Your thoughts on Efilism?
Considering the unimaginable amount of physical and mental suffering that occurs every day on this planet, day by day, for millions of years and counting, as well perhaps on countless other planets, which would make the Universe essentially a giant torture chamber, the philosophical view of Efilism seems rather logical. Very extreme yes, but logical, worth giving a thought to say the least.
What are your thoughts on it? Curious to see the opposed arguments, ideally THE counter-argument that would shake my current supportive view of it.
What are your thoughts on it? Curious to see the opposed arguments, ideally THE counter-argument that would shake my current supportive view of it.
Comments (77)
People believe the minority that live a life of suffering are a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer.
Have you heard of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas?
Have you ever heard of the crab who escaped from the bucket? Me neither. Though he stepped on all his fellow crabs and saw things they could only dream of and imagine through stories told in their little crab language. Unfortunately, just as heavy hangs the head that wears the crown, first come is quite often first served.
Still, definitely looks like a unique read. Though.. sometimes not all that glitters is gold.
And in case I misread this I have no problem with the elves. I support them. I always did.
Reminds me of Eastern religions and Gnosticism: being born on Earth is a mistake, gotta get out of the cycle of reincarnation. Reach bliss by extinguishing desire (sounds a bit like a contradiction).
When one shuts his mind to the suffering of others, his mind will become severely constricted and wither. Sooner or later his own happiness will disappear.
Your argument works equally well to establish the exact opposite of Elfism just by replacing two negative descriptors with positive descriptors. Its a weak and fallacious argument.
What are my thoughts on Elifism? Its fucking dumb. (you asked, thats my thought on it.)
Like Antinatalism it depends entirely on putting the negative in a lofty, exalted status and ignoring the positive altogether. It is a philosophy for the weak, the spineless, the whiny the immature and the wannabe clever. Elfism is the same…self indulgent garbage with no philosophical merit.
Also, Im calling it now: RAW is here to plug his stuff, not for discussion.
Yeah, I don't see how one can justify that either. Watch how quickly they change their minds when they end up in the suffering team, and that team in reality, is made up of the majority.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
I haven't, just checked it, the summary, very interesting and related. Thanks for mentioning it. I'll definitely look into it more a bit later.
"Joy is but the shadow pain casts."
Captain, Swedish curling team, The Simpsons.
Was thinking of reincarnation recently, how scary, for the lack of a better word, it is that essentially the same sentient I within all the sentient species ( a bird I, a lion I, a human I), is to play the same cruel game of life over and over again, a whatever bird species "I" suffers, eventually dies, but another same bird species "I" jumps in,...and so for all the sentient species, all the I "types" are persistent, reincarnated over and over again, prisoners of the loop...
I appreciate the honest opinion. Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive?
My point is, there really appears to be a reason or a number of them, some I listed, to put the entire negative at a much higher status than the entire positive, not to say that the 2 are almost incomparable.
Quoting DingoJones
Didn't get this? If you mean what I think you mean, absolutely not.
I think this is just what I said: exalting the negative, focusing only on the negative. How would you even begin measuring these things? They are completely subjective. There are people who are in objectively negative circumstances that none the less feel like the good outweighs the bad. Likewise there are those in objectively better/positive circumstances that none the less feel the bad outweighs the good.
There is no solid ground from which this argument can be made.
Quoting RAW
Im skeptical, Ive seen many opening posts that sounded just like that, and turned out to be thinly veiled self promotion.
Certainly I could be wrong, and honestly I hope I am.
The way I understand it, it's an extension of the Anti-Natalism - immoral for people to have kids, Efilism - immoral for any sentient being on Earth and possibly beyond to have kids. Life is mostly suffering, the positives are not worth the negatives, a single child in a long severe pain due to a cancer or whatever is not worth all the happiness on Earth, and beyond, and if there is a red button in front of you that terminates all life in the Universe in an instant, you are a psychopath not to press it, kind of a point.
It does sound absolutely crazy and extreme but if you manage to dive deeper into it open minded, putting immediate reactions like disgust etc. aside and under control, and look at it solely through logical lenses, for me at least, you can't help but admit it makes sense, for some more for some less maybe.
Your "Efilism" is nothing more than the modern interpretation of the "philosophy of redemption" by the German philosopher Philipp Mainlander.
In short:
"In a deeper analysis of the Universe, everything tends to entropy - death -, therefore, fighting against the natural progress of existence is futile, and total annihilation is the only moral and justifiable reason for humanity's existence."
