This Existence Entails Being Morally Disqualifying
It can probably be agreed upon that the most torturous existence is probably the worst kind of existence. This may correlate to something like "hell". (For the sado-masochists out there, it would simply be the opposite of what the pain they normally deem as "good" or "pleasurable"...or more broadly, their preferences for good/pleasure are not realized.)
The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. That would mean by necessity everyone would have to enjoy their favored existence without infringing on other people's favored existence (if this existence was trying to be moral and it was agreed that enjoying one's own preferences was deemed as moral). But wait!!
What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence? Here we have a moral conundrum if we do not want to violate other people's infringement. Our current existence is one where this infringement happens ALL THE TIME. Right from the start even, we can point to birth definitely involving at least SOME people not wanting the event to have befallen them.
If given the choice of not having to work to survive, at least SOME people would prefer to not work to survive, perhaps most people. But we have a case where some people don't mind it, find it character-building, find it good, and others would prefer to banish all of it if they could. Yet for the system to keep functioning, for existence as humans to keep going, work must persist, which at least SOME people want to see (while others may not care for in the current state of things). Thus, for SOME people, existence might be "on the level" with their preferences, but for others, everyday is a daily reminder of their preferences-thwarted.
Thus existence entails at least SOME people having their preferences violated, and if enjoying preferences is at all a part of either an axiological or moral system, this is problematic..
This existence then represents what I will call "the slow burning evil of the squishy middle". It is not an immediately intense state of pain and torture like the hell scenario mentioned at the beginning, but it is not the heavenly scenario of everyone's preferences realized in the other scenario. Rather, it is stochastic, statistical, and varies in intensity of preferences not satisfied. And this may be for the worse for humans as there will be slow realization of it being morally worse off. It also leads to continual conflict between those whose preferences are being at least minimally satisfied (those who don't mind let's say working to survive), and those who would have never asked for this if the world aligned to their preferences.
With the idea of only SOME people's preferences satisfied, and those preferences entailing the infringement of other people's preferences, this makes this existence morally disqualifying.
The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. That would mean by necessity everyone would have to enjoy their favored existence without infringing on other people's favored existence (if this existence was trying to be moral and it was agreed that enjoying one's own preferences was deemed as moral). But wait!!
What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence? Here we have a moral conundrum if we do not want to violate other people's infringement. Our current existence is one where this infringement happens ALL THE TIME. Right from the start even, we can point to birth definitely involving at least SOME people not wanting the event to have befallen them.
If given the choice of not having to work to survive, at least SOME people would prefer to not work to survive, perhaps most people. But we have a case where some people don't mind it, find it character-building, find it good, and others would prefer to banish all of it if they could. Yet for the system to keep functioning, for existence as humans to keep going, work must persist, which at least SOME people want to see (while others may not care for in the current state of things). Thus, for SOME people, existence might be "on the level" with their preferences, but for others, everyday is a daily reminder of their preferences-thwarted.
Thus existence entails at least SOME people having their preferences violated, and if enjoying preferences is at all a part of either an axiological or moral system, this is problematic..
This existence then represents what I will call "the slow burning evil of the squishy middle". It is not an immediately intense state of pain and torture like the hell scenario mentioned at the beginning, but it is not the heavenly scenario of everyone's preferences realized in the other scenario. Rather, it is stochastic, statistical, and varies in intensity of preferences not satisfied. And this may be for the worse for humans as there will be slow realization of it being morally worse off. It also leads to continual conflict between those whose preferences are being at least minimally satisfied (those who don't mind let's say working to survive), and those who would have never asked for this if the world aligned to their preferences.
With the idea of only SOME people's preferences satisfied, and those preferences entailing the infringement of other people's preferences, this makes this existence morally disqualifying.
Comments (76)
Your example of child bearing is a good one. But what came before that (most of the time) is intercourse. The ideal there being both parties suffer and enjoy the experience mutually. So then perhaps the future we seek isn't just "don't bother me and I won't bother you", but the merging of all our enjoyments and sufferings.
Don't know what this means or looks like. Sounds vaguely transhumanist.. unless you mean we all be empathetic. I am all for empathy, but at the end of the day, I want my "stuff" and that makes other people work.. who may not want to work but have to to survive and vice versa. We are screwing each other over simply by living. Again, existence entails from its very operation moral disqualification. The very fact that some people's views of the world get to dominate whilst others are simply ignored with a shrug also shows this.
