I experience joy daily, so existence is not only about suffering.
It's not. But does the joy outweigh the suffering? Maybe for you, but for someone else? Can you justify their existence based on your joy?
I experience joy daily, so existence is not only about suffering.
It's not. But does the joy outweigh the suffering? Maybe for you, but for someone else?
It's not. But does the joy outweigh the suffering? Maybe for you, but for someone else? Can you justify their existence based on your joy?
for everyone.
and if it isn't for you, i encourage you to seek help.
It's not. But does the joy outweigh the suffering? Maybe for you, but for someone else? Can you justify their existence based on your joy?
for everyone.
and if it isn't for you, i encourage you to seek help.
I acknowledge that death may be so sudden/instantaneous so as to have really been "suffered" but even the fear of death and reality of death for most people undeniably qualifies as suffering. Not to mention depression, other ailments, and other aspects of life that qualify as suffering.
I do all that; I try to get out with the few friends I have, I go to gym everyday, etc, and still have depression. I take my meds too. It helps? Sure. But don't cure it. The hell I went to be "stable" today is something I don't want another human being to go for it. It is too damn hard.I think depression is normal. It's even been considered a state humans enter to conserve energy and think on their current situations. Heck, maybe bipolar, personality and other disorders are human's off-kilter result of attempting to adjust to the changes that have exploded in human society over the last 2000 years?
The mental health field is not the most concrete form of medicine. It's not as simple as "hearts pump blood". There's aren't straight-forward tests for human designated illnesses. There are no virus' to detect. It was just decided that "x set of symptoms equals y diagnosis" basically.
Some people find themselves getting better by doing simple things like exercising, eating healthy, getting a little bit of sun, socializing and getting enough sleep. Where is that accounted for? When humans became what they are today, biologically, I'm pretty sure they didn't sit in a chair all day, staring at a computer screen, eating processed food that made them feel bad, and never getting out much. I don't think people making healthy lifestyle changes will fix everyones problems, but I think the culmative regression of the human lifestyle is a good place to start placing some blame over genetics.
It takes two to tango, and technically only one of them had a chance anyway. But if we did think this way, would it be immoral for girls to let their eggs cycle out unfertilized?What about when you fap? Is it immoral that you're essentially flushing or wasting potential beings that could have had a chance of living?
Earth is not living and is not something the can benefit from anything. It's a piece of rock floating in the universe. It does not feel, so it matter very little what benefits the world.Widespread destruction of ecosystems for greed....vast wars and instruments designed explicitly to kill each other most effectively.....billions and billions into fueling hate-filled mercenaries and revolutions and death camps and all sorts of unnecessary bullshit.
Do you really think humans have contributed positively to the Earth's wellbeing?
I don't get this stance, why should he inherently seek help for something like not wanting to have children ?
I simply don't get that.
I don't get this stance, why should he inherently seek help for something like not wanting to have children ?
I simply don't get that.
I think you undervalue life and sentience. I wasn't talking about good feelings it gives me. I was talking about it's existence.
Are you paying attention to my point? If we end ourselves we only guarantee that the life-developing machine goes on without us, we guarantee the uninterrupted cycle of reproductive suffering. How is playing our part in the reproductive cycle a "risk" rather the continuation of the only chance there is to break the suffering portion? As I said, because it continues without us, our part can be viewed as an intervention, not an initiative.
I don't see how it can be easy for you to disregard this. In your own position, you are saying we have a choice to prevent future humans from suffering, and that we are responsible for that which we do not prevent by abstaining from reproduction. Yet if we are also the only beings with the potential to prevent all suffering at some point in the future, and we choose to completely give up all efforts for that that potential prevention, how are we not responsible for the suffering that could have been stopped? The reasoning is same as what you would use to rule out having children, just less immediate.
Still, these arguments are humoring your position. I think you undervalue life itself if you think a little suffering makes it not worth it.
The industrial revolution is very recent in the full scope of our evolution. Our golden age has indeed just begun.