"Oh, how vain, how sad is the struggle for existence! Learn to love with the spirit, mortify the love of the heart; and bless, bless every hour that leads you closer to the grave!" - Philipp Mainlander
Yes but the way you say it sounds like the negative is focused on and raised way above the scale just...because. As if there are no good reasons to do so. Aren't the 3 reasons listed sound, logical? It would be useful to hear a clear explanation why none of the 3 are true.
For instance, the reason why negative feelings are far stronger (2.) in intensity than positive lies in the fact that them being very strong prevents animals (us included) from "fucking around with their bodies", makes us all avoid hazards, taking seriously even the smallest hazards because even they hurt as hell and are undesirable from the point of preserving ones life (think of it, a simple small needle getting inside your body produces a significant pain, not to mention other far more painful experiences), thus keeping our bodies undamaged and in one piece as much as possible. Positive feelings do not need to be of same strong intensity but just enough to make you do the necessary stuff, eat food, enjoy taking a dump, have sex etc. There is no reason to have eating a food a pleasure higher or at the same level as the orgasm, does the job at a much weaker intensity. Much stronger positive feelings would be counter-productive in fact.
Can you be more specific, measure what, pain against pleasure? Consider this, an orgasm, having a wild sex with Charlize Theron, you being lucky you got the dream job, a child, a girl you wanted, PC to play a video game you really like -VS- you being eaten alive by a pack of lions, torn apart slowly by a giant bear, freezing to death, having your limbs cut off and living for the rest of your life with PTSD in a wheelchair unable to do anything without assistance, I mean I can go on and on and more disturbing?
Which side of the two is sensationally stronger and more life impacting?
What is completely subjective?
Quoting DingoJones
A person suffers in life but feels it's worth all the good stuff in it?
I'm not getting what you're trying to say here or what's the importance of it to what we're discussing here. I'm talking about life as a whole, taking every sentient being into account, not just some guy that had a terrible car accident and is in heavy pain but is still happy because his 3 kids survived without a scratch and are enjoying life. It's a bad deviant argument.
Mainlander and his "Philosophy of Redemption" seem to me to be a deep investigation into the introspectiveness of human pessimism, with the aim of transforming it into a motivating force for Man's own will - "Wille zum Tode" aka "Will to Death" -.
Mainlander's philosophy may seem extremely and utterly "dystopic", however this is not the correct reading of his work. Philipp seeks, through pessimism, an answer to the end of all the sufferings that arise with existence itself, and his logical conclusion was that, instead of deluding ourselves with a "perception of life" towards the future, we - humanity - should fully embrace the fact that "non-life is the state with the least possible suffering, as it is absolute" and thus make existence itself a little more tolerable.
Quoting RAW
Quoting darthbarracuda
Quoting Gus Lamarch
Ok but this is not an argument. It's just lame. I don't care if a particular philosophy comes from a drunk guy on a toilet seat, if it's sound it's sound. Care to put a little more effort and explain why exactly Efilism is "cringe", both of you?
Gus you said Efilism is a "modern interpretation" of Mainlander's work. What exactly is wrong about Inmendham's interpretation of it?
Quoting RAW
There are better presentations of the same ideas. Gary's funny sometimes in his lack of self-awareness, though.
The actual arguments themselves are straightforward and uncomplicated, and I mostly agree with them. I suppose I could probably raise some objection, but it's a pain to disentangle the actual arguments from the mental illness. I have better things to do.
Hey RAW, I'm a long-standing philosophical pessimist and antinatalist myself, so you might find some of the more recent threads interesting to peruse and add to. There is one now that is still active:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11738/is-it-wrong-to-have-children/p1
Here are several more all having antinatalist/pessimist themes:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11540/is-never-having-the-option-for-no-option-just-what-are-the-implications/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11441/why-humans-and-possibly-higher-cognition-animals-have-it-especially-bad/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10842/willy-wonkas-forced-game/p1
You can just look through my discussions page in general and find something that will probably interest you on AN.
Peoples ideas about whats good or bad about life and which ones are worthwhile tradeoffs. Thats going to vary greatly from person to person. Even if we accept that certain things are bad to everyone, it still wouldn't resolve anything about what bad things outweigh what good things and vice versa.
Quoting RAW
This is all subjective. Each individual will have feelings and opinions about which of these things outweighs the others. Many people think having kids is worth the hardships of parenting, others do not.
Also your examples are completely one sided. All the negative ones are death and horror and the positive ones are almost all petty and fleeting.
Remember when I said you exalted the negative over the positive? Well thats what you’ve done here. Every point you are making is skewed towards the negative and thats your own subjective opinion about how the bad outweighs the good. That's true for you, but not for everyone.
You must be a pessimist in order for your arguments to work, and not everyone views things that way.
