Are there any good works/writings on career and work? Particularly through an existential lens. I'm trying to think more critically about meaning in industry, career, work, etc and am looking for further reading - google has been leading to grindset-related content thats... not what I am looking for.
# Marxism is Unrealistic: The Solution to Societal Succession is Not the Downfall of Capitalism
Marxism's idea of capitalism having annotations of feudalism and slavery are quite sound, however I would disagree with the common solution of "move over capitalism or the American empire will be under the rule of China" I am aware that capitalism leaves many lower than others, however I do not subscribe to the idea of there being a a socioeconomic situation where all are equal, where we are without lords and serfs, slaves and masters. It is unfortune to be a part of a nonequivalent society. However this "one man" society, the one without positions of superiority and inferiority, seems to be anomalous with nature. Where has such a scene ever been observed before, in the history of not only society, or humans, but within the entire existence known to us? Do you really believe we are the mutation, the abnormality? We are the exception? What evidence do you have? Aberrations could lack reasoning, as they appear to do often, but mathematically it is extremely unlikely. Therefore perpetual parity is a dichotomy of evolution, ergo it attacks the macrocosm observable to us.
I believe that all societal systems are flawed in many ways regardless of how similar to a "one man" society they may seem while I do not subscribe to a socioeconomic situation where all is equal, I feel that your wealth and status mean way too much in day to day society to eventually get rid of, however, taxing and inflation can eventually get rid of.
> I do not subscribe to the idea of there being a a socioeconomic situation where all are equal, where we are without lords and serfs, slaves and masters. It is unfortune to be a part of a nonequivalent society.
I think that this misuses the terms "lords," "serfs," "slaves" and "masters." Feudal serfdom and slavery both had very specific facets to them that are not necessarily present in a society simply because it us unequal, even if it is exceedingly unequal.
CEOs and employees might a better example. Serf and lord was a somewhat extreme exaggeration. Worker ants and queens, hedge funds and day traders. I meant to illustrate the general inequality, not necessarily slaves and serfs specifically.
If anyone thinks that China is succeeding because it's a more equal society has obviously never been to China. I have, my wife is Chinese, and it's incredibly unequal. Slave labour-like conditions are common in many industries. In many ways in the general economy outside state industries it's hyper-capitalist. Consumer protections are almost nonexistent for example. Enforcement of what protections there are is on a tallest nail basis. If your abuses don't stand out or gain any publicity and you grease the right palms you can get away with anything, but if your activities embarrass the authorities the hammer comes down hard and fast.
The trouble with communal ownership is it turns out people like owning things. Our house, our car, our furniture, computer, musical instruments, tools, whatever we decide we value. Owning our place of work and means of production sounds nice, but the problem is it creates obligations.
Richard D. Wolff has an example of what he thinks is an ideal working arrangement where a group of people get together to run a restaurant. Instead of having an owner that hires workers, the chefs, cleaners, waiting staff all own the restaurant in common and all have a say in how it's run. The problem with this is not everyone wants to share the responsibilities and risks of such an arrangement. Owners take on huge risks and responsibilities. If there is no owner, all of that is on you, the employee/owner. After all there's nothing to stop a group of wait staff, cooks and cleaners from grouping together and starting such a restaurant right now. There are good reasons why they don't, we like the freedom that being an employee grants us, being able to just leave a job and go to another one.
That's not to say that capitalism in the raw is ideal, neither of these is ideal. The ideal is a balance between them, and that's what we actually have, even in the US. Arguably the US is way too light on consumer and employee rights, but maybe parts of Europe are too heavy on those. That's a matter for each country though.
I like this restaurant analogy; Dr. Wolff actually inspired a part of this rant. By the takeover by the Chinese I meant their production efficiency. Labour costs and the control over their people. Their societal efficiency is definitely not enjoyed by many, but in terms of numbers and production it is extremely ideal.
Right, achieved through the ruthless exploitation of labour on a scale and with a disregard for ethics and labour right unlike anything seen in any democratic country.
I am reading beyond good and evil and having an issue. Is Nietzsche some kind of spiritual anarchist or just someone who likes the first emperor of an empire? Nietzsche has a real distaste for anything that is created after that emperor dies and believes it becomes a shell of itself? Then, it's only responsibility it to force everyone to submit through a repetitious dance?
Hello, thank you for having me in this thread.
————-
Reflections on Eternity and Infinity
Today, I felt infinity.
I saw this world from the perspective of eternal darkness.
Being alive is a unique state.
Imagining this world from the near-eternal state of death, I realized something.
The present moment.
For me, it’s this moment of writing these words.
For you, it’s this moment of reading these words.
This moment, no matter what you are doing, is a precious time.
The fact that you came across this text, the fact that you are reading this text, are all fleeting moments within infinity.
From the perspective beyond the end, looking at this world, I felt envy, jealousy, sadness, and foolishness, as well as love and longing.
Those emotions were chaotic.
Within that chaos, I felt the infinity in each moment.
I don’t want to say you can do anything, but in reality, you should feel free to do what you want.
From the perspective beyond the end, this view was undeniably dazzling and radiant.
This text is a reflection of my thoughts on death and infinity. I would love to hear your opinions and feelings about it.
============
**Life is not worth living for everyone.**
So is it moral to keep creating new people?
According to some philosophies, the very fact that some people will be born into miserable, horrible, terrible and absolutely nothing but suffering and tragic deaths, is reason enough to make procreation immoral, because we have no way to prevent random bad luck from creating the next few million victims, PERPETUALLY.
What is your counter argument?
Can the good lives of some people somehow justify the horrible lives of other victims?
How can it justify it?
I believe it is moral. Life is not worth living for some but is worth living to others. Those people you have created might find life worth living. Not ALL of them will find life not worth living. So, to have a chance to bring some people who will have lives worth living to this world is a win.
