What is it that I am denying, exactly?

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Unless you want to change the Earth's orbit or alter the processes that take place on the surface of the sun, climate change is simply a fact of life.

On a different note, I have noticed you referring to a "non-aggression principle" numerous times on this forum and in this thread.

It seems to me that there are conceivable scenarios in which the application of such a principle seems irrational.

For example, lets say two people are lost in the wilderness and in order to survive they must cross a river. Person A has a fear of water and will not cross the river, which means he will stay behind and surely starve. Is person B right in (physically) forcing person A to cross that river, when it is clearly in A's best interest to do so?

I personally think the answer is "yes", and I am wondering how you would defend this with the "non-aggression principle" in mind.

To be consistent, all interaction that has any risk of violating ethics has to be immoral. That would include a large part of all human activity. And following through, those activities should be ceased immediately.

It seems rather absurd to me. The idea that no amount of negativity can ever be justified is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think it accounts for the fact that a lot of people are happy to be alive.

The idea that on an individual level the raising of a child can be likened to rolling a dice I find equally questionable and it smells of opportunistic use of chance and statistics. Chance really is nothing more than a tool to explain things which are difficult to predict. When you liken everything that involves chance to an experiment, the term "experiment" loses its meaning.

I was just making sure.

If no amount of uncertainty is acceptable, what does this mean for human interaction in general?

It seems to me man can never be absolutely certain of anything. Wouldn't that make all human interaction immoral, in your view?

That is why I started a separate thread, because this is the popular one "the odds are good so it's good"! This is what I consider brute utilitarianism. It does not get around the collateral damage objection. — schopenhauer1

So what amount of uncertainty is acceptable? Or is uncertainty always unacceptable?

In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for not liking it". — schopenhauer1

I meant it differently. How can parents of happy children be held responsible for another couple's unhappy children? The way you phrase your previous argument you make it sound like parenting is a combined effort by all parents everywhere. I disagree with this. I think it is an individual effort and it should be judged on an individual basis.

There are no guaranteed outcomes for what people are like or what they do, or what will befall them, or what conditions they might face, or how their day-to-day life turns out, or how they view life. — schopenhauer1

And you believe this is what makes procreation immoral, no matter how good the "odds"?

There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always producing the best outcomes. — schopenhauer1

Well, there doesn't have to be, unless you believe that parents of happy children are somehow also responsible for unhappy children.

Even if this were the case, there is always collateral damage of those who don't fit this model. You simply cannot get around the collateral damage problem. — schopenhauer1

I suppose this ties in with that last line: I don't see how successful parents can somehow be blamed for the failure of unsuccessful parents, which is what I believe you are implying.

The fact that there exists a distribution between happy and unhappy people doesn't lead to the conclusion that procreation is experimentation. It means that a number of parents are right in their assessment of being able to properly raise children and a number of parents are wrong.

This attempt to turn "some procreation is bad" into "all procreation is bad" just falls flat in every regard.

That is very interesting. Do these experiences last long?

Who is to say? Good question.

Like I have hinted at before, I am not in favor of everybody having children. Love or hope is not enough. One needs to be suited for parenthood. Obviously this is difficult to put into objective terms, but that doesn't mean it is impossible or doesn't exist. I think we should strive to create a standard, but that is probably controversial.

I also think that the idea that non-aggression should apply to everything deserves scrutiny. In some cases an individual doesn't know what is best for him or her, and needs a push. However, giving that push means one takes great responsibility and whether such a push is successful can only be confirmed by the subject.

Do you have a link to a study?

Because sometimes others know what is best for you.

Why do we learn to swim when initially it is dangerous and scary and we may drown?

As long as we have a proper teacher we'll learn that swimming is healthy, harmless, even fun.

Sometimes people need a little nudge to grow.

For children who have had a healthy upbringing life is generally a positive experience. I'd consider that enough reason to put the "Procreation is bad. Period." argument on hold. The question should be whether everybody, including those people who are incapable of providing a healthy upbringing for a child, should be having children.

Would you share your experiences? I'm quite interested in the subject.