Quoting RAW
This depends on the person. Also, refer to my point about your skewed examples. Like look at your two lists, you picked some of the worst things you could think of for the negatives and the positives you picked sex and sex and work and “child” and sex again and a video game…
Do you honestly think you’ve made fair comparisons here? If those are the best things that you think life has to offer then you either lack imagination or need to broaden your horizons considerably and I mean that in the kindest, most helpful possible sense.
Quoting RAW
The point I was trying to make there was about the subjective nature of the measurements you are making regarding good and bad. Hopefully what I said above provides some clarity.
That is your subjective experience. Many others have a very different experience of life. In regard to my experience, I can not agree with a single one of those statements.
The answer is simple though: Everyone knows where the "exit" is. No one can force anyone to play the game. Just don't go assuming that others subscribe to your world view and want to take any part in the ideas that Efilism comes up with.
I have to strongly disagree with the whole "it's entirely subjective" assertion. The facts don't support that at all. What are the facts? People share common feelings about what is bad in life, what is good. Everybody agrees that pain and suffering is bad, the opposite or the absence of is good, more than that even better. So right of the bat you make a false incorrect statement that just doesn't hold water. There is an objective consensus among all of us that say cancer is bad, that losing your legs is bad etc. same consensus exists for many if not all the other bad things in life. Why is that? Because we all "occupy" the same kind of bodies, same anatomy, have same brains, senses, living in the same reality, experiencing more or less the same things on a daily basis in life, all of which produces the same kind of feelings in each one of us. Most of the feelings you had so far, I had them too, sadness, anger, happiness etc. My angry state of certain intensity is equal to your angry state of same intensity, and so on and forth.
A little girl having her entire hand chopped off by an axe is an extremely painful terrible event we can all agree on, there is no great variation here to be expected, someone feeling that such event is not that big of a deal. It is absolutely false and dishonest to claim otherwise.
I mean, examples are infinite. 10 random people from the street of any age and gender, cut a small finger from each person, they will all scream in pain, noone will laugh or be indifferent but experience the same kind of pain, of same level, intensity. One will not feel "greatly" less pain than others.
Quoting DingoJones
So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective".
The whole point is the asymmetry, the undeniable fact that the bad can get so incredible bad, so unimaginably bad, profoundly terrifyingly bad experiences that cannot be compared intensity wise to anything on the positive side. A female person, being kept in chains in some basement for her entire life, being raped, beaten, verbally abused etc. from the age of a little girl to an old woman only to be brutally murdered in the end, cannot possibly be justified by all the happiness in the world.
Quoting DingoJones
Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.
So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.
It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed.
Quoting DingoJones
Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting.
I hear you, do agree more or less, Gary often gets so mad and animated that I can understand why someone would dislike his way of presenting these ideas.
RAW DingoJones is just going to say things like "Creating art, love, relationships, persuing a project, delving into scientific and technological mysteries and inventions, writing, creativity, etc". You left yourself opened on the positive side as you only mentioned physical pains and not emotional/abstract (or at least more complex) pleasures/joys, or the (more abstract) idea of general "happiness" or equanimity. I don't disagree with you there, but the more advanced argument is simply going to say, "No pain, no gain" and essentially will retreat to things like, "Without struggle, there is no meaning, thus let's create other people who might have to struggle to give them meaning". They will also say that life's pleasures are worth it because of the other types of things I mentioned. I have many responses to this, but just wanted to let you know what they are going to say to this kind of comparison.
You too with the "it's entirely subjective". Never mind, opinions are heard, I appreciate them all even though I haven't seen any sensical counter-arguments to Efilism.
I hope not, that would be disappointing. We'll see. Yes, the lists can be extended, having physical and emotional feelings on both sides.
Btw I checked some of the links you provided, went through last few pages of the first thread, debate between 2 guys, interesting stuff. Might join later...
I don't think you'll ever see a sensical counter-argument. You've chosen how you wish to perceive the world. Likewise, I won't ever see a sensical argument in support of Efilism (or Antinatalism for that matter).
I believe you that the world you live in is a terrible and cruel place full of suffering. The world I live in is not though.
Yeah, the way things went so far, I share the same opinion on the counter-argument. I have not chosen to wish anything, I accept logic no matter how unappealing it may be.
Quoting Hermeticus
I see, what to say, enjoy living inside that beautiful soap bubble you created. Just bare in mind, one day it will pop...
Quoting RAW
It doesn't make sense and isn't logical though. The conceit is that you think you can put emotions and deep-routed drives aside and look at it dispassionately through a purely logical lens. You can't because there would be nothing left for logic to work on. Logic by itself is empty and has to start with some prior valuations to get to some logical conclusion about values. Reason is slave to the passions.