Here are some factors as to why people might find life NOT worth living.
* Born into a poor family
* Disorders
* Bad Treatment from others
* Bad Luck
* Addictions
Those are understandable reasons. However, there are many people who have been through these, lost hope, but still found light and fought it. And many of them who used to find life not worth living now have meaningful and happy lives.
So, there is a chance that those people will find help and support, and eventually be happy and have good lives. If we don't "create people" at all... we are taking that chance away fully.
Besides, there is also a huge possibility the people we create will find life worth living, so it will not be fair for future people who will live a life worth living.
And, well I hate to say this, but if people genuinely hate their lives, they can resort to suicide. You gave them a chance to find a life worth living, and if they truly cannot find it, and decide death is a better option, they can do this.
EDIT: Being alive is a good time to embrace your 5 senses and feelings. Even if those people's overall lives are pretty depressing, they would still have experienced something new and maybe good rather than just being like... without consciousness.
So you are saying its totally acceptable for 100s of millions of people to suffer and 10s of millions to die tragically each year, in order for the rest to be "somewhat" happy?
Why is it acceptable? How can you trade one person's happiness with another's suffering? How does the math work?
ex: 2 happy person can justify 1 sufferer?
I meant that there is a chance that the person you brought into life, who may be suffering, finds help and hope, thus lives a happy life. Many people who have been suffering have changed paths.
If the people you birthed are suffering, there's aways some sort of hope/miracle that may happen, given the increased amount of attention we are giving to people who are suffering.
Look at it this way. If you birth them and they suffer, there is a possibility they will change paths somehow. If you don't even give them a chance to live, there is NO WAY they can live happy lives.
and what about those that don't find help or hope and died after years or decades of suffering?
They don't exist? If good things happened, really bad things also happened, this is REALITY, not a Disney movie with only good ending.
So its ok for these unlucky people to suffer and die without anything "good" or "worth it"?
How is this fair or moral for them?
Give who a chance? No souls begging to risk a life, nobody demanded for their own birth, procreation is entirely a selfish and one sided decision.
So in order to have some happy lives, its ok to MILLIONS of terrible lives?
Your points are reasonable, definitely.
But firstly, you are estimating that there are a lot more people who are living sad lives than those living happy lives, which is not necessarily true without proven data.
I MAY be leaning to a bit more positive debate as you have referred to as "Disney", but as you have said, this IS reality, and there will DEFINITELY be people who die unhappy with a lifelong suffering.
My main point for the previous question I answered is about the chance that those suffering will become happy later, and that if we don't bring them to life, they will have a flat out 0 per cent chance of even living a happy life. Do you get my logic thus far?
Besides, even a poor person struggling will find happiness if they change their views on things.
Note that this is LIFE, there will definitely be people who die suffering to their grave, and that's all part of this world.
It's not necessarily OK, but that's something we cannot prevent, and giving birth, giving them a possibility to be happy is still better than just denying them a chance to even give their shot at living a fulfilling life.
Anyway, if we are talking about future generations and unity of humans as a whole, the new people, even if they are suffering, may have something to contribute to this world, like raising awareness on their struggles, etc. so this would benefit future humans.
>But firstly, you are estimating that there are a lot more people who are living sad lives than those living happy lives, which is not necessarily true without proven data.
I said millions, not billions.
[https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/](https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/)
Over 30% of people polled are very unhappy, self grading less than 5 out of 10.
800k suicide deaths, 3 million attempts, 100s of millions with incurable suffering (both physical and mental), 10s of millions dead (6 million are children), PER YEAR.
Sure, not the majority, but more than 30% is pretty bad, by any measure.
>It's not necessarily OK, but that's something we cannot prevent, and giving birth, giving them a possibility to be happy is still better than just denying them a chance to even give their shot at living a fulfilling life.
Again, giving "who"? NOBODY asked for their own birth, NOBODY can be created for their own sake, you'll have to break the laws of causality and physics to argue this.
Nobody is being denied, because nobody existed before their creation, they didn't beg to be created.
This is ENTIRELY a one sided and selfish activity of the procreators, you cannot deny this as it is a simple objective fact.
Are you implying the soul or something in the void exists and WANT to be born?
>Anyway, if we are talking about future generations and unity of humans as a whole, the new people, even if they are suffering, may have something to contribute to this world, like raising awareness on their struggles, etc. so this would benefit future humans.
So sacrificing people to terrible suffering and tragic deaths, as a lesson for luckier people? How is this even REMOTELY moral? Under what sadistic moral framework is this considered moral?
>something we cannot prevent
Extinction, voluntary and deliberate engineering of extinction.
Pretty sure that works.
While it's true that a significant amount of people may experience unhappiness, suffering, and even tragic deaths, it's also important to acknowledge that many people find meaning, happiness, and fulfillment in life despite previous hardships. By bringing new lives into existence, there is a chance—although not guaranteed—that these individuals can overcome adversity and experience positive aspects of life.
Each new life has the potential to contribute to the world, whether through personal growth, creativity, or contributions to societal progress. This potential benefit to humanity, such as raising awareness about suffering or inspiring others through their resilience, can outweigh the negative aspects.
From a moral standpoint, the decision to procreate is based on a belief in the value of life and the potential for individuals to find happiness and meaning.
Let's call "not being created" "meh"
And happy lives "H" - this is one level higher than "meh".
Sad lives "S" - this is one level lower than "meh".
About 70 per cent (from poll) are one level higher than "meh" (H)
About 30 per cent (from poll) are one level lower than "meh" (S)
More people are higher than "meh".
From your arguments, I take it as you want everyone to stay at "meh" for balance. But we are already leaning towards the higher quality of life (H) since majority is there. Why would we want our entire society to degrade a bit just so the 30 per cent upgrade to "meh"? (H people also have to give up their higher quality lives)
P.S. you said millions to suffer for "SOME" to be happy. Some is lesser than millions, in my opinion. Good Debate, GG.
at this point you are just repeating the same flawed logic with no real counter argument.