Some people would rather not have encountered a world in the first place where people are murdered, physical and mental diseases proliferate, and work takes up most of adult life. Others find this at the least tolerable and some even find it character-building. Those people win out. And as I said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
What I'm suggesting is a permutation of "I think therefore I am". I would go a step further to say "I seek therefore it exists". The only qualification to that would be "unless I am deluded". But the ideal of representing all people's preferences is something all societies pursue in some way no matter the religion or culture. So I don't think it's a delusion despite our current disqualifications.
Really? Where? Preferences like meeting supply and demands presuppose other preferences like how society goes about doing that.
The point is that an existence with some preference never met means that existence is not moral. Period. That’s if we believe that peoples preferences being met is the moral standard.
If it’s not the moral standard we gotta choose wisely here because now we are positing that a certain way of life is necessary and more important to carry out for those who don’t agree with it. Then that has to be discussed for why it should be THE way. Simply stating that, there is no other way doesn’t negate the moral disqualification of not meeting everyone’s preferences. It simply restates the very problem of that “squishy middle”.
What is the moral thing to do? That’s easy. If one understands morality as a standard delimiting the way things ought to be , then in general terms the moral is
what satisfies that standard.In order for morality to work as a standard or principle , it cannot just refer to contingent , local and relative situation. The preferred standard, principle must point to a certain universality , or at least reliable ongoing identity in what it chooses.
For instance , if the notion of not-being born is conceived as a preferable alternative to life, then it is the moral choice because it is a universal. Not being born doesn’t change its stripes and become some sort of lived experience all of a sudden. It must be conceived
as pure and unchanging. It acts as a moral ground in a way similar not how God serves as the basis of all morality for the religious. In both cases there is an assumed unchanging fundamental truth to hang our moral standard on. We can rely on the never-having-been-born to always be devoid of suffering and pain, as well as joy. It is a perfect neutrality.
But I want to contrast this view of morality with the Nietzsche’s extra-moral perspective. For Nietzsche non-being and not-having-been-born are
themselves kinds of beings. For him a being is a difference in drives or affects. Never-having-been-born is not a pure neutrality that preceded life, it only exists or appears , that is , it is born as a contrast, a differentiation in one’s thinking, a desired remedy for one’s suffering, just as God serves this purpose for the religious.
Nietzsche calls this will to nothingness the acetic ideal, a drive or craving for perfect neutrality and the completely unchanging.
It has been said that the ‘nothing’ cannot be thought, but in thought is the only place it resides. And each time the ‘nothing’ is thought , it is thought differently , in response to always different concerns and contexts. The nothing is always fecund, creative rather than a simple lack or absence. Likewise , every time you come back to the topic of the never-having-been-born, you have something new to say about it. But this having something new to say isnt just dancing around the edges and pointing to the perfect, pure never changing affective neutrality of the nothing. You are each time slightly changing the very sense and meaning of the never-having-been-born in ways that are invisible to you.
Each time you talk or think about it , you are giving birth to new life and new sense.
But even though this is so, you consider it as static and fixed , and you also think of its contrary , life , in terms that are static and fixed For you life’s suffering has a non-changing essence, so for you morality is a battle between eternal suffering and eternal nothingness.
For Nietzsche the two sides of this battle are really the same concept, truth and morality as the unchanging , the pure, the perfect. Nietzsche wants to replace this traditional morality with an ethics that recognizes, celebrates and accelerates the incessant differentiating change underlying and overflowing your static notions of the nothing and of suffering.
Just seems like more ways to justify suffering. I’m not on board with that. This particular thread is saying that if preferences satisfied are a moral standard than this existence entails it never being moral.
That’s becuase you haven’t examined the coherence of your ‘alternative’ closely enough.
Isnt morality about imperfect choices?
Never having been born is your notion of divinity , that which ends all suffering. Therefore , your preference is for never having been born. If that were satisfied you would consider it moral. One would have to accept your concept of having never been born as a preferable alternative to life in order to consider existence immoral.
“There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (Camus, Myth of Sisyphus).
Like Hamlet, to be or not to be. If life is not worth living then kill yourself and end it. If that is not the option then find things to make life worthwhile.
Yeah, well, it's never too late for "some people" to abruptly end their "encounter". :smirk:
Quoting schopenhauer1
"Moral" (or not) belongs to existents, not "existence".
Quoting schopenhauer1
Adaptively managing suffering (attempting to do so) is not "justifying suffering" any more than to eat "justifies" hunger or to bury the dead "justifies" mortality. :roll:
And again. If you set up some bizarre moral framework, you'll reach bizarre results. Why is this still of any interest to you? Are you seeing if you run out of weird moral proscriptions? Are you waiting to see if at some point the more bizarre you make them the less weird the conclusions?