The thing that pisses people off concerning Efilism and Anti-natalism, and righly so, is that you try to re-package your subjective negative valuation of life into some kind of objective and logically inescapably conclusion about the value of life. You turned a personal opinion, not only into the logically only possible objective valuation, but also into a moral duty and a political project that people should follow... thereby dragging other people down with you in the process.
You'll get a lot more understanding and respect from people if you'd just own up to your opinion, instead of covering it up with these post-hoc philosophical rationalizations in an attempt to feel better at the expense of others. And I dare say, you'll give yourself a better chance to get out of that pernicious mind-set if you'd stop spinning an entire web of justification around it.
No not really. Rather, here is a case where someone A does something that affects person B. How is this NOT in the realm of philosophical ethical consideration? You are literally affecting a whole life for someone else. Then the question is, is this act wrong/approrpriate/negligent?
Well, is the act creating harm for someone else? Yes? Was it done to ameliorate a lesser harm for that person or was it completely unnecessary? Yes it was unnecessary? Do you take more care when the actions pertain to someone else? Yes, you do take care more to not unnecessarily create harm for others? Then why would you think it's okay and permissible to enact for someone else? Is creating happy people an obligation? No? Then why would that matter when one can prevent unnecessary harm?
Yes evaluations do have to be in the equation, but it only takes simply agreement on how harms are weighted for someone that could exist but does not yet.
1. Utilitarian calculus type ethics are crap. It can't be done practically and nobody thinks like that. It's like saying before every stroke one should consciously calculate velocity, spin and the angle of the tennis-ball and then calculate the necessary force and angle of the stroke before one hits a tennis-ball to play good tennis.
2. Even if it would be feasible, people don't agree anyway that harm should be the only value that should be taken into consideration in ethical calculations.
Here's a wild idea, start will real people and what they actually value to reason effectively about ethics.
Thing is though, I haven’t met anyone who holds such simple beliefs.
Quoting RAW
Well, it’s valid. Idk about sound.
Quoting RAW
Logic needs premises. You picked weird premises and ended up with weird conclusions. Surprise!
I'm avidly NOT a utilitarian. My ethical premise is based more on deontological grounds.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Ridiculous claim of what I'm doing. Is there non-trivial harm in life? Are you unnecessarily creating this harm for another person? Don't do it. I don't have to prove that life brings with it non-trivial harm, and that this harm was not necessary to create in the first place. Next. You can retort that maybe there is a life somewhere that never experienced non-trivial harm.. but I'd suspect you'd think twice about saying that.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
But in the procreation decision, considerations of no happiness matter not, when you are creating harms for other people at the same time. I agree, harm is weighted more than happiness in this area and if you want to debate that, then we can.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
Yes, cause you are the arbiter of when it's okay to create harms for other people. If it's another person, as long as you get a popular "majority" opinion, everything is good. No considerations whatsoever.. move on, just don't think about it...Nothing to see here, just move on...
It's nothing like deontology. Harm is not specific enough a concept for that.
Anyway there little use in continuing this discussion, I don't agree with your premise and I don't agree with your methodology, so not much to build on there...
Dude, it's not causing harm onto another. It boils down to not overlooking the dignity of that person by creating harm unnecessarily for them which is similar to Kant's second formulation of not using people for other ends.. And in the case of procreation, I do think considering anything but the potential to cause negative states for them is overlooking dignity for another agenda (even if you think it's supposed to be benign or good).
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
So just don't debate anything? Why is this area so unique in that you can't debate if you disagree? Weird. Do you do this for everything else too? Politics, etc.?
Because it boils down to a basic premise that isn't particularly moved by reason or arguments... either you accept it or you don't. And yes a lot of political and ethical discussions are also like that, they disagree on basic premises, that's why they almost never get resolved... people just end up talking past each other.
More waffle from decadents and wimps.
Its not an admission of anything, I was anticipating your counter argument which you just repeated instead of addressing my pre-emptive point. Then you created a fantasy where I was admitting to something.
Quoting RAW
I already addressed these points, your are just repeating yourself.
Also, it is pure fantasy on your part that you have any idea what Im doing subconsciously.
Also, I didnt say “entirely subjective”, you did. I understand that there are commonalities between these experiences, but the experiences are subjective, there are differences in how people experience those bad things and how they let those experiences define whether life is worth living or not.
Lastly, you aren’t really addressing the points made. You are very focused on repeating your original points/argument, essentially just rewording your original stuff. If you are just repeating your original points that means you are not responding to counter points being made. Think about it.
Quoting RAW
It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do.
