:fire:

I remember what my wife said in defense of the button: "If the end goal of this journey is happiness, and that button makes you truly happy, why not do it? Journey complete."
My horrified reaction: "But that's cheating!"

Now, I think that what my wife means by "truly happy" is something different than what the button can produce, which is just raw physical pleasure.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who didn't fall prey to it. — RogueAI

Evidence?

The massive amounts of addicts in this country? Food, Facebook, Twitter, sex, drugs of all kinds, you name it. If it brings a person pleasure, there's a great chance for addiction. An almost overwhelming chance for addiction.

Well, according to the Hearth study that I briefly scanned, the subject of stimulation was stimulated while having sex, another form of stimulation, so apparently it’s not the end-all be-all of stimulation that its being cracked up to be in this thought experiment. Sorry if I’m being a realist and spoiling the fun.

Sorry if I’m being a realist and spoiling the fun.

Someone has to keep things honest.

There is no catch — MSC

This is pure assumption.

@MSC@RogueAI@Sir2u@Caldwell@praxis@JerseyFlight

I'm not necessarily "for the button" being an answer. The button would have to be able to dial in or out any amount of pain/pleasure as it relates to survival, comfort, and entertainment- not just mere pleasure. So, if I can dial in some amount of stress so I can feel the "high" of exercising, but then dial back pain as it relates to sickness, or dial in pain in regards to playing a game, but fastforward any tedium at work, that would be different.

However, one thing I observed with many of these comments, is the rather ubiquitous idea that human life needs pain so that we can have the pleasure of overcoming it. I just find this theory lacking in any ethical claim. To assume that people need to experience pain so as to overcome it, and then to go so far as to create a being who was not there to begin with to actually live this ethos out, is quite cruel in my estimation. I don't think that overcoming pain gets some gold star of goodness. This is what people say to pressure others into not having negative feelings towards the pain that they are supposedly supposed to overcome to feel like a better person. Putting people through a game unnecessarily, or because you want to see people overcome pain (or use weasel phrases that mask the negative aspect.. like "grow from pain") is not ethical. So yea, sue me.. I don't buy the very popular "no pain, no gain.. do the Dew" bullshit.

Depends what you mean by addiction. Behavioral addiction is not the same beast as chemical addiction but it is similar.

I’m not sure why that matters since people are capable of overcoming both kinds.

An interesting point you reminded me of. People who get addicted to powerful painkillers, opiates, morphine, really strong stuff. It changes something either in the mind, physiology, something in the body. I recall reading about people who quit stuff like that cold turkey saying the pain was unbearable literally feeling like "their bones were being crushed into dust" .. if I remember correctly they didn't start due to any injury or pain but rather just for pleasure.

To assume that people need to experience pain so as to overcome it, and then to go so far as to create a being who was not there to begin with to actually live this ethos out, is quite cruel in my estimation. I don't think that overcoming pain gets some gold star of goodness. This is what people say to pressure others into not having negative feelings towards the pain that they are supposedly supposed to overcome to feel like a better person. — schopenhauer1

To view it from this vantage, would not merely be like putting mice through a maze full of spikes and fire, it would be like creating mice for the purpose of putting them through your diabolical maze. I agree with you, such a view is not only incompetent in terms of philosophy, it is nearly sociopathic in terms of the framing of human experience. Reminds me of the same logic one finds at the heart of inquisitions.

This is pure assumption. — Outlander

Not really, I meant "no catch" as in I won't do anything to harm you if you agree, make you sign all your wealth and property over to me or I won't just use you for sex or something like that. So no, it's not an assumption since I'm the one creating the scenario so I'm the one creating the terms. Unless you are suggesting that I am making a pure assumption about my own beliefs and my own scenario? Which makes no sense. Try and be a bit more substantive in your responses and read carefully as to what is meant.

If I had meant what you thought I meant, then I'd just agree with you. There would probably still be negative consequences like addiction and long term physiological and psychological effects if you chose to accept the button.

All I meant by no catch, is that I won't do anything to you and in making the choice to have the button/dial you are accepting whatever long term consequences may arise from that. Since no one has ever undergone such a thing over a long period of time, there is no telling what effect it may have on a person.

To view it from this vantage, would not merely be like putting mice through a maze full of spikes and fire, it would be like creating mice for the purpose of putting them through your diabolical maze. I agree with you, such a view is not only incompetent in terms of philosophy, it is nearly sociopathic in terms of the framing of human experience. Reminds me of the same logic one finds at the heart of inquisitions. — JerseyFlight

Yes! :up: .