Almost everyone's "favored existence" would include being able to live sociably and peacefully with other people. Clearly then, almost every favored existence requires people to accept your so-called "infringement," otherwise known as friendship, loyalty, love, generosity, empathy, compassion, trust, honesty...
But if that's not in the background, then all we are left with is damning this existence. What's the point? Either do something, or don't do it, but trying to get people to see that existence is suffering is silly, especially if there's a way out.
Well put
...But sadly only convinces one that the world would be a far more charming and cheerful place (indeed, in which to unconscionably suffer!) with fewer schopenhauer1-types about, incessantly jeremiahing.
I am in no sense advising suicide to anyone wishy-washy or iffy. After all, what's the diff? Die now, or suffer horrifically now and die later? The final chapter is the same: eternal bodyless sentienceless peace.
@schopenhauer1 is a bit of a one-trick pony and I have disagreed with most of his positions over our time together on the forum. On the other hand, I have noted him branching out from his usual anti-natalism to broader subjects, although admittedly still focusing on the same set of issues. Also, he always comes to the discussions prepared with specific positions and arguments, unlike 63.459% of the other members. He writes well.
If I'm not in the mood to cross swords with his brand of pessimism, I avoid the discussion. You can't say you didn't expect what you get.
We've done the back and forth a bit and I'm rarely surprised by the trajectory. As a psychotherapist-to-be, my instinct is to try to help. But neither kind love nor tough love has had the feck to pierce his armor.
[quote=Vonnegut]So it goes.[/quote]
Thanks for the heads up.
See you over on the Tao side soon. :smile:
A bit of a nasty implication. Or a nasty bit of implication. Or an implicatory bit of nastiness.
It's clear to me he would benefit - as would most of us (I consider it nearly universal) - from contact with a skillful counselor or psychotherapist. I don't mean to ring nasty. :smile:
I suppose the nasty is another bit of fallout from the stigma attached to seeking help.
It's clear that schopenhauer1's best first step to improve the state of the world would be to improve the state of his psychology.
The whole claim is that this existence contains a considerable amount of preferences not met. And if we are to get empirical about it, it isn't just non-trivial things but whole ways of life for whole swaths of people are not met. Some people's tolerances for preferences met are at a minimum.. They will accept anything as long as they are not physically being tortured or starving to death.. Some people would have preferred a completely different mode of living. All that needs to obtain is that at least SOME people do not have preferences met.. and major ones at that.. In fact, as you are pointing out, by default, some preferences CAN NEVER be met.
The slow burning evil of the squishy middle is also an element here. The people whose tolerances (and perhaps preferences) for a world that "doesn't meet other people's preferences" will ALWAYS beat out people who are not tolerant (or have absolutely no preference) of a world that "does NOT have the feature of "doesn't meet other people's preferences"." And thus, that makes this world morally disqualifying..
Remember, morally disqualifying doesn't mean people can't be moral, or that goodness doesn't exist. It just means that this world can never be characterized as a moral/good existence due to these features. There is always "encroaching on other people's preferences". It also means the most tolerant of (or even embracing of) pro-suffering preferences will always win out to those who would prefer that no suffering existed at all.
See, your preference for my killing myself is not met.
Quoting 180 Proof
I would have agreed prior but I think that this isn't true anymore even on the face of it.. If there was a world characterized by people being tortured for eternity, that may be characterized as morally disqualifying existence. Perhaps as a feature of that existence, it was such that once born, immediate torture ensued. In that existence you can say all you want, "existences aren't evil, only people", but I would say, the very fact that agonizing torture is a feature of that existence would qualify it as being an evil existence.
Now look at existences that allow for only some evil as a feature of those existences. Just because they are not the most extreme cases of evil, doesn't mean that those existences are not qualified as bad. That is why I characterized them (e.g. our existence) as the "slow burning evil of the squishy middle".. As I said earlier, our existence is:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So are you saying people wish to have other people's preferences thwarted to have these things (love, friendship, loyalty, etc)? If so, more evidence for my case.. preferences had means having other people's preferences thwarted.. Thus morally disqualifying the whole thing (because it is a feature of the system and an intractable conundrum..other people's thwarted preferences allows for our preferences met).
Existences can be characterized as good or bad.. not just people. If you lived in hellish conditions at all times..you would call it bad. If as part of living in those conditions, everyone had to be immoral.. it can be characterized as an immoral system/existence.
