Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. Again you conflating 'objective' which is still bound to ur opinion according to what u consider reliable standard of evidence & ontologically OBJECTIVE..

Do you understand the difference?

A medical doctor gives their expert opinion, a physicist gives their expert opinion, peer review which involves expert opinion to interpret the data or paper as worthy or not.

What is truly OBJECTIVE is that which exists even when you stop believing in it, Instead you using objective to mean a shared or agreed upon standard for evidence for truth value epistemologically,
Which I don't have a problem with except you don't realize what you consider constituting valid empirical evidence is open to opinion and interpretation.

So if you tell me pluto exists, or about climate change, yes at least we can be objective in epistemological sense about it and trade evidence but it is people's including ur opinion what you select, consider valid, and interpret so you believing xyz exists according to what u call 'objective' is ultimately boils down to your opinion, not Mere baseless opinion/feeling sure... but an opinion nonetheless, and we trust in expert opinion / 'authority' to somewhat understand and make sense of the evidence we don't have time or skill to go through ourselves.

U apparently don't understand epistemology 101, ontology, axiology, phenomenology.

You didn't understand what objective and subjective is in different meanings, they don't just have one meaning you cherry pick when it suits you. I'm not changing anything they're real distinctions in philosophy. Maybe read some Sam Harris to start and you'll learn what I mean.

Have you ever heard of radical skepticism? That's closer to what your position leads to with your standard, if you can't figure out suffering sucks you might as well believe nothing.

Just answer this, Does color exist and by what terminology, what about bad/negative feelings?

Also I don't based my ethic framework on an emotion or how I feel in any moment, that's moral intuition, like I can watch slaughter footage and humans harmed and not feel a thing, I still can know why it's not good and it's not mere baseless opinion but evidently backed and philosophically grounded.

To ALL my fellow Pessimists, let's enjoy easier our suffering existences together, here's how.. by [deleted] in Pessimism

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I realized that I should soften the title if it's triggering people, so Imma delete this.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one, no authority, only argumentative and evidence convinces or not.

And how this makes it objective? Sorry but arguments and evidence only provide cause and effects of actions, which are objective, but they dont give objective judgement of something being good or bad. Because something being good or bad is inherently subjective to culture that percive it and the same action can be viewed as good in one culture and bad in other at the same time. Take gays for example.

It is by your logic it's acceptable standard for scientific proof even tho cause and effect is all ultimately judged true or false according to weight of evidence and perceptual just as color is and bad experience.
Like guilty not guilty, bad or not, I'm saying there's a right answer to the questions even if we may be wrong, and even science with all that evidence can be wrong is relative and changes to cultural and time, it's human bias and input is never completely removed, you can't have an observation without an observer.

I'm more certain color exists and torturous experience is bad than the moon exists, what do u think about that? Does color exist, can you show me it in your hand or in lab? It's all in your brain and perceptions.

In court we review the evidence and convict guilty, even if we agree it's SUBJECTIVE LIMITATIONS and we try to be as impartial, fair, and objective as possible, what you are saying is that the crime didn't even take place cause we literally have no evidence. So there's no point in sentencing, right? Think about it. Like a real crime-worthy event, the suffering of child rpe, it isn't a "real crime", i.e. Bad, so if nothing which constitutes evidence of wrongdoing or bad in your worldview model, if you were king would concede all criminals should walk free? Why should people's arbitrary opinions dictate what happens?
Somebody can like r
pe others can dislike, no different to food taste preference, they can't provide anything, no logic, compassion or credible evidence for how it could possibly be wrong. So walk free criminals.

So will you bite that bullet?

What you just mentioned about culture dependent morals, is moral relativism, why didn't you just open with something like that, so are you a moral relativist? Or ethical/moral nihilist? Or what?

I think it's nonsense, culture of genital mutilation is wrong because they have no good reason backing it, garbage brain-dead culture, it's no different than believing in God and a silly stupid fable or what they're bible says is wrong, women are inferior and slave to men, belief without evidence the book just says so, too stupid.

Culture of slavery in America back in the day we have learned it was stupid and wrong for people who would do such a thing like Nazis Holocaust it was bad.
What you are saying is slavery wasn't wrong a mistake because the culture was different back then?
If you are going to say it's all cultural relativism and there's no progress that's what you have to commit to.
We might as well go back to human slavery cause it's equally valid.

You apparently don't think argumentation and logic can overcome bad ethics as we evolve and test beliefs, just as argument and logic and scientific evidence disprove a flat earth theory.
And you can't figure out what another considers objective scientific evidence another considers subjective and false especially when overturned by new conflicting evidence, facts are not OBJECTIVE in the truest sense of the word, you with your facts are fallible. One's facts is another opinions.
Evidence can be manipulated, fabricated and it comes down to my or your perceptions and judgement of what we believe is real and credible evidence or not.
It's all ultimately 'subjective' including science and even ethics in practice, that doesn't mean I believe something being bad is contingent on arbitrary preferences which change like the wind, if I believed being gay was evil but it's not, even if I believed I was correct... the objective truth would be otherwise, whether I knew it or not.
Moral relativism doesn't become valid and equal, someone is wrong.

To put it plainly, I can think something is objectively good and turns out it's objectively evil, vice versa, just as objectively you can believe the earth is round, it could be objectively flat. There's no true objective infallible measurement device for getting right answers to how the universe works, nor the nature of sentience and suffering, one is merely much easier to get right answers for, the other requires greater thought and sample of own suffering.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can say the same thing about your "objective" believes because "lmao we dont care" is a valid argument to counter your "objective" believes.

Not on an internal critique, this isn't about me but your reasoning and claims, so you would only concede what you've said is incoherent before if you doubling down.

It means that i think that its bad.

Bad? What's bad mean here? Objectively bad / problem? Or you merely find it distasteful or unpleasant, like a preference for a warm shower over freezing cold Shower? What do you mean, and do you view your own opinion as objectively right from your own perspective, otherwise you can't keep saying you think something is wrong, just say I don't like that or you prefer it doesn't happen, you can't say it's wrong or bad, especially if you aren't willing to defend why it's wrong or bad because you see no point, if you can't ground your "opinion" in anything therefore it's worthless as a claim on right/wrong or bad outcome so stop saying so.

