Firstly what is a moral duty? Where does it come from? I'm born into the world and somehow am obliged to act in a particular way? Why? What happens if I don't? What if I don't give a shit? Fuck your duties this isn't the navy.

>Evolutionary optimism bias ensures life will not willingly choose extinction unless existence is rendered absolutely and entirely unbearable

I think "optimism bias" is a very specific thing that (some) humans have, which are just one species. Most species just blindly reproduce. They'd reproduce in hellish conditions. In fact there's basically no limit to nature's depravity and yet her species still propagate. It's blind. There is no bias either towards optimism or pessimism, just brute instinctual behaviours and drives.

>We have a strict moral imperative

Again with this talk. It's meaningless. Where does this imperative come from? God? Just from.. nowhere? Why should I care? Why am I obliged to do anything about the state of the world?

> universal non-existence

Well how would that be possible? We onky know life on this planet. There could be millions of earth's teeming with life out there.

>>84998144
>Firstly what is a moral duty? Where does it come from?
A moral duty is a responsibility placed on an actor as a result of ostensible circumstances placed on them by a series of ethical frameworks.
>I'm born into the world and somehow am obliged to act in a particular way?
Correct.
>Why?
Because the very purpose of morality is to influence human behavior for the better.
>What happens if I don't?
You wouldn't be fulfilling your moral duties.
>What if I don't give a shit?
Those who do would have a moral obligation to either make you give a shit or kill you.
>Fuck your duties this isn't the navy.
You'd be foolish to think any particular living being can be considered exempt from morality. That includes you.
Just because you think you don't have any real sense of morality (which is impossible, by the way; you absolutely do, it's just a matter of how aware of it you are) doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you.

>I think "optimism bias" is a very specific thing that (some) humans have, which are just one species.
'Optimism bias' refers to the process of optimizing, not philosophical optimism.
>Most species just blindly reproduce. They'd reproduce in hellish conditions.
Not true; most species will only reproduce in certain specific conditions. In fact, it's very difficult to maintain the proper circumstances that facilitate reproduction for many species, if not most of them. If so much as one major thing goes 'off,' they won't reproduce.
>In fact there's basically no limit to nature's depravity and yet her species still propagate. It's blind.
Nature is amoral, but it does provide the necessary resources for sustenance and reproduction. If we disrupt that symbiosis, we end species.
>There is no bias either towards optimism or pessimism, just brute instinctual behaviours and drives.
See former. That's not what optimism bias, in this context, is.

(Cont)

>>84998144
>>84998358
>Again with this talk. It's meaningless. Where does this imperative come from? God? Just from.. nowhere? Why should I care? Why am I obliged to do anything about the state of the world?
The very concept of morality emerges from objective utilitarian necessity. We have morals because we have to. Most if not all species have some form of morality, albeit different models than ours, because morality is inherently a base mechanism through which we minimize suffering and danger.
The problem is that being alive is an inherent danger. The world is a dangerous place. The only way to avoid that danger is to not exist. Hence the OP.

>Well how would that be possible? We onky know life on this planet.
Your question was instantly answered by that following statement. Our imperative is to end all life we encounter; any living thing, anywhere, would have that same imperative unless somehow they live in an environment where suffering does not exist and morality isn't necessary.
>There could be millions of earth's teeming with life out there.
Beside the point.

>>84998358
> placed on them by a series of ethical frameworks

Who came up with these? Ill just disregard them. I will not have my behaviour dictated from the ivory towers of faggotdemia.

>doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you

The laws (when cops can enforce them) applies to me. I don't know what you're really even talking about. As if "morality" is like this all seeing God out there that I must modify my behaviour to appease. God doesn't exist.

>Nature is amoral, but it does provide the necessary resources for sustenance and reproduction. If we disrupt that symbiosis, we end species.

And therefore just create a gap in the ecology for another species to fill.

>because morality is inherently a base mechanism through which we minimize suffering and danger.

So is it prescriptive or not? You seem confused. Either it's an "ought", or it's just some sort of exhibited behaviour itself driven by natural selection.

>The problem is that being alive is an inherent danger. The world is a dangerous place. The only way to avoid that danger is to not exist. Hence the OP.

I prefer I was never born for philosophically pessimistic reasons. Other people judge differently. The animals are too stupid to reflect on the values of their lives. Should we kill them for their idiocy? To save them from their own suffering? I mean personally I just feel like it's not my fucking problem. Do I judge the natural world to be horrible and wish the planet was as lifeless as the moon? Yes. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure all the animals want to live and breed and most humans just think I'm a depressed lunatic. But either way I don't feel obliged to impose my vision for a sufferinglsss and try and induce an omnicidd. Because I don't share your odd sense of having a moral duty. I just don't think the world is my problem. And I suppose, beyond theoretically, I just don't really care about the suffering of animals and people that aren't extremely close to me.