But yet people talk in these terms all the time.. "No pain, no gain"; "Life is only worth living when overcoming something painful" yadayada. How is this not possibly a social pressure to try to incorporate pain as good, so as people don't fall into pessimism? Just because one is co-opting pain, and trying to turn it on its head as "good thing" so as to downplay its negative aspect, doesn't make it any truer as an actual positive thing. Rather, it just shows the kind of thinking many people engage in in order to not see what might actually be the case. It also justifies answers to why people have kids in the light of knowing the kids will face inevitable necessary suffering and contingent, unpredictable forms of adversity.

Further, it is seemingly sociopathic to want to see "overcoming pain" carried out by another.

How is this not possibly a social pressure to try to incorporate pain as good, so as people don't fall into pessimism? — schopenhauer1

Yes... what is this exactly? What is the person who uses this framing trying to do? Perhaps one could try to say they are trying to cope with pain by creating a false metaphysical narrative surrounding its identity, but deep down it seems it amounts to, as you say, an attempt at justification. I mean, what happens once we adopt this view, that is, the child had to suffer abuse "because that's just part of growing up." One is trying to justify something by this logic, one is also trying to excuse something. At the most primitive point I think it is striving for the unconditional justification of life itself regardless of the poverty of conditions.

Further, it is seemingly sociopathic to want to see "overcoming pain" carried out by another. — schopenhauer1

Yes, or just ignorant. I think we are right to revolt against this vicious ignorance with passion, such an ideology is itself abusive.

Yes, we are able to overcome both kinds. Doesn't mean I'm going to start taking heroin anytime soon or take up an unhealthy masturbation habit, just because I know it is possible to overcome both. Yes we can overcome these addictions, but how long will it take and at what cost? A year? Ten years? Half a lifetime? How many relationships ruined or lives destroyed for it? I lost ten years of mine to Marijuana. You might say that this was my version of the button. If so then I most definitely regret that first push.

When this circuit was attached to rats' brains, the rats sat there and kept pushing the lever again and again until they died of dehydration/starvation.

Some people do that with drugs and alcohol; even slot machines. (Well they don't fall off the stool and hit the floor dead in the bars and casinos, but they can go totally broke or make themselves sick and likely to die sooner.)

Repeatable intense pleasure from the push of a button is probably too perverse for animals to manage, including us. As it is, I can get lost for hours doing things that are less pleasurable than what this button is offering. Today I spent 3 hours perusing the New Yorker Cartoon Bank looking for a particular old cartoon. Didn't find it, didn't notice 3 hours passing, and didn't care. Great experience. Keep that hatched-in-hell-button away from me.

If you want endless sensations, be then irrational animals and leave your vacant places as former humans to those who are really worthwhile. — Gus Lamarch

Those who are, what, philosophical zombies, soulless automata that do nothing other than exercises in pure logic for fun? Sorry, not fun, that’s a kind of pleasure. For what then?

All of the “higher” functions of humans are unquestionably of immense value, but that value is in large part instrumental for its effectiveness at reliably attaining the simple pleasures, and where it is not merely of instrumental value, its intrinsic value lies in still further kinda of pleasures.

Once we have answered all of the questions and solved all of the problems, once we are all knowing and all powerful, what then is left but just to ENJOY it? All the sound arguments against just living in pure enjoyment right now — and there are plenty — hinge on there still being unsolved problems and unanswered questions the answers to which may reveal problems that could threaten the possibility of everyone just enjoying themselves.

However, one thing I observed with many of these comments, is the rather ubiquitous idea that human life needs pain so that we can have the pleasure of overcoming it. I just find this theory lacking in any ethical claim. To assume that people need to experience pain so as to overcome it, and then to go so far as to create a being who was not there to begin with to actually live this ethos out, is quite cruel in my estimation. I don't think that overcoming pain gets some gold star of goodness. This is what people say to pressure others into not having negative feelings towards the pain that they are supposedly supposed to overcome to feel like a better person. Putting people through a game unnecessarily, or because you want to see people overcome pain (or use weasel phrases that mask the negative aspect.. like "grow from pain") is not ethical. So yea, sue me.. I don't buy the very popular "no pain, no gain.. do the Dew" bullshit. — schopenhauer1

I don't believe human life needs pain at all. It's not really in any of our control and not a single one of us is responsible for designing this diabolical maze. We all just live in it and short of suicide there is not much we can do about it.