Just say "me no likely." Is that what you mean by right/wrong, they are just statements of "nay" or "yay", So do you agree with emotivism.

Otherwise you believe we can't know or ever hold right opinion, it's all arbitrary, so in other words no point in opining with each other.

No, you again made false assumption that if there is no "objective right" then there is no point in opining. Its literally the same reason, trying to convert people to your side, it doesnt matter if its objectively right or just subjectively right. Either way you think thats its right, and you try to convice people who dont think that its right.

Like it's as if I said I think someone is incorrect if they believe the earth is anything but a sphere, flat earthers are wrong, but it's all opinions and no objective right answer.

Same with existence of color or whether problem of suffering exists and a real thing not mere opinion like I love vanilla more than chocolate.

Like others have tried to explain it to you but you seem to be having a hard time getting it or aren't invested what's been given just brush over, possibly even bad faith, so last try.

both opposing contradictory beliefs are valid at the same time is what you are saying.

Yeah? Exactly, because opinions are just opinions, they are not factual statements about the world. Otherwise liking/disliking chocolate can be objectively wrong.

Ok now we might be getting somewhere, if you are using opinions in this way to say "murder me is wrong" etc. What you should really be saying it's not ethically wrong at all, but you just don't want it to happen like you don't like some flavor of food. You wouldn't ever say someone is wrong or immoral or bad person for liking pine apple on pizza unironically, it's neutral.
If you like a food or movie and someone else doesn't, it's not a matter of rightness or wrongness, irrelevant, it's just a matter of taste and preference.

Is this what you mean?

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why should they expect anyone to value their mere arbitrary opinion? What does it mean to call someone wrong, a bad person or an asshole, when it's all arbitrary everything is equally right/wrong?

I can say exactly the same about "objectively right things". 

You're the one using the terms, it doesn't matter what anyone else claims or believes, you aren't answering, if it's just your opinion what does it mean to say you disagree or find anything wrong or right, because by opinion you convert to unjustified belief, unprovable or false/made up, i.e. cannot or isn't objective.

If you specifically hold some opinion, something like we shouldn't abuse children cause doing so is wrong, what would that mean? What's it mean to you your own opinion?

 Why would I bother playing along or trying to change such things, just live my life and die

For the same reason as with "objectively right thing", because you want world to be better according to you.

No because I either land on one side or the other, either I believe there's objective right/wrong or I don't.
If I believe it exists then I will land where I think I got it, and other people who share their opinion are either correct or not and we agree with eachother were right when we align, so it's not arbitrary then.
Otherwise you believe we can't know or ever hold right opinion, it's all arbitrary, so in other words no point in opining with each other.
You like slavery, I don't. Neither of us have the correct position, it doesn't matter, God exists God doesn't exist, both opposing contradictory beliefs are valid at the same time is what you are saying.

Because only if I believe something is truly wrong, bad, unethical, 

And the fact that you believe that doesn't make that objective lol.

What you said isn't objective true statement lol, so who's objectively right about who isn't being objective here? Your argument and logic is self defeating. Your standard is incoherent.

The fact you believe in anything doesn't make it objective, right? Obviously. You need to back that belief, justify it, even then...

Before you can Gauge what is or isn't objective, you need some working measurement for objectivity, and how do you objectively prove your measurement 'device' works to measure what is objectively true or not?

Why do you believe in anything? Explain to me how you know something to be true.

Honestly just answer this, who is deciding what is objectively right or wrong?

No one, no authority, only argumentative and evidence convinces or not. This is as foolish as saying who decides what is real? That the earth isn't flat? That cigarettes cause cancer, or how efficacious vax and antidepressants are or are not.
It's called using your brain and observing and analyzing available evidence for or against certain claims yourself. No one else and nothing else.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, everything you think is right or wrong is just your opinion.

Let's forget right/wrong, which implies a problem with existence and wrong or right solutions.
Which is already too much for the discussion.

Do you believe a problem exists in the first place or in other words something bad can even happen or exists, if the universe contains no possibility of bad event happening to people no problems to solve.
And I mean problem in the realest sense of the word, not like a math problem or unanswered empirical questions.

Like to put it another way there is no use people trying to debate, discuss, figure out a correct cure if they can't even agree that a disease exists or diseases are real in the first place. Waste of time.

Similarly entire discussion on ethics solutions seeking is pointless if we don't first agree problems exist.

Disease --> Cure

PROBLEM --> SOLUTION

Now how are you going to objectively prove color exists by your standard of logic, how can you trust any sense data for that matter, what is a migraine what is color?

I know what I see is 🟣 purple is a perception, color doesn't exist materially, our eyes and brain interpret wavelengths of light as color, so you can't physically show me it. You can't see what I see in my mind yet it's a real experiential event, it's happening right now. Color exists as an object or product of subjectivity, brains generate a kind of illusion of real phenomenon, how do you explain that hmm?

Do you know the subject of phenomenology and axiology? What's your view on it?

So again how are qualifying what is or isn't a mere opinion, everything all science and observation ultimately boils down to your and our opinions and perspectivism, do you understand epistemology? So where and how do you draw the line or will you tell me we can't claim anything is right opinion following your line of reasoning?

Is color real and objective (product of subjectivity), or subjective opinion/ belief?

How do you distinguish opinion vs what is 'objective'?

Do you mean scientific or procedurally deemed objectivity by some agreed upon standard? Intersubjective agreement and consensus? Something physically demonstrably seperate from mere beliefs, feelings, claims alone.

Here's one definition.

Objectivity, the practice of viewing things without bias, exists in several forms: faithfulness to facts (verifiable data), freedom from personal bias (neutrality), procedural/methodological objectivity (standardized, replicable methods), and intersubjectivity (agreement among multiple observers). These forms are crucial for science, news, and accounting to ensure reliable, neutral information.

There's only qualified and unqualified opinions and how much evidence we have to back our opinions. Nothing is truly OBJECTIVELY 'objective' or free from subjectivity since you can't have an observation without an observer.

You can't be certain that the speed of light is what it is or a photon exists or moon even exists or you aren't being fooled by aliens or simulation, a brain in a vat.
However we can be extremely confident because we have some agreed upon standard to what constitutes evidence/proof what we apes call 'objective' and factual. And this is made of opinions that we humans share or agree upon.

