Exploitation of Forcing Work on Others
One of Marx's main points was that the working class was being exploited for their labor.
I would like to generalize this more than just to a certain class of people. Rather, I would like to generalize this to humanity. Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? If not, why not? No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people?
Marx just wasn't thinking deep enough. He was against some exploitation when it came to classes, but not as being born into the human condition as a whole. Why is the assumption that being born at all to produce anything considered "good" for that person? Who is the one that gets to decide that? Why is another person getting to decide that on behalf of someone else?
The conundrum comes in when you try to answer these questions positively in any way. If you say we MUST assume production of some kind is a thing that is good and necessary, you have already assumed the consequent and jumped over the justification. You WANT an outcome from people (production) and you are willing to force people's hand (exploit them) to get it. Yet, this itself is its own exploitation. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! hahahahaha
If you agree with Marx on classes, why not on this? If you just want to do the bad argument that we must have people so that we KNOW the conditions of exploitation.. then why does that matter? No person. No exploitation. Period. Any answer otherwise, is just trying to force the hand of what YOU want to see from society, and consequently, what people must do to maintain that society. Why is this the default?
I would like to generalize this more than just to a certain class of people. Rather, I would like to generalize this to humanity. Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? If not, why not? No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people?
Marx just wasn't thinking deep enough. He was against some exploitation when it came to classes, but not as being born into the human condition as a whole. Why is the assumption that being born at all to produce anything considered "good" for that person? Who is the one that gets to decide that? Why is another person getting to decide that on behalf of someone else?
The conundrum comes in when you try to answer these questions positively in any way. If you say we MUST assume production of some kind is a thing that is good and necessary, you have already assumed the consequent and jumped over the justification. You WANT an outcome from people (production) and you are willing to force people's hand (exploit them) to get it. Yet, this itself is its own exploitation. WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! hahahahaha
If you agree with Marx on classes, why not on this? If you just want to do the bad argument that we must have people so that we KNOW the conditions of exploitation.. then why does that matter? No person. No exploitation. Period. Any answer otherwise, is just trying to force the hand of what YOU want to see from society, and consequently, what people must do to maintain that society. Why is this the default?
Comments (93)
The default (whatever it is) must be and is beyond comprehension, beyond human power to control. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the default.
I meant the default point of view, not that this is completely unchangeable or impossible.
Because "being" - including human "being" - being good is a fundamental premise of western/Judeo-Christian society that takes it root in the bible.
“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’”
But if you want to scratch that and question the justice in birthing people who will inevitably have to deal with the annoyance of walking to the bathroom or post-masturbation fatigue then be my guest.
I guess there are two factors here we have to point out:
1. Oligarchy implanted by the own market. If a random company with 1 Billion euros wants to exploit and abuse others for just their own interest we have to assume it even if this company has as object the things we cannot live without like tech and this stuff... money wins in our system. Have we discovered something different rather than capitalism? NO why literally are we making them even richer despite the fact we know they are abusing us? I don’t know it is curious
2. Some State's weak public affairs. Sadly, there are countries why can only survive because of them. For example, Birmania and other countries with child labour. It is abusive but somehow those States win profit with these politics. They do not care if some kids die of pollution if at least Adidas or Nike put millions of dollars/euros when their coin value is trash.
Karl Marx and his economical philosophy doesn’t not get effect because by nature humans tend to get benefit laying down others
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Ah two greats philosophizing at the highest level.
You see, you are proving my point. You just assume the already-in-place default, and because it is the default, you assume you don't need any justification. Just sarcasm-as-philosophy because it's t0o hard for you to actually find one. But hey, it's okay. I like when people prove my point. It means, I'm actually pretty accurate in my evaluation here.
However, Nature chose. You don't produce, you die, and in death you will produce for that which consumes you. The fact that we may likewise impose upon each other to produce is, well, natural. I don't see evil in it. And to resist that imposition is also natural.
"Enlightened self-interest" is supposed to check any evil, just as it does in Nature. Apparently, to date anyway, bread and circuses have stayed the hand of lady razor. But she, or Nature, will catch up when self-interest is no longer enlightened enough to protect itself.
We fancy ourselves above Nature. Well then, we must enlighten ourselves, or Nature will do it for us.
Hey man, you don't need to believe what I'm saying here and I'm not even sure that I do. Sure, you can question the grounding of it, just as I or anyone can question the grounding of your idea that suffering ought to be completely eliminated in all its forms.
When it comes to justification there's always a point where the justification needs to end and it just comes down to a statement.
So what is suffering bad? Why does all suffering need to be eliminated in all of its forms?
Let's rephrase it then to make it less "just because". So yes, I can say, causing negative states for others, is bad as an axiom.. Let's make it more interesting...
Is it unjust to cause negative states to others when there is no mitigating factors (to make that person better, to get them to a better place.. obviously they don't exist to need a better place).
Also, I will say there is value in what you said here:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I think it's not just Judeo-Christian, but a sort of attitude most people generally hold. I can see how "humanity no longer exists" can make people cry as an aesthetically sad thing to think about. But weighing someone's sadness over this aesthetic and actually making someone exist who will then suffer and be forced to work, that is a different thing.. One is just a sad thought someone has and one actually involves negative states for someone else.
So interesting points.. and I think this might be more appropriate for the other thread on Marx here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10559/does-labor-really-create-all-wealth
However, my question is basically..
Is procreating knowing that the people born will have to labor-to-survive its own exploitation of people, because we are knowingly forcing them into an unavoidable situation?
