Well, now you are talking about birth. Before you were specifically mentioning how someone is coerced into continuing their life.

Okay, but the part after the Absurd, where the mind sees true the rationality of suicide while the body resists?

But you replied to my post (that I spent some time writing out might I add) with a simple "no", which presumably means that you have a different definition of what "coerce" means. I would like to know what it is that is different, unless of course you wish to continue to dodge questions.

Then please enlighten me to your exclusive definition of what coercion means to you.

From Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus:

"In the face of such contradictions and obscurities must we
conclude that there is no relationship between the opinion one has
about life and the act one commits to leave it? Let us not
exaggerate in this direction. In a man’s attachment to life there is
something stronger than all the ills in the world. The body’s
judgment is as good as the mind’s and the body shrinks from
annihilation. We get into the habit of living before acquiring the
habit of thinking. In that race which daily hastens us toward death,
the body maintains its irreparable lead. In short, the essence of that
contradiction lies in what I shall call the act of eluding because it is
both less and more than diversion in the Pascalian sense. Eluding is
the invariable game. The typical act of eluding, the fatal evasion
that constitutes the third theme of this essay, is hope. Hope of
another life one must “deserve” or trickery of those who live not
for life itself but for some great idea that will transcend it, refine it,
give it a meaning, and betray it.
Thus everything contributes to spreading confusion"

It is the contradiction between the body's will and the mind's will that leads to the Absurd. Is this the kind of "coercion" that you are speaking of, that the mind sees true that suicide is rational yet the body prevents it from annihilation?

No human action takes place in an environment without the presence of some sort of force which limits or threatens the actor involved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

This is an excellent point. Without adversary, without need, humans would do nothing or perhaps die of boredom. The very existence of an adversary to our wants and needs creates a system of value.

I would say that the institutions of society as well as the general impulsive fear of death (the self-preservation mechanism) is influential and typically enough to keep people from even considering death as an option (see: Becker). But it is not in the sense absolutely coercive as there are methods to get around these blocks if one thinks their life is truly not worth living. They might not be perfectly clean or easy but they are still viable options that can, and in fact do, work.

I would hesitate at your (seemingly) assumption that the only reason people continue to live is out of instinct. I would say that those who have not analyzed their lives sufficiently do indeed continue to live out of instinct and habit. But there are people, more rare though, that continue to live out of spite and out of rebellion (re Camus) or because they feel they have an overarching purpose behind their lives.

If you would argue that these too are indeed merely psychological walls to keep us entrapped, then I would hesitate and ask you if you believe that a person ought to end their lives. This does seem to be the deciding factor in whether or not instincts and society are indeed coercive. Because if there is no impetus to end one's life, then clearly this means that the influential forces of instinct and society have no weight as they aren't contributing to keeping you from ending your life.

Additionally, I would also argue that these instincts are not necessarily bad in themselves. I believe Becker himself argued that one thing humans need are better, sturdier psychological walls in which we can live our lives in peace without the looming threat of death always on our shoulders. This goes back to what I was saying about the normativity of death. If these psychological walls not only shield us from thinking about death but also give us bountiful purpose and meaning from culture, art, music, philosophy, scientific inquiry, relationships, etc, then surely there is no inherent problem with the implementation of these walls. They may distract us, sure, but they work. Even Zapffe knew that there was a fourth option for those who cannot seem to attach, distract, or isolate themselves: sublimation.

And so we can live Absurdly and change these "coercive" "influential" modes of thinking into something that we simply accept and move on. We can treat it as one would treat the ability to fly: ultimately not possible for a naked man but given his intellect and ability to use tools, actually possible if he does so desire. It only seems coercive if you have never tried or have tried and failed due to poor planning, but it's not coercive in the way a jail cell is. The ones who have succeeded are proof that our instincts are only "coercive" insofar as we allow them to be. And sometimes if we give in to our instincts, they can lead to some great things (mentioned above) that doesn't make it seem like it is "coercion".

So the question here is whether or not it is in the best interests of an agent to die, and if so, then the instincts and societal institutions do indeed act as some kind of barrier, obstacle, or Catch-22 that a person must overcome in order to perish. But let us not forget that the existence of a barrier does not prevent one from breaching it, nor does it prevent one from living a life peacefully and in harmony.

but literally anybody has the right (and moral entitlement) to forcibly stop you if they see you trying to? — The Great Whatever

I never said I agreed with governmental enforcement of life. Straw man...