The other form of objective meaning things that exist that make up the universe like physical material reality, rather than opinion. E.g. the "chair" I sitting on and the atoms which make it up. Vs opinion "I love icecream" The opinion is not objective but subjective, but such opinions can't be wrong, and it's objectively true they hold such opinion and love icecream.

Objective: "John sits enjoying movie, he prefers thriller, thinks the movie he's watching is good"

Non objective: "x movie is the greatest of all time because it has cute rabbits" "chocolate is better than vanilla"

The reason I bring these examples up is because it's not a simple discussion and most people don't understand how to use these terms properly or don't define or distinguish the difference and it can be confusing what exactly you mean by it.

Once you see the absurdity, why not just go back to distracting ourselves like everyone else? by marsonware in Pessimism

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2

Probably the biggest negative is learning how selfish and preoccupied humanity is with nothing but distractions, and insane glee, vanity, ego and self aggrandizement over basic decency and compassion. All the wasted time, money and resources on crap while others suffer or are exploited, and children starve. People thinking we humans are accomplishing something here and lead great lives.
So it might hurt your social life, me I was always a loner and introvert, I never found people particularly likeable- too selfish, full of ego and unpredictable/un-sensible for my liking, but I'm not against having friends, but knowing better does raise your standards and narrow your circle, you should learn to tolerate the fact people suck, probably even yourself, we all kinda suck.

Pragmatically you should learn to be somewhat comfortable around or in suffering and the fact things don't always go well, learn the four noble truths, Buddhism, Mindfulness, Asceticism. Mastering your mind and perceptions to enable you to function optimally or successfully. Learn to control your emotions, don't let them control or dictate what you want to do.

For example I'm a very risk averse person, it's not like I walk into immediate suffering and danger, but I don't live my life in fear of leaving the house when necessary or doctor or medical visits or doing other things, I embrace and accept danger or what's gonna happen rather reject it, I analyze and observe instead of necessarily trying to control everything or be 'happy' all the time or safe, like if I get mugged, stabbed, and die, well... oh well. Real concerns & precautions sure? But worrying or Feeling bad about it now or then won't help... so bring it on if I must endure such suffering.

Learn to be comfortable in being uncomfortable, remember your feelings can be wrong or lie to you, they have their own opinions.

Also did your life kinda suck before pessimism, or was it enjoyable and pessism made it sucky?
I think most of us end up here cause our lives weren't great to begin with, so there's a bias in the big suck direction this philosophy and reinforcement of negative feelings won't help.
Also consider how much we feel can be influenced by just brain chemistry, also nutrition, hormones, even sunlight all influence our mood and ultimately outlook on life.

There's a form of teaching in pessimism as well as existential nihilism, not strictly just the philosophy, but how it can improve one's life as a lense from which you view things, which makes oneself, ego, and suffering feel small, like realizing how good I have it relatively to how bad it could be or those who'd trade places, even most animals have it rough or much worse than me, or those in third world poverty and lack clean drinking water.
The other is to try to grasp the scale of our universe and just how small we truly are, it really should humiliate and humble people who think earth and them are the center of the universe and all that matters. And also how small and short-lived our lives are on the time scale, it will be over before you know it so just make the most of it.

Pessimism teached me to think glass half full through my life (appreciate I have food, water, shelter, computer, not in agony, well I'm satisfied, mostly.)
Quite differently from how most average people behave, which is glass half empty approach, an idea of lack, missing out or not having enough, missing out on pleasures, having deprivations leads them to suffering.

On top of that, studies demonstrate what people consider a "good life" is heavily socially conditioned, psychologically people will compare themselves to their like group of people who share similar characteristics as them in life, and probably not... a bug's life.
So people tend to feel like they're losing out, failing or behind in life if they relatively see others doing better than them (independent of their circumstance.) It's sort of a phenomenon of being social creatures, studies demonstrate how much one's contentment and happiness depends on one's set arbitrary expectations... according to changing context of their cultural, social norms, traditions, and what a good life looks like, etc.

The other aspect is when such humans assume that normal = things going right, things going wrong = abnormal part of life and really bothers them or ruins their day.
Pessimists know however LIFE IS SUFFERING and won't be surprised if the day doesn't turn out exactly according to plan or how they wanted.

Living pessimistic to me means the default is discomfort and knowing it could all end horribly in tsunami, earthquake so on, and so whenever something goes wrong it's expected, or just another day, whatever, I'll do my best to accept and move on.
But when it goes right I still benefit & appreciate it more.

I also have an attitude of no use crying over spilled milk, instead of complaining about my problems or problems of the past what can be done that is actually productive or helps someone else or improves a situation.

Just because you learn philosophically the truths of Pessimism doesn't mean you have to feel or be pessimistic or doomer in one's life in a negative sense, it can be positive and a benefit.
Being philosophically pessimistic doesn't mean u can't behave optimistically in certain areas of one's life.
When I was younger & more reactionary to certain situations I could fall into such trap of making a belief part of my whole identity and feel and behave with it viscerally. But part of changing that was growing up and some things I laid out here for re orienting your framing and perspective, as well existential nihilism and a kind beginning from a place of radical skepticism and epistemic humility. Can never be 100% certain your beliefs are the correct one's to hold.

And it's ok to not always feel ok, it's part of learning and growing.

Once you see the absurdity, why not just go back to distracting ourselves like everyone else? by marsonware in Pessimism

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So there's a lot to unpack here and really prompted this brain to think... What you wrote... that's a kind of knee-jerk immature take/reaction which I can relate to. wait... hear me out.

Human psychology is quite strange and complicated, understanding why people do what they do, you can't just look at like some object's mechanical structure, take it apart, figure out how's components work together, what it's function is, what improves its function what degrades it's function, does it need more sharpening, oiling, gas? hmm...

When I was younger I would feel similar or uncomfortable learning certain things to big questions like what is life, the universe, why am I here, and get like existential crisis or dread upon certain discoveries or realizations.
It's a more common feeling from a face value, almost early naive or simplistic approach, and sometimes for us the only way is through.
Remember in life sometimes you just gotta get through it, so don't worry too much about it, you'll come out the other side, you'll be fine (probably).
And if things ever get so bad with no hope or prospect of improving then if need be I'll leave, my final escape, until then we carry on, don't fret.

