Giving someone a burden they didn't need to experience is wrong

schopenhauer1

Let us say someone was in some blissful Buddhist like state for long periods of time. In fact, their whole day is the experience of emptiness that comes with 8 hours of meditation. Let us say this person can indefinitely keep this blissful state going.

Now let us say someone else comes along and sees that this person isn't experience any adversity or struggles in life. They just sit there seemingly doing nothing. This person decides that the meditative Buddhist needs to stop navel-gazing and start living a "real" life, one where the struggle is real, until one can cope or overcome the challenge. Now, this person decides that the handful of rice the Buddhist navel-gazer was getting through begging wasn't challenging enough. He decides to tell all the suppliers of the navel-gazer's rice to stop doing this and provides some reasoning that convinces them not to feed the navel-gazer anymore. The navel-gazer now has to venture out of his usual routine and needs to work for a living. At this work, the navel-gazer (whose whole life has thus far been meditation on nothingness) is exposed to managers, coworkers, demands, and challenges of tasks that he never had to do before. He has to learn the ropes of dealing with the manager, the coworkers, the demands of the job, accomplishing the task so not to get hassled or fired. He learns to do this but starts experience the usual stresses of the average non-navel-gazing citizen. His techniques don't work on this new form of strife. He only knew how conquer his own boredom when left alone and allowed to beg for food, but this kind of dealings with others is not in his repertoire and his usual coping techniques aren't working.

The adversity builds and he learns more or less how to deal with it, in the normal fashion. He hasn't overcome the adversity of his everyday life, but simply deals with it. Goes to work, tries to find some accomplishment there, tries to avoid negative situations (though sometimes unavoidable), finds entertainments of the mind to fill his time. He feels loneliness for the first time, and the need for companionship.

Okay, this situation is obviously a very contrived situation. But you can probably tell where this is going in regards to being an analogy for antinatalism. What is the point of exposing another person to adversity when a new person doesn't have to be exposed to adversity in the first place? Is that a good thing to do for someone else, being they don't exist to care about any benefits that might arise from adversity? Even if benefits arise from adversity, when none exists for a particular person in the first place, is it good to create someone so they can experience adversity in order to gain the benefits from adversity?

Shawn

This person decides that the meditative Buddhist needs to stop navel-gazing and start living a "real" life — schopenhauer1

And here, I disagree. We don't live in fascist or authoritarian governments. The Buddhist is free to do what they choose is best for them. And, since they feel no pain or adversity, then what they're doing is productive for their own good.

I see a lot of musterbation, proceeding from that assumption that what he is doing is wrong and unjustified.

schopenhauer1

And here, I disagree. We don't live in fascist or authoritarian governments. The Buddhist is free to do what they choose is best for them. And, since they feel no pain or adversity, then what they're doing is productive for their own good.

I see a lot of musterbation, proceeding from that assumption that what he is doing is wrong and unjustified. — Wallows

Did you read the whole post? The point of it is if someone feels the Buddhist needs to go through adversity, and thus exposes him to a situation of adversity, is this wrong? Then I connected this with the idea of antinatalism. Clearly the idea of Buddhist navel-gazer is an analogy for the potential person that has the ability to exist if procreated into existence.

Shawn

Did you read the whole post? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

The point of it is if someone feels the Buddhist needs to go through adversity, and thus exposes him to a situation of adversity, is this wrong? — schopenhauer1

Yes, it is. You are imposing your of some fictitious entities (twisted and sadistic) will on someone that does the things they do for the very reason you don't want them to do it? Isn't the contradiction apparent enough?

schopenhauer1

Yes, it is. You are imposing you're of some fictitious entities (twisted and sadistic) will on someone that does the things they do for the very reason you don't want them to do it? Isn't the contradiction apparent enough? — Wallows

I do not get what you are asking.

Shawn

I do not get what you are asking. — schopenhauer1

I'm not asking anything. I'm merely asserting that it is wrong to say that the blissful and happy Buddhist is unjustified in their simple existence. Demanding that they experience pain and suffering is some kind of twisted logic.

schopenhauer1

I'm not asking anything. I'm merely asserting that it is wrong to say that the blissful and happy Buddhist is unjustified in their simple existence. Demanding that they experience pain and suffering is some kind of twisted logic. — Wallows

Yes, I agree it is. That is the whole point of the analogy.