People also have the right to intervene if they see something that they feel is morally problematic. Hence why if you were to decide to commit suicide in public, you shouldn't be surprised when people try to stop you. What they think they are doing is helping you, and perhaps they actually would be.

But this thesis more resemble a philosophically loaded nihilistic view of human existence than it does resemble a truism that one can simply "point out". — Pierre-Normand

Exactly what I've been trying to say this whole time.

Well then today I learned. I doubt all companies do this, though, and let us not forget that helium tanks are not the only way of going out.

Actually, many cars no longer work for suicide, and people generally want to find ways to stop people form killing themselves (making helium tanks non-lethal, etc.) — The Great Whatever

In those cases these measures are not taken to prevent intentional death but rather accidental death; preventing intentional death is an addition.

And I'm sure if you really wanted to kill yourself, money would not be an issue for you if you wanted to buy a cheap car that could kill you.

Suicide is almost always committed under great duress and in extreme pain. — The Great Whatever

Sure. But the act itself does not require extreme pain. You're grasping at straws here.

Okay? Then why are you arguing with me? — The Great Whatever

Because you're wrong in other areas.

In many cases, yes, they will physically prevent you from killing yourself if you try. Psychiatrists nd psychologists for example are entitled to have you interred against your will if you intimate that you are thinking of killing yourself, and suicide is also literally illegal in most places (with illegality always backed by force). — The Great Whatever

Not all places, though. And it's sad that suicide is illegal. In many cases these preventative instincts will stop you from killing yourself. But they are not 100% failproof in the way a jailcell is. You can actually commit suicide quite easily these days if you just sit in the garage with the car on and some classical music playing.

In addition the many unofficial social mechanisms that serve to shame, bully, threaten, etc. the suicidal are coercive in that they inflict large amounts of pain as a mechanism for preventing suicide or making it impracticable. — The Great Whatever

Not always.

Finally, even if suicide were completely free, birth would still be coercive, because one cannot consent to it. The fact that it might be possible to undo does not make it any less forced (and much of the pain endured happens before it is possible to kill oneself). — The Great Whatever

No shit, I've been saying this since day one.

There actually are coercive mechanisms keeping people alive to suffer once they are born, such as survival instincts, the general pain attending dying, guilt, shame and illegality of suicide (including censure from family members, government, and religion, sometimes threats of burning in hell for eternity), and so on. — The Great Whatever

These are manipulating mechanisms but not inhibitory (coercive) mechanisms. They can manipulate you and make it harder to end your life if you do so please, but they do not prevent you from doing so (as evidence of the rising percentage of suicide rates).

You are simply wrong in your description; people go apeshit at the idea of suicide, and there are systematic and painfu pressures in place to keep the coercive institution going once in place. — The Great Whatever

Well, of course they go apeshit, because they're scared out of the minds of death. But it's not coercion.

What options worth the name does someone in prison have? Seriously? — The Great Whatever

Well, if they had all the options of that we enjoy outside of prison, then there really wouldn't be any point of prison now would there?

I'm not telling you to kill yourself, what a straw man! I'm telling you that you are free to kill yourself if you desire!

Furthermore, it's kind of odd that you are complaining about being "coerced" into living, and yet take offense when someone points out that you actually aren't and that you have the ability to end it if you actually do think you are being coerced. If you actually did think that you were being coerced into living, you wouldn't take offense by me pointing out that you have other options.

Perhaps you don't care about dying? Who said you were coerced into continuing living? Nobody has you strapped up in a gurney preventing you from ending it peacefully and painlessly.

Okay, that says nothing about whether you 'mind' doing it. — The Great Whatever

But...it does...if you don't mind doing something, than you either have no preference or you actually want to do it. If you do mind doing something, that means that some kind of incentive must be made to make your do it (i.e. coercion). Otherwise you wouldn't do it.

Get used to it, this happens a lot with him.

What do you think 'coercive' means, exactly? I'm pretty sure what you just said is not what it means. — The Great Whatever

To force someone to do something that they do not want to do.

We're talking about jail, right? Prison, rather? — The Great Whatever

Yes, we are. Prisons are not concentration camps.

Of course you are; no one choose to be born. It's not even possible. — The Great Whatever

You are not coerced into continuing living. Again this is just devolving into your negative view on life. Insofar that you do not desire to continue to live, then the various institutions in society surrounding you as well as your own self-preservation mechanism are indeed nudging you along to continue your life. They aren't coercing you, though, nor are they prohibiting you from ending your life if you do so wish to.

No; breathing is demanded by your physiological makeup. You literally breathe on pain of death.