Why do you assume suffering is a bad thing? Everyone needs some form of pain in there life to some effect. It's what tells us what we are doing right, and what we are doing wrong. We learn from it, evolve from it. When you touch a hot stove, your body responds with pain because otherwise you would burn that hand off.This is true. I believe existence necessarily entails some degree of suffering (through pain, fear of death, or otherwise), and that the amount amount of joy one experiences will not necessarily "justify" that suffering. I believe that suffering is bad, and that it is immoral to subject beings capable of feeling of suffering to it. This is one of the premises I acknowledge can be attacked.
I'm sorry, this is still a means/end argument. The end is we can stop all suffering (maybe). The means is we commit immoral acts now that lead to suffering (if you accept that existence necessarily entails suffering and that suffering is immoral). I'm going to sleep now, but I'll respond to you in the morning.
Ignoring day-to-day joy and suffering, life is just inherently cruel. We are all biologically programmed to want to live, and to do everything we can to survive. Yet, the one thing that is absolutely certain is that we will all eventually die. When you give birth to someone, you are at the same time sentencing them to death. I'm not saying it's moral or immoral -- it's just life.
Because there is nothing wrong with subjectivity as long as you value yourself. Why -must- you have an objective standard of morality? How can you know what is best for everyone, what would make everyone happiest? And is that what objective morality is? What if objective morality is what's best for the universe? What if objective morality is what's best for me? Who knows - and that's why I think objectivity and morality should have nothing to do with each other.
I don't think I have the capacity to observe anything in a truly objective way, so it may as well not exist to me. Objectivity requires something be true outside the constraints of my mind, but because I can't ever observe outside the constraints of my mind, I can't ever know if something is objective.
Because calling it evil ascribes all these other superfluous traits to it. Malice, objective negativity, 'wrongness'. I mean, I will personally say "that's terrible" and if I were the type of person who used evil in his every day speech, maybe I'd call it evil - but do I think this is an objectively bad (evil) thing? No - I don't know what something objectively bad would be. And I really don't care - I care less about objective morality even if it were to exist than I do my subjective morality.
All those things you mentioned as positives are not 'objective' positives, they are your personal ideas of what something positive would be. And that's okay, I think. What does it matter if you don't know what objective morality entails? Isn't your personal moral standard good enough?
Thats exciting, but in the end I don't think about it that deep on the daily lol. Its more about that day my children were born, that feeling washing over my existence that all is right and that this is what I was put on this planet to do. Seed.
More power to anyone who doesn't want to have kids, clearly its not for everyone. Whats good for me isn't the same for someone else. But, that feeling I'm talking about ... its something childless humans will never experience on their one chance at life. And that makes me sad for them.
I don't get this stance, why should he inherently seek help for something like not wanting to have children ?
I simply don't get that.
I don't get this stance, why should he inherently seek help for something like not wanting to have children ?
I simply don't get that.
"if it isn't for you, I encourage you to seek help"
if you don't conform to societal expectations, you are there for mentally ill is what you are saying.
there's a difference between deciding having kids isn't right for you and considering having children immoral. one is a perfectly normal lifestyle choice, and one is a gross misunderstanding of life that may be indicitive of deeper psychological issues.
I don't think I've ever met a single person that was completely 100% free of mental defects, it would be creepy if I did though.
everyone in this thread is over thinking everything
Immoral or moral these are human created ideas and notions
We are all animals in the end on a floating space rock.
and we all want our genes to be past on to the next generation of animals.
it is the basic core of humanity, is to fuck and pass on genes irregardless of everything else.
or in GAF terms Mario gets to fuck the princess and the Wii U is born...
I do all that; I try to get out with the few friends I have, I go to gym everyday, etc, and still have depression. I take my meds too. It helps? Sure. But don't cure it. The hell I went to be "stable" today is something I don't want another human being to go for it. It is too damn hard.