Basically the same old "As long as the victims are not the majority, it's ok".
Why is it ok? Under what moral framework would this be ok? Cold utilitarian calculus?
Why should we adopt a cold utilitarian calculus?
As I have mentioned, this is reality. There’s no way to justify everything, and not everything HAS to be moral.
That being said, the better decision would still be to side with the majority, who will live happy lives, IMO. You want to side with the minority, that suffers, and sacrifice all the happier people (70 per cent) for them, go ahead.
Sorry if you think that I have not put up a decent debate, but I don’t think I need to explain every single thing since not everything in our lives are explainable.
I cannot counter your arguments as you are asking me to explain things like why we side with majority, how we can ”justify” the suffering, since those things are quite unexplainable with stats or data. We can’t just “justify” suffering or make it “moral”. This debate is more of giving a chance than justifying everything. Life is not math, or court. It’s deeper than that and there is nothing is wrong or right, and perfect. What I am siding with isn’t perfect, I cannot justify ALL the suffering.
If we don’t give birth as a whole for the people who might potentially suffer, how would you justify the people (majority) who are going to live good and fulfilling lives? I know they didn’t ask to be born, but you would be giving them something greater and better if you procreate them.
It was nice debating with you!
EdIt: a soul might not exist, and they don’t beg to be born, but if you ask people who are born whether they would have preferred to have not been born or have born, I think majority would go with the ”have been born”.
> Why is it acceptable?
Because people choose to accept it. What are you appealing to that a) says people are not allowed to make such a choice and b) that anyone should care?
Err, you can't just say "because they wanna accept it", this is philosophy, you need to explain the reason, otherwise we are no different from primitive automatons driven by base instincts like ants or bees.
There is nothing in philosophy that says "this particular preference cannot exist." You're saying that there is a moral imperative to not accept a given outcome. And okay, but that's simply an assertion on your part. Again, there is nothing you can appeal to that says people are not allowed to make the particular choice. Simply attempting to shift the burden of proof doesn't change anything.
Most people enjoy their lives except for a few brief unpleasant parts. I'd meet you this far - procreation is subjecting a potential future person to some RISK of a life filled with suffering, but it's a low risk and in general procreation creates happiness. So if procreation is apt to have 'morality attached', as an action (I don't actually believe this but I'll accept it to allow for discussion) it's either morally neutral or actually a morally positive act.
When someone is pulling your fingernails off with a plier, pain will be intrinsically very bad.
Sam Harris believes morality can be grounded in the worst possible suffering, because its universal, according to him. Read his book "The Moral Landscape."
Religious mumbo jumbo cannot be proven.
We all understand that suffering is very bad and wanna avoid it, but we can never succeed because Utopia is impossible, someone will always be the statistical victim.
The only way to avoid suffering is to remove life from the equation.
Antinatalism is philosophical reasoning based on anti suffering intuition, not divine claims about gods and angels and their "divine rules" for humans.
You might as well compare apples with unicorns.
But an anti-suffering intuition is no more of a real thing than the intuition that deities should be praised or propitiated. Or the intuition that the good things in life outweigh suffering. You're simply declaring that the anti-suffering intuition. because it's important to you, takes precedence over any other intuition.
This might eventually lead into a Kevorkian-esque sort of discussion, where someone might argue that those who are suffering that gravely should be able to remove their suffering, but I won't take that any further, as it's a view I hold no stance on.
Euthanasia? That's pretty basic and legal in many western liberal countries, what is the problem?
But this is different, its arguing for the total and permanent prevention of all suffering, for the sake of the victims, no life should exist, basically.
If you take six people into a room knowing at minimum, one of those people will definitely die horribly, but it's decided at random, isn't it more moral to just leave all the people out of the room?
It seems like there isn't an attempt at weighing the variables here. Humans have suffered since we first walked the green earth, yet we see poetry, art, music, countless religions, and endless philosophies that are all able to grasp that suffering is a necessity for life, and not only a necessity but the very thing that allows for absolute satisfaction and meaning. Socrates at the end of Apology states that because no one can know with certainty what death is, or what may or may not come after it, it's therefore the worst type of arrogance to deem it a terrible thing. To turn the question on its head, if nine people lived the most abundant life, and one suffered and died, should the nine be held back from the magnificence of their temporary existence? This will have a subjective root at its bottom, of course, because I might say that I would gladly be that one who suffers if the rest of the world might flourish. But someone else might say it would be far better to end the populating of the world so as to reduce suffering. I find the latter a bit of a cowardly way out. With suffering, we understand wonder and bliss and meaning, strange as it all is.
>yet we see poetry, art, music, countless religions, and endless philosophies
Yes, but we live in the post-modern era now, which rejects all of these things as meaningless, if not outright evil.
I see your point, but just because the culture of our time 'sees' things in a certain way, it doesn't mean they are that way. We have minds to consider, and maybe just have to ask ourselves if we are willing to suffer for the sake of meaning. I think if all a person wants in life is happiness, and that's their telos, then it's likely their worldview could be to just eradicate everyone and get rid of pain. If, on the other hand, a person holds meaning, truth, beauty, etc. above just that of continual superficial gladness, they might find the suffering worth it. Nietzsche said that thing, "He who has a 'why' can bear any 'how." The thing is, is there enough meaning in people's lives to make the level of suffering worth it? Would you be willing to suffer if it meant nine people had a wonderful life?
But you are not just leaving those people out of the room and putting them somewhere else. The argument I’m criticizing is that since the one suffers the others cannot exist.