Thank you for the nod. I don't just write something and not defend it. I do try to rebut objections, even if people think it unsatisfactory. I write in good faith.. even when met with complete snark and ad hom from the other side. I might focus on different lenses of understanding philosophically pessimistic topics but I have written on many other topics as well, both on this forum and the previous one.. I don't begrudge someone discussing a topic or taking a position that they especially find to be true- especially if it elucidates yet another angle/or feature of that central philosophy they hold. That is not to say, one must hold onto their views, but that doesn't discount that people can find certain views to be the correct ones, and then because of their truth, be used as a methodology for understanding a whole host of issues ranging from metaphysics to ethics.. If Kant endlessly used the CI to solve ethical issues, I don't resent him for that. If Plato and Socrates endlessly solve problems of metaphysics with the notion of Forms, I don't denigrate them for being consistent. I might find them to be wrong in their conclusions, but I don't resent them for using them if they find them to be true. As long as they are arguing in good faith, I say and willing to defend their positions.. As long as it's not all troll and invective...
Some people endlessly discuss Wittgenstein's points over and over.. I don't especially find it that interesting, but I don't metaphorically throw fecal matter at them in their threads for bringing it up.. Along with several members (e.g. 180proof, Bitter Crank, Jamalrob, Benkei, etc.), I am in the category of one of the longest-participating members.. even if one of the most hated :wink:. At least it's a consistent tradition...Hate on schop1 with his tired old pessimism. You mine as well get the pitchforks and force the hemlock while you're at it.. but don't worry, I'm used to it. As @Bitter Crank characterized it:
That is an egological point of view. Not egocentric, necessarily, but the perspective of one individual as dinstinct from another. You're depicting absolutely everything in life as (1) either getting what you want or (2) not. And from that perspective, it is indeed a hopeless situation. As St Mick of Jagger said, you can't always git what you want. But maybe it's the perspective that is wanting, here. Maybe there's a perspective other than the egological.
:up:
[quote=SYT]Live and let live.[/quote]
[quote=schopenhauer1]What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence?[/quote]
[quote=schopenhauer1]With the idea of only SOME people's preferences satisfied, and those preferences entailing the infringement of other people's preferences, this makes this existence morally disqualifying.[/quote]
:fire:
A person...either gonna hurt or gonna hurt! No point to being born!
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need. And this "need" I find to be a problem.. If it simply means "need" as in "needs of survival" that's one thing.. But I think it is a moral claim from St. Mick Jagger.. That is to say, there are certain people whose "needs" are being met more because they don't MIND what is going on versus other people.. It is those other people who do mind that somehow have to shut up and ya know, get what they "NEED". Not self-justifying at all :roll:. Who is in control here? Well the masters who make the rules of course.. and they tell you what you NEED. And thus you get posters in here claiming that those who DO MIND are just being "weird" and "stop being weird" stop having "weird conclusions".. There are things that NEED to happen apparently...And I am contra this NEED.
:snicker:
Succinct, but to the point. I like it.
:fire:
:smile: Victim or Victimizer; choose!
And one can't do otherwise. Hence morally disqualifying system/existence.
It's immoral to wear hats. This proves that all policeman are immoral.
It's immoral to eat spaghetti on a Tuesday. This proves that all Italians are immoral.
It's immoral to stand less than 2 metres away from another person. This proves all rock concerts are immoral.
Not to contradict you but here's the deal.
1. Existence is inseparably linked to happiness & suffering. It's kinda a package deal of sorts: If you wanna live, you can experience happiness, but you gotta suffer too. This is The Hedonic Trinity (life, sorrow, joy).
2. We havta, if we want people to reject antinatalism, cleave The Hedonic Trinity apart so that we can live happily sans even an iota of suffering. This sentiment has a precedence, in almost all religions, goes by the name paradise/heaven/jannat.
The fact that most religions have a better idea of what hell is like (exquisitely detailed descriptions exist, complete with ghastly illustrations) than what heaven is like is rather disheartening; we know suffering better than we know happiness which speaks volumes in re the living conditions on earth (hellish).
Nice red herrings there.
Good point. That’s because dissatisfaction is the norm. It’s harder to pinpoint what permanent satisfaction is like. Everything is so based on struggle, we’ve made an art of justifying it, making peace with it, enshrining it, recommending it. You name it.
But what if your family/children are happy? Or you see a higher purpose in your suffering? How does that compare to someone who's content but without family/community? People are not isolated, atomistic individuals that you can conduct thought experiments on because that's not true to real life; people are embedded within communities and families and their own happiness is inseparable from that. We also just don't know whether the soul is immortal/what happens after death and our conception of happiness would change depending on that. We have no idea.