No parent gets any joy out of seeing their offspring suffer (well, I certainly don't at least but I can't speak for sadist parents). However, I already know that I suffered in my childhood in ways my kid has not. I was physically, emotionally and sexually abused (not an appeal to emotion just stating the facts of my childhood.) I've not repeated those cycles of abuse. Some of the things my kid has been upset about recently and has felt they have suffered over; Having to do schoolwork (which with the coronavirus has had me playing learning assistant for online learning), having to throw out what little remained of a cardboard box that we had already used for multiple arts and crafts projects, not being allowed to play video games all day.

I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking I am an optimist. I'm really not. I believe in working smart, not hard.

Life simply is. It doesn't need any justification to be the reality we find ourselves in.

I'd agree that we maybe callously have children. Even if we accept an antinatal moral position to be the only good one, it is not as if that is in any way an obvious conclusion for anyone to arrive at. It's not as if every parent internally acknowledges this position and then has a kid just to piss you or anyone else off that happens to be an antinatalist.

Keep that hatched-in-hell-button away from me. — Bitter Crank

Don't worry, the button is hypothetical and even if I was a neuroscientist, I'd never really hook anyone up to this unless it was part of some end of life care for the terminally ill. Even then, the moral issues involved would only allow me to do that if a panel of ethicists give the green light and evaluate on a case by case basis.

I simply love how the antinatalists in this debate are behaving as if the antinatal conclusion is and always was self evident. It most certainly is not and it seems that you all try to derive your own pleasure at assuming you are all so clever while calling everyone else stupid and sadistic for not allowing themselves to be manipulated by your circular logic and self referential, self congratulating egos.

If any of you really cared about reducing suffering, you would be kinder to others and wouldn't try to figuratively jerk each other off in an attempt to shame people for being alive and doing what literally every animal does.

I am curious as to where you all think free will and moral responsibility comes into play in your weird little worlds where up is down and right is wrong.

How is this not possibly a social pressure to try to incorporate pain as good, so as people don't fall into pessimism? — schopenhauer1


Yes... what is this exactly? What is the person who uses this framing trying to do? — JerseyFlight

To me it looks like muddying the waters.
All suffering is bad (by definition), but in life we are constantly forced to go through some pain, to avoid bigger pain, like training to avoid physical weakness, etc.

And now they can point to that lesser pain and say "look a bad is now a good", but one only did it to stave of bigger suffering, that's what they deliberately omit.

This strikes me as one of the socially constructed biases - "pain is actually good", but the people shoving this garbage down others' throats aren't standing in their kitchen every morning and putting their hand in boiling water, so they can "grow" and "gain" from the "good" pain.

I think it comes all down to glorifying suffering (pure badness), which is one of the very core "necessaries" to get people to procreate.

I think it is striving for the unconditional justification of life itself regardless of the poverty of conditions. — JerseyFlight

I think it goes even so far as to be grateful for bad conditions.

Yes... what is this exactly? What is the person who uses this framing trying to do? Perhaps one could try to say they are trying to cope with pain by creating a false metaphysical narrative surrounding its identity, but deep down it seems it amounts to, as you say, an attempt at justification. I mean, what happens once we adopt this view, that is, the child had to suffer abuse "because that's just part of growing up." One is trying to justify something by this logic, one is also trying to excuse something. At the most primitive point I think it is striving for the unconditional justification of life itself regardless of the poverty of conditions. — JerseyFlight

:up: Not much more to say to this, as it makes the point well.

Yes, or just ignorant. I think we are right to revolt against this vicious ignorance with passion, such an ideology is itself abusive. — JerseyFlight

Yes.

Also very well-stated. Not much more to add.

I don't believe human life needs pain at all. It's not really in any of our control and not a single one of us is responsible for designing this diabolical maze. We all just live in it and short of suicide there is not much we can do about it. — MSC

Well that's good that you are not one of the ones who say "We need pain to justify our existence" or some such. If life is the diabolical maze, then surely we can prevent others from living it. We know there is suffering. We know it can be prevented for another. It is too late for us.