Ignoring day-to-day joy and suffering, life is just inherently cruel. We are all biologically programmed to want to live, and to do everything we can to survive. Yet, the one thing that is absolutely certain is that we will all eventually die. When you give birth to someone, you are at the same time sentencing them to death. I'm not saying it's moral or immoral -- it's just life.
we already have a blame space
Very hard for you. I can understand where you're coming from but I try to always think to myself "no matter how negatively I view my reality, there are many who have a more difficult reality and many who have a less difficult reality".
When the bads and bad feelings are given more of my mental energy and attention it is what makes them more prominent. Sorry, I'm not trying to change your mind and I do respect where you are coming from. I am just trying to speak from experience when I point out that mindset and what you focus on can be a very powerful tool in mental health and "happiness".
You should be more concerned with how having a child is an immoral act. You are blatantly ignoring the alternative perspective I am offering and continuing with your own unsupported presuppositions that the sufferings experienced are the same as us inflicting them just because our actions are what resulted in the life. You need to demonstrate how that is true and also demonstrate how that connection of personal responsibility to us would not also connect us to a responsibility to work toward preventing future suffering that would occur whether or not we have children.The means is we commit immoral acts now that lead to suffering (if you accept that existence necessarily entails suffering and that suffering is immoral).
"Eat your peas son. The starving kids in Africa would love to eat food like this"
Now that I think a little more on this I think that if you have pretty shitty living conditions that aren't really fit for raising a family, then the answer to the OP's question could be a yes.
I mean if I had no money, a shit tonne of debt, no house, some sickness that meant I would die when my kids are only in their early teens, no job skills, I lived in a horrible place full of crime, pollution, no education, no internet, etc.... I think I would feel quite immoral having a baby and bringing it into what I would see as my shitty life.
Braves01, are you for or against abortion?
Braves01, are you for or against abortion?
Morality might be a social construct, but it's every bit as relevant to us as as it would be if it exists objectively, since it deals with issues of practical significance to us in our daily lives.everyone in this thread is over thinking everything
Immoral or moral these are human created ideas and notions
We are all animals in the end on a floating space rock.
and we all want our genes to be past on to the next generation of animals.
it is the basic core of humanity, is to fuck and pass on genes irregardless of everything else.
or in GAF terms Mario gets to fuck the princess and the Wii U is born...
Braves01, are you for or against abortion?
If you want someone who will truly rip your concepts of morality to pieces, start here: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences
By "someone" I meant the community, but I wouldn't want to send someone to the community without knowledge of where the community is coming from, hence the sequences.Less Wrong is great, but I'm not sure that's the introduction I'd give to the Sequences.
The reason people are often for abortion is that they don't see abortion as killing a person. They are killing a lump of flesh that is not cognizant. Perhaps one day it would become conscious, but it isn't when the abortion occurs.
The same basic concept would apply to asking fetuses if they want to live; you'd no more ask that then you'd ask a cat or a chicken the same question. It isn't intelligent enough to decide, so it doesn't get to choose.
Regardless of population concerns, when you give birth you force (eventually) sentient beings into existence without giving them the chance to consent to existence. Even if they are born into a perfectly happy family with all the means to raise them, these kids will be forced to suffer the pain of being alive, either through depression or simply the pain and fear of death. The only way to opt-out of living after birth is through death, and even if death is through painless suicide or even unforeseen accident, there is always the fear of dying which is undeniably unpleasant.
Assuming that inflicting suffering on beings capable of feeling pain/fear/what-have-you is immoral, how can having children be moral, even if there is the possibility the net joy they experience is greater than the net pain? Isn't that risk something that should be consented to? Or does the preservation of humanity outweigh that facially immoral act?
I don't think anyone is proposing that we should ask fetuses if they want to live.
Personally I think we should have a "a kick once if you want to live, twice if you don't" test. We need to accommodate the wishes of the fetuses.I don't think anyone is proposing that we should ask fetuses if they want to live.
I am not simply saying you shouldn't ask. I am saying they have no right to choose, just as chickens don't, or cats don't, or carrots don't. We make choices for living things without agency all the time.