>>84998544
Tldr the world is not mine or yours fuckin problem. Why is it up to me to fix anything? I got born into this hell real why the fuck am I obliged to do anything about it? I didn't make it. I got born I'm gonna suffer and then die so will everything else. Tough luck I guess, but I'm not the world's janny.

>>84998025
>buzzword buzzword buzzword , also shit i made up
>prove me wrong

kill yourself.

>>84998544
>>84998558
>Who came up with these?
In a way, you did. So did I. Every living thing on earth did, collectively. Remember, morality is emergent from existential circumstances.
>I'll just disregard them.
And be killed by those who don't.
>I will not have my behaviour dictated from the ivory towers of faggotdemia.
You already do. Do you think murder is illegal for no reason? Do you kill people on the daily without making so much as a minimal attempt to hide it? Again, you're nowhere near as exempt from moral responsibility as you think you are. You're just ignoring those responsibilities, which is different.
>The laws (when cops can enforce them) applies to me. I don't know what you're really even talking about.
This much is obvious.
>As if "morality" is like this all seeing God out there that I must modify my behaviour to appease. God doesn't exist.
I didn't say God exists. I said you have a moral obligation to behave in certain ways, because you do. This is a matter of abstract incentive, not divine judgement.
>And therefore just create a gap in the ecology for another species to fill.
Not if we apply enough suppressive force on a wide enough scale.
>So is it prescriptive or not? You seem confused. Either it's an "ought", or it's just some sort of exhibited behaviour itself driven by natural selection.
At this scale, the distinction is meaningless. The minutiae of differences in moral frameworks only applies to small-scale legalistic scopes. Existence is universal. Either things can happen to you because you exist, or they can't. In order to experience anything, positive or negative, you must first exist. This is like basic entry-level Benatar.

>I prefer I was never born for philosophically pessimistic reasons.
OK, so you're already halfway there.

(Cont)

>>84998544
>>84998558
>>84998776
>Other people judge differently.
Again, doesn't matter at this scale.
>The animals are too stupid to reflect on the values of their lives. Should we kill them for their idiocy? To save them from their own suffering?
Literally yes.
>I mean personally I just feel like it's not my fucking problem.
How you feel is ontologically irrelevant.
>Do I judge the natural world to be horrible and wish the planet was as lifeless as the moon? Yes. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure all the animals want to live and breed and most humans just think I'm a depressed lunatic. But either way I don't feel obliged to impose my vision for a sufferinglsss and try and induce an omnicidd. Because I don't share your odd sense of having a moral duty.
It feels like you're not even trying to understand my posts.
>I just don't think the world is my problem.
If that were true you would've killed yourself the instant you came to this realization.
>And I suppose, beyond theoretically, I just don't really care about the suffering of animals and people that aren't extremely close to me.
That's beside the point. They're going to experience suffering regardless, as long as they're alive, and you are neglecting your moral obligations by not accelerating and exacerbating their suffering to the furthest possible extent for selfish, apathetic and ultimately immoral reasons. If anything, you've proven yourself to be more misanthropic than me, and more delusional too for actively trying not to see how.

(Cont)

>>84998544
>>84998558
>>84998776
>>84998781
>Tldr the world is not mine or yours fuckin problem. Why is it up to me to fix anything? I got born into this hell real why the fuck am I obliged to do anything about it? I didn't make it. I got born I'm gonna suffer and then die so will everything else. Tough luck I guess, but I'm not the world's janny.
Saying "not my problem" doesn't actually make it so. It just displays your willingness to divert from or completely disregard moral conviction.
Which is fine, I guess, but I will continue my mission of inducing an omnicide one way or another, even if I die unsuccessful. Trying is better than not.
You are watching a toddler get raped and not even trying to intervene even though intervention would take minimal effort and pose no risk to you because it's simply not your responsibility to stop that from happening. But it's OK though, because you're exempt from morality because it's so awfully subjective, meaning it's OK when you do it. :^)

>>84998746
Literally all of perception is shit we made up lmao. It comes free with your being alive.
>kill yourself
Not until I've made the world sufficiently worse.

>>84998776
>And be killed by those who don't
You won't do shit faggot lmao

>>84998804
>Not until I've made the world sufficiently worse.
A man of taste, I see. Sadly the taste you have acquired is of shit.

>>84998358
>Those who do would have a moral obligation to either make you give a shit or kill you.
But your goal is to kill us all anyway ?
So your "threat" is worthless
>kill yourself or... I will kill you !1!!
Lmao

File: images (7).jpg (34 KB, 335x597)

34 KB JPG

>>84998815
Damnnn son you showed him danggg cuhhh!

>>84998025
All 4 premises are laughably false

>>84998806
You'd be surprised at how fast tides can turn. People are surprisingly flexible intellectually. Movements that you'd think could never get off the ground because they're too fringe can end up making surprising changes to the world given the right circumstances. I think if enough people reach the right conclusion, the omnicide could become not only possible but feasible and even inevitable.
WAGTFKY

>>84998815
Sick burn, anon. Upvoted!

