I can't give you a conclusive answer to that. In myself, and almost every living thing I meet, I observe a strong affinity with life. Any attempts to quantify that objectively would be futile. It is an intuition.

Life and death are natural, and on their own neither moral nor immoral. Perhaps it would be better to say all premature death is tragic. But then again, when an elder dies naturally of old age it may cause grief in their relatives, and is that not tragic?

The matter of morality, at least, becomes more clear when a human decides to voluntarily end life prematurely, whether that be by stomping on a bug that did them no harm, or chopping down a tree for no reason, or killing an unwanted fetus.

I might just be biased towards human tragedy. If someone were to advocate planting saplings and cutting them down because their leaves may fall onto their lawn I'd be focused on that too. I can't perceive microbial life, though, so focusing too much on that seems unproductive.

You implied it has to do with them not being eligible for moral judgement while in the case of abortion you can do so with the mother at least. Is that right? — DingoJones

I may have implied this?

Humans possess a unique reasoning faculty, which I think is required for something to be considered a moral agent.

Of course, yes, and by participating in the abortion thread you are showing where your focus is, or is that not the case? — DingoJones

Sure.

I am focusing on abortion because it is the topic of this thread.

Why arent you advocating the all the tragic loss of plant life? Bugs? Bacteria? Many magnitudes more bacteria die that all other life combined, so you are ignoring the greatest tragic loss of life in favour of focusing on the many magnitudes less tragic loss of life that are the abortion numbers. Why is that? — DingoJones

Tragedy is a fact of life.

However, humans have the unique ability to act in ways that cause it, or avoid it as much as possible. That is why my own actions, and human action in general, interest me.

I don't think Tzeentch is depreciating the value of fetuses, but rather the autonomy of women. — Aleph Numbers

Nowhere did I state that people shouldn't be allowed to make immoral decisions, so I don't think I am doing any harm to anyone's autonomy.

Argue semantics with someone else.

Yes, I believe it is tragic to kill something that's alive. I would consider it tragic to have to cut down a tree, so it stands to reason I would feel the same way about a carrot.

It is tragic, at least.

In the case of voluntary intercourse by individuals aware of the possible consequences:

Killing a living being is a tragic matter.

So,

Needlessly putting oneself in a situation where one may have to kill a living being is immoral.

Abortion is a horrible thing. It is almost equally horrible to consider pregnancy or birth a "risk". In fact they go together. As if having children is a punishment strangely visited only on women for having intercourse.

Abortion is the desperate measure of a woman in a hostile society that gives her or her children no value or a negative value. Start there, and moralise the society that so disrespects life as to put its women in such a position. — unenlightened

I'm on board with the first part.

As for the second, I don't think societal norms can serve as justification for people's behavior. At most they can give us insight into their motivation or reasoning.

Seems pretty convoluted to me, and I think this type of argument glosses over a pretty important thing:

Pregnancies don't magically happen.

The vast majority of abortions is performed on people who voluntarily engaged in intercourse and were fully aware of the risks. They accepted the risk and subsequently chose to kill a living being rather than carry responsibility for their actions. I don't see how one would justify that.

An attempt at justifying abortions that do not belong to that category would be interesting.

If you act confident and get good feedback, you become more confident; on the flip side, if you act confident and get bad feedback, you become less confident. — Wheatley

I would say that someone who responds in such a way to negative feedback is not actually confident.

True confidence isn't just about believing in one's own capabilities, but also the acceptance of one's own imperfections.

I'm not happy about a virus. I'm also not overly worried. People should relax, newsmedia should stop scaring old people, and the experts should just do their thing.

Are you happy with a new endemic virus which is highly contagious and a mortality rate of between 1 and 2%?

It wouldn't be long before everyone would know someone who has died from it and it could develop a higher mortality rate in the future. — Punshhh

Happy?

Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone...and just find a more efficient system to distribute the bounty...one that doesn't involve being forced to work. — Frank Apisa

But whether I mean just Americans when I use "we" and just Americans when I use "everyone"...

...or if I mean "all humans on the planet" when I use "we" and "every human on the planet" when I use everyone...

...what real difference would it make to my question? — Frank Apisa

If the suggestion that our technological advances has set the stage for ALL humans to work less and enjoy more leisure (with needs and wants being met)...if that bothers you...so be it. — Frank Apisa

There you go.

But I'm done playing ring around the rosie.

Enjoy your bubble.

Give me the single most compelling argument against the notion that we all deserve more leisure time...and that we all can obtain it if we put our minds to it.