Perhaps then exploitation must involve alternatives. So if it is forcing people in a situation which is never avoidable, it cannot be considered exploitation. But why? It is technically unavoidable in one sense, of never starting it for someone else. I'll also pose this to @BitconnectCarlos
From Google:
Exploitation- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
So this is a sort of argument-from-nature. Some may call this the naturalistic fallacy or appeal to nature fallacy. So your main point seems to be that we can't help but expect others to work-to-produce so that we ourselves can survive. Right, I understand that is what we do, and must do to continue the species. We form organizations, hierarchies, and habits so that people don't get out of line and prevent unproductive outcomes from people. But is this whole process itself exploitative? It is not inevitable. You have at least ONE choice as a person who can freely choose. You can choose to NOT put other people in this situation of having to produce to survive in the first place. Is that not true?
I understand and respect your points because are solid. Nevertheless, the following phrase is so interesting to point out despite you found it in Google:
Quoting schopenhauer1
How can we consider someone is exploiting other? I mean, economically concept. Do you consider earning just 400 € per month working 6 days as abusive? Of course it is but these people is in a dilemma is this sitthy job or sleeping in the streets. This is the world that democracy created.
Yeah, true. The root is Judeo-Christian, but society just largely takes it for granted today and if you ask people why they hold that view a lot of them won't know. Our foundations as a culture are J-C but this is slowly changing and the base is being eroded. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but in some cases it certainly can be.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Where is this coming from? Why are you so opposed to harm? Or is it just unnecessary harm? Who are you to decide what is necessary and what is not? Maybe I just randomly beat up a man on the street but that man ends up turning around his life and becomes a better father and man.
Your insistence that all harm ought to be eliminated is nothing more than a personal psychological quirk that you're seeking to universalize.
This is probably going to be my last post on the subject; we've gone over this before and tbh I just have better things to do with my time. Maybe try focus on finding meaning in your own life rather than railing against any possible perceived deficit in the nature of life itself. Sorry, but this just isn't worth my time - but I would respond to any points you have in regard to my first stanza about the Judeo-Christian roots of US/western culture.
I think the Judeo-Christian idea of life being good, and this needs to be procreated, is pretty much the typical stance in any society. Even Buddhist societies with life being suffering don't usually condemn procreation. So I think it is just the typical stance embodied in a myth.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Here's the thing, the outcome in regards to another person if you follow my view, leads to no other person dealing with my preferences. If they followed your view, someone will be dealing with negative consequences.
It just seems to me almost in any other situation, people would view creating unnecessary harm on someone else's behalf is unjust or unfair. But somehow because it is perceived as foundational, it must not be unjust or unfair in this case.
I am also bringing up the idea of exploitation in terms of people forced into labor. Why is this not an issue? In any other case where someone is forced into a situation when not necessary, this would be unjust. However, why does generalizing this concept to life itself rather than a particular circumstance get an exemption? What about the generalization makes it "too general"? There really doesn't seem to be a good answer for forcing in a particular instance unnecessary and the more general instance of bringing into life itself.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What's funny is people who procreate are doing the EXACT SAME THING, except the result of my "quirk" is NO PERSON HARMED. The result of others' is SOME PERSON HARMED.. So though I know you think the argument can be ended by just dismissing it, the glaring asymmetry is still there whether you scoff and ignore it or not. That doesn't hurt the argument either way whether you want to be dismissive or not.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
What about this would you want to discuss?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I concur, with regards to the generality. Most Existentialist doctrines, as far as I've witnessed, readily concede to the tragic ramifications of being immersed into the human condition; you can't usurp hierarchies that are intractable, for example. Independent agency, insofar as working conditions/and or welfare are concerned, is a scarce gem of liberty. Exploitative elements are profoundly ingrained into the underlying fabrics of human society; whether remediating those vices is best undertaken with milder variants of Capitalism, Economic Anarchism or Marxism - is a far more contentious bridge to traverse (naturally).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Does this not lend itself, to an anti-natalist stance? Not all individuals zealously opposed to exploitation, will prefer a cessation of all births, over being exploited in a constrained fashion. Ascribing a greater significance to life may be the overarching default, since its intrinsic value (to Judeo-Christian ideals and/or other codified monotheisms) overshadows any societal sacrifices that it might introduce (indeed, at the cost of individual liberty, and one's freedom from suffering). Is it ideal? No - almost certainly not.
It does, however, bear a meaningful rationalization to it (in reiteration - synchronous with JC ideals, as opposed to my own beliefs).
Life, with all its unrelenting exploitation, is a catastrophe; even a catastrophe, however - when ameliorated, is preferable to inexistence. Kierkegaard instituted several analogous ideas, if I'm not mistaken.
Personally, I'm apathetic on the matter - on this front, nonetheless, your perspective is characterized by a hedonic appeal (an absence of suffering) - that can't be discerned in its counterarguments.
It certainly does. I am an avowed antinatalist. Most people would say too vocal on here :).
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
But is it not solving the question for the future generation? Certainly it is the easiest one. Just because you might be sad not having a kid doesn't mean another person has to suffer and be exploited for their labor. Look at it this way. If the parent doesn't get to procreate, all that happens is the parent cries a little and has a sad face. It absolutely does not affect a whole other existence of another being. However, if the parent does procreate all the negatives of existence, including having to labor-to-survive will befall another person. When was the last time unnecessarily creating negative conditions for others would be considered just and fair?