>>84998832
Oh! I hadn't considered that.

File: 1767930402146006.png (13 KB, 512x512)

13 KB PNG

>>84998867
>You'd be surprised at how fast tides can turn. People are surprisingly flexible intellectually. Movements that you'd think could never get off the ground because they're too fringe can end up making surprising changes to the world given the right circumstances. I think if enough people reach the right conclusion, the omnicide could become not only possible but feasible and even inevitable.
>WAGTFKY
Wow, I'm scared now! How long do I have until the antilife militia comes to kill me ? 2 weeks ?

>>84998786
I think you confuse having moral values (I would describe this as a sort of praise/aversion to other people's behaviours), with moral responsibility. I have moral values. I think people should act in xyz ways. Of course they won't. But I don't think there's an external responsibility on anyone including me to act in any way at all. I think we all just have desires and ends and aims and all this talk of duties and responsibilities is hiding behind that -> personal desires for how others should behave.

>It feels like you're not even trying to understand my posts.

You're an efilist who wants to acheive omnicide through like a reverse David Pearce-> where we maximize suffering instead. You said debate me. My response is to challenge having moral duties at all. How is the world yours or mines problem? You say its because it just IS okay! And they will suffer either way. Okay. Well ask any animal if it wants to die. It can't answer but allnits behaviour says it wants to live. They kill and eat each other to survive. So they want to live. So you want to kill everything, against their desires, because you want to impose an aestheitc vision upon the world based in extreme negative utilitarianism, but instead of the benevolent world exploder or "red button" thought experiment or even the nuclear annihilation of inmendhams ramblings its, "lets make everything suffer even more, excruciatingly so. And they wont breed and everything dies. I feel like that basically sums it up.

Again I mean I just challenge moral duties and obligations. And I don't think your position is practicle at all. Life would just get tolerant, species would select for less pain receptors, natural selection would take its effect. Nothing is stopping the biosphere except the sun dying.

>>84998928
In all likelihood several decades at least, if at all during our lifetimes, but the point of this is not to scare you. It's more that I'd rather you joined my cause.

File: 1780693542323364.jpg (56 KB, 517x611)

56 KB JPG

>>84998867
>Oh! I hadn't considered that
Yeah I can see that.
Here's a thing: i'm glad to be alive, if I wanted to kill myself I would have already done it, so why do you think I need your help to die ? If you suffer that's a (You) problem, but personally I will keep on living.
Best of luck on your mission though, I'd like to see something happens

File: file.png (561 KB, 1024x1024)

561 KB PNG

>>84998946
>I'd rather you joined my cause
I'd rather not. I don't really want to die ngl, my life is pretty comfy desu

>>84998936
>I think you confuse having moral values (I would describe this as a sort of praise/aversion to other people's behaviours), with moral responsibility.
One necessitates the other. Moral responsibilities don't just come from nowhere. Moral values are a framework for the moderation of behavior of the individual and/or the collective and moral responsibilities are emergent from those values, which may vary from citizen to citizen but the concept of suffering does not, because suffering does not vary. What causes it may, but suffering itself is definitionally always the same. But the thing about suffering is that one must first exist in order to experience it; this is not subjective, this is a universal truth. So a universal moral responsibility to prevent existence emerges.
>I have moral values. I think people should act in xyz ways. Of course they won't. But I don't think there's an external responsibility on anyone including me to act in any way at all.
What do you think the purpose of morality even is? What you just said directly flies in the face of the very concept of morality on its most fundamental levels. What good is the concept of morality if you ultimately believe it shouldn't be applied to actionable reality in any tangible way? To what end do you think morality serves any real purpose? Why bother having moral values at all?

(Cont)

>>84998936
>>84999289
>I think we all just have desires and ends and aims and all this talk of duties and responsibilities is hiding behind that -> personal desires for how others should behave.
Well, yes, everything humans do is fundamentally selfish because we are tethered to our own perspectives, but that doesn't negate any of what I've said so far.
Again, suffering is invariable. Nobody wants to suffer because that's definitionally what suffering is. This is where morality comes from; mitigation of suffering. It's also the origin of moral responsibility.
>You're an efilist
I don't consider myself a efilist because I don't consider life to be intrinsically bad per se. A negative utilitarian, sure, but not a pessimist. If it were possible to live without the remote possibility of suffering, I would have no objection to doing so.
>who wants to acheive omnicide through like a reverse David Pearce-> where we maximize suffering instead.
This is correct.
>You said debate me. My response is to challenge having moral duties at all. How is the world yours or mines problem?
Because you and I live in it.
>You say its because it just IS okay!
Lol, no. That's actually not what I said. I've explained rather clearly how moral responsibility emerges multiple times now and your only response has been, "OK, but like. I don't care." And when I explain to you how that doesn't dismantle my whole point the way you think it does, you don't acknowledge that.