Same with eating, blinking, shitting, and sleeping. All of these are clearly coercive as much as being robbed; the cost of not doing the is literally dying painfully. — The Great Whatever

No no no, see, you are using the word coercive outside of its common usage, i.e. manipulating definitions to suit your argument.

A need does not have to be coercive if one does not mind having to satisfy it.

Thinking is a little trickier, but generally when compatibilists talk about freedom they have in mind things more substantial and consequential than mere (disembodied?) thinking. Insofar as thinking implies action, you are obviously not free to think very much at all. — The Great Whatever

Compatibilists are also more concerned with physical restrainment, not with disappointment at the failure to realize wishful thinking.

Also, thinking does not imply action necessarily. I can think about stuff all I want without acting upon it.

That's exactly what I just said. I didn't think claiming that jailed people aren't free would be so controversial. — The Great Whatever

Their freedom is restricted but not so much that it would be inhumane (at least it ought not to be). So of course they are not completely free, but that's not what you were claiming. You were claiming that by being in jail, you are without any freedoms whatsoever. That is clearly false.

If you are going to respond by saying that by holding our breath long enough, we will die, therefore we are "coerced" into breathing, then I would say that no, you are not "coerced" into living at all. You can glue tape over your nostrils and face and die of suffocation if you wish. You are free to do so.

I don't think you can be said to do anything freely if you're in jail. — The Great Whatever

Anything? Are you free to breathe? Are you free to think? Are you free to eat, blink, shit, burp, crack your neck, and sleep?

Lots of liberties are restricted in jail. That's why it's meant as a punishment, or better yet as a way of removing harmful people from society so that their free expression of radical freedom does not impede others' free expression.

(Y) Right-o on the free will part, although I don't particularly agree with your assessment of the pessimism being discussed here.

I don't dislike you but I certainly don't have a high approval of your forum conduct elsewhere.

Furthermore, you are not the big boss who gets to decide what is discussed and what is not. I think that this entire discussion stems from your extreme negative view on life. If you disagree then you are going to have to give good reasons for this, because otherwise your entire OP falls apart.

Now, if you don't want to respond, that's fine. I won't, in fact I can't, restrict your will to respond or not. But please don't make it seem like it's my fault that you're not willing to have a discussion.

I would like to know where in my post are these zebra snide remarks. I would also like to know why you're not responding to any of my responses. This is hilariously petty.

I have rejected no such thing, I believe in the traditional Socratic method, and that has nothing to do with these posts anyway. — The Great Whatever

Nor do I see how your apparent inability to get on with your life has any weight against compatibilism.

Large amounts of suffering are guaranteed in every life, though for some people more than others. — The Great Whatever

True, but these "large amounts" are usually spread apart. They generally pass even if they suck while going through them. It's a matter of how tough, how resilient you are. If you can't handle it, sorry, nobody said life was fair. That's why birth is so problematic, because you don't know if the child will be able to cope with the burdens of life.

Then you should probably retract the car analogy. — The Great Whatever

Why should I?

I am aware that people not thinking about or understanding how bad their actions are plays a role in why they commit them. This is why the abolition of ignorance is important. — The Great Whatever

And what an unfailingly noble pursuit this must be! Tell me truly, how many people have you talked to today about birth?

So are all culprits, though. — The Great Whatever

No, they are fellow sufferers who make mistakes. Being a culprit implies having intention.

There are actually no ways to get out; suicide is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Offering apologetics for atrocities will not stop them -- you must face up to them. — The Great Whatever

Pretty sure if you die, and that reincarnation/afterlife is not a thing, you'll stop suffering.

Do you ever think that perhaps the reason why nobody seems to get our line of reasoning is that they have the necessary psychological walls? Advocate all you want, you're really not going to change anything.

Such as? I gave responses to your points which you are now ignoring.

I'm not upset at all. Come, stop trying to move the goalposts and avoid answering my questions.

I have rejected no such thing, I believe in the traditional Socratic method, and that has nothing to do with these posts anyway. — The Great Whatever

Nor do I see how your apparent inability to get on with your life has any weight against compatibilism.

Large amounts of suffering are guaranteed in every life, though for some people more than others. — The Great Whatever

True, but these "large amounts" are usually spread apart. They generally pass even if they suck while going through them. It's a matter of how tough, how resilient you are. If you can't handle it, sorry, nobody said life was fair. That's why birth is so problematic, because you don't know if the child will be able to cope with the burdens of life.