Shawn

Yes, I agree it is. That is the whole point of the analogy. — schopenhauer1

So, what's the point with it? That existence consists only of pain and suffering? That's not true, given your fictional Buddhist living peacefully. Perhaps, taking my own interpretation here, that the Buddhist is indicative that we ought to pay more attention to how they lead their own life's if one wants peace and contentment in life.

What do you think?

schopenhauer1

↪Wallows

If the navel-gazing Buddhist is likened to the potential child that does not need to exist (to be exposed to suffering/adversity) in the first place, then the person who comes along and figures that this navel-gazer needs to overcome adversity is like the parents procreating a new human into existence where they surely will experience adversity, and they will have to overcome it. Then, in Nietzschean fashion will claim that the point of living is to get stronger by overcoming life's challenges. This makes little sense if no one existed to need adversity in the first place. Don't take the analogy too seriously- it is simply to show the illogic of it.

Shawn

If the navel-gazing Buddhist is likened to the potential child that does not need to exist (to be exposed to suffering/adversity) in the first place, then the person who comes along and figures that this navel-gazer needs to overcome adversity is like the parents procreating a new human into existence where they surely will experience adversity, and they will have to overcome it. Then, in Nietzschean fashion will claim that the point of living is to get stronger by overcoming life's challenges. This makes little sense if no one existed to need adversity in the first place. Don't take the analogy too seriously- it is simply to show the illogic of it. — schopenhauer1

I think it's a good analogy; but, based on faulty assumptions, as I've already stated. In general, life is getting easier nowadays. We tend to have more psychological problems nowadays than addressing fundamental needs like water, food, and shelter. So, this is where the Buddhist has all his or her needs met at a whim and can live a peaceful life. Are you thinking of becoming Buddhist? I would like to join an ashram; but, am somewhat unsure if I can just leave my mother. I like living with her. It's a pleasant state of affairs, to have someone that unconditionally loves you.

schopenhauer1

In general, life is getting easier nowadays. We tend to have more psychological problems nowadays than addressing fundamental needs like water, food, and shelter. — Wallows

Who are you to judge for someone else what is "adverse" enough for them, psychological or not? How do you know to what extent that person would want to experience adversity? How do you know there won't be more than small adversity but perhaps the possibility of undo suffering will occur?

The point is, is it wrong to create adversity for someone else if they didn't need to experience it in the first place?

Shawn

Who are you to judge for someone else what is "adverse" enough for them, psychological or not? — schopenhauer1

We're you the first to commit this error with the Buddhist living happily, and some twisted entity telling them they ought to suffer more?

How do you know to what extent that person would want to experience adversity? — schopenhauer1

Well, I can't really say that they ought not to feel adversity. Without it I think it would be hard to achieve affective states like appreciation, compassion, and empathy. If I could I would like to be a kid again. It was such a happy time in my life.

How do you know there won't be more than small adversity but perhaps the possibility of undo suffering will occur? — schopenhauer1

I don't; but, isn't that just life for you?

schopenhauer1

We're you the first to commit this error with the Buddhist living happily, and some twisted entity telling them they ought to suffer more? — Wallows

I don't get what you are saying here. This is an analogy- it is just a story to show a point.

Well, I can't really say that they ought not to feel adversity. Without it I think it would be hard to achieve affective states like appreciation, compassion, and empathy. If I could I would like to be a kid again. It was such a happy time in my life. — Wallows

Why does affective states, compassion or empathy need to be obtained for something that didn't exist to need it in the first place? And why put someone through adversity in order to achieve these states, if this needn't be the case in the first place? (These are basically the same question).

I don't; but, isn't that just life for you? — Wallows

The question is if it is right to procreate a new person who will experience adversity. Thus, it isn't just a matter of shrugging the shoulders if adversity can be prevented in one decision in regards to future people being born.

