Schopenhauer

I guess you could say desire to not be in pain, although we could just say pain and not add another step to it.

Indeed, I've read my fair share of Schopenhauer. What makes you like him? I find his philosophy reassuring and comforting in how he presents the state of human affairs as in dismal and pathetic. Once someone understands how trivial are our hopes and dreams, insofar that they are never-ending, and the true source of happiness can be found in the pursuit of nirvana, then society becomes a charade or a pathetic show that is put on at one's expense.

Following this logic, one becomes extremely alienated from other people, and a sense of despair arises within the soul as to "run away" or "escape" to some place where peace and solitude can be found. I have entertained this idea many times myself; but, have come to the Stoic conclusion that there can be no place where peace and quiet and be cultivated than from within one's self.

I would rather say the source of suffering is not heeding one's desire. As to your question: I don't know.

I would like to ask, therefore, what other philosophies incorporate the concept of human suffering, as originating from desire? — Wallows

"Desires are harmful to both body and mind, as Ji Kang emphasizes in “On Nourishing Life.” Purity of being, in contrast, entails the absence of desire or any form of emotional disturbance. Are all desires, then, unnatural? The essay drew a sharp response from Xiang Xiu, for whom desire arises naturally from the heart-mind. As such, it cannot be eradicated but only regulated by rules of propriety and ritual action. In reply, Ji Kang points out that although pleasure and anger, and the desire for fame and beauty may stem from the self, like a tumor they only serve to deplete one's qi-energy. Basic needs are of course not to be denied, but desires are shaped by objects and reflect cognitive distortions that consume the self. To quench one's thirst, one does not desire to drink the whole river. This is fundamentally different from the desire for power and wealth, which knows no rest. Further, the suppression of desire by artificial means may remove certain symptoms, but it does not cure the disease. It is only by recognizing the harmful influences of desire that one begins to seek calmness and emptiness of mind. Ultimately, nourishing life is not just about health and longevity but sets its sight on a higher, and to Ji Kang, more authentic, mode of being characterized by dispassion."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neo-daoism/supplement.html

I tend to think the source of suffering is boredom.
As a species that evolved to solve complex problems, living a life without problems leads to boredom. Having a life with no problems leads to the Hobson's choice of one activity that doesn't involve solving problems, or another activity that also doesn't involve solving problems....there is another choice, and that is to cause problems...and then there will be something to do that engages the minds we have ended up with.
things are only a problem if they have have some kind of negative effect in the world, and once the cat is out of the bag, some of those negative effects will lead to suffering.

I've long subscribed to the notion that the source of human suffering is desire. — Wallows

I think that suffering comes more from not being able to fulfill one's desires than the desires themselves. Everyone has desires of some sort but not everyone suffers or is unhappy. The lack of capability or being prevented in some way from getting what you desire would make you sad and suffer.

I tend to think the source of suffering is boredom.
As a species that evolved to solve complex problems, living a life without problems leads to boredom. Having a life with no problems leads to the Hobson's choice of one activity that doesn't involve solving problems, or another activity that also doesn't involve solving problems....there is another choice, and that is to cause problems...and then there will be something to do that engages the minds we have ended up with. — wax

I tend to agree with your Schopenhaurean stance about boredom. I always liked his metaphor of a pendulum swinging from the striving after a goal on one side, and the boredom on the other. Schopenhauer's metaphysical stance was that will is at the bottom of all things. Thus a restless striving after something is what we try to attain, but it is neverending. Once we get our goal, we need to move on with more complex problems to solve, goals to achieve, hope to attain. Otherwise, the baseline feeling of boredom ensues. Being a social and socialized animal, loneliness is a byproduct of being bored with having a lack of deep connection with others. Most of life is being unsatisfied, annoyance, toil, and looking for entertainment- the pendulum swing of goal-seeking and boredom, or as I frame it, "survival, comfort-seeking, entertainment-seeking". I remember someone said to me, the final conclusion to all this Schopenhauerean metaphysics would be that nothingness would be a sign of metaphysical peace, since it is the striving that causes the turmoil for the being-in-phenomenal-existence. Ultimate peace is no need for anything, but that ironically is not being whatsoever. Much of spiritual striving is to get to this state of peace.