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Why is it preferable to inexistence? The child that would be born is not around to tell you so. There is no preference for something that does not exist. It is the parent's preference only.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
It can be an appeal also to justice. Not forcing others into negative situations unnecessarily by starting the negative situations for them in the first place. Once born, negative situations will ensue to ameliorate situations, etc. In one instance, you can prevent it all together from occurring for someone else. It's not like someone being born is the default.. People have to make that happen.
And this is the whole point of antinatalism, isn't it?
It's about a person who doesn't want to be a parent, but who feels a need to convince society that refusing to be a parent is a worthy choice and that such a non-parent still deserves full respect as a human being.
Right?
No it is not. The unjust and unnecessary causing the conditions for harm to take place and overall prevention of starting unnecessary harm for another is mainly the point.
Quoting baker
No not at all. This isn't equivalent to "child-free" movements or anything where it's about lifestyle choice or something like that.
Really, ANYTHING you do risks harming someone. Not sure how you get anything done with that premise.
We've been through this and we know where we stand on the argument..
Starting a whole new life to ameliorate those already here is still unnecessarily causing harm to someone that does not need to take place- they don't exist. "They" (the possible person) don't need to be a part of ANY of the mitigating scheme at all.
Using people that already exist to ameliorate harm is appropriate, however, like the examples you give.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure but you haven’t explained your POV.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Special pleading. Why does the harm done to someone suddenly matter way more when they don’t exist yet?
Why is using someone who exists better than using someone by making them exist?
Or is that just a starting premise for you? If so I don’t think many would share it. And it should be pointed out that you have this premise. Or else your argument is incomplete.
Bah. I don't buy this oh-so compassion and oh-so empathy.
What are you, Jesus? Why on earth would you care so much about others and their suffering? It makes no sense to care so much about others!
We went over possible motives in your other thread no? I mean I gave my own in a direct reply and then you gave pretty good ones on your own. Why are those unacceptable?
Actually, it seems like a way to justify refusing to take up the hassle of being a parent.
Specifically, the whole antinatalist argument reads like a sublimated effort of a man who knocked up a woman and now he wants her to abort, and is looking for ways to convince her to have an abortion.
So you yourself have provided this example.. I gave it in another thread..
What if you were recruited into a game, and the only thing you can do is get better at the game, join another team, or kill yourself? Would that be fair?
Well, those who are born are sort of stuck in the game. There are necessary things one must do when recruited in the game, otherwise, indeed one would be immoral/unjust to others (who are already here to have to play the game too). However, it is the initial force recruiting into the circumstances of the game that I have a problem with.
I mean, amusing as that sounds for a tragic-comedy, it is not based on these circumstances. I think you should write a sitcom on it or something though. Why not take it at face value and just argue or defend or simply comment on the arguments that antinatalists make rather than try to find these underlying and dubious motives?
Depends on the situation of the people who brought me in.
Restating the same thing isn’t addressing the point. I’m asking why you think that it’s fine to use people that exist and not fine to use people by making them exist.
When you pay taxes, the only thing you can do is pay to solve other people's problems (mostly) or got to jail. Is that fair?
Arguably yes depending on the effectiveness of the taxes. If my tax money is being used for something that doesn’t benefit society then no. So what’s so different in the 2 scenarios?
But that's what I am saying.. It is unjust to unnecessarily do it on someone else's behalf.. and you gave many many examples of this idea. Gambling with someone else.. etc. Besides which that is if we take subjective evaluation of a summation and not break it up for each instance.. Today you tell me you're good.. in a minute you fall in a hole and think life sucks, etc. etc.
Quoting khaled
Because it is at the level of the person that this is taking place. It's not like people are just tools that are coming into existence to fix society and keep it going. They have (at least what appears to them) as autonomous thoughts, actions, ideas, etc. You are violating the fact that this person will NOW have to cope with the negatives when BEFORE there was no person that needed to do this.
However, once in existence, it is too late. One MUST COPE and deal with how best to mitigate harm and deal with people as autonomous, people who have dignity. That means living in a society where one must deal with situations regarding other people with compassion. The state that pays for services for other people. The helping of the drowning victim, etc. This is recognizing their dignity because they are people too.
However, if you were to say to me.. "You should create harmful situations for another person, so that they can mitigate harmful situations for someone else" I would say this is absolutely wrong. Creating from NOTHING harmful situations is different than people who already exist and are in the game. One is already here, and must follow the rules of morality. One did not need to exist to follow any of these rules or be impinged upon in the first place though.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Jails? Taxes? How about the simple example of waking up a sleeping swimmer when you see someone drowning and you can’t swim?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure it’s different. Why is that difference significant? That is the question. Because to me it sounds akin to saying “Killing mr A is wrong, but killing mr B is ok because mr B has green eyes”
Creating harmful situations is creating harmful situations. Who cares if it’s from nothing or not?
I presented my case. You fail to see it, as now you are restating the same thing without trying to parse it out and synthesize it.
Quoting khaled
Right. Falls under that too. They already exist and are in the game.
Quoting khaled
You are violating the very dignity of someone as you are trying to fix it.
The already existing person is ALREADY in the game. I'm not sure
a) how you don't see the difference here of someone who is in an inescapable game from a situation where no one is put in an inescapable game.
b) how putting someone in the inescapable game is itself violating the dignity/justice/unnecessary harm principles (whichever is your foundation) whereas once in the game, mitigating circumstances for others playing the game is not violating it.
Fix it? No that wasn’t the proposed motivation. The motivation was: My child will likely be a positive influence, thus not having him is the riskier option. Similar to how not waking up the swimmer is the riskier option, and so you can choose to wake up the swimmer.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I see the difference. It’s clear as day. I don’t see how it’s significant.