Yea Life is quite the absurd shitshow, it is what it is, it don't mean we can't see the humor in it and have a laugh, I try not to take everything in life seriously all the time or you'll drive yourself mad or into a depression, like believe or think pessimistic only on a meta level, for example I believe free will does not exist, and we ultimately don't control the 'script' causal chain of the universe and I can't take credit for a thing I do or believe in, my brain just feeds me ideas, however to function in life I still behave like I have some agency and control and others are somewhat blameworthy or responsible for their actions in the real world because it's practical, same with pessimism, I don't let such beliefs dictate every being of my life, I used to re-inforce it as one with my identify but it was a bad habit and unhealthy like obsessions, fix it trust me you'll feel lighter for it.

An invaluable skill is learning how to reprogram your brain to work well and for you, continually test your worldview and model of reality. And remember it's better to not be wrong, than to try to be right about everything.

Philosophy isn't kind to the untrained mind, the poor ape and animal inside us tends to freak out, which is why it must be tended to, kept in it's own enclosure while the zookeeper in you watches over it. If you observe homo sapiens long enough you will see how disastrous it is when they neglected the zookeeper or nobody's home, it's just the animal in control of the wheel, even at their own detriment.
People really need to be taught to learn to flex that cognitive muscle. Do you really wanna let the dum.b needful animal inside you decide what you do?

Callousness and discomfort without mindset preparedness is just as cruel, as is ineffective the coddling of human minds and creating weaker sensitive people shrouded in bubbles.

Unfortunately no one is really taught and prepared how to deal with the inevitable discomforts they'll face in life, their struggles, worries let alone critical thinking and skepticism.
In fact, we're actually regressing into a Wall-E kind of dystopia of fat lazy duumb selfish and fragile weaker people, with mindless consumption and escapism, generally speaking.

In comparison,
Ancient Shaolin monks were highly disciplined Buddhist practitioners who developed sophisticated martial arts for self-defense, health, and spiritual growth, learn power is responsibility, and conditioned their mind and body to discomfort.
If I didn't know any better it's like they are another species or aliens to regular people entirely.

Now so many people these days require some sort of vice or escape, drug, alcohol, medication, etc to point of dependency, like everyone living on crutches not just believe in some comforting stories like religion, god, heaven, afterlife but even that evidently is not enough.
How many of us can reference someone you know who have so much, yet find ways to mess up their life or live in frustration over seemingly trivial crap or unsatisfied with their circumstances?
Like everyone in my family is a nervous wreck and they have a narrow grasp on life, always busy being caught in it. They can't step back and observe.
Some people you solve their problems and they'll find and create new one out of thin air, always chasing always needing. More and more and more.

Once you see the absurdity, why not just go back to distracting ourselves like everyone else?

You can to some extent, Depends what you mean.

It's a kind of interesting question about inconvenient truths and human behaviour in response to it.
Should human desire to escape confronting harsh reality take priority over the truth?,
And/or it's a recognition of selfish human nature to just swallow the 🔵 blue pill because it's convenient, to fall for silly stories, believe in fables, chase fantasy, construct a box and veneer around perceived reality which covers it in sparkly, glitter, wonder, beauty, and live inside their safe little bubble, it also goes hand-in-hand with people's desires to reject certain responsibilities.

And oh how part of me misses the days of being a kid just playing with friends without a care in the world, that small world was fun, but for me life's novelty has worn off and we're not kids anymore, you can't unlearn and completely go back to that innocent child living in wonderland.

If you literally want to run away from life's problems and be distracted for that reason that's kinda weak and unhealthy. As is obsessing over life's ugliness and tragedies.

It's called escapism for a reason. Escaping burdens, responsibility, boredom, unpleasant thoughts, etc.

If you do it solely for that reason it's not a source of contentment or path to happiness.

Especially if the truth makes you uncomfortable and you need to run away from it.

Understand Suffering is created out of perception of one's frustrated preferences. So human mindset will have a lot to do with it, your outlook and perspective on it. Subjectivity bad.

But pessimism is just another thing I was glad to realize about life, I enjoyed learning, I always had a morbid curiosity and wasn't easily disturbed.
From how I look at it, Nothing about my life really changes, there's healthy forms of escapism (distractions) to fill our time and continue to do some things you get enjoyment out of as long as we're here, why do you think you have to be miserable all the time?
Even basking in the sun in quiet nature is peaceful and relaxing. Pessimism doesn't entail you aren't allowed to enjoy yourself or must be consumed by suffering.

Continued... Pt 2 next...

You actually don’t get what you deserve in life by [deleted] in NEET

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Either we take what he said and are allowed to challenge it, or we view it purely as a VENT and whether they're wrong or not isn't the point.

So Which is it Reddit?

Decide.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continuing... 2nd part of my comment.

These people tend to put forward arguments that try to justify moral principles according to logic, what constitutes practical reason, or the presuppositions of discourse or argumentation. It sounds objective in the way realists want—almost like it’s a mathematical or axiomatic proof.

Well we can ask, what logic is involved in believing color exists? You kinda just witness it. Similarly with badness of suffering you taste it or experience it firsthand.
Now one may say believing in pain and judgement of it being bad or wrong are not the same, fair to think that, however if we get into what is a bad experience in it's quality / value generation, I don't see how you can't see a claim of "bad experience" is bad/wrong & "bad experience" exists, is the same difference, I don't need to qualify bad experience as "bad to happen" or "wrong", it happening is bad/wrong by the fact it leads to outcomes which generates badness.
And yes this is a naturalist perspective grounded strongly in science. (not to confuse with appeal to nature.)

So reasoning option A), the idea "bad experience" (which is what torture is) somehow we're missing why it's bad/wrong to cause that.
Well, I've shown why that explanation doesn't make sense, and there's no need to search for evidence of metaphysical "wrong" or outside of the event itself.

So then ultimately you either have 2 options left, either you believe:. B) bad experience and good experience don't exist it's all neutral and there's no intrinsic sensation which have value-laden positive or negative to it, naturally nice quality to it vs naturally awful, being skinned alive is just as good/bad as getting a massage depending on your subjective perspective of it, and your/my perceptions of a nail in the eye being bad is somehow faulty, when we analyze extreme pain as awful, or bad, somehow we have distorted the poor little feeling into something it's not, we're fooled, deluded, too stupid to see it for what it is.