Then you should probably retract the car analogy. — The Great Whatever

Why should I?

I am aware that people not thinking about or understanding how bad their actions are plays a role in why they commit them. This is why the abolition of ignorance is important. — The Great Whatever

And what an unfailingly noble pursuit this must be! Tell me truly, how many people have you talked to today about birth?

So are all culprits, though. — The Great Whatever

No, they are fellow sufferers who make mistakes. Being a culprit implies having intention.

There are actually no ways to get out; suicide is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Offering apologetics for atrocities will not stop them -- you must face up to them. — The Great Whatever

Pretty sure if you die, and that reincarnation/afterlife is not a thing, you'll stop suffering.

Do you ever think that perhaps the reason why nobody seems to get our line of reasoning is that they have the necessary psychological walls? Advocate all you want, you're really not going to change anything.

No, it is typical in philosophical discourse to use pronouns like "I" and "you" to serve as examples for general cases to make general points. — The Great Whatever

This is coming from the person who has repeatedly made it clear that he rejects the notion of a "traditional" philosophical method...

Yes, but all bad things a parent can do to a child are predicated on them giving birth to them. — The Great Whatever

Of course, but have they happened to you? That's why birth is a risk imposition, you are risking someone else's life. And that's not just the things parents can do their children...

Actually, I do worry about this: once I crashed into a tree on a sidewalk, and the car was out of my control, so had things gone differently, there is a very real chance I could have killed someone. I think automobiles are very dangerous and should not be treated lightly. — The Great Whatever

Agreed. I almost got into an accident the other day. A vehicle is a weapon.

That depends: they could have been driving irresponsibly, and been doing so even knowing that this would increase their chances of killing someone. In the case of giving birth, we all know that being alive entails large amounts of suffering (it is not avoidable), yet people give birth anyway knowing full well how the world is. — The Great Whatever

What you fail to realize is that people have this weird idea that their lives are typically better than what you suppose they are. Strange, huh? Not everyone is acutely aware of their existential dilemma, and if they are, most seem to distract themselves. It's not like birth is the most rational action. Nobody in their right mind has a child if they know how much they will suffer and care about this fact.

So instead of characterizing parents as culprits, perhaps you ought to characterize them as being misled by their hormones and emotions.

Because giving birth to children is a terrible thing to do, and it would be better if people came to understand this so that they would stop doing it. — The Great Whatever

What's done is done. If you don't like it, there are ways out. Get on with your life.

But they did. They knew full well that life entailed these things and wished life on me. — The Great Whatever

So it's now about you instead of every child? This thread is quite personal it seems.

Regardless, there are worse things your parents could have done to you than to merely give birth to you. From the looks of it, it seems like you basically hate life since you're willing to go to the extreme of saying your parents are culprits that are guilty of a heinous crime.

When you drive your car (assuming you have one that is), you usually don't spend the time worrying about all the consequences of driving your car. You could hit a child and paralyze them. So if this actually happens to a person on accident, are they responsible for paralysis or even the death of the child? No, we call it manslaughter. There was no motive. Similarly, I highly doubt that your parents "knew full well" the trials of life they were placing upon you. They were high on endorphins and other neurotransmitters, they were keen for some sex, they were interested in starting a family. I doubt they actually considered what they were actually doing might be a mistake. What they were doing was all too human.

I never said they were evil or wicked. They did something terrible, but I don't think they, any more than anyone else, are responsible for their choices, since they likewise were coerced into living. Responsibility isn't a useful ethical notion; what is important is stopping the act. — The Great Whatever

So then why are you complaining about your parents "wishing" life upon you as if they did so in a highly reprehensible fashion of neglect?

I am getting on with the logical conclusion, which is that people should not give birth. — The Great Whatever

Well, that's part of the logical conclusion.

All this was wished on you by an actual person. — The Great Whatever

NO. You are insane if you think that every parent knowingly and willingly wished pain and burdensome worries upon their child. Bullshit. Parents have children because they: 1.) want children, 2.) want a relationship with their children, 3.) want to see a part of them live on after they die, 4.) "re-live" aspects of their lives through their children, 5.) because they genuinely think they are doing a good thing by having a child, ... etc.

Everyone was once a child themselves and was placed into this world by their parents, who were also children themselves at one point. We can see this as somewhat tragic/ironic, but we can't say that parents are evil, wicked, mwahaha let me bring more children into the world to torture!!! Grow up.

Basically what this thread has turned into is an exhibit of how far you are willing to go to justify your negative value of life.