Again:
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yup.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This bit is false though. Here is an example:
Quoting khaled
Is it violating the dignity of the swimmer? Well you’re imposing on him so yes.
Justice? Idk about that one it’s too vague a word.
Unnecessary harm? Well depends on what you mean by “unnecessary”. If harming someone to reduce harm elsewhere makes the harm “necessary” then this is not violated by birth or by this case (both are “necessary harm”). Otherwise idk what you mean by “unnecessary” harm.
But you would still wake him up in spite of this.
Because the arguments you put forward are simply not convincing.
It's ill to care about whether someone else even exists or not. So when someone proposes to care so much about others, the simplest answer is that there is something else going on.
A simple argument from misanthrophy, for example, would be far more convincing than yours are.
I can certainly rationalize the majority of your assertions (albeit under specific presuppositions).
I'm inquisitive, nonetheless, with regards to three specific uncertainties:
A) Firstly, do your stances stem from the formalized edifices of Hedonic Morality?
B) Placing a constraint (if not an outright preclusion) on individuals seeking to forge new life, is likely to encroach onto their fundamental liberties. Are you solely promulgating a moralistic perspective, or would you be willing to enact your beliefs in the real world (if accorded the opportunity)?
C) Lastly (and this is solely cursory), what are your views on Schopenhauer's Will to Live (since I imagine you'll bear a tremendous degree of expertise, on him)? I understand that it (presumably) manifests in the aftermath of one's birth; could procreation, however, fall under the purview of the Will to Live (that is to say, instinctively electing to 'live on', by bequeathing one's genetic character)?
It's not a fallacy. The fallacy is thinking we are exempt because we are a different species. My main point is that people are natural.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can so choose, however, you cannot choose to not benefit from those who chose to do so.
Edited to add: Likewise, you can choose to not be exploited and that will work out for you just like it works out for those who try not to benefit from those who exploit those who produce. There are participants, and there are those who are dead. Nature is not a fallacy.
It wouldn't be exploitation because survival doesn't necessary involve the forced appropriation of unpaid labor. One must labor for his survival, sure, but it makes little sense to say one must be exploited in order to survive.
Right so this again, comes down to our difference in how we are measuring moral good. You are using some totalizing thing where people are used to increase the greatest good for the greatest number of people, etc. As an aside (and simply commentary on your view) I'd like to point out that in the real world these circumstances of using a child's abilities to possibly contribute to society are rarely directly correlated with helping a specific situation and defined outcome. The only main one I can think of is for some sort of medical reason, for example, a sibling or family member needs an organ.
However, in my view, if you are putting someone in an inescapable game, in order to mitigate the people that are already in the game, you are indeed violating the dignity of the person you are forcing into the game, even if the intention or outcome was to increase the good of the already existing people.
The lifeguard and anyone else already existing is ALREADY in the inescapable game. It's too late to prevent their being forced into being in negative situations IN THE FIRST PLACE. So enslaving someone so that the slave can benefit the slaves that are already enslaved would not fly in this view.
This disagreement will always come down to you not seeing the difference between starting a life (creating the very conditions of suffering in the first place) with living an already existing life (a game where amelioration of more harmful with less harmful takes place).
Quoting khaled
Do you recognize different states of affairs and thus principles apply differently? Why can a child be forced to go to school but an adult cannot? Differing circumstances.. one may be considered moral to do, one would be considered inappropriate, even if it is seen as best for that person. For example, why is it just to wake the lifeguard to save a life but not to force him to teach lifeguarding classes for the rest of his life and vaguely (maybe) create many competent lifeguards who can save others down the line?
One has nothing to do with the other. Motives and arguments being good. Or you haven't made that case.
Quoting baker
It's just saying it's unfair to put others in a game because its your preference. You shouldn't be forced into doing something because another person thinks the game is good and others should play it. I like an existence where people work to survive and go through various harms and suffering big and small THUS others should do this too. Doesn't compute.
It stems from the indignity of creating unnecessary harm. There are no mitigating circumstances of someone that is not born. Unlike a situation where someone is already born and may need to do some harm to create better outcomes, there is no one in the first place for harm to need to take place. If someone likes the work to survive game, and the overcoming suffering game, it doesn't mean that other people should be force recruited into the game.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
Absolutely only moral perspective. It's simply a stance one takes, like veganism. Laws like this usually have to have the morals be foundational to society to such a degree that people would be willing to lay down their life for it, or it's just taken as a given. None of these are true so wouldn't even attempt to move it to law or something like that. It would be as ridiculous as making veganism law.
Quoting Aryamoy Mitra
One might argue that the Will to Live in Schop's view is inevitable Will just is, and thus Representation will always be in the picture somehow. It is really more Representation and Salvation (through ascetic enlightenment). And thus there must always be a way somehow that the Will is objectified..
But I wonder if one can say that perhaps Representation is a guarantee, but not suffering? Only objectifications like animals and humans suffer, even though the objectified/temptestous Will can be found in other, non-suffering forms of striving perhaps.
I am not necessarily a Schopenhaurian in my metaphysics, though I find it intriguing. Can you read over and possibly comment on this thread I have about Schopenhauer's Will?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10521/two-questions-on-schopenhauers-will-and-the-external-world
But is that ever an excuse to choose to be immoral? If someone murders, can they say "It's natural" even if somehow you can prove human aggression is indeed natural?
Quoting James Riley
I see.. We are already in the game.. I am not choosing to benefit from exploitation, everyone is already exploited by being born to work in order to survive.