Correct. This is a problem for some people and so therefore no one can have it. It’s like censorship. Some people don’t like it so no one can have it. Or other prohibitions. Some people can’t drink alcohol responsibly and so no one can have it. Some people can’t eat peanuts and so no one can have them. Your argument is that some people have miserable lives and so no one can have life.
Yes, some people will always have miserable lives (Utopia impossible), so nobody new should be created to experience this in a game of random chance and life should go extinct soonest.
What's the problem?
Your other examples are trivial and they dont cause horrible suffering and tragic deaths, plus they are for consenting adults, not for procreation where NOBODY ever asked for their own creation, it is entirely the selfish desire and preference of the creators (parents, society).
Thank you for confirming the argument that since some are miserable therefore no one can be born. I disagree that we should all be held accountable for the few but anyway now you’ve changed the argument to consent: since we don’t consent to birth it must be wrong. But we can’t consent to being born. I think ought implies is. You are asking for an impossible solution. You are asking us to be consenting adults before we are even conceived. I think we cannot be held responsible for not doing something that is impossible to do.
You can disagree but you can't prove me wrong, meaning we are still responsible for the suffering we cause through procreation and not going extinct soonest.
Its not impossible, just go extinct, no more consent violation or suffering caused.
Are you saying its impossible to deliberately go extinct?
Exactly, my subjective moral framework is just as good as any, but I think it's better because it absolutely prevents suffering, other frameworks only prolong it with bandaid.
Their only "counter" is that we don't seek to prevent all suffering, which is foolish, because no sufferer would say "I'm fine with my suffering, yippe!!".
Your “solution” is to reduce suffering by eliminating all potential sufferers. That was Skynet’s motivation in Terminator. I’ll stick with the so-called foolish solution of trying to reduce suffering in the world even though it’s a Sisyphean task.
I think this was conclusively answered, although indirectly, by **John Locke \[1632 -1704\].**
He described a child as being born with a blank slate of mind—what he called tabula rasa—arguing that the human mind at birth is empty of any ideas. A child learns by experiencing the world and has the same potential as anyone else. Who knows, a child could change the world.
Obviously, this doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to make the world a better place for our children and future generations.
errr, huh? How is the blank slate argument even remotely related to human suffering and its justification? lol
A child could also become a victim of terminal bone cancer at age 10, dead before 11.
I think such an event is tragic and evil only because we lived enough of a life to agree that that is the case, if a child who knows nothing but such pain and were never exposed to the idea that there's a better life out there then there's nothing evil or tragic about such a life
lol, you think the dying child will never know about other people's lucky and long lives? Seriously?
They don't suffer horribly somehow because of some weird philosophical position you have? lol
Like I said, in this particular hypothetical situation, the child has never been exposed to the idea of a better life and most likely never will.
I never said anything about them not suffering, I only say that they wouldn't see it as a tragedy because that misery is all they ever knew.
I believe that happiness and tragedy is wholly depends on our perspective and previous experience
We don't create people. We choose to either allow our body cells to live and fulfil their biological function, or we kill them or allow them to die. The process of life is continuous.
Life in general ain't only reproductive. Even non-sexual reproduction by splitting in half of unicellural organisms often imply mutations that lead to variability that allows evolution.
Humanity ain't only subjects of biological evolution, we are beings that produce our habitat and made whole new social world we are constantly changing. Children ain't only biological beings but constituents of social body of humanity. Our offspring is socialized in pedagogical (and non pedagogical forms of socialization) process, not everyone in constantitive body of humanity can bring the change, drive the world further in "social" evolution (scientific breakthroughs, or whatever that will change how humanity works) - be the social mutation that will change human specie offspring. That changing factor can't be a changing factor without all the other people around him, we all need teachers, policeman, judges, doctors but also janitors, construction workers, cashiers, list goes on. Also unlike dna mutations which are generally thought not to be directly connected to environment as much (epigenetics tells its not always the case), mutation of individuals in social world in highly dependent on social environment. And speaking about the mutations, the larger the pool of indivuduals are, the larger the pool of those factors that may trigger mutation.
Maybe not everyone can be a Isac Newton, but by having more people, they can either give rise to more support to people to reach similar material status as Newton, work in some field in which very consequential change might occur and such, or try to make their better then as much as possible.
Not to meantion even if I think it's unprobable that poor third world village janitor will be a driver of such change, the mutation I meantioned, who knows, why not? It may be possible, there is many possibilities and channels for a change in social world.
Now about the hypothesised suffering of a child that won't reach its age 10 due to death. That child isn't form of social environment as all the employed people, it may not gone to school but was homeschooled due to its conditions. But it still had impact on its parents, process of parenthood change children as much as parents. That kid still had a impact on its social environment, not a humanity changing one but still was part of it.
So if we keep that idea that life is about suffering or not suffering as life principle, and even take a case of kid that is somewhat isolated from community, its still has impact of social body of this world.
And if life is revolving about not suffering, and social world can form it's environment, change things as we seen throughout history. We may hope by not just continuing life (and avoiding life that most probably ain't gonna suffer) but also also maximising number of people, which because they are variable (can bring social world change of humanity due to mutation change coming from indivuduals and spreading on people) gives bigger chances for that change occurring - that we the humanity will achieve permanent state of no suffering for everyone. In that case every life that suffers is sacrificing itself for greater good.
I know we're not supposed to comment just agreeing, but I agree. I just want to make it clear I wasn't trying to suggest anything contrary to what you wrote above.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**CR3: Be Respectful**
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
You're making a precluding assumption that you have a decision procedure to differentiate objectively a good life from a horrible one, but you do not. So you can't really say that this is a moral question in the first place.
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>**CR3: Be Respectful**
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Are there any good works/writings on career and work? Particularly through an existential lens. I'm trying to think more critically about meaning in industry, career, work, etc and am looking for further reading - google has been leading to grindset-related content thats... not what I am looking for.