I see there being a tension between pragmatic "this-wordliness" and trying to achieve some tranquility from this world in "otherworldly" spiritual striving. The this-worlders have solutions in changing your lifestyle- exercise more, do something that aligns with your interests in a community-setting, find a better job that fits your goals, etc. etc. The "otherwordly" is about seeing the bigger picture of life itself. It is trying to understand what is at the root of striving after this or that particular goal in the first place. It is trying to see the forest and not simply maneuvering around the trees. The problem is, if you look at it from this perspective, you just might see the futility and absurdity. One minute you are working on a spreadsheet in an office, the next you are laughing at how ridiculous human actions are. Then you realize this too is a human action- that of meta-analysis of your other actions. Then you realize that there is no escape, only going back in the fray, or coming out again for a little more meta-analysis. One can look at birth and say, "I don't want to spread the pendulum of absurdity to others". Why go through the game?

It is not the existential thinkers who are praised by most. It is the ones who spread the capital, who work the capital, who refill the labor pool for more capital, and keep the whole absurdity going. The ankle-biters who hate the cynics, existential thinkers, and the pessimists, don't like what they hear. Luckily for them, they are in the majority. The circle of capital and labor is still going strong. Most people still enjoy the trees and don't bother looking at the whole forest. The goal-seeking and boredom become habitual acts of life that squash meta-analysis of life itself. We can't have too much of that. Survival beckons, we need to make the donuts, and this somehow needs to continue for more people.

I lack the compassion to care for other people, even myself included. — Wallows

I think what is missing is a connection to a source of compassion. I mean, compassion can't necessarily be exercised on a purely volitional basis; well, I suppose one can decide to be compassionate, or to act compassionately. But it seems to me, unless it has a real source, then it's a very limited kind of facility.

If you think back to the ancient philosophies, both stoic and Buddhist, one recurring phrase that is found is the requirement to surmount 'the passions' (as per the quotation provided by ) . Quite what 'the passions' are in classical literature, is a matter of interpretation, but I am inclined to see them as moods and emotions. So the aspiring sage is required to get free from, or go beyond, the passions, moods and emotions. That leads to the state which I believe is called in stoicism 'apatheia'. But I think what's missing from our appreciation of that, is that it's not just a state of emotional indifference or emptiness or stasis, which is the state I think you're describing. That is a kind of equilibrium, but not one that is necessarily wholesome or beneficial. In stoicism, for instance, there's the requirement to live in accordance with the Logos; in Taoism, with the Tao; in Buddhism, with Dharma. In all cases, this requires something like a regimen or the making of an effort. But even then, in my experience, a sense of being open to compassion is required, which is not something that can necessarily be generated by will-power alone. But I think there has to be at least an awareness of something missing.

I do think it is possible to attain peace; like an old soldier who has lived a varied life; he has fought in wars, and survived; got back and lived an ordinary life of work etc; he has grown and matured a philosophy of life...but, there has had to be struggle in order to grow as a person, and although he might have found peace, there will be more people who are born who if they are lucky, they can grow as well, which may also mean they have to spend years of struggle.

With this continual process, some people will 'make it' and some won't...and at the root of it, is boredom.

My underlying belief is that God, in all his mysterious eternal existence, always risks being bored himself....it is inescapable if he is an intelligent being.

Desire per se is not the problem. Desire is impossible to escape. Even to not want it is itself a want. Why attempt the impossible?

Perhaps the statement "desire causes suffering" means something else. I like to frame the statement in a possibility-impossibility context. The possible is attainable and to desire what's possible is acceptable as it can be achieved. However desiring the impossible is foolish as it is, by definition, unattainable.

Another aspect of desire that can be troublesome is excessive desire. I think Buddhists call it craving/attachment. This too is understandable in a possibility-impossibility context but has one additional truth that needs to be considered - the truth of impermanence. Everything has a beginning and, most importantly, an end. So, to crave/attach yourself too deeply to anything impermanence applies to, and that's everything, is to again be a fool. After all the object of one's craving is bound to vanish at some point in time.

What does all this imply?

Desire only the possible and always be aware of impermanence.