But is it always about "unpaid" labor? How about forced labor in general onto another person because you simply like labor yourself (or don't mind it).
I'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust.
I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior (thus becoming meaningless).
Uh I don't think the alternative was any more humane or non-exploitative. You have something I need, or want even, I take it. If you stop me, I stop you. Not a fun time to be alive. Of course.. it's much of the same even today just with agreed upon.. limits. Usually.
Beyond that it seems to me that not everyone can be a great philosopher, scholar, scientist, teacher, professor, doctor, engineer, architect, etc. That is to say, if everyone is a rich genius then nobody really is. So, some will rise above and their talents will produce works that speak for themselves which will in turn make others actually desire them to be in an elevated social position above theirs. Be it a doctor, builder, scientist, what have you. So the rest of us have two options: work or just try and kill each other and see who survives thus granting the survivor(s?) more resources to do as he pleases. The first option sounds more preferable, especially if you're not very big.
I believe it is important for us to try and bend the arc toward our aspirations and ideals, some of which we think are unique to our species (morality, etc.). I also think that some efforts must be, if they are to succeed, group efforts. And it takes leadership to get the group to go in the agreed upon direction, at the agreed upon rate, and in the agreed upon manner. But all of this occurs in Nature.
For example, when ever a person alleges the hypocrisy or inconsistency of one who fails to carry a load all by himself, I want to put the shoe on their foot. If I'm an environmentalist and I try to carry some of the load and conserve a gallon of gas, I have increased the supply which drops the price which stimulates demand and incentivizes Billy Bob and Cetus to roll more coal thus defeating my goal. so the answer is not me depriving myself. The answer is forcing everyone to conserve a gallon of gas whether they want to or not. But there is an alternative:
If Billy Bob and Cletus get all spun up for war and want to go take out Saddam Husain, they can grab pappy's '06 out of the closet, buy their own ticket to Baghdad, and carry the load by themselves. See how far that gets them.
In others words, we apply that notion of "justice" which is really Nature.
Regardless, we all operate in that world of Nature and if we lack the agreement on a given course of action, then we will all be on our own. If we have the agreement among enough people, and leadership, then we can force everyone to comply. Some times we turn a blind eye to our individual or group immorality because hey, if I let him do it then he'll let me do it. And our kids will look back on us and say "Well, they didn't know any better." But they will be in on the lie too. Because they will have their own immorality.
But the arc, we hope, will continue to bend in the aspirational direction if we are persuasive enough and have the proper leadership.
Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.
Ok, interesting ideas. However, my question is then, is it just to put another human being into the world if that human is forced to work-to-survive? They don't exist to need amelioration. They are not already in existence and need to be in a "better" place.. If existence has known sufferings, annoyances, and negatives, then surely putting someone into the negatives, just so that they can find ways to get out of it, would be wrong in some way, and perhaps is unjust.
I hate to be flip, but I think it was Clarence Darrow who said something along the lines of "There is no justice, in or out of court." Had I taken that to heart, I would not have spent ten years tilting at windmills. In the end, "just or not" Nature, and the law have largely left it up to the individual. If somebody wants to spread their seed all over the damn place, they run the risk of having that seed put into service of others, and against their will. Is that "on mom and dad," or is the fault of "the man" that exploits the seed? Does fault even matter? Or has Nature and the law taken over at that point?
On the back end, so many people have been through so much worse than I have, and yet they press on. It makes me want to reconsider gratitude, and grace, and fortitude. Then again, I say "Jeesh, there is no way I could do that!" But then I remember that sometimes the only choice would be suicide and Nature has, generally, if not always successfully, programed us to survive no matter what. So, while I think I might never be able to suffer X, I actually would. I don't want to, but I would. Because I have no choice. What do I make of my life then?
Having been in some pretty nasty Fourth World shit holes and seen some relatively happy people digging through and surviving on garbage piles, especially kids, playing and dancing while starving (by First World standards), I wonder why so many First Worlders are whining about XYZ. I think of relativity. It's like putting Bernie Madoff in the general population at a hard corps prison. Nature can be harder on soft people. And not so hard on hard people.
Do I think it's ethical to bring someone into this world for a life of exploitation? We do it with animals all the damn time. In fact, I wonder if our lineage won't someday look back on us and our treatment of animals (or plants, or rocks for that matter) with the same level of abhorrence that we have looking back on slavery, etc. Were the dues paid in the past by all who suffered to get us where we have the luxury of looking back, worth it? Do we dishonor their contribution in taking it for granted?
Should we stop someone from breeding because all the evidence shows their brood will end up exploited? Would we then be exploiting them in the denial of their "right" to breed? Should we leave that decision up to them, or is their right to breed imposing on our vested life?
I think of it like the hunt. I'm disgusted by so much I see in the field. Yet I will kill an Elk too. I think it matters what lies in the heart of the hunter. It may seem like a distinction without a relevant difference, especially as far as the elk is concerned (or the elk's "champions") but it is a difference nonetheless: I strive to live in grace with what I eat, rather than simply saying grace before I eat it.
I think the exploited labor living on top of a festering pile of garbage is capable of living in grace. That is life. Should it be? Who am I to say something should never have been born?
I can kill life, without mens rea, black heart, malice, whatever. It's those who rub their greedy little hands together, taking joy in the suffering and infliction thereof that bother me. I'd sooner kill them than an elk. It's like shooting a rabid dog: No judgement, no justice, just necessary.