# Marxism is Unrealistic: The Solution to Societal Succession is Not the Downfall of Capitalism Marxism's idea of capitalism having annotations of feudalism and slavery are quite sound, however I would disagree with the common solution of "move over capitalism or the American empire will be under the rule of China" I am aware that capitalism leaves many lower than others, however I do not subscribe to the idea of there being a a socioeconomic situation where all are equal, where we are without lords and serfs, slaves and masters. It is unfortune to be a part of a nonequivalent society. However this "one man" society, the one without positions of superiority and inferiority, seems to be anomalous with nature. Where has such a scene ever been observed before, in the history of not only society, or humans, but within the entire existence known to us? Do you really believe we are the mutation, the abnormality? We are the exception? What evidence do you have? Aberrations could lack reasoning, as they appear to do often, but mathematically it is extremely unlikely. Therefore perpetual parity is a dichotomy of evolution, ergo it attacks the macrocosm observable to us.
I believe that all societal systems are flawed in many ways regardless of how similar to a "one man" society they may seem while I do not subscribe to a socioeconomic situation where all is equal, I feel that your wealth and status mean way too much in day to day society to eventually get rid of, however, taxing and inflation can eventually get rid of.
> I do not subscribe to the idea of there being a a socioeconomic situation where all are equal, where we are without lords and serfs, slaves and masters. It is unfortune to be a part of a nonequivalent society. I think that this misuses the terms "lords," "serfs," "slaves" and "masters." Feudal serfdom and slavery both had very specific facets to them that are not necessarily present in a society simply because it us unequal, even if it is exceedingly unequal.
CEOs and employees might a better example. Serf and lord was a somewhat extreme exaggeration. Worker ants and queens, hedge funds and day traders. I meant to illustrate the general inequality, not necessarily slaves and serfs specifically.
If anyone thinks that China is succeeding because it's a more equal society has obviously never been to China. I have, my wife is Chinese, and it's incredibly unequal. Slave labour-like conditions are common in many industries. In many ways in the general economy outside state industries it's hyper-capitalist. Consumer protections are almost nonexistent for example. Enforcement of what protections there are is on a tallest nail basis. If your abuses don't stand out or gain any publicity and you grease the right palms you can get away with anything, but if your activities embarrass the authorities the hammer comes down hard and fast. The trouble with communal ownership is it turns out people like owning things. Our house, our car, our furniture, computer, musical instruments, tools, whatever we decide we value. Owning our place of work and means of production sounds nice, but the problem is it creates obligations. Richard D. Wolff has an example of what he thinks is an ideal working arrangement where a group of people get together to run a restaurant. Instead of having an owner that hires workers, the chefs, cleaners, waiting staff all own the restaurant in common and all have a say in how it's run. The problem with this is not everyone wants to share the responsibilities and risks of such an arrangement. Owners take on huge risks and responsibilities. If there is no owner, all of that is on you, the employee/owner. After all there's nothing to stop a group of wait staff, cooks and cleaners from grouping together and starting such a restaurant right now. There are good reasons why they don't, we like the freedom that being an employee grants us, being able to just leave a job and go to another one. That's not to say that capitalism in the raw is ideal, neither of these is ideal. The ideal is a balance between them, and that's what we actually have, even in the US. Arguably the US is way too light on consumer and employee rights, but maybe parts of Europe are too heavy on those. That's a matter for each country though.
I like this restaurant analogy; Dr. Wolff actually inspired a part of this rant. By the takeover by the Chinese I meant their production efficiency. Labour costs and the control over their people. Their societal efficiency is definitely not enjoyed by many, but in terms of numbers and production it is extremely ideal.
Right, achieved through the ruthless exploitation of labour on a scale and with a disregard for ethics and labour right unlike anything seen in any democratic country.
I am reading beyond good and evil and having an issue. Is Nietzsche some kind of spiritual anarchist or just someone who likes the first emperor of an empire? Nietzsche has a real distaste for anything that is created after that emperor dies and believes it becomes a shell of itself? Then, it's only responsibility it to force everyone to submit through a repetitious dance?
Hello, thank you for having me in this thread. ————- Reflections on Eternity and Infinity Today, I felt infinity. I saw this world from the perspective of eternal darkness. Being alive is a unique state. Imagining this world from the near-eternal state of death, I realized something. The present moment. For me, it’s this moment of writing these words. For you, it’s this moment of reading these words. This moment, no matter what you are doing, is a precious time. The fact that you came across this text, the fact that you are reading this text, are all fleeting moments within infinity. From the perspective beyond the end, looking at this world, I felt envy, jealousy, sadness, and foolishness, as well as love and longing. Those emotions were chaotic. Within that chaos, I felt the infinity in each moment. I don’t want to say you can do anything, but in reality, you should feel free to do what you want. From the perspective beyond the end, this view was undeniably dazzling and radiant. This text is a reflection of my thoughts on death and infinity. I would love to hear your opinions and feelings about it.
============ **Life is not worth living for everyone.** So is it moral to keep creating new people? According to some philosophies, the very fact that some people will be born into miserable, horrible, terrible and absolutely nothing but suffering and tragic deaths, is reason enough to make procreation immoral, because we have no way to prevent random bad luck from creating the next few million victims, PERPETUALLY. What is your counter argument? Can the good lives of some people somehow justify the horrible lives of other victims? How can it justify it?