I do think it is possible to attain peace; like an old soldier who has lived a varied life; he has fought in wars, and survived; got back and lived an ordinary life of work etc; he has grown and matured a philosophy of life...but, there has had to be struggle in order to grow as a person, and although he might have found peace, there will be more people who are born who if they are lucky, they can grow as well, which may also mean they have to spend years of struggle. — wax

That's one of the reasons I'm an antinatalist though. Why put someone through the struggle (even for some sort of enlightenment) if they didn't have to go through it in the first place. I think our culture places to much emphasis on some damn Nietzschean notion that we must live to struggle. Either it is struggle to get something, or struggle for its own sake, and I find throwing more people into the world for either of these reasons as bad as it is purposely putting adversity/obstacles where there didn't need to be, for an idea of "someone must live so they can feel the good of struggling".

With this continual process, some people will 'make it' and some won't...and at the root of it, is boredom.

My underlying belief is that God, in all his mysterious eternal existence, always risks being bored himself....it is inescapable if he is an intelligent being. — wax

Actually, this is very close to Philipp Mainlander's idea in his Philosophy of Redemption. According to Mainlander, God was so bored with his own being, that he objectified himself from a superbeing into this physical reality in order so that he can commit suicide through the process death in the beings born into the universe. The concept of heat death wasn't around at his time, but I think he speculated about something of the death of the universe at the end of time or something of that nature. Anyways, we are participating in the god's suicide by being a part of this process. The redemption is participating in the non-existence. Of course, it is no surprise Mainlander himself committed suicide by ironically hanging himself by kicking over a stack of copies of his recently published book.

That's one of the reasons I'm an antinatalist though. Why put someone through the struggle (even for some sort of enlightenment) if they didn't have to go through it in the first place. — schopenhauer1

but in that argument, is there a 'someone', before they appear to have come into this world?

I don't know the answer to that myself. I do think a person is a person at and after conception, but I do think there is the very real possibility that they exist in some sense before conception, and may have have had some form of eternal existence.

I'm not sure I personally would, or would have iiked to have brought someone into the world with the possibility of all sorts of suffering, and maybe at the end of that suffering they just didn't make it.
But people are brought into this world quite often with no sort of planning...ie unplanned pregnancy, so there seems like there will be struggle just as an outcome of the way people behave.

As for suicide, why do some people seem to think that it leads to peace?
It may for some, but I do think there is always the danger that they just end up taking their struggle and suffering into a post life situation.

As to God, I think that he is in a situation where there is no-one higher in terms of the reality of consciousness, and thinking, to refer to.
We can't really know what that is like, but maybe we could suggest the idea that his reality emerges from his own thinking and behaviour.....what he thinks then becomes part of his reality and his own reference frame of reality.

He can't for example think, 'what would it be like to think A,' without automatically thinking of A in some ways...and in this way his reality evolves....so I bring back my argument, that I made in another thread in an OP, that God has his own needs.

I would guess that one of those needs is to try an attain peace, and not having any problems to work on leads away from peace and into boredom....in a state of boredom he is still capable of thoughts and actions, but what is he going to think? So his desire for peace is not being met because he as nothing to think about...some of all that might be a bit circular, but I think most of us have experienced boredom.
One way that boredom can be alleviated might be to read a book, or listen to some music, watch TV, but this is God we are talking about; in a way, he has watched all the movies, read all the books, and is fed up with the same old music....and in that context, he still goes on thinking, and any thoughts he has form the framework of his future reality............

Perhaps God really is envious. He might be envious in that for people there is the possibility for an end of struggling, and to one day find peace. Whereas he is stuck in a state where he has to struggle to some extent, and also maybe have to take responsibility for any suffering that is inured by his actions......
In the idea of God having his own needs, he must live in hope that someday his struggle will end, and in that hope, that the struggle for every being he is responsible for can come to an end..

Perhaps God really is envious. — wax

I mean 'jealous'..that's what the bibles says, isn't it..?

perhaps I could add 'fear' as to one of the things which lead to suffering.

Fear of the unknown, fear of what we might do in a state of boredom.

That's one of the reasons I'm an antinatalist though. Why put someone through the struggle (even for some sort of enlightenment) if they didn't have to go through it in the first place.

What makes you think it is not necessary to go through? I mean, fundamentally, the sort of satisfaction and enjoyment you get from enduring through a struggle is made what it is by the suffering. If you were given a nobel prize for completely nothing, you would be missing out on something that Einstein wouldt've - the satisfaction becomes not just enhanced but partly made up of feelings of self-validation [i.e. that you really were able to do it] self-satisfaction and accomplishment. And these feelings don't simply just get forgotten, they're embedded in the entire experience which is impressed in memory and accessible in mind.