(Cont)

>>84998936
>>84999289
>>84999295
>And they will suffer either way. Okay. Well ask any animal if it wants to die. It can't answer but allnits behaviour says it wants to live. They kill and eat each other to survive. So they want to live.
Beside the point. I didn't ask if you or anyone else *wanted* to live because that's not really a part of the equation. This is already addressed in Benatar's work as well; the fact that you enjoy being alive doesn't necessarily make it moral to create new life, or make your birth moral. You are still very much in danger.
>So you want to kill everything, against their desires,
Correct.
>because you want to impose an aestheitc vision upon the world based in extreme negative utilitarianism, but instead of the benevolent world exploder or "red button" thought experiment or even the nuclear annihilation of inmendhams ramblings its, "lets make everything suffer even more, excruciatingly so. And they wont breed and everything dies. I feel like that basically sums it up.
In all fairness, I'd settle for a big red button or series of nuclear blasts as well. It's just that those scenarios are highly unrealistic or physically impossible, so the next best option is deliberate transgression against quality of life until there is no more quality at all. That can be done, and quite easily.
Anyway, one thing you missed here was calling it "my" persona preference for an optimal future. It's not quite that. It's the furthest logical conclusion of what everyone wants, including you, even if they aren't fully aware of it.

(Cont)

>>84998025
The ultimate good is the beatific vision.

>>84998936
>>84999289
>>84999295
>>84999305
>Again I mean I just challenge moral duties and obligations.
You're not really challenging them as much as flagrantly ignoring them and hoping that is justified in some capacity.
>And I don't think your position is practicle at all.
It's fairly practical actually. All we have to do is destroy the environment, that'll take care of 90% of it, and we do that naturally without even trying. All that's left to do is stop trying to slow that destruction. Once we have successfully enshittified the earth we can launch further attacks to wipe out whatever survives.
>Life would just get tolerant, species would select for less pain receptors, natural selection would take its effect. Nothing is stopping the biosphere except the sun dying.
I'm not so pessimistic here. This ecosystem is so much more fragile than you think it is. We have the power to end it all.

>>84998960
>Here's a thing: i'm glad to be alive
Antinatalists hear this all the time, to a point where they basically have canned responses to it.
That doesn't matter.
Your birth was immoral, even if you aren't currently suffering, because it endangered you. You can only be endangered if you exist to be endangered. I'm sure you're doing fine right now, but that's beside the point.

>>84998999
>I don't really want to die ngl
If you were dead you wouldn't care about whether you were alive or dead because you wouldn't exist to care.

File: 1776738287371737.jpg (123 KB, 923x891)

123 KB JPG

>>84999317
>Antinatalists
Ah I see, you're one of those solipsist faggots who can't understand that not everyone was raped by their dad as a kid..
>That doesn't matter
It does though! You claim to want to eliminate all suffering, yet you want to make me suffer! (By killing me)
>Your birth was immoral, even if you aren't currently suffering, because it endangered you
It's genuinely sad if you think risk is something immoral which should be eliminated at all cost. Have you never climb a mountain ? Hell, even just a tree ? It certainly is dangerous, but it's also very fun! You should try maybe instead of telling everyone to kill themselves...
>You can only be endangered if you exist to be endangered.
What is your point anon ? You sound like a child... Yes danger exists, and ? How is it a problem so bad that you want to kill everyone and yourself ? Can't you see that most people are fine with it ?
It's a (You) problem.

>>84999317
>If you were dead you wouldn't care about whether you were alive or dead because you wouldn't exist to care.
And if YOU were dead, you wouldn't care about the existence of suffering, yet you didn't kill yourself. Weird isn't it ?

File: 128 (9).gif (790 KB, 128x96)

790 KB GIF

>>84999317
>Your birth was immoral, even if you aren't currently suffering, because it endangered you
In other words:
>you have to die because if you live you might die!
Compeling argument, I have no rebutal.

>>85000000
what a terrible GET

>>85000013
Die mad, nigger

>>85000056
i see you have no rebutal to my compeling argument, gaylord.

>>84999972
>Ah I see, you're one of those solipsist faggots who can't understand that not everyone was raped by their dad as a kid..
Anon, vague quips don't help your case.
>It does though! You claim to want to eliminate all suffering, yet you want to make me suffer! (By killing me)
Yes. Finite suffering in order to prevent infinite suffering.
>It's genuinely sad if you think risk is something immoral which should be eliminated at all cost. Have you never climb a mountain ? Hell, even just a tree ? It certainly is dangerous, but it's also very fun! You should try maybe instead of telling everyone to kill themselves...
Antinatalism has a canned response to this one too. See: Benatar's asymmetry argument.
The possibility of good things does not justify potentially subjecting someone to very bad things.
>What is your point anon ?
You're responding to it. Birth is bad and the only moral truth is accelerations facilitation of suffering.
>You sound like a child... Yes danger exists, and ?
And it should be eliminated.
>How is it a problem so bad that you want to kill everyone and yourself ?
Because suffering is inherently bad and not inherently justified or necessary. These are very basic points.
>Can't you see that most people are fine with it ?
Beside the point, as I said earlier. No one would have an objection to nonexistence if they didn't exist.
>It's a (You) problem.
It's a literally everything problem. Nonexistence > existence.
>And if YOU were dead, you wouldn't care about the existence of suffering, yet you didn't kill yourself. Weird isn't it ?
Not really. I have a moral obligation to stay alive in order to make the world worse, as I explained earlier. I will kill myself only if I achieve this goal sufficiently long before I die of natural causes.