I believe it is moral. Life is not worth living for some but is worth living to others. Those people you have created might find life worth living. Not ALL of them will find life not worth living. So, to have a chance to bring some people who will have lives worth living to this world is a win. Here are some factors as to why people might find life NOT worth living. * Born into a poor family * Disorders * Bad Treatment from others * Bad Luck * Addictions Those are understandable reasons. However, there are many people who have been through these, lost hope, but still found light and fought it. And many of them who used to find life not worth living now have meaningful and happy lives. So, there is a chance that those people will find help and support, and eventually be happy and have good lives. If we don't "create people" at all... we are taking that chance away fully. Besides, there is also a huge possibility the people we create will find life worth living, so it will not be fair for future people who will live a life worth living. And, well I hate to say this, but if people genuinely hate their lives, they can resort to suicide. You gave them a chance to find a life worth living, and if they truly cannot find it, and decide death is a better option, they can do this. EDIT: Being alive is a good time to embrace your 5 senses and feelings. Even if those people's overall lives are pretty depressing, they would still have experienced something new and maybe good rather than just being like... without consciousness.
So you are saying its totally acceptable for 100s of millions of people to suffer and 10s of millions to die tragically each year, in order for the rest to be "somewhat" happy? Why is it acceptable? How can you trade one person's happiness with another's suffering? How does the math work? ex: 2 happy person can justify 1 sufferer?
I meant that there is a chance that the person you brought into life, who may be suffering, finds help and hope, thus lives a happy life. Many people who have been suffering have changed paths. If the people you birthed are suffering, there's aways some sort of hope/miracle that may happen, given the increased amount of attention we are giving to people who are suffering. Look at it this way. If you birth them and they suffer, there is a possibility they will change paths somehow. If you don't even give them a chance to live, there is NO WAY they can live happy lives.
and what about those that don't find help or hope and died after years or decades of suffering? They don't exist? If good things happened, really bad things also happened, this is REALITY, not a Disney movie with only good ending. So its ok for these unlucky people to suffer and die without anything "good" or "worth it"? How is this fair or moral for them? Give who a chance? No souls begging to risk a life, nobody demanded for their own birth, procreation is entirely a selfish and one sided decision. So in order to have some happy lives, its ok to MILLIONS of terrible lives?
Your points are reasonable, definitely. But firstly, you are estimating that there are a lot more people who are living sad lives than those living happy lives, which is not necessarily true without proven data. I MAY be leaning to a bit more positive debate as you have referred to as "Disney", but as you have said, this IS reality, and there will DEFINITELY be people who die unhappy with a lifelong suffering. My main point for the previous question I answered is about the chance that those suffering will become happy later, and that if we don't bring them to life, they will have a flat out 0 per cent chance of even living a happy life. Do you get my logic thus far? Besides, even a poor person struggling will find happiness if they change their views on things. Note that this is LIFE, there will definitely be people who die suffering to their grave, and that's all part of this world. It's not necessarily OK, but that's something we cannot prevent, and giving birth, giving them a possibility to be happy is still better than just denying them a chance to even give their shot at living a fulfilling life. Anyway, if we are talking about future generations and unity of humans as a whole, the new people, even if they are suffering, may have something to contribute to this world, like raising awareness on their struggles, etc. so this would benefit future humans.
>But firstly, you are estimating that there are a lot more people who are living sad lives than those living happy lives, which is not necessarily true without proven data. I said millions, not billions. [https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/](https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/) Over 30% of people polled are very unhappy, self grading less than 5 out of 10. 800k suicide deaths, 3 million attempts, 100s of millions with incurable suffering (both physical and mental), 10s of millions dead (6 million are children), PER YEAR. Sure, not the majority, but more than 30% is pretty bad, by any measure. >It's not necessarily OK, but that's something we cannot prevent, and giving birth, giving them a possibility to be happy is still better than just denying them a chance to even give their shot at living a fulfilling life. Again, giving "who"? NOBODY asked for their own birth, NOBODY can be created for their own sake, you'll have to break the laws of causality and physics to argue this. Nobody is being denied, because nobody existed before their creation, they didn't beg to be created. This is ENTIRELY a one sided and selfish activity of the procreators, you cannot deny this as it is a simple objective fact. Are you implying the soul or something in the void exists and WANT to be born? >Anyway, if we are talking about future generations and unity of humans as a whole, the new people, even if they are suffering, may have something to contribute to this world, like raising awareness on their struggles, etc. so this would benefit future humans. So sacrificing people to terrible suffering and tragic deaths, as a lesson for luckier people? How is this even REMOTELY moral? Under what sadistic moral framework is this considered moral? >something we cannot prevent Extinction, voluntary and deliberate engineering of extinction. Pretty sure that works.
While it's true that a significant amount of people may experience unhappiness, suffering, and even tragic deaths, it's also important to acknowledge that many people find meaning, happiness, and fulfillment in life despite previous hardships. By bringing new lives into existence, there is a chance—although not guaranteed—that these individuals can overcome adversity and experience positive aspects of life. Each new life has the potential to contribute to the world, whether through personal growth, creativity, or contributions to societal progress. This potential benefit to humanity, such as raising awareness about suffering or inspiring others through their resilience, can outweigh the negative aspects. From a moral standpoint, the decision to procreate is based on a belief in the value of life and the potential for individuals to find happiness and meaning. Let's call "not being created" "meh" And happy lives "H" - this is one level higher than "meh". Sad lives "S" - this is one level lower than "meh". About 70 per cent (from poll) are one level higher than "meh" (H) About 30 per cent (from poll) are one level lower than "meh" (S) More people are higher than "meh". From your arguments, I take it as you want everyone to stay at "meh" for balance. But we are already leaning towards the higher quality of life (H) since majority is there. Why would we want our entire society to degrade a bit just so the 30 per cent upgrade to "meh"? (H people also have to give up their higher quality lives) P.S. you said millions to suffer for "SOME" to be happy. Some is lesser than millions, in my opinion. Good Debate, GG.
at this point you are just repeating the same flawed logic with no real counter argument. Basically the same old "As long as the victims are not the majority, it's ok". Why is it ok? Under what moral framework would this be ok? Cold utilitarian calculus? Why should we adopt a cold utilitarian calculus?