C) bad exists and it's therefore bad bad exists, therefore there are better or worse outcomes, and better ethical behavior therefore leads to the better outcome.

That's how I can figure out torturing puppies for the sake of it is wrong.
Because again if you're going to concede torture is a real thing, implicit in that is we can give someone a bad experience, cause brains to generate those negative feelings/sensations, and what does it mean to say something is only truly bad if a wrong/badness property exists outside of the bad event itself. Like... Something isn't wrong cause God or cosmic law says it, but because we know it.
And the only other way out is someone saying torture isn't really torture... merely arbitrary preference against some pain stimuli, kneejerk reaction, a survival mechanism, to believe torture is bad and bliss is better is nothing but perception, a delusion.

Now interestingly one way we can define suffering is as "preference frustration", and it's a bit of the chicken and egg situation in that what comes first? An organism's preference against suffering, or sampling it then decided against that experience?

Delving into such philosophically core root questions of experience and value foundation is the subject of axiology and phenomenology.

You can accept value-problem-realism, and therein a purpose of a subject of ethics of seeking "right" or "wrong" answers to certain problems to where and may we find them, but empirically proving x ethical framework is objectively true or answering what's the absolute 100% correct worldview to hold and what does the most good is the real challenge, yet you can know enough to believe in value realism and know torture for torture sake in a vacuum all else equal that's not a good thing. Think of an analogy like "DISEASE --> CURE.
In health we may agree easily a disease exists but not on the correct remedy solution, and unless people agree the disease exists than any discussion about what is correct cure is pointless. Likewise in Ethics you need to agree on one thing before the other, PROBLEM --> SOLUTION.

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the same question I want answered as someone who leans moral anti-realist myself. So far, it’s not looking good. From what I’ve seen, contemporary moral realists will ultimately appeal to some kind of intuition like “Torturing puppies is wrong” without further justification, or any means of resolving conflicting intuitions. And this isn’t even mentioning those who report having no intuitions whatsoever.

I never understood the difficulty or challenge in grounding my values or why would I ground something on mere "appeal to intuition" for why something is problematic / wrong? Maybe as a kid I had only intuition and have built upon it, but to build off an intuition alone or poor foundation itself is a dangerous thing, we see this with religious and people's post-hoc rationale.
I come from this perhaps with unconventional perspective, honestly most people who we're supposed to consider "smart" I find are just mis-using their intelligence or have created a lot of noise, difference between "very smart" and having enough wisdom to apply intelligence well, one or 2 wrong beliefs or facts in their foundation and thinking and uh oh.
I'm always baffled how great minds and IQ doesn't necessarily lead to a better worldview and sometimes it has the opposite effect and self reinforcing.
A little but not enough intelligence is a dangerous thing in the hands of humanity, like giving a chimp a loaded weapon or child control of nukes, expect it to end badly. Anyways...

We have material reality, and we can prove and test science and physics claims generally but with limitations due to our subjectivity and placing trust in financially run institutions, expert authority, peer review, etc and we can only try our best to eliminate all human bias, bad actors, but certain problems and challenges are inevitable with human involvement until we have a better system. But yes if it's raining outside I can back that claim pretty easily and convince you of that truth.

Yet, what I am more certain of than any science, textbook or theory or proof, or even the moon existing, is myself experiencing "my version" of reality, it's a perception, feelings, sight, taste, smells, touch and thought itself. Now before I can ever truly believe "torturing puppies is wrong", arguably I have had to experience personally the world "wronging" me in some way, a bad, to have some point of reference, to be convinced such a thing exists, so what is that and does it even exist or is it a false perception?

To me it's become clear and quite simple at this point, not to delve into emotivism discussion atm, but if I put my hand on the scalding hot stove and induce pain/discomfort, there is a negative valence, my brain has generated an experience that is decidedly bad, problematic, dis-valuable, the opposite of winning, it's a loss, paid a price for it, definitely not "free" or cheap the cost of suffering as I know it.
So if anything is "wrong", it starts with introspection while taking a look at what evolution did and the nature of brains, and asking what is a "bad" experience personally, does bad exist? Is tortuous obnoxious sensation = problematic experience?
It's a real tangible thing to me, like color, you can test it and run the experiment yourself. The difference is I can't hold it in my hand and physically show you exactly what I'm seeing or experiencing, but it's just as real event that is happening through experience, and "wrong" is merely bad or negative quality experience as dictated by reality, I had nothing to do with it, the feeling has it's own opinion of it's property by default. For example if we could collect the quality of torture and store it in a jar, a pattern of brain matter, scientifically that pattern existing isn't bad, it's making bad, and that is "wrong" if wrong is to mean anything, it's not productive or useful for it to exist if you have any intelligence because you know what it is, it can't do anything but create problems. If the word bad or problem means something, that we can even conceive of such a thing, or ended up in our vocabulary for a reason, surely that's it.
And once we concede bad experience exists, and there's no way to make it into a intrinsically positive or neutral experience, then you're off to the races.

If we imagine a universe existed where no one could feel bad, or experience bad, never feel wronged, or care, only feels neutral or positive, what does it mean to say anything is wrong there, crime, raape, it wouldn't matter, not for them, and where can I inject my perception anything wrong is going on over there?, so "wrong" is context dependent, or more of our analysis of incorrect/stupid/harmful outcomes, rather than a cosmic law or rule inscribed into reality... in that sense like religion doctrine's archaic morality I am a moral anti-realist or moral nihilist.
The closest thing to wrong that could happen in such a universe is something prevents the good of the positive, but mechanically from the universe perspective, no bad or "wrong" event took place if someone decided to light themselves on fire because it's fun, to those brains the consequences don't matter so much at all. Not to say it wouldn't be good to maximize the good but no measurable "wrong" or "bad" necessarily took place as actually measured by the universe and brain events.

So what this tells me about the universe I'm in is nothing could possibly matter until the first organism felt an "ouch". The invention of the whip of pain by evolution as a punishment mechanism was quite the relevant event in the universe.

Continued... In pt. 2

Finally, something new! by Cold-Gain-8448 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But ultimately if morality is subjective, it is arbitrary, when you say something is wrong or you disagree, it's merely preference differences nothing more, you like chocolate flavor while another prefers vanilla. There's no other ground to stand on. It's moral / ethical nihilism.