Sometimes someone's preferences can also hold them back; for instance Moses' preferences were not to step out into the world/public sphere because of his speech impediment, but God had other plans and was able to see the real good for Moses beyond his preferences.
I recommend book of Ecclesiastes to op.
In other words, Wayfarer, I see a sort of dominance here of the people who get their way when they like the status quo... They will justify it by saying, you NEED this. Those are some hefty implications there.. mainly of the comply or die variety. How do you justify complying? Well, make it into something of a value/moral dimension whereby the current reality is something people NEED to work through, even if it doesn't conform to their preferences. Apparently, because SOME PEOPLE (who like the status quo) don't mind it (at the moment of inquiry at least), it is a necessity for ALL people, and any negative qualities are necessary for OTHERS (who would not prefer this situation) to endure.
Thus those with preferences set to higher thresholds of tolerance for the realities of THIS world get THEIR way, but those whose preferences set to lower thresholds of tolerance for the realities of this world do not.
However, we don't have to make it so complicated. As long as preferences are not met for some people, and as long as SOME people's preferences get to encroach on other people's preferences as an entailed feature of this world, the morally disqualifying qualification can obtain for this world.
And this exemplifies the immorality I am talking about.. My answer is the same:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So, in order to have a good life, I can't restrain my desire for complete freedom, even if I choose too. Even if it will make me happy. Do I have that correct? You forgot gravity. Gravity keeps me from flying if I want to.
This is a circular argument - In order to be happy you have to be unrestricted. The things that make you happy restrict you. QED. It is immoral to be happy.
Agreed.
No to get at the immorality you have to phrase it this:
In order for me to be happy you have to be [s]un[/s]restricted. The things that make me happy, means you must be restricted. QED. It is immoral to be happy.
Now, the predictable move from here is to say, “Well, that’s just how things work in our world (aka “the real world”) and that’s exactly my point about entailed moral disqualification.
We are social animals. We like to hang around with our friends and family. It's unavoidable. It's been in our DNA for millions of years. This entails restrictions on our, and their, freedom, which we all accept. Morality is the deal we make so that the whole thing will work. It's all about restrictions. In essence, you are saying morality is immoral.
I'll give you the last chop on this. I've taken it about as far as I can.
There's nothing red about them (nor herring-like). It's exactly what you're doing here. Declaring some really odd thing to be 'immoral' and then acting like its any kind of interesting revelation when the result of doing so is that odd things turn out to be proscribed by your new bizarre rule.
Absolutely no one thinks that denying people every slight whim is immoral, so absolutely no one is going to be in the least bit interested in your conclusion that life is thereby proscribed by such.
Life comes first. Then morality. The other way round is impossible since morality is a creation of living humans (or other social creatures). Morality is the effort of people to get along with other people. No people, no morality.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Unless you believe that your take on the pre-conditions for a moral stance is utterly original, it might help at this point if you could scrounge up some supportive quotes from a well known moral philosopher. Then you won’t have bear the burden of defending your view all by yourself. Let the academic philosophers make your argument for you ( or with you) and force your respondents to deal with them.
In keeping with
Quoting T Clark
… but addressing the issue more generally:
Intent upon what is morally good by its very nature limits/binds/restricts our otherwise present freedom to engage in morally bad conduct. Hence, to claim that that which constrains our freedom is necessarily bad is to claim that anything morally good is necessarily morally bad.
-----
Also, to add this into the equation:
Quoting schopenhauer1
In a relationship of earnest love, for one example, there is neither victim nor victimizer among the parties concerned; all parties concerned are nevertheless willingly restricted to not victimizing each other, and this while each gains greater happiness via such relationship. This, I think, in itself evidences the quoted strict dichotomy erroneous.
Congratulations! You are the first person at TPF to use "feck" properly. (It has appeared several other times as a euphemism or local slang substitute for "fuck"). The usual manifestation of feck is in "feckless".
According to Google Ngram, "feckless" appears in print now more than ever before. That more human efforts are being branded as feckless than in previous decades and centuries strikes me as altogether meet, right, and salutary.
I don't understand the focus on fulfilling preferences. If a couple of racists tell you to grab them a beer do you do it because it fulfills the preferences of many at little cost to yourself and is therefore good? Even in an example where they're not racists I don't get why I need to be constantly compelled or obliged to fulfill the preferences of those around me. Why am I obliged to fulfill an alcoholic's preferences for more beer? Talk about enabling.