As I have mentioned, this is reality. There’s no way to justify everything, and not everything HAS to be moral. That being said, the better decision would still be to side with the majority, who will live happy lives, IMO. You want to side with the minority, that suffers, and sacrifice all the happier people (70 per cent) for them, go ahead. Sorry if you think that I have not put up a decent debate, but I don’t think I need to explain every single thing since not everything in our lives are explainable. I cannot counter your arguments as you are asking me to explain things like why we side with majority, how we can ”justify” the suffering, since those things are quite unexplainable with stats or data. We can’t just “justify” suffering or make it “moral”. This debate is more of giving a chance than justifying everything. Life is not math, or court. It’s deeper than that and there is nothing is wrong or right, and perfect. What I am siding with isn’t perfect, I cannot justify ALL the suffering. If we don’t give birth as a whole for the people who might potentially suffer, how would you justify the people (majority) who are going to live good and fulfilling lives? I know they didn’t ask to be born, but you would be giving them something greater and better if you procreate them. It was nice debating with you! EdIt: a soul might not exist, and they don’t beg to be born, but if you ask people who are born whether they would have preferred to have not been born or have born, I think majority would go with the ”have been born”.
> Why is it acceptable? Because people choose to accept it. What are you appealing to that a) says people are not allowed to make such a choice and b) that anyone should care?
Err, you can't just say "because they wanna accept it", this is philosophy, you need to explain the reason, otherwise we are no different from primitive automatons driven by base instincts like ants or bees.
There is nothing in philosophy that says "this particular preference cannot exist." You're saying that there is a moral imperative to not accept a given outcome. And okay, but that's simply an assertion on your part. Again, there is nothing you can appeal to that says people are not allowed to make the particular choice. Simply attempting to shift the burden of proof doesn't change anything.
Most people enjoy their lives except for a few brief unpleasant parts. I'd meet you this far - procreation is subjecting a potential future person to some RISK of a life filled with suffering, but it's a low risk and in general procreation creates happiness. So if procreation is apt to have 'morality attached', as an action (I don't actually believe this but I'll accept it to allow for discussion) it's either morally neutral or actually a morally positive act.
[удалено]
When someone is pulling your fingernails off with a plier, pain will be intrinsically very bad. Sam Harris believes morality can be grounded in the worst possible suffering, because its universal, according to him. Read his book "The Moral Landscape." Religious mumbo jumbo cannot be proven. We all understand that suffering is very bad and wanna avoid it, but we can never succeed because Utopia is impossible, someone will always be the statistical victim. The only way to avoid suffering is to remove life from the equation.
> Religious mumbo jumbo cannot be proven. And anti-natalist mumbo-jumbo is different from religious mumbo-jumbo in precisely what regard?
Antinatalism is philosophical reasoning based on anti suffering intuition, not divine claims about gods and angels and their "divine rules" for humans. You might as well compare apples with unicorns.
But an anti-suffering intuition is no more of a real thing than the intuition that deities should be praised or propitiated. Or the intuition that the good things in life outweigh suffering. You're simply declaring that the anti-suffering intuition. because it's important to you, takes precedence over any other intuition.
This might eventually lead into a Kevorkian-esque sort of discussion, where someone might argue that those who are suffering that gravely should be able to remove their suffering, but I won't take that any further, as it's a view I hold no stance on.
Euthanasia? That's pretty basic and legal in many western liberal countries, what is the problem? But this is different, its arguing for the total and permanent prevention of all suffering, for the sake of the victims, no life should exist, basically.
Some people therefore all people? There’s your problem moving from what’s true for some to it’s true for all.
If you take six people into a room knowing at minimum, one of those people will definitely die horribly, but it's decided at random, isn't it more moral to just leave all the people out of the room?
It seems like there isn't an attempt at weighing the variables here. Humans have suffered since we first walked the green earth, yet we see poetry, art, music, countless religions, and endless philosophies that are all able to grasp that suffering is a necessity for life, and not only a necessity but the very thing that allows for absolute satisfaction and meaning. Socrates at the end of Apology states that because no one can know with certainty what death is, or what may or may not come after it, it's therefore the worst type of arrogance to deem it a terrible thing. To turn the question on its head, if nine people lived the most abundant life, and one suffered and died, should the nine be held back from the magnificence of their temporary existence? This will have a subjective root at its bottom, of course, because I might say that I would gladly be that one who suffers if the rest of the world might flourish. But someone else might say it would be far better to end the populating of the world so as to reduce suffering. I find the latter a bit of a cowardly way out. With suffering, we understand wonder and bliss and meaning, strange as it all is.
>yet we see poetry, art, music, countless religions, and endless philosophies Yes, but we live in the post-modern era now, which rejects all of these things as meaningless, if not outright evil.
I see your point, but just because the culture of our time 'sees' things in a certain way, it doesn't mean they are that way. We have minds to consider, and maybe just have to ask ourselves if we are willing to suffer for the sake of meaning. I think if all a person wants in life is happiness, and that's their telos, then it's likely their worldview could be to just eradicate everyone and get rid of pain. If, on the other hand, a person holds meaning, truth, beauty, etc. above just that of continual superficial gladness, they might find the suffering worth it. Nietzsche said that thing, "He who has a 'why' can bear any 'how." The thing is, is there enough meaning in people's lives to make the level of suffering worth it? Would you be willing to suffer if it meant nine people had a wonderful life?
But you are not just leaving those people out of the room and putting them somewhere else. The argument I’m criticizing is that since the one suffers the others cannot exist.
I said one *at minimum*. It could be more. It could be all six. Somebody is guaranteed to suffer, but all of them might, because it's entirely random.
Fine. Someone suffers. Maybe many suffer. I don’t believe that justifies the elimination of all.
huh? I said some, did I not? What is the confusion?