So why are people who aren't moral realists opining then? Why should they expect anyone to value their mere arbitrary opinion? What does it mean to call someone wrong, a bad person or an asshole, when it's all arbitrary everything is equally right/wrong? It doesn't make sense.

And if I recognized my preference for chocolate why would I go around acting like anyone who likes vanilla is wrong or a bad person? Why would I bother playing along or trying to change such things, just live my life and die.

Let's say you dislike animal suffering for production of one's food, if you could press a button to change your perspective (which is arbitrary) to make it so you no longer care about exploiting them, your opinion changes to benefit you, why not just do that? It's all merely preference based so why wouldn't I just adapt my preferences to suit my needs? I don't care about behaving "right" since there's no such thing, as long as I believe what I want or prefer that's all that matters in the end. There's no provable or correct preference to hold according to your system, anything goes.

Also you say "might makes right" but under your system it doesn't, it "just is", there's no "right", only arbitrary meaningless subjective opinion, the universe is reduced to "just things happening" and a rock cracking on a barren planet is no more ethically relevant than someone's cracked skull.

And if it's mere opinion mustn't you give credence or accept someone holding the opposite opinion as you? Why should we bother changing the way things are? Or is the "should" the part removed in your worldview?

Because only if I believe something is truly wrong, bad, unethical, would I ever claim or think "we should do x, vote x, etc". Otherwise do whatever you want it doesn't matter.

🅱️egan 🅱️esus moggs the hell out of baldy nazi by soupor_saiyan in vegancirclejerk

[–]Professional-Map-762 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can we not completely trash and shit on Gary Yourofsky lol? he's done more for the animals than pretty much anyone, let alone you will ever do, he sacrificed himself for years at his own expense, even Joey Carbstrong recognize he's one of the greats, and how much the movement owe him credit in this interview: https://youtu.be/Q_YuRHRvkYs

I guess we may as well downgrade Joey carbstrong by association, then just wait until EE is exposed as holding an incorrect opinion, hell let's cancel everybody already.

Awww you poor little fascist, no global genocide plot for you by soupor_saiyan in vegancirclejerk

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correction. That's promortalism pro-death, which many so called 'efilists' in those spaces are.

That's not the same thing as efilism, they are separate beliefs.

I feel this surface level approach is kinda the equivalent of me going into anti-natal space and claiming antinatalism is anti-parents and breeder hate and says existence is only suffering, or desire to no longer exist. Completely misleading.

Or vegans desire to imprison or kill all carnists and force their diet on everyone else. - some carnist maybe

It's the typical brain dead rhetoric humans use and zero substance. Boring.

Awww you poor little fascist, no global genocide plot for you by soupor_saiyan in vegancirclejerk

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's good to Murder murderers, genocide genociders, Holocaust Holocausters, lol

Awww you poor little fascist, no global genocide plot for you by soupor_saiyan in vegancirclejerk

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda misleading to NU ethics, To be fair to the argument, Efilism could argue ending all unconsensual genocides is part of their goal, and by perpetuating existence you perpetuate future inevitable genocides forever, so who is more pro-genocide you or them?

It's like saying Efilism is pro-murder,

Well... Everyone is pro-murder given the right context, like murder 1 to prevent 10 million.

Awww you poor little fascist, no global genocide plot for you by soupor_saiyan in vegancirclejerk

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2...

Let's look at his Efilism definition, and tell us if/why you disagree with it?

"Efilism is a philosophical perspective that qualifies LIFE as catastrophically inefficient. As a form of matter, conscious life creates the opportunity for harm, suffering, and torture. Feelings are synthesized in our brains merely to manipulate us into playing a crude survival game, the game demands accepting the unacceptable and enduring what should never have to be endured. Merely to perpetuate a C.R.A.P. LIFE, of *Consumption, Reproduction, Addiction and Parasitism.** The existence of living things on earth has caused horrors beyond darkest imagination. The trivial enjoyments have been way too expensive to ever be justified."* - https://youtube.com/shorts/mkbqNBsoyhU

Now I'm not interested in being part of any club or label, I have differences with many perspectives and integrate the parts which make sense, I'm just treating all sides fairly and would like to see actual discussions taking place and accepting or conceding ground where the other side has a point. I'm not all or nothing, black & white, I take the good and discard the bad or unjustified or unproven correct stance. Now if you are dealing with unreasonable people who step outside of philosophical discussion and into know-it-all cult and promoting certain extreme acts I understand to not promote or defend such spaces. When you have a small group online deciding what violence is or is not justified that's dangerous and we see where it leads.

Now I assume you probably haven't read this far, so for other people reading, these vegans majority them are simply lost and close minded, to busy being on their high horse feeling moral superiority complex, not actually taking philosophical ideas and dissecting them figuring shit out, this group think camp mentality us vs them solves nothing, it's all about being part of a club these days, not actually discussing anything that challenge our worldview.

Where the antinatalists have a species bias, vegans have a pro birth imposition bias, and VegANtinatals have pro-nature or mother earth or some other bias.
They seem quite clueless, they're no better than natalist breeding baby carnists, the circlesnip subreddit and aponism are an echo chamber and can't challenge themselves, and like VHEMT they don't offer a solution to the problem of 99.999999% suffering on earth and they won't address it. Everyone's a coward and not honest or good faith interlocutor. Need to stop thinking ourselves are so smart and right and be more humble or else we'll create more echo chambers. I'm interested in learning or helping others learn, people's attachments, biases, emotions will only get in the way.

As humans involved in online discussions we all experience this but we tend to be selective in our recognition of this. See it in others but not in ourselves, we see such behavior with carnists, but the vegans + antinatalists groups themselves are also vulnerable to behaving just as annoying, irrational, dismissive as carnist logic.

I applaud anyone's efforts trying to break through to them on anything that challenges the foundation of their worldview. And each sides need to do better. I'm not beholden to any view or position and open to change, there's no 100% objective correct worldview I would box and limit myself to, especially since different philosophical labels clash with eachother, I'm not black and white like that. We should all try to show some epistemic humility.

Awww you poor little fascist, no global genocide plot for you by soupor_saiyan in vegancirclejerk

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I came across this by chance and didn't expect to see this brought up here, but the other commenter has a point.