I’m opposed to forcing labor of any kind on another. But I don’t believe my parents forced me to labor by birthing me. In fact, they labored for me for quite a period, and I was wholly dependant on them. At any rate, I choose to labor for my own survival.
It seems people generally think that the joys of life outweigh its sorrows, and that as such, life is worth living and the socio-economic system is worth perpetuating.
Quoting schopenhauer1
The problem is that you're trying to objectivize the matter, take the persons out of it: as if arguments are good in and of themselves, objectively, regardless of people, and that you have special and superior insight and are the arbiter of the goodness of an argument.
Yet people typically don't have a problem with that. Humans are an exploitative species.
You're arguing for a view that is alien to so many people, on so many levels. A view that is estranged from life.
And yet such is life. People do this all the time, in so many ways. Other people can unilaterally force a war on you.
Some say it's naive, childish to wonder about whether something is just or moral.
It doesn't compute in _your_ mind. It computes in so many other people's minds.
I'm sure you know this but you can have two things be true. Your parents labored for you, and now that you were born, you must work-to-survive. You choose to labor or you die from neglect and starvation. That is the situation.
Cool, so if a majority of people like baseball should people be force recruited to play the game? If you say that's different because life has more choices, I'd argue that there really isn't much choice to not work-to-survive, the very topic of this thread. I mentioned the sub-optimal result of free-riding and other things you might bring up too, so don't.
Quoting baker
I'm in a philosophy forum, where people make arguments about things like morality. Actually, all of life is a big argument and whether you know it or not, people's arguments are affecting/effecting your life.
Quoting baker
Okay.. slavery not just being the natural course of things also seemed alien for many generations, mainly before the Enlightenment and even then it took until the mid-1800s for it to really start being considered legitimate moral sentiments.
Quoting baker
Really? Why?
Quoting baker
Well, let's take two outcomes from the different computations.
1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers.
False. It’s not too late. You can simply let your friend sleep and let the guy drown. That would mean your friend is not forced into a negative situation. You force them into that particular negative situation. And I don’t see how them having had negative situations before is any justification for why it’s ok to force them but not ok in the case of having children.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No because you haven’t pointed out a principle that applies differently to the different situations. But I do recognize the different states of affairs and how they’re different. You haven’t explained why the difference matters.
Quoting schopenhauer1
False. The people the child would have helped suffer. Unless you’re talking about extinction through AN. Which is never happening so is useless to talk about anyways.
Schooling? Taxing? Waking up a sleeping lifeguard to save a drowning guy?
Quoting Tzeentch
Not really. There are countless stopgaps you can implement. Like: Only force a negative condition if the forcing does less harm than not forcing. Is a good one.
I've already said it, you don't enslave people to help out slaves. You abolish the condition of enslavement. The indignity happens when putting people into the condition in the first place. Once placed in the position, then it would be not recognizing people's dignity by ignoring their humanity. But don't keep putting people into that position in the first place.
I never bought into your totalizing method where this isn't a consideration, only the totalizing outcome of harm or good or whatever utilitarian thing you are claiming. You are assuming your basis as mine and then trying to make me justify why I'm not abiding by your basis that I don't claim to be the moral basis.
Care to elaborate?
What was this then?
Quoting schopenhauer1
It's almost as if you only consider suffering inflicted...
Quoting schopenhauer1
What does this mean? "Once people are born it's ok to force them to do things for the sake of other people"? I'm genuinely asking I don't understand the sentence at all.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And the indignity happens when you force someone to wake up to save a drowning person too. It also happens when people are forced to go to school. Or forced to pay taxes. Even by your "indignity" basis all these things end up wrong as far as I can tell. Until you define "indignity" more sharply. I assume it means forcing people to do things against their will. Idk what you mean by it.
To not wake the lifeguard would be to overlook the dignity of the drowning person. If the lifeguard was not born, he would not have been waken. But he is born, and thus to survive must mitigate with other humans, ameliorating larger harms with smaller ones. If the lifeguard is not upset from being woken up, then he would be ignoring the dignity of the drowning person himself.
Dignity here is something akin to recognizing people's suffering and wanting to help or prevent it if possible, but realizing that the conditions of life can't prevent it all for those already born.
Again, putting people into enslavement is not the answer to helping the enslaved, but abolishing the enslavement. That is where I'm coming from. I'm not sure why you don't get that.
That will not do.
If one can force negative conditions on others whenever they are of the opinion it does more good than harm, clearly the slippery slope is in full effect.
Oh that counts? Right then to not have the child would be to overlook the dignity of the people they would have helped
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ah I see. So in the end you do only care about suffering inflicted.
Quoting schopenhauer1
When the latter is impossible (which it is) the second best thing is to reduce suffering as much as possible (or as you would put it, “respect the existent’s dignity”). Sometimes having a kid does that.
In other words: Hard AN doesn’t follow from your premises.
Quoting khaled
So I should elaborate cause I can see based on what I said, it can be construed as the ONLY thing and that's it, and it's not. Dignity is not simply hedonistic/utilitarian based calculus. It is looking at the person's humanity, trying to understand that they have a POV, that they are a person who must live out the consequences. Morality should be person-centered as it is the person living it out.
So for example, why would it be okay to wake up the lifeguard to save the drowning child, but not force the lifeguard to run a lifeguarding school for the rest of his life? Let's say you did the calculus and indeed the greatest number of people would be saved if he did this. There is something wrong with this. But what? I think by over thinking about the greatest good, you have now overlooked the lifeguard, where before you did not when it was just to wake him up to save the drowning child.
