There are some depressing philosophies that argue life should not exist at all due to suffering.

This is their arguments, see if you can counter them.

1. Life has many suffering due random bad luck, some humans and animals will always be suffering terribly and die in agony, living a life that is horribly not worth its existence by most standards.
2. Since suffering is perpetual for the unlucky, therefore they argued that it is not fair for the rest of existence to continue at their expense, meaning if SOME have to suffer, then NONE should exist.
3. So in order to permanently prevent future unlucky sufferers, it is our moral obligation to find a way to painlessly and instantaneously "Remove" all life from earth, think Thanos snap but with all life on earth. lol
4. Basically, if suffering is perpetual or takes a long time to be solved by future technology, then life on earth should not continue, because the unlucky suffering of some lives far outweighs the "decent" lives of the rest. (ex: Negative utilitarianism)
5. Since nobody asked to be born (animals as well), then nobody consented to their suffering and sacrifice, thus it is doubly immoral for life on earth to keep existing at their expense.

Ok, what is your counter for these arguments? lol

You can never truly know yourself, results vary from individuals to individuals, case closed. lol

Its everywhere in Pong too.

and brain hacking.

This is why we must have Elon Musk's brain chip, it could give us direct telepathy, lol.

could also give us direct insanity. lol

I think Gregory is into furry cosplay, that's how he knew. lol

hmm, I am skeptical, I mean we dont lack really inspiring moral people, yet very few people are actually inspired to behave like Jesus, Buddha, Mandela, Dhalai Lama, etc.

We may admire them, but its a lot harder to BE like them, they are unique individuals that most people cant copy, because most people are just not wired to be that "moral".

According to some pro death and extinction philosophies, these are their arguments that cannot be countered, because its perfectly logical and moral (they claim):

​

1. Nobody asked to be born into a risky world with suffering, since consent is an absolute moral code, this means nobody should procreate because this violates consent that cannot be given (by the unborn).
2. Since the world is a perpetual trolley problem with guaranteed victims of great suffering, then it is morally wrong for us to continue existing at the expense of these victims. The moral thing to do would be to not exist at all and prevent any and all possible future victims, meaning we should blow up the earth or something similar.
3. Animals suffer from the same problem, so they should be blown up together with the planet, to prevent future suffering.
4. A suffering free utopia of the future is very unlikely and even if we could achieve it, it would take many generations of sufferers, so its morally unjustifiable.
5. There are no greater moral value than 100% prevention of all suffering, life exist just to avoid suffering, thus to go extinct, blow up earth or go full Thanos would be the best goal to achieve for all living things.

What is your counters to these "uncounterable" arguments? lol

/u/existentialgoof

Would like your input as well.

Morality is a combination of mutual biological (natural) needs/preferences and rational reasoning using our higher cognitive function.

Basically a consensus of nature and nurture among people.

I also agree that it wont lead to repugnant conclusion, because people actually like quality and quantity at the same time, they wont give up quality just to increase quantity, that's just absurd backsliding, I dont understand why people think the repugnant conclusion is even preferrable by any sane person. lol

As for utilitarianism, it depends, if negative utilitarianism, then sure its absurd and people simply dont assess their own lives that way, but positive utilitarianism could lead to perpetual improvement of morality based on consensus of human preference, see above.

Libertarianism is less about morality and more about individual liberty, but taken to the extreme absolutist sense, which is an unconvincing argument as whatever "liberty" you have cannot exist in a vacuum, it comes with the price of mutual benefit, cooperation and compromise, unless you live alone in the mountains. lol

I think there is a big difference between primitive racist eugenics VS scientific genetic improvement.

One is a stupid racist ideology based on pseudoscience, the other is actual science trying to make better humans (for all races) without defects and undesirable problems.

Transhumanism is the rational goal to pursue, using tech and AI to create tougher, stronger and smarter humans without all the problems of natural evolution.

I think people back then were just fed up with the barbarism of their feudal lords, kings and rulers. lol

Somebody back then thought it would be better if we just work together to increase quality of life instead of hurting each other for the sake of a few on the top.

But the problem is they didnt think it through, because total nonviolence pacificism is how you become slaves for generations.

The Japanese took this idea and modified it into the Warrior Monk mindset, which is great until it became corrupted with a more violent Samurai bushido, lol.

The modern iteration of this is the Marvel Superhero mindset, where you advocate for all the good shit but still ready to defend them with strength when required.

So we should all learn from Superheroes. lol

Antinatalists and Pro mortalists argue that as long as even ONE person has to suffer without a cure in this world, then NOBODY should exist, its basically the extreme version of the trolley problem where you MUST always sacrifice EVERYONE (and animals) in order to be moral.

Why? Because ending all lives will prevent any possibly of suffering till end of time and total prevention of suffering is the ONLY value that matters, according to these philosophies.

What about creating a suffering free tech Utopia you asked? Well, their usual counter is that its almost impossible and even if its doable, it will require many generations of suffering and they cannot accept this, they want the perfect Utopia TOMORROW and if you cant make it happen TOMORROW, then they prefer blowing up earth or something similar. lol

What about people who WANT to endure suffering and cherish existence you say? Well, their counter is that most if not all people are delusional and biased about life, their lives are all terrible but they dont realize it, therefore according to some "objective" benchmark for suffering, most lives are actually very bad and should not continue to exist, because they know better than the actual individuals who want to live. lol

Lastly, they will claim that consent is a moral absolute and any violation of consent is wrong and should never be done, no exceptions, this means nobody should procreate because nobody asked to be born. If consent is impossible, the default moral position should be to not procreate, according to this "logic", makes sense? lol

What is your counter argument against these extreme philosophies?

Nice summary but Dennett is still using the same unconvincing argument with a different spin.

As Sam Harris put it, compatibilism is just arguing that free will exists as long as the puppet ignores its strings.

Non of our thoughts are free from external causations that we dont control, even our attempts to control our thoughts are just an illusion of will that our brain created from other external stimuli, its just a function of evolution to give us agency and survive better, but agency is not free.

Do you support the benevolent world explorer full Thanos solution then? lol /s

"I will exterminate all life to save them from suffering." lol

On a serious note, suffering cannot be justified by philosophy, it can only be accepted or rejected based on individual circumstances, you can philosophize as much as you want, but when the stage 4 incurable bone cancer hits, many will choose the quick way out.

Its also true that with the right motivation and goals, people can endure a lot of suffering, just look at Nelson Mandela or any wartime soldiers, dissidents and civil rights advocates in authoritarian countries, they may not even see the result of their hard work and suffering, but they do it anyway because they believe it will benefit others after they are long gone.

I think the key takeaway here is possibility, when you have an incurable disease and just suffering to die, there is no possibility for anything good left, so you will prefer to end it. But to suffer for a noble goal that could be achieved in the future, even if you wont live to see it, is a power motivation to keep going, because its not impossible to win, unlike stage 4 incurable bone cancer. lol

Philosophy cannot justify suffering, but the possibility of circumstances can.

I tried ChatGPT with antinatalism, it gave me very crappy generic answers.