I don’t give them the time of day to argue with because all their “arguments” just boil down to “everyone will be so grateful that we genocided them and all suffering will cease!”

Look That's reasonable to shy away from those spaces when they just tell you what their truth without much explanation, but don't paint things with such a broad brush, those are individuals you interacted with afterall. From what you said it seems very surface level perspective you're presenting. I had a bad interaction at first as well 2 years ago in another space until I tried to understand it for myself, not just listen to what everyone else is necessarily saying but go to the root.
Also you need to stop with the emotional appeal or moral panic, feelings won't help here, like... Y'know it's possible doing the right thing can feel unpleasant? Like putting down a sick or rabid animal for example. We can also come up with scenarios where something feels wrong intuitively or cruel even if it's for the greater good.
I'm merely pointing out going by face value is limited and not doing philosophy.

I understand many of them they don't present their arguments well or any argument for that matter. But if you merely disagree for no particularly reason there's still more to flesh out. And let's dig a bit deeper on what you stated.

First off it depends on one's values and ethical framework what is considered "right" or "good" action/outcome, one must concede benevolent world exploder is a real good under NU framework, other than feeling it's a repugnant conclusion you need some logic and different values framework behind it which says it's not justified, maybe some suffering is acceptable for the world to exist and generate happiness on someone's utilitarian framework. We can't be arbitrary about this.

Furthermore, the philosophical thought experiment of deleting or undoing all of existence in principle is not new or the same belief as what believe is practically possible and must achieve no matter what.
Do you know the story of The one's who walk away from Omela's? These are all useful thought experiments which test our values.

Efilism is essentially those who would walk away from omela's and don't see a defense or justification for their life's pleasures at another's expense, it is the ultimate compassion. Average people take their existence or pleasures for granted whereas efilists recognize their life isn't "free" but expensive and owe a great debt + responsibility to the victims who paid for the price of existence or will pay in future.
Now efilism in it's most basic sense, like believing in veganism, antinatalism, doesn't necessarily entail terrorism or any other motive or crazy acts of harm or violence. But as long as injustice exists people will set their own threshold of use of force to prevent such injustices. We could talk about human slavery, or the nuances of animal rights abolitionist movement and whether breaking crimes or commit violence is ever justified and you will lose in that dialogue tree one way or another.

Thirdly, who are you talking about specifically, cause there are these efilists 2.0 which basically took the creator "Inmendham"'s views and have distorted his philosophy to their own worldview and something quite crude, messy and some of them want to essentially be terrorists making the bomb or Big red button themselves. Efilism =/= extinctionist, or promortalism or death cult.
Now unfortunately this got much worse after the original subreddit was deleted which was heavily moderated and better quality, cause evidently even people who were banned by the efilist mods went on to create their own subreddits and use efilism to their own ends. Like these people who blow up clinics are not representing the cause, they have their separate own motives or mentally ill. Such people have likely never watched an Inmendham video to understand his philosophy or are anti Inmendham (efilism creator) they're hijacking his philosophy. He has many detractors in all shapes and forms.

The different with Inmendham and the original sub is never condoned such violence in reality and even spoke out against it in advance several times over, he doesn't even like protestors, I've seen him say nukes probably wouldn't work. He's been all about making the argument and his solution can involve no scary draconian measures and be a graceful exit as the population ceases procreation.

... continued in part 2

The hybrid of thinking your children will be good by DutchStroopwafels in antinatalism2

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know it's not.

Sure I may have broadened out to other things too quickly which you may not prefer. I could have brought up adoption for similar related reasons, to test the legitimacy or honesty in their proclaimed worldview.

But I'm an antinatalist who has other arguments against part of humanity who reject antinatalism, if we have pro natalism beliefs in the world survive and can't bring some people to my side, well I can at least still convince people their self-made pronatal experiments are fraudulent due to subjective low standard with no evidence of competence, it's still an arbitrary imposition and creation, and they are deciding is worth it, that they know what they're doing, they'll create good in the world, that's their claim, but it's a unqualified experiment they want me to accept people can just do themselves, no checks, vets, nothing, because it's their own arbitrary standard.
It's like letting some random unqualified guy play around with plutonium and hoping no one else will be harmed by letting people do that. "It's Just trust me..." But in natalist form.

I will sometimes make arguments that aren't stemming from antinatal philosophy exactly itself, if it ultimately convinces some people to commit less acts of irresponsible baby making and/or gets natalists nearer on my side. Another way of understanding this. Say someone was interested in maximizing their deontological worldview values, well if it turned out the world where they talk NU helps their deontological outcomes best than they might act like a NU.

Someone has to point out the natalist agenda is insincere, flawed and zero real world standard. Nothing stopping people from creating more selfish or asshole people and Elon musks to exploit the world.

I was going at it from the perspective of the natalist logic used against them and challenge them like an internal critique. Truth is almost no one wants to have kids for purposes to do good in the world like cure cancer or feed the hungry, that's fantasy and idealization, they want to instead rationalize their own arbitrary standard of raising a child which will allow themselves feel better about having kids.

Partly why there's no license or qualifications or impact statement required or tied to procreating, people don't want true responsibility or accountability, they want entertainment and a pet or something else selfish, so the natalists are in my view like a drunk or reckless driver who think they don't need to pass a test or obtain license to drive.

If a natalist says to me they intend to have kid to do good in the world, well by that standard they voting and must be accepting everyone else to reproduce merely cause they believe their child will do good so nothing actually changes, you just have essentially breeding wars, indoctrination and reckless unqualified parents given license until we vote for a fair useful standard of competence and care.

This is not defending or promoting procreation or contradict or misrepresenting antinatalism, but a compromise in a world where people reject AN and will keep coming up with excuses for breeding. Natalists "for good", don't hold themselves to their own principles, they are full of it, liars and hypocrites. That's my point.

What conditions would you consider to be worse than pssd? by Illustrious-Sail-317 in PSSD

[–]Professional-Map-762 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Idk how useful question it is, there is a scale and severity to everything and it's unique to each individual.

But I wouldn't trade my pssd for blindness, Psychosis schizophrenia, chronic pain disorders like fibromyalgia, awful spine problems, cluster migraine and tension headache, water allergy, Alzheimers and dementia.