Shawn

The question is if it is right to procreate a new person who will experience adversity. — schopenhauer1

Isn't that a tautology. If life consists in adversity, and no utopia can be achieved, then there really isn't any alternative for the unborn child. Some Spartan societies encouraged adversity and strife, along with Nazi and even communist societies with brutalism and stuff like that. That just goes to show you that some people think that suffering is an inescapable part of life. If due to this, you think that a better future is one where one doesn't exist is the right one, then I can't really persuade you otherwise. It's just it's based on a faulty logic of assuming what's right under circumstances that can't be fundamentally altered, such that life is.

schopenhauer1

Isn't that a tautology. — Wallows

No. If you are saying is it a well-known fact, yes.

If life consists in adversity, and no utopia can be achieved, then there really isn't any alternative for the unborn child. — Wallows

Well, correct. That is the whole point. The child doesn't need to exist to experience adversity, period. It would be wrong to expose someone to adversity, just so they can experience overcoming it. Even if the premise was true that, "overcoming adversity makes one stronger", no one needs to be exposed to adversity in the first place. It is wrong to make someone overcome adversity when they didn't need to.

Shawn

Well, correct. That is the whole point. The child doesn't need to exist to experience adversity, period. It would be wrong to expose someone to adversity, just so they can experience overcoming it. Even if the premise was true that, "overcoming adversity makes one stronger", no one needs to be exposed to adversity in the first place. It is wrong to make someone overcome adversity when they didn't need to. — schopenhauer1

So, does that make me an antinatalist? What if we lived in a world where every problem could be solved at the whim of science? Wouldn't such a life be mundane and boring to the point of not wanting to exist anymore? Isn't the whole premise of evolution about overcoming adversity? What becomes of "life" when we eliminate all adversity? We wouldn't be talking about "life" in the ordinary sense of the term anymore.

schopenhauer1

So, does that make me an antinatalist? What if we lived in a world where every problem could be solved at the whim of science? Wouldn't such a life be mundane and boring to the point of not wanting to exist anymore? Isn't the whole premise of evolution about overcoming adversity? What becomes of "life" when we eliminate all adversity? We wouldn't be talking about "life" in the ordinary sense of the term anymore. — Wallows

None of this matters to me. I don't use future people as vessels for making life interesting, I don't use futuer people so that "life" can have a certain meaning that we have always known it. I don't use people so that life won't be boring. Rather, what matters in this claim is that future people will not be exposed to adversity when they don't need to. I am not claiming anything about how existence should be, other than that.

Shawn

I am not claiming anything about how existence should be, other than that. — schopenhauer1

Well, that is a lie, based on your OP. Life consists fundamentally of adversity. And, you have demonstrated with the Buddhist analogy that you don't think he or she is justified in living without any adversity.

schopenhauer1

And, you have demonstrated with the Buddhist analogy that you don't think he or she is justified in living without any adversity. — Wallows

You completely misinterpreted the analogy in the OP. That person who forced the Buddhist into adversity was not doing the right thing.

Shawn

That person who forced the Buddhist into adversity was not doing the right thing. — schopenhauer1

So, you're creating a straw-man out of the Buddhist in that they are leading their life the way they are due to adversity?

schopenhauer1

So, you're creating a straw-man out of the Buddhist in that they are leading their life the way they are due to adversity? — Wallows

No you're still not getting it. The Buddhist is like the non-existent/potential child. There was no need for it to be forced into experiencing adversity when they didn't need to.

Shawn

No you're still not getting it. The Buddhist is like the non-existent/potential child. There was no need for it to be forced into experiencing adversity when they didn't need to. — schopenhauer1

So, life is the person or entity telling the person that they need to experience life "in reality"?

schopenhauer1

So, life is the person or entity telling the person that they need to experience life "in reality"? — Wallows

If by entity you mean the person who is forcing the Buddhist into adversity, and by life you mean the people who are procreating the potential person into existence, then yes.

Shawn

If by entity you mean the person who is forcing the Buddhist into adversity, and by life you mean the people who are procreating the potential person into existence, then yes. — schopenhauer1

So, I see we boiled down the issue.