Similarly, if I had a child or someone that I actually cared about had a speech impediment and was ashamed and responded by hiding themselves from the world is it morally good to respect those preferences and in turn reinforce those views? Absolutely not. You cannot reinforce those views. It is incumbent upon you to challenge them; note that I am not necessarily "compelling" or "forcing" here, but I am challenging. Some ideas/assumptions need to be fought with fire and ableism is among them. Do not let it creep into people's minds.
Ha, never hurts to add another good one-syllabler to the loadout. I used it, then double-checked the etymology....
No doubt.
Your OP is predicated on the premise that fulfilling preferences, or desires, or needs, is the summum bonum, the only real good. But I'm questioning that. Take Buddhism, for instance: first noble (let's say "basic") truth is that existence is dukkha ("sucks", in the vernacular). And why? Because we don't get what we want, or don't want what we get, and everything we know and cherish is bound for old age and decay. But that's only the first stop. The argument then develops over the remaing three - the cause, the end, the way to the end, none of which involves getting what you want.
And the alternative 'morally qualifying world' is? :roll:
:up: Here's a thought: Suffering/Pain (avoid) and Happiness/Pleasure (approach) are kinda like a guidance system that keeps life, including humans, in the Goldilocks zone.
So long as our hedonic system (biological & psychological) serves this life-critical purpose, there's little hope of alleviating/eliminating suffering. We would be left without a warning system that alerts us of danger. Yeah, old news!
That's not quite what I'm talking about.
Rather, let's say you like playing a game. We will call it the "game of life". Let's say I don't like the premises of the game. My threshold for compromise in order to play this game (of life/the "real world") is such that any compromise is distasteful to me. However, your threshold for compromise in order to play this game (of life/the "real world"), is such that compromise, while not optimal, is still okay.. Since this conforms to the "real world", this by default WINS OUT. The person who would have wanted a world with less compromising (like things needed to do survive, illnesses, harms of all kinds etc.), have to deal with it.
Now, you can come back and say, that the non-compromiser should wear his big boy pants and "deal with it", and learn to have different expectations, but then here we are again that some people's preferences are not being met. Only those who align with the "real world's dictates" (compromising) get to have their way.
Remember, in the OP, morality was determined by how much people got their preferences satisfied without infringing on other people's preferences...
So a world whereby we have to do X, Y, Z to survive may be thought as being "acceptable' to one group but "not acceptable" to the other. Just because the "acceptable" group conforms with current realities of what is needed to survive and have accepted harms like illness and disasters, does not mean that thus it is moral. It simply is what needs to happen if one does not want to die.. Either way, this still makes this "real world"/existence morally disqualifying because whilst some people don't mind/like the terms of this reality, THEY get to have their way above and lording over those who would not have wanted this reality.
In fairness, the reply you’ve quoted was strictly concerned with the purported strict existential dichotomy between victim or victimizer - which I find fallacious.
As to the larger picture addressed, to assume that a morally good world is one where all preferences get accommodated without any negative consequences (setting aside its apparent impossibility given interactions between sentient beings, each with their own preferences of interaction) is to stipulate that in a morally good world all conceivable evils get accommodated and realized as intended without any negative repercussions - and, thereby, that the realization of all such evils is of itself morally good.
This, however, contradicts there being such a thing as a moral good - via which one can discern the morally good from the morally bad such that, for example, the world can be labeled morally good, morally bad, or a mixture of the two.
I get that many aspects of the world are unjust, and therefore morally bad, in many a way. But for this to even make sense there needs to be implicitly given such a thing as the just, or justice, as a moral good via which lack of justice gets appraised. And the very occurrence of such a moral good then necessitates that not all conceivable preferences are to be deemed morally good.
As to conformity to the real world being to the liking of some but not others, more generally expressed, if “conformity to what is real” were to be itself deemed a moral good - compare this to the general appraisal of truth (i.e. conformity to what is real) being morally good and falsity being morally bad - then desire to act in discord to what is real would by default be morally bad in some existential way. It would then seem practical that, for example, those who are generally truthful (morally good) would want to safeguard against those are generally false (morally bad) via some form of restrictions so as to maintain a generally morally good society.
One can of course deem this perspective regarding conformity to the real speculative, but the notion of there in fact being such a thing as the morally good (via which addressed givens can be appraised as such) to me necessitates that the realization of all preferences cannot be morally good.