“Let's say you did the calculus and indeed the greatest number of people would be saved if he did this. There is something wrong with this. But what?”
but isn’t this just another Omelas situation but a little different? In some fantastical situation for the sake of an argument, if someone was forced to run a business forever and doing so saved 5 million people from the Agony Box, I personally feel like forcing them was permissible. Not doing so would mean 5 million people are in constant pain and suffering. If to you it’s still wrong then I respect your moral intuitions but It just doesn’t seem like a safe alternative is possible to me. Your moral system and Khaled’s system lead to 2 giant bullets I’ll have to bite, and the aggregate amount seems more appropriate.
To me it’s like taxing the shit out of Jeff Bezos to redistribute the wealth. Bezos, his family, and all of the Amazon higher ups are going to be absolutely miserable they’re forced to lose a fortune everyday but the people need it. The guy forced to run the life saving business might be miserable too, but the alternative (not forcing him) is much worse and seems unfair. To me this highlights the shortcomings of both deontology and consequentialism
Like it or not, this is exactly what is happening.
Yes, and all too often, they wander off into lalaland.
And I've got my neighbor's chimney and AC exhaust into my living room and bedroom windows to prove it.
It's not comparable. People arguing against slavery were arguing against just one aspect of the until then unquestioned socio-economic project called "life as it is usually lived". You're questioning the whole project.
Who has the problem here: you, or the pronatalists?
So? It's still your problem.
Face it: You're miserable. That's all there is to this.
The dangers of AI
Laboring to avoid neglect and starvation is one thing, forced labor and exploitation is quite another. Either my parents forced me to labor or they didn’t. They exploited me or they didn’t. In fact, they took care of me when I couldn’t do so for myself, and equipped me with the knowledge to survive.
I disagree. Not in principle. Only contingently.
We don’t need the lifeguard to teach lifeguarding for the rest of his life because we have enough people that can swim.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Why not? Because it was “just” to wake him up? I don’t see how one is ok and the other not on principle. They seem to just be contingent. Waking him up is fine because it’s a small imposition without which much greater suffering would befall someone. But forcing him to teach lifeguarding lessons is not because we don’t need him to. There is no shortage of lifeguards. And it’s a much larger imposition.
So you selectively choose to ignore earlier questions I had in this thread like here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And this is a major part of my point. Imposing life onto another person, because you think it will in some general sense "help society" is using that person. In the case of deciding on a new person, there is no person that needs to mitigate for anyone. But now, this person will be put into the world and indeed will have to mitigate, creating a whole lifetime's worth of negative/lacking situations for which there has to be ways to overcome etc, when there didn't have to be. At its most fundamental level, you are not recognizing in my argument the distinction between starting a life (and challenges and problems that a person would face), and helping people out who are already dealing with the challenges.. That is a huge factor in all of this.
This alone I would say is enough of an answer, but if you add in gambling with other people's lives, and that people don't always turn out the way you think, etc. It gains more strength.
But going back to the individual person-centered vs. aggregate person-centered... The lifeguard may very well make the most positive impact if he was forced to train other competent lifeguards for the rest of his life.. But by using people to such a degree, you are indeed overlooking that person's dignity as a PERSON. I don't believe waking the lifeguard is overlooking the lifeguard's dignity. But certainly overly imposing on someone.. let's say, by creating new status of someone's state of being and whereby someone must work-to-survive, find their way in a society, overcome challenges etc., is indeed going over that threshold.
I'd like to see that answer too.
No, because I believe you can mitigate to a degree lesser harms for greater harms (waking a life guard to save a drowning child's life), but not to such a degree where you are indeed violating dignity.. It does sound elusive.. what then is this "threshold of dignity"? I think it is at a point where someone is profoundly forced into a situation of negative circumstances, and the person themselves is overlooked for the outcome people want to see from that person. Perhaps it is a gradient rather than binary.. But it is not straight out utilitarianism where the greatest good is had by the greatest number. Dignity-based, as I am describing it, would be individual person-based, not aggregate-based.
Because both can be the latter.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So for you there are impositions that are simply “too much” and having children is one of them.
You could’ve just said that.
The main reason why “generalizing this concept to life itself” is untenable is because living is not forced labor. Living is not suffering. Living is not a “situation of negative circumstances”. I am not convinced there is any overlap between the concepts “life” and “forced labor”, let alone a 1-to-1 ratio, so I am unable to equate one with the other and move forward with your logic.
Forced labor and exploitation each require a beneficiary, someone who benefits from your forced labor and exploitation. Someone must be forcing you to labor or someone must be exploiting you. If not, then no forced labor or exploitation has occurred.
I suppose that in your scenario the exploiters are the parents, but then I see parents carrying and feeding children as if they were the most precious things in the universe, and am forced to laugh.
Yeah. All that @schopenhauer1's argument ever seems to boil down to is that being born is a terribly bad thing for one to have happen to them - whether that's framed in terms of 'harms', 'suffering', or 'dignity', it's always in a league of it's own, and as such it cannot (unlike the impositions we normally make on others) be considered acceptable for any reason at all, no gain is sufficient to justify it.
If one has, as a premise, that birth is an imposition greater than any other, then one is going to be antinatalist. It's not a conclusion, as it's presented here (and in every other such thread), it's just a restatement of the premise. We can simply assume that, having decided something is more bad than any consequent gain could justify, one would be unconditionally anti-it. So that leaves nothing of substance here beyond the premise itself.