The guy was saying "let's agree to disagree". Then you proceeded to try to push him back into an argument. When I did that you called me a debate club bot. At least have some shame and don't then go on to do the exact same thing to others.
I'll let you have that.. I think at some point it just comes down to this.
Because we also debated for much longer before we got to that point and I did agree with him that at some point axioms are just opposed. There is no more debate. He just bypassed a lot of possible middle ground, which I am thinking is wise. I was making sure this wasn't too quick a move though. I think you should also note what he said about being convinced or not by the axioms. At that point where axioms are not convincing, than where can you go other than more appeal to someone's sensibilities. I could never and never claimed to point that THIS is the axiom, only that it makes sense if one agrees with them. My main question to @ChatteringMonkey would then be why wouldn't he be convinced by the premises? I feel there was more there that he agrees with than he thinks, but the discussion has abruptly stopped. Certainly causing unnecessary harms are something we deem as not wanting to put on another.. Certainly not using them.. And I would try to make the case that procreation meets this criteria despite our original assumptions that we are doing a good thing. I also want to point that this is not overcome with how you think you can "raise" the person in question.
And when I do that I’m Isaac.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Those were my questions to you. But it made me a debate class bot.
I couldn’t care less about how you behave on the forum, just drop the stupid thing you do where you randomly start characterizing me as a dogged arguer with no interest in the conversation, especially when from my perspective you’re doing all the things I do to others.
Nothing is more annoying to me when people start debating and then randomly decide to attack their interlocutor.
And were you going to respond on the other thread?
But you realize our arguments had gone on for pages, right? ChatteringMonkey had a couple posts and was done. I did not randomly decide anything to do anything. At some point the argument must end and on the other side, one just doesn't even start the debate. It's not like ChatteringMonkey and I had multiple previous threads and he just decided this was enough after many discussions on this. He never started it.
And yes, I will try to answer it, but it will take time.
Yes, life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering. As you are unable to accept this "weird" (the word you've chosen here is revealing ) premise, this simple fact, any further conversation is pointless. You too have fun living inside that beautiful bubble of delusions until it pops. It's something to envy in a way, wish I could turn off like that and ignore the cold cruel reality.
Oh boy, here we go again. Subjective, subjective, subjective.
"life as a whole on this planet is predominantly suffering." is not a subjective valuation, but an entirely objective. If so far you haven't discovered an ample amount of proof that backs this fact, I suggest getting outside of that secure colorful bubble you live in once in a while to see the reality for what it is.
Yes, not to press the famous red button that terminates all life on this planet (and others where suffering is vast) in an instant would make you the biggest baddest most awesome psychopath ever.
Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first.
It's not a valuation at all, but a fact... what you think this fact should entail is subjective.
We did discuss this before schopenhauer:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/550418
Quoting schopenhauer1
The answer to this question directly follows from what I said in that thread.
In other words, it's not worth arguing about.
Quoting RAW
Ah yes. The infamous "You disagree with me therefore you are deluded" defense. One that is known for promoting truth seeking and unbiased investigation. Agreed, it is impossible to argue with someone who believes that the opposition is wrong by virtue of them disagreeing with him. I won't bother asking you what makes you so certain the whole world is deluded and the select few efilists aren't because it doesn't seem like something you actually have support for. Just something you'll proudly and loudly restate.
On the other hand I highlighted another very important premise which maybe be more amenable to discussion:
Quoting khaled
You need this premise. There are plenty of people with your doomer attitude that nonetheless aren't efilists. Where did you get the premise that the amount of suffering is the only thing that matters? Here you can't really appeal to doomer views. It is possible that most people suffer most of the time and are living in delusions. We can even measure this to some extent with surveys and such (though your view would require that the entire world is lying).
However this premise is not factual. It is not about the amount of suffering in the world or anything like that, but rather the significance of said suffering. Whether or not suffering is the only thing that matters in ethical questions is not something you can empirically test for, unlike your other premise. So you can't appeal to people being deluded. You need to argue why suffering should be the only thing important in ethics.
I didn’t shout, I did my best to explain. It just doesnt seem like the counterpoints are registering to you, maybe Ive not made them well enough.
Anyway, suit yourself.
As @khaled mentioned, this is why if you end up with such bizarre conclusions if you think pleasure is irrelevant. You also never answered my question about consent and how it makes no sense with this system. It seems you think “oh, well the people who are suffering only matter, making them happy is pointless” so under your system we NEVER have any reason to fulfill positive moral duties, only negative ones like “murder people instead of trying to make their existence happier.” It’s like pressing a button to kill all homeless people who nobody will ever mourn when you could’ve just housed them. You keep saying life is suffering and that pleasure doesn’t matter, but you still haven’t given us a good reason as to why this is so.