Having to do schoolwork (which with the coronavirus has had me playing learning assistant for online learning), having to throw out what little remained of a cardboard box that we had already used for multiple arts and crafts projects, not being allowed to play video games all day. — MSC

No one wants to think of their own kids as suffering. Remember, I define suffering in two ways: necessary, and contingent. Necessary suffering is never snuffed out of the equation. Contingent pain which is one of circumstances, is inevitable as well. Experiencing no contingent now, doesn't mean they won't in the future of course. Hopefully, that won't happen. I of course don't wish it on anybody.

Life simply is. — MSC

But it doesn't have to be created again and again. We know the what it entails. And by now, you should know the response to (but it also entails happiness!), if not, I present you the asymmetry.. deprivation of good does not matter, unless there is an actual person for whom this can be a deprivation.

I'd agree that we maybe callously have children. — MSC

:up:

Even if we accept an antinatal moral position to be the only good one, it is not as if that is in any way an obvious conclusion for anyone to arrive at. It's not as if every parent internally acknowledges this position and then has a kid just to piss you or anyone else off that happens to be an antinatalist. — MSC

Haha, well yes of course. I agree with that. Most people have children with little antinatalist considerations in mind. It's never for the sake of the child though. A few "fun" quotes from antinatalist, David Benatar:

“It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.”
― David Benatar , Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

“Creating new people, by having babies, is so much a part of human life that it is rarely thought even to require a justification. Indeed, most people do not even think about whether they should or should not make a baby. They just make one. In other words, procreation is usually the consequence of sex rather than the result of a decision to bring people into existence. Those who do indeed decide to have a child might do so for any number of reasons, but among these reasons cannot be the interests of the potential child. One can never have a child for that child’s sake.”
― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence

I simply love how the antinatalists in this debate are behaving as if the antinatal conclusion is and always was self evident. — MSC

It is evident when thought through, but that doesn't mean it is instantly recognizable. There is a difference.

It most certainly is not and it seems that you all try to derive your own pleasure at assuming you are all so clever while calling everyone else stupid and sadistic for not allowing themselves to be manipulated by your circular logic and self referential, self congratulating egos. — MSC

This seems just ad hominem.

If any of you really cared about reducing suffering, you would be kinder to others and wouldn't try to figuratively jerk each other off in an attempt to shame people for being alive and doing what literally every animal does. — MSC

I actually advocate Schopenhauer's idea of recognizing everyone born as "fellow-sufferers". We all suffer and we can recognize this in others and try to sympathize and empathize. We can attempt to relieve that suffering as much as possible through compassionate acts, whilst knowing it never ceases in a metaphysical way (i.e. Will in Schop's terminology). Beyond Schop though, I had an idea of forming "Communities of Catharsis". That is to say, communities of like-minded people who can discuss their rebellious stance, their worldview, can console each other, etc. There is catharsis in consolation with others. It would be okay to gripe and complain without people saying, "No pain, no gain buddy!!" or 'Think of it is a chance to grow" or simply "Stop complaining! No one wants to hear it!!" and other such sentiments. As stated earlier, these type of statements are either trying to ignore the problem or incorporate pain as good, so as not to have a negative view on things in general. But it is masking the situation so that it can seem justified in happening at all. It's a defense-mechanism, and a way to group-think away ideas of pessimism. Also, people tend to "You" pessimism away. If it's YOUR problem, then it cannot be circumstances of living in general. I call this existential gaslighting.

I am curious as to where you all think free will and moral responsibility comes into play in your weird little worlds where up is down and right is wrong. — MSC

Just because the popular notions of things are not antinatalist notions, doesn't mean antinatalism is somehow immoral or unsound. That would clearly be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I'm not sure how you want that to be tied in with antinatalism. Without it being a debate about free will in general, if the assumption is that people are making their own decisions, then it is possible for people to decide not to bring more suffering into the world. I am not going to shame a pregnant lady or anything like that. I am not going to go about throwing red paint on people. I liken it to veganism. Most vegans will present their view, and aren't going to condemn you for eating a hamburger, even if they disapprove of it themselves. The goal is to not be obnoxious to others who are obviously following the majority idea on the matter, but to still present the view.

There is a chance to prevent all suffering simply by not doing something. At that point, one can perfectly prevent harm and not force the situation of having to "play the maze/game" onto another without any negative consequences to an individual (i.e. no deprivation of good things since no actual person is deprived).

I voted yes.

Sounds terrifying. Like a limitless supply of drugs. Voted no.

If the button would give relief to someone suffering from bone cancer, then yes; the rest, maybe not.