You seem to be misunderstanding my core argument in thinking that my position is that life is exclusively a vector for suffering or that good things can't happen. That's not what I'm saying.

File: 1768319123245309.jpg (94 KB, 471x388)

94 KB JPG

>>85000078
>gaylord
Nigga wants to hang ximself like a troon but thinks he can call anyone gay

>>85000000
>you have to die because if you live you might die!
So that's actually not my argument but it feels like you're intentionally misrepresenting the things I say in order to construct counter arguments in poor faith. Nevertheless, I will try to clarify.
Dead beings don't suffer. Only the living do. It is inherently immoral to give birth because in doing so, you expose a previously nonexistent (and therefore safe) being to harm, or the potential for harm. This is also the reason we have a moral imperative to remove the conditions that facilitate life for previously existing organisms.

>>84999972
>t. doesn't fully understand what exactly solipsism is

File: 1777999885538726.png (383 KB, 776x710)

383 KB PNG

>>85000112
>Finite suffering in order to prevent infinite suffering
The pain from being killed by a 4cuck tranny is infinitely greater than any potential suffering I could go through in my entire life
>Antinatalism has a canned response to this one too. See: Benatar's asymmetry argument.
>The possibility of good things does not justify potentially subjecting someone to very bad things.
I'm not subjecting anyone but myself though. YOU are the one who wants to control my life.
>Birth is bad
Subjective opinion, my birth was very good.
>And it should be eliminated
Why do you want to control MY life so much nigga ? If you want to eliminate it from YOUR life you can, no one is stopping you.
>Because suffering is inherently bad and not inherently justified or necessary. These are very basic points.
It's obviously not true, many people voluntarly go through risk and pain when it's not necessary. (Including yourself since you refuse to kill yourself lol)
>It's a literally everything problem. Nonexistence > existence
Again, if that were true you would have already killed yourself lol.
>I have a moral obligation
No you don't, you're just coping because you're too much of a coward to take your logic to it's logical conclusion. (Killing yourself)
>You seem to be misunderstanding my core argument
No I understand it very well, I also understand that it's retarded.

>>85000142
>Dead beings don't suffer. Only the living do. It is inherently immoral to give birth because in doing so, you expose a previously nonexistent (and therefore safe) being to harm, or the potential for harm.
No matter how much you repeat that, facts are, most people do not kill themselves, so clearly life is not as bad as you portray it. You can't argue with that.

>>85000112
>Benatar's asymmetry argument

>Benatar acknowledges that his basic asymmetry has been a primary target of criticism. One notable objection, which he addresses in his work, directly challenges the asymmetry: if the absence of pain is considered good (even for a non-existent person), then the absence of pleasure should symmetrically be considered bad, thereby rejecting point (4) of his framework. Critics cited by Benatar argue, for example, that it would "be bad, for the non-existent person we might have created, that his pleasure not occur, because it would have been good for him if it had occurred." Other critics argue that the asymmetry fails to account for the symmetrical value of absent pleasures and pains.

>Benatar responds to this criticism by clarifying that his basic asymmetry is not a logical claim but an axiological one (i.e., concerning values). While it is logically possible to state that the absence of pleasures in Scenario B is bad (just as the absence of pains is good), he argues that we should not make this claim. One reason is that doing so would undermine the value judgments that his basic asymmetry seeks to explain. Benatar maintains that his asymmetry provides a coherent framework for understanding the ethical implications of existence and non-existence, and rejecting it would lead to inconsistencies in evaluating the four supporting basic asymmetries outlined in his argument.

>>>he argues that we should not make this claim. [...] doing so would undermine the value judgments that his basic asymmetry seeks to explain
Lmao
>dont argue with because... I don't like it

>>85000224
>The pain from being killed by a 4cuck tranny is infinitely greater than any potential suffering I could go through in my entire life
Then I suppose it's a good thing you won't remember it after it's over.
>I'm not subjecting anyone but myself though.
I'm not saying you did something wrong by being born. I'm saying your parents wronged you by birthing you. I'm saying you were wronged.
Inb4 you say "ok but I'm enjoying my life so actually it's fine" again. The fact that it turned out functionally OK doesn't make what they did morally justified. If I play Russian roulette with someone else's skull without their consent but the gun doesn't go off and I give them a hundred dollar bill as a reward for not dying, them benefitting materially from that event doesn't justify what I did.
Bad things can always happen to you if you're alive, because you're alive. That's the point.
>YOU are the one who wants to control my life.
I don't want to control your life, I want to end it. It's for your good, even though it doesn't feel like it.