From where I stand, the world you mention in which all preferences get realized without any negative consequences cannot be a morally good world if such a thing as the morally good is deemed to occur. This for the aforementioned reasons as well as the following:
As I previously expressed, intent upon the morally good necessarily restricts one's freedoms to engage in that which is morally bad. Hence, the ability to act unimpeded with a unrestricted freedom in what one does thereby negates the existential occurrence of any moral good to begin with, rather than being any kind of moral good in itself.
In sum, the morally good (if at all premised) requires that one's fundamental wants be satisfied through some restricted way(s), rather than via any whim one might have.
False.. The stipulation was that (from OP and even last post):
Quoting schopenhauer1
Everything else you wrote basically is refuted by understanding what I just bolded (WITHOUT INFRINGING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S FAVORED EXISTENCE). An impossibility (a conundrum if you will) doesn't mean thus, "not moral". For example, an existence without any harm might be the most moral, but if we judge it probabilistically as near to impossible, that doesn't negate its truth.
Here's one from Julio Cabrera, Brazilian philosopher:
From the OP:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Here, reaching out toward often unpopular metaphysics, were Absolute Good to be actualized, it would then be equivalent to a universally actualized Nirvana as pure nondualistic being for the Buddhist - or to a universally actualized oneness with "the One" from the Neo-Platonism view.
That would make our existence in current form not absolutely good, but either moving toward this state of existential being or against it. And this would nevertheless be an aspect of the existence we're in. Such an outlook would then not make "this existence morally disqualifying".
My best appraisal, at any rate.
We still run into the same problems though. It's just a "dynamic" SOME rather than a static. I quoted Cabrera to another poster, but his critique perhaps still applies here. I think perhaps Hegel's "Absolute" and extreme optimism might fall squarely in his critique of those philosophies which take being as "good" structurally.
I'll try to come back to this later, but can you better explain your meaning? As I so far interpret it, the "some" preferences still gets filtered by that which is morally good.
I added to the previous post with a quote that might help you see where I'm coming from.
"SOME" here means that even in a Hegelian model, SOME people's preferences are going to win out and disqualify other's preferences.
To add another layer of complexity, we can say that SOME people don't mind all worsts parts of this existence. SOME people do mind it. The people whose tolerances for the worst parts of this existence win out over the ones who don't tolerate it. This is a more complex version of simply the idea that some people's preferences will de facto negate other people's preferences.
People who don't mind the "realities" (social and physical and contingencies etc.) of this world get their preferences satisfied whilst others do not.
People who like (or at least DON'T MIND) working at X, Y, Z economic system will by default lord over those who wish to not be under this system. But human existence is fragile and requires cooperation of the situatedness of what is already here (the current system).. These people must conform/comply with the current system lest they lead an even less preferred lifestyle and/or death.
So what do you make of Cabrera's view that I just quoted twice?
We need good losers! Such people must be completely at ease being boiled in oil or roasted alive! :snicker:
Just curious, is that how you are interpreting Cabrera though? I am not saying it's wrong, just wondering if that is your interpretation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
:nerd:
Think I got it. Cool.
Quoting Agent Smith
And it doesn't even need to go that far.. hence in the OP:
Quoting schopenhauer1
There are plenty of memes around that can make even the worst off among us want to keep breathing!
The thought is phrased in terms of absolutes, namely, absolute good. I take there’s no controversy to our current existence not being absolutely good. Also likely noncontroversial is that we can closer approach that which we intuitively deem to be absolutely good or further distance ourselves from it.
But there are two implicit questions to this issue: “What is the absolute good in explicit terms?” and, “Does the absolute good in any way existentially occur?” I don’t find that a forum such as this can definitively answer either.
Cabrera presumes to adequately define absolute good in terms of conditions set upon interacting selves and further presumes that which is absolutely good to be an impossibility. If the premises are true, then so would appear to be Cabrera’s conclusion. Only that the same unanswered question presents itself: “Morally disqualifying” accordant to what moral standard if not that of a platonically real idea/form of the morally good? - for the occurrence of this platonically real moral good as standard for "morally disqualifying" contradicts the premise that no such thing occurs.
For me, the premises aren’t true. I again will lean on those typically unliked metaphysics of Buddhism and Neo-Platonism: both uphold the reality of a nondualistic absolute good – the first Nirvana and the second “the One” – wherein there is pure being devoid of selfhood (i.e., where no selves occur so as to interact) and, furthermore, both maintain the existential occurrence of this absolute good (such that the actualization of this absolute good is possible to accomplish). And, if these general premises are true, then Cabrera’s position would be unsupportable.