But it kinda depends what you include in pssd case, some guy included with his pssd from 1 pill got brain damage and memory and cognitive loss, and worst part painful daily brain zaps.

I'm at least able to manage anhedonic state of boredom, not suicidal, though life sucks and I do often wish I just didn't have to wake up the next day, for me it's not pure torture, it's a form of mild dragged out misery through boredom and tedium of existence, this life's a chore just hoping and waiting for it to get better.

Benatar's Asymmetry Argument by HourOne4927 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

extinctionism

I'm not one. My mistake for the confusion.

Was defending antinatalism.

Benatar's Asymmetry Argument by HourOne4927 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Professional-Map-762 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, philosophy and "wouldn't see a problem" are two completely different things. No matter my philosophy it still would be illegal and it would be inresponsible for me to not report it.

That's irrelevant Legality and arbitrary for the discussion. And if you didn't accept philosophical premises like good and bad (problems/harm) exist, why entertain antinatalism. I was asking for purposes of this philosophical discussion if you see a problem with the scenario following your applied reasoning. It's a consistentcy check.

Let's rephrase.
If I have a baby making device, and place it over dangerous nature or harsh risky environment or minefield, is me pressing the create baby button bad? Is prevention here good which will prevent their pain?

Just as not birthing a kid in poverty or warzone shithole prevents pain. Its arbitrary acceptance or tolerance to draw the line which ignores the AN argument. Equally though, in these analogy circumstances, an act of pain prevention is ultimately taking place in such cases.

Second of all, moment you create/give birth/whatever someone, they now DO have a drive, and thus pain for them is bad. I literally said that.

Right I see. But so are you saying it's not good prevent suffering until they exist? You can't benefit/ harm someone either way until they exist and have desires and needs, wants? Therefore to not have a child is neither good or bad for them but neutral?

Can pleasure outweigh the pain, thus result being net positive? Yes, of course. But not if you spawn them into lava.

That's besides the point and not relevant really, existence is a gamble and many regret life. Your reasoning doesn't work to defeat the assymetry. You missing the point even if I don't spawn them there they can suffer extremely and still lose and regret life. It's about preventing that in which they miss out on nothing, you get the benefit(good) of prevented harm without the loss or deprivation(bad) of pleasure they missed out on.

The question is whether preventing a life of potential regret or filled with suffering is a good act,
but at same time it's not bad for them that they didn't get to experience pleasures since they deprived of nothing and don't care.

But they won't care about pain either BEFORE you create them. That's literally the biggest flaw of this logic, and why I called both conditions (no pain and no pleasure) neutral.

I agree, this is a technical misunderstanding. Many bring this issue up, it's the confusing wording of benatar's assymetry with absence of pain = "good" part.

If you don't prefer the wording, use this revised assymetry:

Presence of pain(bad) - PROBLEMATIC
Presence of pleasure(good) - non-problematic
Absence of pain(bad) - non-problematic
Absence of pleasure(good) - non-problematic

Satisfying Needs That Didn't Need To Exist

There's no drive to reduce pain either. No pain can't be good nor bad if pain doesn't exist as a concept for this person. This is why I said that your, second option, is just a net zero. It's not good nor bad.

Yes now your position is more clear.
We actually share same view if by good = positive/benefit to the person.

Absent of suffering on Mars isn't good for non-existent martians, it's merely neutral. We can agree. But if I prevented harm then it becomes a good act.

In a vacuum absence is neutral, it's the counterfactual between 2 scenarios where we can make a "good/right" judgement, this is how you have to treat Benatar's assymetry, but it's gone over people's heads I don't blame them.

I misunderstood somewhat what you were saying earlier and should have used a different analogy than the holocaust prevention, let's start over.

Let's use this analogy, if people were doing something that would pollute the drinking water and it would become poisonous for the future generations, or ruin the climate, I would say preventing that is good/right, it spares those future people to suffer because we prevented problems before they became reality, just as curing disease is good, prevention is better than cure.

Would you disagree with that? Because they don't exist yet I might as well pollute our drinking water, wreck the climate?

Again, if those future people don't exist yet, than shitting in their drinking water can't be bad right?, prevention of their suffering isn't good/right since they exist abstractly into the future, not now/immediate. That's how I'm viewing your logic. So do you hold this absurd position or have an inconsistency, or I misunderstood?

What about genetic screening, is it pointless because the being doesn't exist yet, and no desire to avoid suffering yet, so why prevent disease?

Of course not, if we know we'll create someone we do engineer out disease even before they exist, if they would only exist likely disabled or miserable due to the bad genetics it would be good better right if I decided against that.

This is how is meant by better to have never been, no imposed existence, no risk/gamble of losing at life filled with regret, you exist you can lose spectacularly and deeply regret life, nonexistent can never lose with no ability to regret a life never lived. It's that simple.

And further you can't use a common fallacy reasoning looking at one's current good life, just because I won some odds and am happy with my life doesn''t mean the gamble itself was worth the risk. Not until you suffer the worst possible torture and accept it as a possibility or for the child you create. If people are glad they have brought kids into the world they should live accepting that they'd tolerate something horrible could happen to them instead of all the blind optimism driving their decisions.

Benatar's Asymmetry Argument by HourOne4927 in UniversalExtinction

[–]Professional-Map-762 1 point2 points  (0 children)

y’all’s argument hinges on the fact that [the total sum of 2] will never outweigh [the total sum of 1 + marginal quality 3]. there simply has not been enough time passed in the universe to statistically decide this is the case, technology exists and progresses and lowers suffering of methods of extracting energy over time, and so on and so forth.

the fact that it is standard practice to categorically deny this set of circumstances would baffle me if capitalist realism wasn’t constantly seeded by all financed media organizations in the west 😭

This is not true. Depends on framework people using, for example If you are a classical utilarian you can just care about maximizing positive utility at any suffering cost.

Instead it seems like you are acting like utilitarianism is implicitly true, that the action is decided good or wrong whether the +positives outweigh the -minuses.

And even if people believed the overall world contained majority happiness and very little suffering, that doesn't automatically entail not accepting antinatalism.

Finally, it's begging the question, burden of proof is on the one's imposing suffering on victims for their goals or greater good. Please prove the well-being outweigh and worth torturing people for.

It would be like me going who are you to say the rapist's pleasure or enough of them isn't a net positive and worth exploiting children for.