I will respond with as much depth as I can muster for your argument. — Frank Apisa

'Deserving' is a rather empty concept, but lets put that aside for now.

The arguments you put forward over the course of this thread were;
- There are enough resources for everyone.
- Robotics solve all our problems.

My three main arguments against this are:
- Resources are scarce. You didn't stipulate what standard of living you'd imagine everyone would have, but cars, houses, health care, social security, etc. It doesn't go without saying that there is enough of these for everybody to just get for free.

- The redistribution of resources you advocate would be massive. Would this have to be done by people voluntarily or should they be forced?

- The idea that mechanical labor can simply replace human labor without issues arising is too hasty. What about the immense resources and energy required for such a transition? What about all the labor and energy required for keeping a complete robotic workforce in operating condition?

You can find longer versions of these arguments in my other comments on this thread.

Overblown hysteria. The media have nothing better to report, and what better to draw attention than pretending there's a crisis.

The coronavirus has killed about 2,700 people so far. The flu kills roughly 60,000-70,000 people each year.

If you believe that, I assume you must have some ideas about the arguments and concerns I have put forward. I am genuinely interested in what you think about them.

Why are so many people efforting to create MORE WORK...MORE JOBS...rather than devising a way to break away from the notion that one HAS to work in order to live? — Frank Apisa

Because being jobless is a very immediate concern to which promises of a future utopia bring little reprieve.

I'm also not against thinking outside of the box, but I think ideas like this lack a realistic analysis of the requirements and implications.

For one, you seem to assume mechanical labor is free. It is not. I'd suggest looking into the production process of high-end robotics.
The amount of resources it would take to swap the human labor base for robots would be astronomical. And what about the energy requirements to power it all? Not to mention that robots require labor to operate. They have to be designed, constructed, programmed, maintained, etc.

These ideas of utopia always seem more like a prologue to dystopia to me.

This seems to me like a "people who disagree with me are stupid" kind of response. Maybe I am missing something, but why are you ignoring the arguments I put forward?

If you're not interested in discussing with people who have a contrasting opinion, why post something like this on a discussion forum?

I try not to make assumptions about what other people mean, since that tends to be seen as 'strawmanning'. I prefer giving people an opportunity to clarify their point in their own words.

...what real difference would it make to my question?

On a global scale we humans collectively now have the capability to produce MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone on the planet to have plenty (more than just enough to stay alive)... — Frank Apisa

Well, is that true?

I suppose it comes down to what you think is an acceptable standard of living, but are there enough cars for everyone to own one? Are there enough houses for everyone to live in something that can be considered decent? What about health care and social security?

A redistribution of resources on the scale that you suggest would involve a lot of people, mostly in modern countries, to make a large sacrifice in regards to their standard of living.

Do you think people should be forced to make such a sacrifice, or would it be on a voluntary basis only?

From a non-American perspective, Bernie Sanders is the only candidate I've seen in a long while that doesn't make the impression of being utterly corrupt. Perhaps that's why, despite his popularity, he's met with so much resistance.

Considering the amount of goods the USA imports from other countries, I'd say it's a relevant question.

The average person is being bombarded with so much fake news, it's impossible to identify it all.

Your best bet is to be highly skeptical of anything the news tells you, and to automatically assume the situation is more complicated and nuanced than whatever easily digestible answers the news is trying to sell you.

Um, sure. But what does that have to do with anything?

EVERYONE should have sufficient...EVERYONE should have plenty. What do we not have enough of? — Frank Apisa

It depends on what you mean with "we" and "everyone".

And the way things are now...YES...people ARE forced to work. — Frank Apisa

No, they're not. People just feel that way because they really like the benefits that working (or more specifically, money) brings.

Absolutely. But I argue that one of the choices should be, "Not work as much as we are almost forced to work now."

I suspect a lot of people will choose that option. And we will still have plenty if we plan correctly. — Frank Apisa

No one forces one to work. I don't see people choosing for the "work less, have less" voluntarily very often, though.

Why not just come to the realization that we have MORE THAN ENOUGH for everyone... — Frank Apisa

Shouldn't people decide for themselves what is enough, though?

The people who want to work will be able to work...and the people who do not want to work (who are mostly very inefficient and harm productivity by being forced to work)...can do whatever they would rather be doing. — Frank Apisa

It's an interesting idea, but I think certain consequences need to be considered.