Keep in mind the Benatarian argument pertains only to a situation where there is no person (but could be), not already existing people. In the former situation, he is taking the idea that when starting a life, suffering matters more than creating happiness, as happiness matters not unless a person is affected while prevented good is simply deemed "good". The question inevitably is why, and this is where axioms sort of grind to a halt. Benatar himself appeals to things like deserted planets not having happiness doesn't perturb people, but aliens that suffer would seem to invoke our compassion capacities. You can use a lot of other examples. Avoided harm seems more important in some ultimate/non-relative sense than missed happiness (for someone who isn't around to be deprived).
However, I would say that I don't think this axiom necessarily stands on its own. There are several points that I think need to be considered for this axiom to make sense:
1) Procreation is about other people. It would seem in moral matters, other people's considerations deserve more care as to not create unnecessary harm for that person. It's more permissible to create harm for oneself, but not for others, when one doesn't have to (which is why it is "unnecessary" as I call it).
2) We are discussing an unnecessary harm (for the person being affected). That is to say we are not ameliorating a prior condition that needs to be made better. That is to say, the person isn't already born and in order to now continue in life less pain free, we have to do some lesser harm to them to prevent a greater harm. In this case, the harm was unnecessary to create in the first place.
You really disagree with that fact, now with me. I didn't invent it, I don't like it, but it's there. How much ones eyes will be opened standing in front of this "monster" and how far one is ready to go in terms of the solution, depends on the individual obviously. You or the majority just isn't willing (some perhaps unable to for other reasons) to face the fact and accept the most ethical solution.
Quoting khaled
Another revealing statement, it really is, you have poor reasoning my friend. You don't know why that might be the case? This might be a shocking discovery to you, are you ready? Most people are not driven by logic but emotions. You can see ample proof of this everywhere, including right here, right now, shown by you and others like you. And you are surprised why Efilism in particular is a view of a tiny minority?
Efilism is a disturbing cold nonappealing non the less very logical philosophical view. People naturally distance themselves from the negative. To expect it to be accepted by a large number of people is, delusional khaled. Most people can't accept the simplest most harmless of logics on the surface.
You yourself just literally proved that you are delusional.
Please, no more, I'm leaving the discussion, I do get people like you, it's fine, I know it's hard to accept the scary truth and all, it is what it is.
Well, there is that alternative solution, to somehow remove the suffering from the equation but that's the stuff of science fiction isn't it. As you well pointed, even Effilism is with the omnicide, it certainly won't happen voluntarily, ever.
And Albero, we are discussing the suffering of all sentient life on this planet and elsewhere. Sentient animals included. Don't be ego-centric.
Quoting Albero
I never ever said that pleasure is irrelevant. The point has always been the asymmetry, way too much negative often far more intense than the positive can ever be. Thus the positive isn't worth the negative.
Again with people, people, people. You are ego-centric so of course you cannot understand the logic behind Efilism. Think of the suffering elsewhere other than your own and of other people and you might be close to getting it.
“I never ever said that pleasure is irrelevant. The point has always been the asymmetry, way too much negative often far more intense than the positive can ever be. Thus the positive isn't worth the negative.”
Well positive utilitarianism is a thing, surely they have good reason to think the positive is worth the negative when we weigh moral judgements. But if your response is simply going to be that these philosophers are delusional then I see no reason to continue.
Quoting unenlightened
:chin: Is it that there is no correct answer? Or we just can't prove it to each other?
Yup:
Quoting khaled
Quoting RAW
And I get people like you too. People with too much time on their hands who want to have the identity of the "unbiased stoic truth seeker". He who shoulders the world's terrible truths while the rest of us poor sheep cower in fear. So they look for the most pessimistic outlook they can and pick that one thinking that makes it true. I think it's very sad. But all that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
I had given you a topic we can argue about regardless of our view on the world. It was literally half of the comment, and you ignored it:
Quoting khaled
As I said: Logic needs premises. "The world is mostly suffering" does not logically lead to efilism. You need other premises, like the one I highlighted above, which have no support for (not that you have support for this one either).
But instead of discussing this you chose to characterize me as delusional. As if that dismisses my argument at all. Wasn't it you who said:
Quoting RAW
This shows me you never cared to discuss your view. You pretended like you wanted someone to argue against it, when what you really wanted was to maintain your stoic image of yourself.
Well again, you've chosen yourself to so clearly characterize yourself as delusional, as someone with a very poor reasoning by bringing out that shockingly silly question, not knowing the answer to it. Such an obvious logical answer to it yet you were unable to answer it. And that's the problem with people like you, failing to think logically.