------
As to some people’s preferences winning out, if there is a moral good, how can society progress toward it without those preferences aligned to it succeeding at the expense of those that aren’t? This by sheer necessity of their so being a moral good.
But then here we have your preference for what is good winning out perhaps...thus starting the cycle.
Quoting javra
So I think we have to parse out the structure of the system versus various attempts at morality within it. That is to say, within this system, it can certainly be said that there could be a case that one can do good or do "better" towards someone and one can do bad or "worse" towards someone. Perhaps good here is something like helping a friend when they are sick or visiting them in the hospital. Bad here would be picking on someone who is already down.. Just giving various examples. None of these "truths" of INTRA-WORLDLY ethics can justify or make up for the fact that perhaps the world where these intra-worldly ethics takes place is ITSELF a morally disqualified world for aforementioned reasons.
Whomever presumes that what you’ve quoted in regard to an Absolute Good constitutes my personal preference is, to be blunt, mistaken. To be clear, if there is a platonically real, hence existentially occurring, good that thereby takes absolute/complete form, it’s occurrence and attributes would then necessarily be bias/preference-independent - irrespective of whether these biases/preferences are mine, yours, some deity’s, or some other agent's. This, for example, in parallel to the occurrence and attributes of a particular truth regarding the external world being bias/preference-independent. Despite their partial contingency on minds, truths too have nothing to do with what one might prefer to be.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't find this adequately addresses my question - it was structure in "if-then" format. Nevertheless, in reply, this is exactly what both Buddhism and Neo-Platonism - in their own disparate ways - attempt to do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This still doesn’t address the by now repeatedly stipulated issue of “via what ethical standard would any such world be deemed morally disqualifying if no platonically real ethical standard is deemed to occur”. It seems to me that one needs to explicitly present this ethical standard for what is morally disqualifying if even the possibility of such a morally disqualified world is to be rationally entertained.
If this ethical standard in fact is platonically real, then a platonically real Good existentially occurs - resulting in some form of metaphysics wherein an absolute moral good is part of the overall world we dwell in (I gave examples of such in my previous post). If, on the other hand, some form of non-objective ethical standard that is rooted in one’s current emotive biases is maintained, all I currently have to say in reply is that neither the grunts, nor the verbally expressed emotions, of one or more agents could of themselves constitute a rationally coherent argument for the world being morally disqualified. And I so far don’t see a viable third option here.
Then "truths" don't have to conform to what I was saying with "preference-satisfaction". I did not say heaven was "truth" but simply a sort of world where preferences could be satisfied, but without infringing other people's preferences. This is not that world.
Quoting javra
I did give one.. one where preferences CAN NEVER be met, by default of things like the law of non-contradiction. But we can use other standards. For example, a world in which harm is entailed to survive can be considered morally disqualifying.
Quoting javra
I don't see how it has to be "platonically real Good" for there to be some sort of morality. One can keep it at a level of "treat people with dignity" or "don't treat them as a means to an ends". A world where by its nature, you must treat people as ends to some degree, to get something done, may be morally disqualifying then. Think of a hierarchy where one would normally not want to submit to the authority of a boss, but one does anyways, because there is really (by de facto realities of the world) no better way. It is the best of worse-off options- one that you perhaps feel an indignity from. However, you must play the game anyways if you are to not languish and suffer even more, and then die.. In other words, you rather the indignity (of submitting to the boss) than the other outcome (of starvation, free-riding of society, and/or death). This de facto reality and feature of life does NOT mean that the means of survival is thus justified and good (because it's just a de facto feature of life). It is precisely because of it being a (de facto) feature of human life, that would thus make it morally disqualifying... This of course, is a mild version of "indignity".. I'm sure you can think of many other "structural" ones about being a human in a social and physical world that has to survive.
Hmm. I'll help you out with a truism: life needs to feed off life in order to survive. Still, as was the case with previous arguments, this does not preclude there being an objective, platonically real good in the world.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I see the issue as being somewhat deeper than that. On what grounds is treating people with dignity morally good? The bully that outperforms the nerd (unfortunately happens often enough in our world) could very well disagree with the statement. If there is no platonically real Good, then the bully could well be right in treating others as means to personally desired ends - and could well justify this by expressing something along the lines of "the proof is in the pudding".
Then again, I don't believe this existential issue of an objective moral good (singular) vs. relativistic moral goods (plural) can be resolved in a forum format.
I just don't find the conclusion of a morally disqualified world convincing for the reasons previously given.
Do you agree: 'without certainty, we cannot know anything'? (re: Academic Skeptics, Gorgias, Descartes, Kant(?) et al)