So are you like, @khaled anti-antinatalist liaison or patron or something? Are you curating arguments for him? You always follow him into my threads. I'm sure you can see why I would view you then as a ridiculous poster. Why don't you just ignore my threads if you think the argument not worth your time? But you don't so that's even doubly absurd :lol: . I see a whole bunch of threads on here. I even see a professional philosopher, David Pearce. You can argue you heart's content at other people and things.
Look at someone like @Banno or @Baden They probably don't agree, they may even think along the same lines as you, yet you are the one who continues to write on my threads. Your hostility and emotion are so abundant teaming-over about this that you are "compelled" to write on this? Interesting, then that means that you may not be too different than the antinatalist compelled to write about antinatalism.. Too close to home perhaps.
Anyways, you are wrong here because khaled is looking for a conclusion with a premise. It is the other way around.
And for the record, it's not that you disagree that I think you are ridiculous, it is that you are so against the topic, and me writing about the topic in general, that to comment on the thread is just trolling and trying to annoy me. It's pretty damn apparent. So just stop.
The situation is still bad. In this case it is not a moral issue as much as it is a metaphysical one. Humans are then just destined to suffer, and there is nothing to do about it. Indeed, Schopenhauer would have been close the mark on this in that there would only be Representation/Will and Salvation (through asceticism), but there can be no prevention aspect as to what actions we can do to prevent the suffering in the first place.
Just to be clear though, I am not "looking" for someone to blame. It just so happens that procreation is the initiation of the suffering thus a large part of the focus for its wholesale prevention. It is always after-the-fact, because we the "already-born" now have to deal, even if suicide is one of those ways or just following the guidelines of whatever society etc.
Well at least for me: because it’s irritating seeing someone make (what I thought was) a flawed argument over and over again. Now I just think it’s begging the question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It’s also irritating to see someone repeatedly playing the victim when they post on a public forum and their post gets a response that shows the weakness of their position. You said the same thing to me too. Is this how you react with everyone who disagrees with you. “You didn’t have to say that stop being such a meanie!”
If you don’t want a particular person to respond, don’t post at all as there is a chance they will. Or if you post don’t be surprised that they do. It’s contradictory that you spend 3 paragraphs psychoanalyzing why your opponent responded to your thread but when Baden starts psychoanalyzing you you say something like “why not take it at face value”. Why don’t you take it at face value and assume Isaac is being a perfectly friendly commenter who happens to have a different view from you?
If you don’t want your motivations to be talked about, and would rather focus on the argument, don’t talk about the motivations of others and instead focus on their argument.
Speaking of ignoring arguments and focusing on psychoanalyzing opponents: Is the reason you always play the victim when someone disagrees with you repeatedly that you don’t want people seeing the disagreement and being driven away from AN? Are you a preacher?
Quoting schopenhauer1
What does this even mean?
That was to Isaac.. Although you seem to do similar things, you actually just debate the topic and not make this a meta-argument about the topic. That's just poor forum etiquette.. Ignore the thread if it's beneath you. I don't know if you can see where I'm coming from, but maybe you can. Isaac seems hopeless though.
Quoting khaled
No you two specifically do the same thing! ANd like i said, you at least argue the fuckn case rather than making speeches about the me arguing the case in the first place. Again, I don't know if you see my side but try to.
Quoting khaled
Because he is NOT.. HE is hostile. That is another difference. You are not being hostile, but just debating. I do find it curious when you follow threads and we've already disagreed using the same debate, but I don't think you are being a hostile prick.
Quoting khaled
But then why do they get to run roughshod all over me like a POS, and I can't comment on the fact that they are doing THAT? I'm not doing this "higher ground" bullshit..
Look, I'll admit when I've stepped over the bounds.. for example bringing up AN in threads that don't seem to be about it (though I can argue that they are).. But I've NEVER went to another thread just to say that they shouldn't write their thread, and that they are essentially a POS for doing so.
Quoting khaled
That you were looking for my premise (dignity, etc.) an explanation of that, not the conclusion. But maybe not.. You can say whatever you want. THat was how I was interpreting it at least.
Quoting Isaac
Isaac captures the reason I don't bother with your threads. It is worth pointing out, if only in the interests of forum quality.
He can just say that without all the theatrics though.
No, I knew what you meant, I think my answer addresses what you intended.
You’re the one making a meta argument about the topic. Someone responds to you and you question their motives in responding instead of addressing the response. You did this to me and Isaac.
Quoting schopenhauer1
When did I say “You shouldn’t have said that stop being such a meanie”. I never questioned why you post until you questioned why I respond.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I do. Though a second ago you said I didn’t, and that I did the same thing....
And in this scenario Isaac was arguing a case. He didn’t say you shouldn’t post. He said your premise basically begs the question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But you’ve went to my comments saying I shouldn’t write them because I already wrote them before. But when Isaac does that targeting your OPs you complain. And he isn’t even doing that right now.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yea ok I get you now.
So clearly I don't like what Isaacs doing here and unfortunately he mentioned me while addressing you thus not easily extricating me from the conversation I was having with you. I'm going back to ignoring his trolling ass..if you want to discuss the actual argument at hand any further go ahead but if this involves Isaac anymore, meaning he has conversations directly with me or talks to you about me, I'm not gonna bite again and feed the troll more than I have.
Care to explain, keeping in mind a productive conversation rather than simply ad hom?
Or those who already have those intuitions gravitate to a more formalized philosophy which makes sense of the vague thoughts they have already intuited..
Also, pessimists don't always just "hate life".. Even Schopenhauer, the ARCH pessimist, liked playing flute, plays, his poodle, and going to concerts.. It doesn't mean that his philosophy of life's suffering was thus wrong.