Secondly I really am struggling to understand the antinatalist premise. An unborn baby does not feel anything. It will never will know what it feels like to not have to go through pain. Secondly, not every individual evaluates suffering and non-suffering like you.. it's not some objective hedonic calculus, every individual makes a determination of the worthiness of living on their own. For some [if not all, barring antinatalists, the severely depressed and the oppressed] it is even un-quantifiably valuable to live even in spite of suffering. So the underlying argument for antinatalism seems just based on an impossible speculation.

And I think you are also completely discounting the fact that pleasure and value are separable concepts. Something doesn't need to be pleasurable to be a valuable or meaningful experience. I mean I find my entire college experience to have been incredibly formative and meaningful.. sure I would change certain things but I would never not go through the school because it sucked [and I did suffer] to study.. I actually, really, would chose the opportunity to go through it again because it made me.

but in that argument, is there a 'someone', before they appear to have come into this world? — wax

That kind of rebuttal doesn't phase the argument, and I usually cringe a little when someone uses it. Unlike unicorns and actually things that cannot exist outside of conception, a future person can exist being that the components and ability is there to make a future person. Thus, one can talk about how a person will be affected by life if they are born.

But people are brought into this world quite often with no sort of planning...ie unplanned pregnancy, so there seems like there will be struggle just as an outcome of the way people behave. — wax

Well true, but that is the point, to actually think through the implications of having a future person.

Secondly I really am struggling to understand the antinatalist premise. An unborn baby does not feel anything. It will never will know what it feels like to not have to go through pain. Secondly, not every individual evaluates suffering and non-suffering like you.. it's not some objective hedonic calculus, every individual makes a determination of the worthiness of living on their own. For some [if not all, barring antinatalists, the severely depressed and the oppressed] it is even un-quantifiably valuable to live even in spite of suffering. So the underlying argument for antinatalism seems just based on an impossible speculation. — aporiap

The main point is that in the procreational decision, there is an asymmetry as to the absence of an actual person in regards to an absence of suffering and pleasure. It is always good that someone did not suffer, even if there is no actual person to be around to know this or enjoy the not suffering. It is not bad (or good) if someone does not experience pleasure, unless there was an actual person who was around to be deprived.

Also, just in general, forcing someone else into existence to experience some form of adversity to get stronger is still wrong. It's like forcing someone into an obstacle course they did not ask for, and can never leave without killing themselves. Well, I guess it's okay to stay and try and do the best, but it was not necessarily good to give that obstacle course in the first place. No one needs to do anything prior to birth, being that, as you pointed out, there is no actual person before birth who needed to go through life in the first place, good, bad, or ugly. By not having the person, it is no harm, no foul.

As for suicide, why do some people seem to think that it leads to peace?
It may for some, but I do think there is always the danger that they just end up taking their struggle and suffering into a post life situation. — wax

Suicide can be painful, and there can be anxiety to actually go through with it. The fact that some people do decide to kill themselves should tell you enough about burden of what it means to be a self-reflective being such as ourselves.

As to God, I think that he is in a situation where there is no-one higher in terms of the reality of consciousness, and thinking, to refer to.
We can't really know what that is like, but maybe we could suggest the idea that his reality emerges from his own thinking and behaviour.....what he thinks then becomes part of his reality and his own reference frame of reality.

He can't for example think, 'what would it be like to think A,' without automatically thinking of A in some ways...and in this way his reality evolves....so I bring back my argument, that I made in another thread in an OP, that God has his own needs. — wax

Well Mainlander was using it as a metaphor for "being" itself. Being is trying to kill itself. It's a very German Romantic notion from the 19th century. I don't think it can or should be taken seriously. Even that gives some telos or cohesion to all we do. Even if it was a telos towards death, it's still a telos of the universe. I guess in a way via modern physics, we know that we are inevitabley headed towards a heat death but this would not indicate that a being that created the universe wanted the universe to run its course and die out so that it could stop being bored with its own being, however fantastically and cynically creative that story is.