(Cont)

>>85000224
>>85000457
>Subjective opinion, my birth was very good.
Nope, suffering is actually not subjective. The sources of suffering may vary, but suffering can only be brought onto living, sentient beings. Every sentient thing can suffer.
Objectively, in order to suffer you must first exist, and that makes bringing new sentient being into existence inherently immoral. It also makes killing and infliction of suffering onto the living virtuous, even if the people you're doing this to are generally happy before you come along. The point is eliminating the very possibility of suffering and removing the drive to stay alive for all.
>Why do you want to control MY life so much nigga ? If you want to eliminate it from YOUR life you can, no one is stopping you.
I've gone through this earlier in the thread already. This is bigger than just me. Ending my own life would be very pleasant, but it would also be immoral because morality is in large part about the interplay of interactions between individuals.
>It's obviously not true, many people voluntarly go through risk and pain when it's not necessary. (Including yourself since you refuse to kill yourself lol)
That's actually untrue. People take on risks and suffering when it IS necessary to some larger goal they deem necessary. That includes me; I'm continuing to live for a reason. There's nothing inherently virtuous or redeeming about suffering in an isolated context.

(Cont)

>>85000224
>>85000457
>>85000467
>Again, if that were true you would have already killed yourself lol.
Not necessarily. People do kill themselves, but there are reasons one would stay alive even though nonexistence > existence. Biological programming can force you to do many things that aren't necessarily logical.
>No you don't, you're just coping because you're too much of a coward to take your logic to its logical conclusion. (Killing yourself)
You don't need to put (killing yourself) in parentheses lmao, I can piece together what you're talking about here.
Trust me, I'd love to kill myself but as I said earlier that would be the immoral choice in comparison to staying alive to make the world worse for everyone else in any capacity.
>No I understand it very well,
You have yet to demonstrate this; virtually every rendering of my arguments you've offered so far has been a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of my point, and a lot of it seems intentional. The rest of it just seems like you don't fully understand what we're talking about.

>>85000244
That's like saying domestic abuse is good because most people don't leave abusive relationships once they're in them. The mere fact that people don't choose to die doesn't mean life is actually completely free of suffering and danger does not exist. People don't choose to be born, they don't consent to that. It happens to them and they don't kill themselves because doing so would be terrifying and painful, which is understandable, but it's still highly immoral to place people in those positions in the first place, which is why birth is bad and we need to make life on earth so unbearable to people no longer fear death.

>>85000297
>>dont argue with because... I don't like it
It's responses like these that make me think you're either trolling or illiterate. There's no way you read all that and took that away from it in earnest.

File: 1766714733493130.jpg (103 KB, 750x500)

103 KB JPG

>>85000457
>I want to end it
Yet you wont, faggot, cry about it jfl

>>85000490
>Yet you wont, faggot
Lmao I literally told you that. You are illiterate.

>>85000467
>and that makes bringing new sentient being into existence inherently immoral.
No
>I've gone through this earlier in the thread already. This is bigger than just me. Ending my own life would be very pleasant, but it would also be immoral because morality is in large part about the interplay of interactions between individuals.
You're coping.
>People take on risks and suffering when it IS necessary to some larger goal they deem necessary.
Yeah bro, I was forced to go hike in the mountains, woe is me, if only I could have safety rotted in my room instead...
>>85000477
>nonexistence > existence.
You keep repeating that yet have provided no proof of it
>Biological programming can force you to do many things that aren't necessarily logical.
Yeah or maybe they enjoy staying alive ? Have you thought about this possibility ?
>You have yet to demonstrate this; virtually every rendering of my arguments you've offered so far has been a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of my point, and a lot of it seems intentional. The rest of it just seems like you don't fully understand what we're talking about.
It's the opposite. YOU have no arguments, you just claim stuff to be true because you like it.
>doesn't mean life is actually completely free of suffering and danger does not exist.
I never claimed that you lying kike, I claimed life, for most people, is worth living despite the presence of some suffering and risk, and you have yet to prove otherwise
>they don't kill themselves because doing so would be terrifying and painful
Or simply because they dont want to ???
What's so hard for you to understand here ?