Then isn't that a straw-man or a simple overgeneralization to state things that way?

schopenhauer1

So, I see we boiled down the issue. — Wallows

I don't see how it was not boiled down from the beginning. The analogy wasn't meant to be hard to make between the two ideas of the Buddhist/adversity potential person/adversity.

Then isn't that a straw-man or a simple overgeneralization to state things that way? — Wallows

Not really, the story was to illustrate the point. The point has always been, there is no need to create adversity for someone else when that person did not need to experience adversity in the first place.

Shawn

I don't see how it was not boiled down from the beginning. The analogy wasn't meant to be hard to make between the two ideas of the Buddhist/adversity potential person/adversity. — schopenhauer1

Forgive my slowness. At least I finally got the point.

Not really, the story was to illustrate the point. The point has always been, there is no need to create adversity for someone else when that person did not need to experience adversity in the first place. — schopenhauer1

We don't know that. That's a presumption. If that is how you feel about it, then so be it.

schopenhauer1

We don't know that. That's a presumption. If that is how you feel about it, then so be it. — Wallows

Do you think it is right to expose another person to adversity when they didn't need to be exposed to it? What exactly would be the reason? Would that reason be justified in light of the fact that you are creating adversity on behalf of someone else.

Tzeentch

↪schopenhauer1

Two thoughts come to mind.
The first: Why would anyone wish for another to experience adversity and struggle? This seems like a profoundly malevolent act, unless one believes the struggle and adversity will benefit the person. Even then, it is not up to the instigator to decide what is good or bad for another, unless one is asked specifically for their advice.

The second: The instigator does not let the Buddhist suffer. The instigator merely brings about a change of circumstance and the reaction of the Buddhist is to make himself suffer. In Buddhism, all suffering is seen as a result of attachment to wordly matters. In this case, the Buddhist was attached to life and feared death and starvation.

It is said Buddha once fasted for a long period of time, during which he consumed no food except that which by circumstance came to him. This naturally weakened him and when during his travels he attempted to cross a river he nearly drowned. This is when he experienced enlightenment.

Giving someone a burden they didn't need to experience is not wrong, unless there is no greater good to be gotten from it. There are plenty of examples where this is acceptable. Do you disagree with educating children? Strictly speaking, they don't need to be put through that experience, to be given that burden, but we do it for the greater good.

Terrapin Station

But you can probably tell where this is going in regards to being an analogy for antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, it's suggesting that prior to birth, there are people in some state. Even though you keep denying that you're suggesting that.

This analogy would be nonsensical to you if you didn't think that prior to birth, there are people in some state. You rationally realize how absurd that idea is, maybe, but emotionally, you keep returning to it. Hence this analogy.

schopenhauer1

Two thoughts come to mind.
The first: Why would anyone wish for another to experience adversity and struggle? This seems like a profoundly malevolent act, unless one believes the struggle and adversity will benefit the person. Even then, it is not up to the instigator to decide what is good or bad for another, unless one is asked specifically for their advice. — Tzeentch

I completely agree. Hence why it is wrong to procreate. Procreation exposes adversity for someone else on their behalf. A new person didn't need to be exposed to adversity in the first place. No harm, no foul, no person (as in no actual child that will be born), right?

The second: The instigator does not let the Buddhist suffer. The instigator merely brings about a change of circumstance and the reaction of the Buddhist is to make himself suffer. In Buddhism, all suffering is seen as a result of attachment to wordly matters. In this case, the Buddhist was attached to life and feared death and starvation. — Tzeentch

While I agree perhaps the Buddhist principles only worked for this individual in the very confined space of begging for food and meditating all day routine, the point of the story was not how to be a better Buddhist but whether it is good to cause adversity for another. It is exactly like procreation. Now that someone is born, they have to cope and deal with the situation. They have to struggle at it, just as the Buddhist must learn to do in his changed circumstances.

It is said Buddha once fasted for a long period of time, during which he consumed no food except that which by circumstance came to him. This naturally weakened him and when during his travels he attempted to cross a river he nearly drowned. This is when he experienced enlightenment. — Tzeentch

Interesting.

Giving someone a burden they didn't need to experience is wrong

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions