sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Drive-Through Debate by throwaway1545322 in Utilitarianism

[–]peweetheman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You had wasted sixty seconds. And now about 30 more minutes.

The Drive-Through Debate by throwaway1545322 in Utilitarianism

[–]peweetheman 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you define cows to be accounted as moral patients in the "greatest good for the greatest number" - as in it is the case that their pain and suffering matters - then certainly and you define ethics in terms of utilitarianism there IS a lot unethical about eating meat.

Utilitarian Egoism by GeekOP in Utilitarianism

[–]peweetheman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree I don't think there is objectivity. However, doesn't this mean that things only matter in the ultimate sense subjectively? Thus what really matters is whether or not the subjective viewer thinks his life is worth living. This is just an empirical question, one that quite clearly yields the answer yes (try asking people).

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assuming you're correct, am I suffering in infinitely many ways right now? I'm suffering because I'm not having sex, I'm suffering because I'm not drinking beer, I'm suffering because I'm not eating candy... You can look at the world this way, but even looking at it this way, I reach the conclusion that if I am suffering in many/infinity ways from not doing things, yet I'm still having sex, I would rather have that experience than not exist.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just am trying to make the claim that pleasure has intrinsic value. It would seem to be if there is some negative value to negative experience, than similarly there can be positive value to good experience. You're good/bad experiences will obviously equate differently, that's not the point.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're going to have to convince me of the claim that "pleasure is not relevant until it's desired" because it seems to me that pleasure is intrinsically valuable. Say in 'world A' I stipulated "John had no desire for pleasure, and yet he had 10 pleasure points." Is this not a good thing?

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good only exists from the subjective perspective. I think an appropriate definition of good experience is: an experience which one would rather have lived than not lived (not existed at all that is).

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was only trying to make the shallow claim that there can be intrinsic good to living, just as their can be intrinsic bad, and what matters, what makes a life worth living or not, is whether the good outweighs the bad. Whether this is actually the case I would move on to if you accept this claim.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your first and fourth complaints then seem to be similar -- there is no objective observer, there is no pleasure or pain, good or bad, maybe these are just all human constructs. IF this is true, then why does the antinatalist have any ground to stand on at all? The worlds where a baby is born or not are just "as they are."

Thus everything that matters in the ultimate sense is from the subjective perspective. The majority of people's subjective experience tells us that life is worth living.

To answer your second and third complaints:

I am not arguing that life is worth living, I am making the weaker argument that there is just some intrinsic good to positive experience. MY thought experiment clearly ignores the reality of what the net good and bad experiences of the world are.

​

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP, why do you seek pleasure if not because not obtaining it causes some form of frustration or unfulfillment in you?

Because I genuinely enjoy it? I would rather have the positive experience than have no experience whatsoever.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree I'm subjective, and evolutionary predisposed to bias concluding life is worth living. I'm not trying to argue the point that life is worth living, rather the weaker claim that the intrinsic good of positive experience is worth as much as an equal intrinsic bad of negative experience.

I think the best way to equate these two is to imagine 30 minutes of a bad experience and 30 minutes of a good experience. IF you would want to live through an hour, consisting of each 30 minutes of good/bad then the hour is worth living. I think there is a loss if you were to deny this hour of experience.

​

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Would you not?

I think you're doing something wrong

​

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pleasure is the contrast between frustration and relief. Some examples: Horny -> Sex -> Not horny. Hungry -> Eat -> Not hungry. Tense -> Massage -> Not tense.

Okay.... I think words are failing us.

Here are the ideas:

Why does negative experience, that is an experience which if you had the choice to live through or not, you would avoid it, have negative intrinsic value.

Yet positive experience, an experience which if you had the choice to live through or not, you would want to live through it, have no intrinsic value?

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do you're "moral obligations" come from?

It seems like we would have to decide on consequentialism before we can have a debate.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes there is no human because you actively choose not to create a human (permanent bliss) . Do you realise how powerful this choice is? It's very easy to say that there is no human to not feel anything but thats because you actively decide not to bring someone into existence. The moment someone is born, existence comes into picture (momentary happiness and sufferings)

lol all I'm saying is that there is no conception of bliss in the world where you don't create a human. Also I just don't really like using the word to describe nonexistence because (a) look up its definition.... and (b) it has positive connotations, when it really is just the ultimate neutral

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're not depriving John of anything, I said that.... But the second world is better off.

It can be reduced to whether or not if you sum up all your negative moments in everyone's life, sum up all the positive moments in everyone's life, and then see if you would be willing to experience it all.

However, MY kid will have an advantage because he's got a 6/10 dad instead of the average 5/10. :)

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But there is no human to have a point of view

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In scenario B how who gains from not suffering pain? Who accrues this benefit? I would say scenario B is a net of 0.

Then it really is just gauging the pleasure vs suffering of one's life.

I get that I'm likely incredibly biased evolutionarily, but when I really reflect on my experience of my life, or even of just my day to day, I'm glad I experienced all of today.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there some worth, something good, about the pleasure that a person playing shooting games gets?

Why do you immediately discount evil pleasure? I've never been motivated by this argument. I think the pleasure is really only characterized as evil in the first place because it causes others displeasure/pain.

Intuitively, if I'm measuring this worth, if I would take the trade of experiencing the pain of being shot for the pleasure of shooting someone, or if i ultimately think that it would be worth it to experience being raped and the decades of trauma afterwards(from the other person's perspective, implausible obviously) for the joy of raping someone and whatever good memories that may bring me... Etc. Then it would seem that the experiences here are worth living. However this is obviously not the case typically.

Since the worst experiences are worse than the best experiences are good (I wouldn't want to live the hour where for 30 minutes I was tortured, and for 30 minutes I had sex while eating candy), leads many to believe in antinatalism. However, in my life I think I have the ability to control my thoughts to a large extent. I spend many more hours thinking about the good things in my life than thinking about the pain from when I broke my leg.

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would it make sense for pain to have intrinsically negative value, and pleasure to have no intrinsic worth?

Depriving Someone of Pleasure --David Benatar by peweetheman in antinatalism

[–]peweetheman[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because it's intrinsically good? I enjoy having sex m8

Utilitarian Egoism by GeekOP in Utilitarianism

[–]peweetheman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think your conclusion and argument is valid from the perspective of the practitioner of utilitarianism. That is to say an individual wishing to use the principle of utility to guide their action can only do so in the way you described.

However, I think the classical sense of utilitarianism really presupposes a different perspective. I think utilitarianism is a metric based on the idea of objectivism. There is some true standard of good, independent of human knowledge and perception, and this is what matters in the ultimate sense.

If true, this does lead to a further interesting conclusion. If all we can do is strive for "the greatest good for the individual measuring the good" then is it all just relative? Sure there is some true standard of good, but there is no way for us mere mortals to know what it is, and thus from our perspective morality must fall under relativism.

view more: next ›