>>85000571
>You are illiterate.
You are. Read where does words were quoted:
>>85000457
>I don't want to control your life, I want to end it
What I'm saying is that you want kill ME

>>85000586
>you want kill ME
*wont
(Minor spelling mistake, I lost the argument)

>>85000477
>That's like saying domestic abuse is good because most people don't leave abusive relationships once they're in them.
That's true though, foids love their abusechads

File: 1758348859595037.png (236 KB, 716x684)

236 KB PNG

>>85000477
>they don't kill themselves because doing so would be terrifying and painful,

>everyone wants to kill themselves but they are cowards so they don't do it

No way you seriously believe that

>>85000488
Benatar's asymmetry argument is retarded and so are you yes

>>85000577
>No
You're out of arguments.
>You're coping.
You're out of arguments.
>Yeah bro, I was forced to go hike in the mountains, woe is me, if only I could have safety rotted in my room instead...
You went hiking for a reason or set of reasons that you deemed more important than the adversity the task would bring, I already addressed this. If you could've achieved the same result with no suffering or adversity, you would've, because suffering in an isolated context is not inherently virtuous, but since suffering and whatever benefits you got from completing the task are intrinsically intertwined, you deemed suffering as a necessity. This isn't news.
>You keep repeating that yet have provided no proof of it
I've demonstrated its axioms multiple times already. Your only response has been rejection without reason.
Suffering can only happen to those who exist and isn't inherently justified.
>Yeah or maybe they enjoy staying alive ?
Guess why. Think hard before you answer.
>Have you thought about this possibility ?
Yes, at length. That's how I got to the conclusions I've reached. People are not rational, but that's beside the point.
Much of what you've said has been beside the point, come to think of it. I think it's because you don't fully understand what the point is, even as I explain it to you in the simplest possible terms.
>It's the opposite. YOU have no arguments, you just claim stuff to be true because you like it.
Provide one example of me doing this.
I only claim things to be axiomatically true when they are.

(Cont)

>>85000577
>>85000704
>I never claimed that you lying kike,
I never claimed you claimed that. Pay closer attention to the things I say and think harder about why I say them.
>I claimed life, for most people, is worth living despite the presence of some suffering and risk, and you have yet to prove otherwise
Because it's beside the point, as most of your counterarguments have been so far. As I said earlier, people are irrational and suffering is inherently bad. They're going to like living as long as they're alive because being alive is all they know; it's not a conclusion we reach logically. We accept danger because we're biologically inclined to.
>Or simply because they dont want to ???
Again, think harder about why that would be.
If they were rational, they would, but as I've said twice before now, most people aren't rational.
>What's so hard for you to understand here ?
I understand this subject a lot better than you do.

>>85000586
>>85000595
I'm aware of what you meant. I'm telling you that I've already said I'm not going to kill anyone.

>>85000624
People liking things doesn't make those things good. I've said that countless times in this thread now.

>>85000658
People like living because living is all they know and dying seems scary in comparison, yes. This seems obvious. But, again, the mere fact that people like living doesn't absolve us of the moral obligation to change that.

>>85000682
If it's retarded you should be able to dismantle it easily and yet you struggle. So either it's not retarded or it is but you even more so. Which is it?

>>85000704
>You're out of arguments
So are you.
>If you could've achieved the same result with no suffering or adversity, you would've, because suffering in an isolated context is not inherently virtuous, but since suffering and whatever benefits you got from completing the task are intrinsically intertwined, you deemed suffering as a necessity
So now you just claim stuff with no proof and somehow I'm supposed to believe you ?
>I've demonstrated its axioms multiple times already
No you haven't
>Guess why. Think hard before you answer.
There is no final answer, different people have different reasons.
>People are not rational
Except you of course, right ?
>Suffering can only happen to those who exist
Pleasure can also only happen to those who exist
>>85000716
>I never claimed you claimed that
Then why bring it up ?
>suffering is inherently bad
No proof again...
>People liking things doesn't make those things good
Enlight us, what makes something good ?
>the moral obligation to change that
No such thing
>If it's retarded you should be able to dismantle it easily and yet you struggle. So either it's not retarded or it is but you even more so. Which is it?
I just did. You would have noticed if you were literate.

>>85000457
>If I play Russian roulette with someone else's skull without their consent
Isn't that exactly what you want to do though ? You know... kill everyone ?

>>84998144
There is no moral duty. You are not obligated to anything you either choose to be a piece of shit to the people who didn't ask to be born into this world as well or you don't the choice is up to you.

>>85000796
>So are you.
Lmao, I've been clearly articulating established schematics for ideas. Your response was "No." Just, "No." You're out of arguments.
>So now you just claim stuff with no proof and somehow I'm supposed to believe you ?
You don't need proof for a statement like that because its logic relies on presupposed axiomatic reasoning on the semiotic dynamics of suffering is and how it works. This is also why you don't have a response for it.
>No you haven't
Yes, I have. Multiple times now. Each time, you've essentially responded by disregarding it entirely.
>There is no final answer, different people have different reasons.
Incorrect. People may give different reasons but they're all rooted in the same foundation.
Come on, think hard about it. You can do it.
>Except you of course, right ?
Right.