I would guess that one of those needs is to try an attain peace, and not having any problems to work on leads away from peace and into boredom....in a state of boredom he is still capable of thoughts and actions, but what is he going to think? So his desire for peace is not being met because he as nothing to think about...some of all that might be a bit circular, but I think most of us have experienced boredom.
One way that boredom can be alleviated might be to read a book, or listen to some music, watch TV, but this is God we are talking about; in a way, he has watched all the movies, read all the books, and is fed up with the same old music....and in that context, he still goes on thinking, and any thoughts he has form the framework of his future reality............ — wax

Why are we anthropomorphosizing some creator/sustainer/destroyer god-entity anyways? Why is this entity even in the equation. But again, your idea there is very much Mainlander.. If that's what you think, then his conclusion is the best answer you got.. He is so bored, he is waiting or the universe to kill itself in a final heat death.

What makes you think it is not necessary to go through? I mean, fundamentally, the sort of satisfaction and enjoyment you get from enduring through a struggle is made what it is by the suffering. If you were given a nobel prize for completely nothing, you would be missing out on something that Einstein wouldt've - the satisfaction becomes not just enhanced but partly made up of feelings of self-validation [i.e. that you really were able to do it] self-satisfaction and accomplishment. And these feelings don't simply just get forgotten, they're embedded in the entire experience which is impressed in memory and accessible in mind. — aporiap

It is not necessary for a being to be born to experience adversity, to get some positive reward from it. Rather, I believe that even if there is some overall reward that occurs (which it sometimes does not), or even if it was more generalized to experience itself is its own reward, I think that this is wrong to impose on someone. It is using someone to see them go through some X agenda that the parent wanted for the child. I don't believe in using people and making them suffer so that they can experience some X agenda.

Secondly I really am struggling to understand the antinatalist premise. An unborn baby does not feel anything. It will never will know what it feels like to not have to go through pain. — aporiap

Again, I think that the absence of pain is always good, even if there is no actual person to enjoy this. However, the absence of pleasure is not bad, unless there is an actual person for whom this absence is a deprivation.

Secondly, not every individual evaluates suffering and non-suffering like you.. it's not some objective hedonic calculus, every individual makes a determination of the worthiness of living on their own. For some [if not all, barring antinatalists, the severely depressed and the oppressed] it is even un-quantifiably valuable to live even in spite of suffering. So the underlying argument for antinatalism seems just based on an impossible speculation. — aporiap

Again, imposing a life that inevitably contains suffering is never good, whatever the person thinks or not. It is a negative utilitarian argument with some deontological elements of not using people.

And I think you are also completely discounting the fact that pleasure and value are separable concepts. Something doesn't need to be pleasurable to be a valuable or meaningful experience. I mean I find my entire college experience to have been incredibly formative and meaningful.. sure I would change certain things but I would never not go through the school because it sucked [and I did suffer] to study.. I actually, really, would chose the opportunity to go through it again because it made me. — aporiap

Sure, but this is about procreation not continuing to exist once born. Once we are born, we can make all sorts of calculative decisions. However, on the one decision to impose inevitable suffering for a future child is not good, as the suffering could have been prevented. The absence of suffering would be preferable. The absence of pleasure matters not when there is no actual person who is deprived in the first place. To impose adversity on someone else, when that did not need to occur, is not right. No one needs to be born to experience overcoming adversity.

That kind of rebuttal doesn't phase the argument, and I usually cringe a little when someone uses it. — schopenhauer1

I only use it because I have some belief in the idea of life before conception.

Why are we anthropomorphosizing some creator/sustainer/destroyer god-entity anyways? Why is this entity even in the equation. But again, your idea there is very much Mainlander.. If that's what you think, then his conclusion is the best answer you got.. He is so bored, he is waiting or the universe to kill itself in a final heat death. — schopenhauer1

but the idea of death and suicide leading to peace is just a guess or hope in the people who see things that way. There isn't any guarantee that there will be peace, there isn't even, if you argue it, any guarantee of oblivion.

The main point is that in the procreational decision, there is an asymmetry as to the absence of an actual person in regards to an absence of suffering and pleasure. It is always good that someone did not suffer, even if there is no actual person to be around to know this or enjoy the not suffering. It is not bad (or good) if someone does not experience pleasure, unless there was an actual person who was around to be deprived.

Well I think you mean uselessly or needlessly suffer here. I do not think people would agree with the bold if that suffering resulted in a net positive. If you restrict it to needless suffering then you would not get to an antinatalist position, unless you're in a situation where you can guarantee your child will uselessly suffer [you're pregnant in a concentration camp with no foreseeable chance to escape].