Quoting khaled
What's sad is that you just won't stop revealing yourself won't you? So just like that, in total darkness, one day I said, hell, what's the most pessimistic outlook out there? Efilism? Great, let's support that "red button".....for no reason whatsoever other than that it being the most pessimistic must make it true. This is your poor reasoning at work again.
The former.
I prefer vanilla, you prefer strawberry.
I prefer the pricking of my finger, you prefer the destruction of the world.
De gustibus non Disputandum est.
Quoting Down The Rabbit Hole
Quoting unenlightened
I think you are right.
Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or wrong".
It's certainly not whatI'm espousing. I say that life is good and therefore death is good and pain is good, because these things are part of life. I do not have an argument, and if you disagree, there is nothing more to be said on my part.
Well actually there is a great deal more to be said, but for the moment I will limit my pontification to this aphorism: suffering is the attempt to escape pain or capture pleasure.
Evidently the Efilist believes there is such an imbalance. But is there? How can you establish that these measurements are reliable, and persuade people with the opposite intuition that these quantitative judgments are correct?
On the basis of my own experience, including my experience of the lives of other people, I would reject the Efilist's claim that life is more "negative" than "positive" on balance. On the grounds that the Efilist's assessment seems completely unfounded to me, and utterly lacking an objective basis, I would reject your claim that Efilism is "logical". It seems more like an unwarranted intellectual projection motivated by something like the pain of depression or the fleeting pangs of disillusionment.
I wouldn't give it a second thought, if there weren't other people who found it appealing.
I don't believe I've ever heard of this view before. My response here is directed at the characterization of the view I've just gleaned from this thread and from a glance at a few search engine hits.
Perhaps you can recommend a more thorough treatment of Efilism, in which the concerns I've raised might be addressed?
I don’t think it makes it all the way to moral nihilism. Sounds more like humanism. The source of morality is humans and their preferences, not some “answer” that’s “out there”. Though there are certainly answers that fit more or fewer preferences. And ones that are sustainable and others that are not. Etc
Quoting khaled
Our view that there is no correct answer seems to meet the definition of moral nihilism. Although, I think moral nihilism is commonly used to refer to a belief that morality doesn't matter, which is a pill I'm not willing to swallow.
I don't think the fact that a moral principle is popular makes it any more right, as we would still be unable to articulate a basis for it. Of-course a moral principle is unsustainable if you cannot apply it consistently.
My last post and possibly a visit to this forum so do not bother creating a reply for which you expect mine or me to read it.
If all the horrors of life on this planet aren't enough to persuade someone that imbalance is very real, what can possibly any Efilist do to change that. It's like persuading a hard creationist that he is delusional and that his beliefs do not reflect the reality. Efilism is way too pessimistic, way too dark and nonappealing for many to even consider giving it a rational thought. I've witnessed some people in the thread forgetting the fact that most people are driven by emotions not logic. To look at Efilism objectively is to turn off or have under control your ego, your emotions, and most people can't do that. Many people naturally distance themselves from the negative content, they don't want to see or hear about it.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
So millions of humans across the world starving each day until many of them drop dead, according to your experience of their lives, you concluded that it's ok, their severe suffering is worth all the daily positive stuff in your, mine and lives of millions of other humans (except millions of other humans)? A few million kids dead of hunger each year is worth your, mine and yearly happy time quota of others (play time with our own kid/s, eating delicious food, sex time, being entertained by books, movies, games, being creative, you name it...?)
Why stop there? All the other millions of humans in severe physical and mental pain each day (countless varieties and durations there, each horrific in its own way ), are worth your, mine and the daily happy time quota of millions of others?
Why stop here? The immense suffering in the animal world, the horrific experiences of millions of sentient animals on this planet per day as well are worth our daily happiness quota? Do we care about animals or we decided they do not matter?
Ultimately, is a daily severe suffering of a single hungry Yemeni child worth your daily happy time quota? Daily severe suffering of a single sentient animal? Your logical honest answer would be NO. Your delusional dishonest illogical ego-centric emotional would be YES.
Efilism is about suffering within all life on Earth (all life in the universe for that matter).
All this brings us to the ultimate point that kind of eliminates all criticism of Efilism - how can one be truly happy and joyful in life while millions of other humans and other sentient animals are unhappy, in severe often long duration suffering? You can't, unless you are oblivious to it (one being oblivious to it is one's problem) or just sociopathic. Because not to be sociopathic is to be genuinely bothered by the severe suffering of countless others around you, and to be genuinely bothered by the severe suffering of countless others is to be unable to be truly happy. Logical conclusion: there is no true positive as long as there is negative, thus the asymmetry is real. In our society, most people are OBLIVIOUS (some more some less), indifferent to the suffering of others. Their problem, doesn't make the suffering any less real.