Correct. This is a problem for some people and so therefore no one can have it. It’s like censorship. Some people don’t like it so no one can have it. Or other prohibitions. Some people can’t drink alcohol responsibly and so no one can have it. Some people can’t eat peanuts and so no one can have them. Your argument is that some people have miserable lives and so no one can have life.
Yes, some people will always have miserable lives (Utopia impossible), so nobody new should be created to experience this in a game of random chance and life should go extinct soonest. What's the problem? Your other examples are trivial and they dont cause horrible suffering and tragic deaths, plus they are for consenting adults, not for procreation where NOBODY ever asked for their own creation, it is entirely the selfish desire and preference of the creators (parents, society).
Thank you for confirming the argument that since some are miserable therefore no one can be born. I disagree that we should all be held accountable for the few but anyway now you’ve changed the argument to consent: since we don’t consent to birth it must be wrong. But we can’t consent to being born. I think ought implies is. You are asking for an impossible solution. You are asking us to be consenting adults before we are even conceived. I think we cannot be held responsible for not doing something that is impossible to do.
You can disagree but you can't prove me wrong, meaning we are still responsible for the suffering we cause through procreation and not going extinct soonest. Its not impossible, just go extinct, no more consent violation or suffering caused. Are you saying its impossible to deliberately go extinct?
Fine. We disagree. You think that the suffering of some justifies the extinction of all. I do not.
Exactly, my subjective moral framework is just as good as any, but I think it's better because it absolutely prevents suffering, other frameworks only prolong it with bandaid. Their only "counter" is that we don't seek to prevent all suffering, which is foolish, because no sufferer would say "I'm fine with my suffering, yippe!!".
Your “solution” is to reduce suffering by eliminating all potential sufferers. That was Skynet’s motivation in Terminator. I’ll stick with the so-called foolish solution of trying to reduce suffering in the world even though it’s a Sisyphean task.
I think this was conclusively answered, although indirectly, by **John Locke \[1632 -1704\].** He described a child as being born with a blank slate of mind—what he called tabula rasa—arguing that the human mind at birth is empty of any ideas. A child learns by experiencing the world and has the same potential as anyone else. Who knows, a child could change the world. Obviously, this doesn't absolve us of our responsibility to make the world a better place for our children and future generations.
errr, huh? How is the blank slate argument even remotely related to human suffering and its justification? lol A child could also become a victim of terminal bone cancer at age 10, dead before 11.
I think such an event is tragic and evil only because we lived enough of a life to agree that that is the case, if a child who knows nothing but such pain and were never exposed to the idea that there's a better life out there then there's nothing evil or tragic about such a life
lol, you think the dying child will never know about other people's lucky and long lives? Seriously? They don't suffer horribly somehow because of some weird philosophical position you have? lol
Like I said, in this particular hypothetical situation, the child has never been exposed to the idea of a better life and most likely never will. I never said anything about them not suffering, I only say that they wouldn't see it as a tragedy because that misery is all they ever knew. I believe that happiness and tragedy is wholly depends on our perspective and previous experience
errr, that's a very absurd logic. Making light of these victim's suffering.
We don't create people. We choose to either allow our body cells to live and fulfil their biological function, or we kill them or allow them to die. The process of life is continuous.
Life in general ain't only reproductive. Even non-sexual reproduction by splitting in half of unicellural organisms often imply mutations that lead to variability that allows evolution. Humanity ain't only subjects of biological evolution, we are beings that produce our habitat and made whole new social world we are constantly changing. Children ain't only biological beings but constituents of social body of humanity. Our offspring is socialized in pedagogical (and non pedagogical forms of socialization) process, not everyone in constantitive body of humanity can bring the change, drive the world further in "social" evolution (scientific breakthroughs, or whatever that will change how humanity works) - be the social mutation that will change human specie offspring. That changing factor can't be a changing factor without all the other people around him, we all need teachers, policeman, judges, doctors but also janitors, construction workers, cashiers, list goes on. Also unlike dna mutations which are generally thought not to be directly connected to environment as much (epigenetics tells its not always the case), mutation of individuals in social world in highly dependent on social environment. And speaking about the mutations, the larger the pool of indivuduals are, the larger the pool of those factors that may trigger mutation. Maybe not everyone can be a Isac Newton, but by having more people, they can either give rise to more support to people to reach similar material status as Newton, work in some field in which very consequential change might occur and such, or try to make their better then as much as possible. Not to meantion even if I think it's unprobable that poor third world village janitor will be a driver of such change, the mutation I meantioned, who knows, why not? It may be possible, there is many possibilities and channels for a change in social world. Now about the hypothesised suffering of a child that won't reach its age 10 due to death. That child isn't form of social environment as all the employed people, it may not gone to school but was homeschooled due to its conditions. But it still had impact on its parents, process of parenthood change children as much as parents. That kid still had a impact on its social environment, not a humanity changing one but still was part of it. So if we keep that idea that life is about suffering or not suffering as life principle, and even take a case of kid that is somewhat isolated from community, its still has impact of social body of this world. And if life is revolving about not suffering, and social world can form it's environment, change things as we seen throughout history. We may hope by not just continuing life (and avoiding life that most probably ain't gonna suffer) but also also maximising number of people, which because they are variable (can bring social world change of humanity due to mutation change coming from indivuduals and spreading on people) gives bigger chances for that change occurring - that we the humanity will achieve permanent state of no suffering for everyone. In that case every life that suffers is sacrificing itself for greater good.
I know we're not supposed to comment just agreeing, but I agree. I just want to make it clear I wasn't trying to suggest anything contrary to what you wrote above.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR3: Be Respectful** >Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
You're making a precluding assumption that you have a decision procedure to differentiate objectively a good life from a horrible one, but you do not. So you can't really say that this is a moral question in the first place.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**CR3: Be Respectful** >Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]