Yes, the so-called "religious experience" or "mystical experience" is a neurochemical phenomenon that can be induced with drugs, and occurs (without drugs) even in strong atheists like me. — Pfhorrest

What research has there been done on mystical experiences experienced by a sober mind? It seems like a phenomenon that could be really hard to pin down through scientific experimentation. I'm asking because you are equating drug-induced experiences to non-drug-induced ones and I am wondering what the basis for that equation is.

I'd turn it around.

Every individual that is part of a state allows that state to restrict their liberty, because they seek whatever it is that the state has to offer.

But that still means the grief exists. It's real. We wouldn't talk about "overcoming" a mere fiction. — Echarmion

What the story about the child is supposed to illustrate is that grief and suffering are illusory in nature. When one stops thinking about them, they stop to exist.

Why aren't people born perfect Buddhists? — Echarmion

Who says they aren't?

From the perspective of an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no natural events. Every event, and every consequence of every event, is intentional. — Echarmion

Terms like "omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", they are paradoxical in nature and make little sense to me. Though, I don't believe a "creator" necessarily needs to be any of those three things.

Whether there can be love without attachment is a valid question, to which a Buddhist would answer in the affirmative. To explain how and why is perhaps better left to actual Buddhist teachers and not me.

To the question of how to deal with destructive forces, I would tend towards a "turn the other cheek" approach. The assumption is that all men are Good in essence, but are corrupted by their material existence. By giving the right example one may cause them to see the error of their ways. An "eye for an eye" or "fight fire with fire" approach are fundamentally flawed as solutions, though.

However, understanding attachment and the cause of suffering doesn't mean one may never act to preserve something, like in the act of self-defense. One would simply have to accept the suffering that may come along with such an act.

Lastly, I would disagree that loss or separation is the root cause of suffering, since without attachment there is no sense of loss or separation.

I'd like to add that we are now talking about natural events, like earthquakes and death, which cannot be considering evil, which was the original topic. I don't mind the detour but I still wanted to acknowledge that.

The loss of a family member is an event, and an event cannot be overcome, only accepted. But I am assuming you meant to ask "how to overcome the grief of loosing your family in an earthquake?", which I will simplify to "how to overcome the grief of losing a loved one?"

Since one cannot change past events, the only rational mental end state is acceptance, which coincidentally is also commonly seen as the last stage of grief. The faster we can accept past events, the faster the grief they inflict can be overcome. However, in situations like these our emotional responses often interfere with the process of acceptance. The loss of a loved one can come as a great mental shock. Why?

Because of one's attachment and one's perception of loss.

Attachment to material things, including people and indeed one's own life, is the source of most if not all of man's suffering. Since all that is material is fleeting, loss of these things is unavoidable, and attachment to these things is irrational. By attaching ourselves to things which one will unavoidably lose, one is setting themselves up to suffer. Sadly, we live in a world in which a deeply materialistic worldview is almost universally perpetuated.

Furthermore, when one loses a loved one many will, consciously or unconsciously, make the assumption that they will never see them again. This assumption, whatever the basis may be, is irrational, since no one knows what happens after a person dies. Making the assumption that death is the end, regardless of how well-informed one thinks it is, is a choice, and once again one has created their own suffering.

Take a child's toy and it may cry, for it was attached to the toy. It therefore suffers.
Skip forward one hour and look at the child. It is no longer crying. Why? The past hasn't changed and its toy was still taken. The child has moved on and is thinking about something else. It no longer suffers.

I regard Hell as a mental state, which one can dwell in during physical life and possibly after. A state devoid of Good, which could be described as a state lacking God. It's self-inflicted, and the punishment is too.

That doesn't help the people who are suffering. — Echarmion

Understanding the nature of something is the first step in overcoming it. If people do not wish to understand, that is their choice.

I don't agree. Suffering likewise takes place in our minds.