To have a child is, in the words of Rivka Weinberg, a risk imposition. Life is not inherently a gift. We have to continue to move, eat, shit, sleep, etc. just to stay alive. If you wanted more, too damn fucking bad. Either be more resilient and rebel like Camus advocated or get on with the logical conclusion of your apparent disgust with the way things are.

If you were locked in a cage and tied up by rope, you would be denied your free will in the important sense seen by the compatibilist.

If you stand on the edge of a building and want to fly but can't because you don't have wings, you are not denied an unacceptable amount of your free will. It doesn't matter that our will is unsatisfied by our biological bodies, so long as we don't find this to be overwhelming. I wish I could fly, but alas, I cannot. Shucks. But I move on because it's really not that important. What's important are the times that my will, my ability to act, is so severely restricted that I cannot operate and live a good life.

And like I said above, that doesn't mean you're restricted for the remainder of your life. A prisoner escaping from jail is no longer restricted.

Once again...if you find your life to just be filled to the brim with repression and slavery, nobody is stopping you from ending it. You have that freedom as well as many others.

A slave lives only within coercively determined confines. — The Great Whatever

If you go over the other forum, you'll see a post I made a while back in the religion section that was about how if god existed, our lives would be a nightmare because there would be no escape from him. This is enslavement.

To say that you want to be able to fly, and you have a will to fly, and yet you don't have wings, and so therefore you're a slave is really just...meh. So what if you can't fly? The only thing restricting you is an impersonal biological factor, not an actual agent. To expect anything more is to just set yourself up for disappointment.

You've basically just re-defined what counts as a charitable interpretation of freedom of the will in order to make your argument work.

You are not free to do what you want to do. If you actually think that, it's possible you are suffering from a psychotic delusion. — The Great Whatever

Ooo, tell me more how I am a delusional shill while not backing up any of your assertions. You can't just say that I'm not free to do what I want to do and expect me and everyone else to be content with your claim.

You do not have authority over decisions made under coercion or duress, and being born is coercive.

There is no question of 'degree' here; and in fact, the coercive institution of birth is a prerequisite to that of slavery. — The Great Whatever

Being brought into the world by means of coercion does not mean that you are a slave once born.

There is nothing romantic about it. It is a very real thing, as are its effects (the suffering that ensues under coercion). — The Great Whatever

No doubt there is suffering. But there's also no doubt that I don't consider myself a slave because I have a will that can be satisfied at any time. I am not physically restrained. I am free to do what I want to do. And so this romanticized idea of everyone being captive in their bodies and unable to become free is rubbish.

There's a reason why the existentialists thought that freedom and happiness might be mutually exclusive. They surely didn't feel captive in the sense of being physically restrained. They felt captive by the responsibility of being completely free.

'Nobody is stopping you from keeping your wallet, but you best be prepared for the consequences of your actions' (getting shot by your mugger).

Yet the perosn who gives up his wallet is in no way freely doing so. Same for anything done in life. — The Great Whatever

Such as? What consequences and actions are you thinking of here? Of course we are going to condemn those who murder other people or steal their wallets. The existence of a law of the land does not mean life is necessarily enslavement.

What kind of freedom do you want/were you expecting and continue to be disappointed by the lack therefore?

Again if you don't fancy this whole life thing, you don't have to continue.

You're welcome.

whoosh!

I think you are extending definitions too much. At the very least, there is a massive difference in degree between being coerced into slavery, mining diamonds your whole life (in Sierra Leone perhaps) and being forced into life itself. For in the former, someone else has authority over your life, while in the latter you are the one that has the authority over at least the decision to continue your life.

Also, I would contend that if you dislike society so much, nobody is stopping you from becoming a hermit or killing yourself. This shows that in the romantic existential sense, we are indeed forced into a situation that we did not ask for, but in the day-to-day basis I would think that to find one's life to be enslavement itself would either warrant a trip to the psychologist or a quick death. Otherwise you're grabbing at straws and being disingenuous.

Nobody is stopping you from doing anything, but you best be prepared for the consequences of your actions. That's all compatibilism is. It's unfree will, with emphasis on the will.

This is partially why I don't usually enjoy reading continental philosophy, because it relies too heavily upon specific interpretations and primary sources. In my view, if you can't summarize a position into a textbook, if you can't convey your ideas without falling back into obscurantism or a kind of "sophisticated" philosophy, then it's probably bullshit or at least needs refinement. Analytic philosophy, in this particular area, is superior because it is much easier to translate philosophy without losing any of the meaning.