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
By now hopefully you realized or are starting to that nothing could be further from the truth. Where do you think "Life is cruel" phrase comes from? From the balance or reverse asymmetry?
Quoting Cabbage Farmer
For someone exposed to it for the first time, your response is very predictable, expected. Once you hear more, once you go much deeper, it all makes sense in the end.
I can recommend but please, be warned, I had a fairly optimistic view of life before I discovered Efilism. There's no turning back now. Once you learn how to ride a bike, you can't unlearn it. All delusions are now gone and I see life for what it truly is, a purely mechanical, overly cold, cruel, pointless, and I see humans as even more illogical. Part of me wishes I never came across this "stupid" double slit video of his, while a part of me is satisfied to have learned more hard truths about reality.
I was in my own bubble doing just fine and then Gary showed up and fucked it up, popped it with a giant needle. I discovered Gary/Imendham, the author, via one of his physics videos (his criticism of the double slit experiment), accidentally. Took a listen, the guy though looks like a kook, seemed to make sense. For a long time I listened to his physics videos/channel and had no idea that he does philosophy as well, that he has a YouTube channel (Inmendham) with hundreds of videos on philosophy. The guy is a long time YouTuber. Has videos on economics, religion etc. as well. It didn't take much time to realize this man is exceptionally intelligent and knowledgeable, extremely logical, exceptional thinker absolutely worth listening. Then I discovered that he came up with Efilism, defined his own philosophical view and gained following. I personally find him to be the humanity's treasure, if not the biggest philosopher of our time that may be understood in some distant future if one exists for us at all. The biggest of the hidden gems I ever came across.
I tried to expose a good friend to Efilism via Skype chat and I failed epically. A stupid move in retrospect, for start because the guy has some serious health and mental issues and is all about positive, is pro-life etc. He doesn't like horror movies, games, you get the idea. The worst kind of a person to expose to Efilism. Of course, he got so emotional about it, so upset that I had to cut the discussion soon after it began even though he is more intelligent than me, more educated, well read and at the very end I did "catch him" with few arguments he appeared to agree with. I can only imagine what full exposure or showering from Efilism would've done to him emotionally.
The way I see it, from personal example, this is life-altering stuff. Forget about life-altering movies and other such bs, this is the real shit. These 2 links were in my intro comment but moderator/s removed them, and it is for the better. People should search for more info themselves. But since you asked, I'll be evil and let you either choose to continue living in whatever bubble you have made for yourself and forget about Gary, Efilism and all of it, or allow Gary to show you "how deep the rabbit hole goes". The choice is yours.
Explanation of Efilism on Gary's website: http://www.efilism.com/
A YouTube list of videos of Gary that goes into details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYbbEbovUH4&list=UU7YEhpAPFqBbQcdmAomrcXQ&index=1
Well I’d answer no. And I’m sure everyone else would as well. Because our happiness isn’t caused by suffering Yemeni children. But I’m curious. How can you arrive at this logically. Mind writing it out as a syllogism?
Same with efilism in general. You keep saying it’s logical. What’s the logical argument you employ that has the conclusion “Therefore no sentient life should exist”. As I said, I’ll accept your premises that life is awful and terrible. They still won’t logically lead to efilism.
“Life IS pain your highness, and anyone who tells you different is selling something”
Selling something like Elfism for example. :wink:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599957
I doubt people have the capacity to internalize the suffering of millions. Wouldn't everyone foregoing moments of joy or beauty just mean there's more suffering by comparison? I wouldn't demand the misery of others if I was suffering. I don't see how Efilism meets it's own criteria. What right do you have to an objective theory of the universe while others are suffering? Typing away on a philosophy forum to simulate the productivity that tricks your brain into releasing dopamine? Efilism seems as guilty as anything else that fails to relieve suffering. At least other theories aren't trying to lower expectations or rather over manage them.
So, if you are looking for a counter-position then it's asking how Efilism meets it's own test for what is permitted.
A little gem from r/Efilism's "newcomers start here" page/FAQ:
OK maybe that was a bit low, and I'm not sure why I even looked them up. As @Ciceronianus succinctly put it, the first problem is that it's hard to see how we can simply set "suffering" and "happiness", or whatever variants of those, directly and completely in opposition of each other.
I do feel like maybe there is a failure of communication/education involved here. The problems that efilism tries to consider don't really seem very novel. Are philosophers failing to disseminate or articulate modern ideas to a broad audience? If we give efilists the benefit of the doubt, that they are not simply lazy but instead a little bit lost, is there something that can be done better, to engage these people in healthier philosophical debate?