The "Problem of Evil" points towards the existence of evil and it being seemingly irreconcilable with the existence of God. However, in pointing out this "existence" of evil it glosses over the question of where exactly "evil" exists. Isn't evil but a mental label humans slap onto certain forms of behavior? Evil is illusory and it doesn't exist outside of our own minds. There is no problem of evil, since there is no evil (outside of our own minds).

Beliefs as beliefs, not at all. Beliefs as knowledge, that's a problem. — tim wood

Both are problematic.

Beliefs merely conceal ignorance? No. Beliefs can be the road to knowledge of things that cannot otherwise be known. — tim wood

I suppose a more fitting term in such a case would be hypothesis or supposition and to the degree one is aware of their own ignorance one isn't concealing it, but fair enough.

Which, if that is the case, then does it follow that if someone believes it then it must be so? — tim wood

No.

But a difficulty arises when we seek to prove or disprove it, though disproving is generally easier than proving.

I guess what I'm getting at is that one shouldn't speak too condescendingly about another's beliefs, considering we all hold beliefs, and beliefs merely conceal ignorance.

Fourth cousin six times removed? — tim wood

What?

I can say I do not believe that 2+2=4, and that would be a comment about me. Or I can say that 2+2=37 is unbelievable, and that would be a comment about the proposition. — tim wood

Sure, but isn't the sentiment underlying the second proposition that one doesn't believe 2+2=37?

If it is not believable, then all that's left is that someone believes it. — tim wood

Isn't the question whether something is believable or not based on one's subjective judgement?

"Unbelievable" does not mean that in which I do not believe. The expression for that would be, "I do not believe in...". Instead, "unbelievable" is about the thing referred to. Similarly with the rest of the list. Being able to make that distinction is an elementary aspect of any thinking. — tim wood

Isn't calling something unbelievable akin to saying one doesn't believe in it?

Maybe I misunderstand what your point.

Unless you're such a person whose stance is that nothing is, except as it is believed by you, and not otherwise - belief-in and only belief-in being the sine qua non of (any) being at all.

As it happens, that is exactly how and only how gods exist: in as much and as so far as they're believed in. This is recognized, acknowledged, and understood in the fundamental prayer of Christians, which starts out, "We believe..." — tim wood

I'm not religious, if that is what you are hinting at.

So, in your view, what is evil? Where does it stem from? How is it different from Good?

We all have met people, even here on this site, that believe in in the unbelievable, adduce evidence that is not evidence, rely on "facts" that are not facts, truth that isn't true, unreal realities, etc., and anything else like that can be added. — tim wood

As opposed to the true truths and real realities that you yourself believe in?

Come on. I thought this was a philosophy forum.

The social protest is but a mere contradiction - we indulge and waste what we have and at the same time demand change to our own behaviour. — Metaphyzik

That's a very good point.

Ideological subversion, is my guess. — Tzeentch

Turns out I wasn't wrong.

Modern news distribution has us worrying about all sorts of things which in fact have very little influence over our day-to-day lives. Who cares what the kids think or what the politicians say? Cut out all these things which are being artificially injected into your life and are making you miserable. Focus on what is real.

Furthermore, don't blame other people for your unhappiness. Focus on what you can do to make yourself happy, because no one else will do it for you.

Lastly, being virtuous is its own reward. Not being virtuous its own punishment. If you intend to stay a decent person, it's important you understand this.

Go to "You" in the top bar, then select "Comments" in the bar on the left side of the page.

It's not accurate in the slightest. — Echarmion

There's an entire political school of thought that supports it: realism.

[...] it directly supports a view of history of cyclic, where "strength" and "weakness" are the governing factors — Echarmion

Fascism aside, this seems like a pretty reasonable and accurate view of history to me.

Anyone who follows reason will come to the conclusion that nihilism is untenable. For the same reasons we cannot prove something has objective value, we cannot disprove it. If you choose to believe nothing has objective value, you're simply trading one belief system for another.

Beliefs merely conceal ignorance and they are the mortal enemy of happiness. Sadly, modern man is absolutely filled to the brim with beliefs, however he may deny it.

I don't know why people want to focus on race so much now, but it's been a big mistake in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Ideological subversion, is my guess.