It makes large groups of people completely dependent on their government, and this would have a great impact on the amount of power that government has over those people. What happens when a government starts to leverage that power? What happens to these people when circumstances change and the money to finance them is no longer available?

Being complete dead-weight to a society makes those people extremely vulnerable.

Because being without a job and having bills to pay is a scary thing.

Thanks! It's always good to hear someone found my scribblings useful or interesting.

Eventhough I would suggest seeing a doctor first, since the symptom you are describing seems to be (?) physical, I get the sense that you are not looking for that type of advice.

If you suspect that the problem is psychological in nature, then I would consider the possibility that your subconscious is trying to send you a message. Perhaps something in your life or something in your past is weighing on you and needs to be resolved.

Meditating on your problem may help. Take long walks if you're not the type to sit down. The purpose is to be alone with your thoughts without allowing distractions. Then analyze your thoughts and feelings, and confront them if necessary.

My experience with problems of a subconscious nature is that one already knows the answer intuitively, but does not want to accept it. For example, because it may confront one with a part of themselves they do not like.

If any of this sounds familiar to you, my advice would be to listen to your intuition. Another way to tap into your subconscious could be through writing down your dreams and analyzing them. If you're interested in that I could point you to a possible method you could use.

The main ethics would be the notion of 'hooking up', especially as a lifestyle goal, even if one doesn't specifically invoke 'religion', generally monogamy is viewed as better ideal, and one which isn't rife with potential sensationalist media controversies which make rounds on the media as of late. (The cultural and legal philosophies surrounding monogamy as an ideal in 1st world countries as opposed to polygamy or 'hooking' up).

One that on, arguments will tend to either take the vein of it being 'using' one or the other person (generally the woman), or the other extreme, in which such an attitude is archaic, anti-intellectual and anti-feminist, and treating a woman (or men) like a helpless child who as a consenting adult can't or shouldn't choose who she has sex with. — IvoryBlackBishop

As long as we're speaking of two consenting adults, I don't think it can be said that "one person is using the other," since both are using each other. That is, after all, what they consented to.
Consenting adults can do a lot of things to each other that may be considered foolish, unproductive, etc., but I find it hard to imagine anything they can do to each other that is unethical, (assuming there are no other parties involved).

Things become different when one side is consenting with different expectations and the other side is aware of this. I.e. person A consents to sex with the expectation of a relationship, but person B wants nothing to do with them afterwards.

If person B was aware of person A's expectations beforehand, we're looking at a situation in which a person is willfully hurting another to fulfill their selfish desires and we're getting into the realm of unethical behavior.

Whether 'hook-up culture' is particularly helpful to the individual or society as a whole is a different question altogether, not necessarily connected to ethics, in my opinion. (but worth discussing)

Could you perhaps elaborate further on what it is you'd like to discuss? Because it is not immediately apparent to me how this discussion involves ethics.

In short: Descriptive claims about what is true or real are to be judged by appeal to empirical experiences, things that seem true, with a whole bunch of important details on the procedure of which to appeal to and how and by whom, not just "whatever looks true to me right now".

Likewise, prescriptive claims about what is good or moral are to be judged by appeal to hedonic experiences, things that seem good, with all the same important details on the procedure of which to appeal to and how and by whom, not just "whatever feels good to me right now". — Pfhorrest

Thank you for the insightful comment.

A person has few options.

Either one grows as a moral being, meaning at one point one will reflect and be confronted with their past actions and thoughts, and may come to regret some of them. Thereby one is doing their own penance through regret.

Or one stagnates as a moral being, meaning one does not reflect upon their actions. One would not grow wise or learn the nature of love.

Either way one does penance.

So, there's no point to it then? I mean, if we can call it as "gratuitous suffering", then the presupposition is that it was in excess to some rationale. Yet, God remains silent, so what's the rationale here? — Wallows

Perhaps our idea of suffering is faulty. This is what I hinted at in your last thread.

Suffering isn't factual. It's subjective.

If a god exists, there exists presumably an afterlife, and everything we regard as 'suffering' is nothing more than an overreaction to meaningless stimuli, because if god exists the soul is most likely immortal.

There's ways of approaching this type of thing with or without god, but since the thread seems to focus on the former, I stuck with that.

Explain.

Why would an all good God have created an array of life forms that can only flourish at the expense of each other's suffering, ... — Pfhorrest

What is wrong with that?

What meaning does death have if it doesn't end our existence?

Our sense of pain and suffering is supposed to alert us to threats to our life, but if an afterlife exists, there is nothing that can threaten our existence.