Also, just in general, forcing someone else into existence to experience some form of adversity to get stronger is still wrong. It's like forcing someone into an obstacle course they did not ask for, and can never leave without killing themselves. Well, I guess it's okay to stay and try and do the best, but it was not necessarily good to give that obstacle course in the first place. No one needs to do anything prior to birth, being that, as you pointed out, there is no actual person before birth who needed to go through life in the first place, good, bad, or ugly. By not having the person, it is no harm, no foul.

The way you're framing it makes it sound wrong. Nobody gives birth to force someone to experience adversity, this is different from the [inevitable] fact that they will face adversity. And, having the knowledge that your child will face adversity should be placed on equal value-ground as having the knowledge that your child, in existing, will experience pleasure. Else there's a double-standard.

Regarding the second bolded point, the problem is antinatalism isn't neutral with respect to having a child, it's defined as a negative stance on having children. This implies one is preferentially focusing on the negative aspects of living as opposed to weighing the negatives and positives equally. The fact that there are people that choose to live for the sheer enjoyment of it, and would prefer to live even in spite of their suffering, and that some even value their suffering implies you cannot assume a child's stance on the matter, so suffering shouldn't be used as a pretext to prefer not procreating [unless you're in a situation that guarantees they'll undergo useless suffering]

Well I think you mean uselessly or needlessly suffer here. I do not think people would agree with the bold if that suffering resulted in a net positive. If you restrict it to needless suffering then you would not get to an antinatalist position, unless you're in a situation where you can guarantee your child will uselessly suffer [you're pregnant in a concentration camp with no foreseeable chance to escape]. — aporiap

So, one useful thing Benatar does is he distinguishes between starting a life and continuing a life. He thinks that the threshold of causing suffering differs with respect to the two categories. Starting a life, in Benatar's conception is a much higher threshold as to the amount of suffering to cause. Starting a life that will contain inevitable suffering will always be bad due to his asymmetry. Being that no actual person is losing out, and that all harm could be prevented, there is no loss to any actual person. His argument takes the negative utilitarian idea extremely seriously. That is to say, harm is what matters, not pleasure. To restate this in a normative structure- potential parents are not obligated to bring someone who experiences joy/pleasure/positive value into the world. However, potential parents are obligated to prevent inevitable harms from occurring. One of his arguments comes from intuition. We don't usually feel pangs of compassionate sadness for the aliens not born to experience pleasure in a far away barren planet. We would most likely feel compassionate sadness, on the other hand, if we learned that aliens in a far away planet were born and were suffering. Suffering seems to matter more than bringing about pleasure in the realm of ethical decision-making. When prevention of all suffering is a guarantee and no actual person loses out on pleasure, this seems a win/win scenario.

The way you're framing it makes it sound wrong. Nobody gives birth to force someone to experience adversity, this is different from the [inevitable] fact that they will face adversity. And, having the knowledge that your child will face adversity should be placed on equal value-ground as having the knowledge that your child, in existing, will experience pleasure. Else there's a double-standard. — aporiap

I actually don't know about that. Some parents are happy at the prospect that their child will go through adversity and will overcome it. This allows the parent to play the hero of guide. It also gives them something to do, some meaning, to watch a little version of themselves have to navigate the complexities of life and try to "ballast their own ship" and become socialized, and live a certain lifestyle. This overcoming adversity trope, though cherished and encouraged in most pragmatic mindsets, is actually to me like forcing an obstacle course as I said earlier. You are creating a problem for a new person to overcome it. As I've said elsewhere, to put adversity purposefully because you feel that it is good for others to experience is not right. Parents are not messianic figures bringing "happiness-through-suffering" into the world, or whatever other ridiculousness. You can never have a child for the child's sake, being that they didn't need to exist at all. Pleasures had at the expense of pain, while commonly thought of as appropriate or even morally superior, I argue are morally tainted. This whole blood-price for happiness trope is an excuse for allowing some forms of suffering, and is literally "sadistic" in that it is causing pain to others. Forcing it to to happen (by de facto inevitability of the discourse of life which always has forms of adversity built into it for the human being).

