MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_ivfpoqk wrote

The problem is do we have a choice? Lesser is still better than 3rd party or independents who will never win and we risk getting the bigger of two evils elected. lol

Its basically voter blackmail, they have zero choice in the matter.

Unless we could somehow change the constitution to allow direct voting on policies, laws, budgets and big projects. But this means the people have to be educated about these things, constantly, NOBODY has the time nor energy to learn all of these things to even make informed voting choices. lol

So in the end, we are stuck with the same lesser of two evils formula.

Oh, if only there is a non governmental organization that is funded by taxpayers but totally impartial and will simplify the facts about policies, laws, budgets, big projects for the voters and inform them better?


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv8zw3v wrote

Can space, time and matter exist if no conscious minds are around?

I mean, 13.7 billion years of the universe and most of those billion years are without life, we know this because we measured it with our scientific instruments.

Gravity IS a thing regardless of what we "ought" to think about it, even without any humans around, gravity would still be a thing.

Are you saying all of time, space and matter cannot exist if we humans dont think about them?


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv6bwvh wrote

But sometimes we cant escape utility, some situations simply call for it, such as the trolley problem.

I dont think morality can be pure utility or pure virtue/values, it depends on the situation, sometimes its more utilitarian, sometimes its more virtuous, different circumstances require different tools to solve.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv6bbky wrote

"IS cannot become Ought but Ought needs to reference IS to even make sense." -- by me, lol.

It means we live in a reality of IS, so any Oughts we developed have to reference some IS from nature and reality, we cant develop ought statements based on nothing that IS not already there.

Even our most basic behaviors are simply biology (instinct, evolution, natural selection), basically a bunch of biological "IS" that existed long before we could conceive of any philosophical Oughts that are still rooted in our primitive biology.

According to Is/Ought fallacy, you cant say there IS gravity so we Ought to be nice to our neighbors, but we can make reference to gravity when we say we Ought not to push our neighbors off a building, because that would kill them. lol

I dont believe any moral ought can be made without making use of various scientific facts about our reality, rooted in them even.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_ithvutb wrote

Impossible as in you have seen the future and know everything there is to know about future tech and science of world ending?

Or impossible as in your personal opinion based on limited knowledge?


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itfhh6t wrote

>You're saying that the suffering of some means the joy of the majority can't be justified, and it would be better if they all didn't exist, yes?

Nope, read all the replies again, from the very top.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itfgcoe wrote

But according to negative utilitarianism, if we just blow up earth, then nobody will ever suffer again, thus ending the problem of suffering.

The only counter against this is majority rule, as in the ok-ish lives of the majority overrule the suffering of the minority, which is something that society have been doing since forever. Though I find this argument not so convincing.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itcuccd wrote

Here's a few example for your thought, if you would stop engaging in bad faith.

-born with stage 4 bone cancer, died in agony at age 10, not a single day without pain.

-Entire family kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered in front of them due to war, the cartel, ethnic cleansing, random psycho.

-born with genetic mental torture, the "happy" part of their brain are literally missing (as in no brain matter in that section), not a single day of their existence is not torture.

-millions of children live very short and torturous lives due to war, famine, natural disasters, poverty, genetic diseases, crime, random unpreventable bad luck, etc. What is the worth of their existence? Would you trade places with them?

"Not enjoying life" and "not happy" indeed, this is reality, actual nightmare is a thing for some people, friend.

Telling the victims of suffering to just kill themselves is the MOST deplorable thing another human being could do, extreme sociopathy by definition, not a justification for anything but pure sociopathy.

Its not your problem because you just dont care, you do you, but a lot us do care and are working hard to find a way to make existence worth it for the victims, unless you wanna physically stop us to uphold your "ideal" of narcissism, then why bother shouting about it from the top of your lungs?


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itcm319 wrote

In some way, this is the default philosophy of humanity and the strongest counter argument against pessimistic philosophies, though I personally dont think its a strong argument.

"We keep going at the expense of the unlucky few because majority rule, has been and will always be." -- is their strongest argument, which is hard to challenge if they truly believe in it.

Personally, I think we need a better philosophy that gives the victims of existence more consideration that they deserve, because they most definitely have a vote in this human experiment, since they have paid the highest price for it, by suffering lives that are not worth living.

I hope we can develop such a philosophy soon, because many are giving up and flocking to pessimism.

If we want to be morally consistent, to not just shout slogans about individual well being and actually care for the victims, then we better do something about it soon. Majority rule is just not a good moral stance.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itckxgt wrote

It is an issue if we want to be morally consistent and dont agree with "majority rule" when it comes to suffering.

We constantly shout about how moral we are because we care about individuals, but when it comes to extreme suffering of some unlucky victims, we swing back to moral collectivism, ignoring the victims for the many, this is morally questionable if not deplorable.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itckfw9 wrote

Possibility or inevitability? I'm pretty sure victims of terrible endless suffering still exist, friend.

Though I personally disagree that we should end the world due to the suffering of some people, it is also true that we still dont have any good philosophy that could convincingly argue for the existence of these victims.

The closest we get is "majority rule" and that's just not good enough of a justification, in my opinion.


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_itas4ks wrote

That's the problem, we dont all agree on this one for all philosophy, which is why we have Schopenhauer, Antinatalism, Efilism and Pro mortalism, nihilism and other "better end it soonest" philosophies that argue for the minority.

Its easy for you and I to say its worth it when we are not the ones with the shortest of the short straws ever, almost no straw even, lol.

If you have seen such suffering up close, you'd understand why some people would rather we dont exist than to keep making these victims for the sake of the "many".


MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_ita3rzt wrote

If only some people dont suffer so much that their entire life is not worth repeating or even beginning.

Its not that easy, some lives are absolutely nightmarish and should never even start, if we could prevent it.

Suffering is only "bearable" if it doesnt destroy someone's life, which for some unlucky victims, it does, horrifically.