A third point I'd like to make, is that people aren't just used for a parent's X agenda, but also for societal institution's absolutely apparent agenda- that is to say, forcing more labor to be generated into the socio-economic system. People are born to be used by society to labor for its continuation. Communism and extreme socialist systems are simply transparent about this- people are here to work for society (again, something I consider a harm to be used as a source of labor). Capitalist-leaning economies tend to hide this with a thin layer of "the invisible hand". That is to say, the focus is on the consumer and demands "choices" and thus the focus seems to be that the economy is about the individual. Actually, it is not. The individual needs to produce output at some stage in the form of labor or capital investment from past accumulated wealth.. and that is what society really needs from people- more output. Also, the rich that have the investments rely on the labor of others for their system to be maintained. Thus rather than people using society to get what they want, if we pan out of this myopic view, we see the bigger picture, which is the individual is being born to produce and labor for society. That is to say, they are being used to labor.

We don't usually feel pangs of compassionate sadness for the aliens not born to experience pleasure in a far away barren planet. — schopenhauer1

Because most people think it's ridiculous to even talk about "persons who don't exist" as if they do.

I don't know; it is often an argument in meat-eating vs. veggism debates as in..'those sheep wouldn't have existed if they weren't brought into the world to be turned into meat.'

I often think that is a silly argument.

I don't know; it is often an argument in meat-eating vs. veggism debates as in..'those sheep wouldn't have existed if they weren't brought into the world to be turned into meat.' — wax

Do you think those people are literally saying that they existed prior to being "brought into the world to be turned into meat"? I don't think that would make sense if they're saying "They wouldn't have existed if not for . . ."

Do you think those people are literally saying that they existed prior to being "brought into the world to be turned into meat"? I don't think that would make sense if they're saying "They wouldn't have existed if not for . . ." — Terrapin Station

no I think existing before conception isn't part of their argument.
They are arguing that sheep find some value in their short lives...and that a being getting some value out of life, justifies the existence of the meat industry to some extent.

no I think existing before conception isn't part of their argument. — wax

Okay, but we can't avoid that with Benatar's "asymmetry.".

"Pangs of compassionate sadness for the aliens not born to experience pleasure," to have any rhetorical impact, requires that we ever think it makes to talk about nonexistent entities as if they exist.

Otherwise, we can say, "Well, of course no one feels that, as no one thinks it makes sense to talk about nonexistent things as if they exist in any capacity."

A very Jesuit way of looking at this is not that desire causes suffering, but disordered desires do. Ordered desires - taking the God part out, are those desires that stated simply increase love, desiring things that increase love in yourself and in others will not cause suffering. Quite the contrary.

This is the what Jesuits call the First Principle and Foundation - feel free to take out the God part - but adapted to ones own world view I always found some wisdom in this:

God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, and by
doing this, to save their souls.

God created all other things on the face of the earth to help fulfill this
purpose.

From this it follows that we are to use the things of this world only to
the extent that they help us to this end, and we ought to rid ourselves
of the things of this world to the extent that they get in the way of this
end.

For this it is necessary to make ourselves indifferent to all created
things as much as we are able, so that we do not necessarily want
health rather than sickness, riches rather than poverty, honor rather
than dishonor, a long rather than a short life, and so in all the rest, so
that we ultimately desire and choose only what is most conducive for
us to the end for which God created us.

God created human beings to praise, reverence, and serve God, — Rank Amateur

This is going way off-topic, but why would something create something else to praise, revere and serve it?

Well, I can see the "serve" part if we're talking about something like machines or robots and a creator who could use/would like some help getting things done, but that's the only angle from which I'd say that doesn't sound wonky.

This is going way off-topic, but why would something create something else to praise, revere and serve it?

Well, I can see the "serve" part if we're talking about something like machines or robots and a creator who could use/would like some help getting things done, but that's the only angle from which I'd say that doesn't sound wonky. — Terrapin Station

not evangelizing - just showing another philosophy on desire and suffering - just a cut an paste of the whole thing - as above telling all to feel free to take the God part out and sub in your own world view.

Yeah, I knew that was a big tangent. The idea of that just always struck me as bizarre.

As I mentioned, or hinted at, in my first post in this thread, I don't understand why we wouldn't focus on pain when we talk about suffering rather than focusing on desire. I can't really make sense out of saying that not having a desire met is sufficient for suffering when we also use the term "suffering" for, say, someone who has just been in a serious car accident and who now has a sharp piece of metal going through their trapped leg--especially where it's supposedly not a different sense of the term.