(Cont)

>>85000796
>>85001010
>Pleasure can also only happen to those who exist
True, but irrelevant. Good things don't inherently justify bad things and personal pleasure has little bearing on ethical morality.
The fact that people like living doesn't mean that their creation was morally justified.
>Then why bring it up ?
To follow the logic to its conclusion.
>No proof again...
Axiomatic truths don't need proof. That's what an axiom is. Suffering is bad because, by its very definition, it's very nature, that's what suffering is. If you like it, and it's good for you, you're not suffering.
>Enlight us, what makes something good ?
Morality, rather than pleasure. Keep up.
Theoretically, let's say I have a 7-year-old that likes ice cream. I give her ice cream whenever she asks for it, which is a lot. She eats nothing but ice cream for the rest of her life, and I permit it. She gets diabetes and has two limbs removed before her 12th birthday, but I still give her as much ice cream as she wants. What I'm doing is good, because it brings her pleasure, right? No. The fact that she likes it doesn't make what I'm doing morally justifiable.
There's a reason we develop moral frameworks, you know.
>No such thing
Yes, there is. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you. Not going through this again.
>I just did. You would have noticed if you were literate.
You did not. You just called it stupid.
Inb4 you claim that as an axiomatic truth without fully understanding what an axiom even is.

>>85000830
Killing people with intention =/= playing a game of risk with them.

>>85000936
>There is no moral duty.
Incorrect. There are moral duties you fulfill and moral duties you ignore, but regardless of what you do, moral duties do exist.

>>85001026
>moral duties do exist.
Proof?

>>85001021
>Killing people with intention =/= playing a game of risk with them.
>better to kill them before they risk dying
Ok. You're actually retarded. I give up

>>85001021
>Axiomatic truths don't need proof. That's what an axiom is. Suffering is bad because, by its very definition, it's very nature, that's what suffering is. If you like it, and it's good for you, you're not suffering.
How convinient... Just declare your whole argument as true and that's it! No one can argue with it

>>85001021
>Theoretically, let's say I have a 7-year-old that likes ice cream. I give her ice cream whenever she asks for it, which is a lot. She eats nothing but ice cream for the rest of her life, and I permit it. She gets diabetes and has two limbs removed before her 12th birthday, but I still give her as much ice cream as she wants. What I'm doing is good, because it brings her pleasure, right? No. The fact that she likes it doesn't make what I'm doing morally justifiable.
Weren't you arguing earlier that you wanted more suffering in the world though ?

>>84998025
Okay, Adam Lanza. Why not start the mass extinction with yourself?

>>85001117
>You dont get it bro! I totally want to kill myself but I dont because uhhh uhhh I have le moral duty to kill everyone before I die o algo

>>85001128
Seeking out a moral justification for whatever fucked up thing you want to do. Why not just admit that you're evil?

>>85000000
BASED GET
Btfoing anti natalist troon.

>>85001038
>Proof?
Already touched on this earlier in the thread. Tenets of morality are emergent from extenuating circumstances in evolutionary optimism; your survival depends on your adherence to moral principles. Literally everything you do is based on morals, even if you don't believe you adhere to any moralistic system in particular.

>>85001065
Stop conflating harm with death.

>>85001086
>Just declare your whole argument as true and that's it! No one can argue with it
It's an axiomatic truth because the answer to your question literally lies within the definition of what suffering is. I'm not just asserting my argument as truth without basis, I'm pointing out to you the ways in which the argumentative basis is already provided.

>>85001101
Yes. These statements aren't as contradictory as you think they are.

>>85001117
Why not read the thread before commenting something multiple people have said before you?
I am alive for moral reasons. I have a moral imperative to make the world worse, and I can't do that if I'm dead.

>>85001128
I didn't say kill everyone, that would be an impractical goal to set and I already said I wouldn't kill anyone. You are illiterate.

>>85001136
I'm not seeking out moral justification. I already have it.

>>85001240
>funny number :D
clapping_seal.gif

>>85001252
Don't you dare disrespect the time honored tradition of GETS!

>>85001319
Take that shit back to >>>/b/ please.

>>85001326
anti natalist troon mad XD
This is board culture, newfag

>>85001344
>>>/b/ board culture, sure.

>>84999317
>I'm not so pessimistic here. This ecosystem is so much more fragile than you think it is. We have the power to end it all.

I read your whole reply and I think, essentially we agree on most things. I wish I was never born. I think being born an organism is a bad thing. Organisms have constant pressing lethal material needs which must be strived for or you will die. This is bad. On top of this our organisms are constantly inherently vulnerable to injury, diseases and sickness. It's not something external in the world, as if we can just go somewhere and be safe. Rather the vulnerability to this extreme suffering is inherent in our bodies. Cancers form, our organs fail, we trip and break our bones. There's no safety from an internal danger. But on top of all of this is our inherent degradation and death. Our reward for all our striving is nothing but dissolution and death. Our bodies will no longer function and we assume will not feel anymore. Is this safety? Invulnerability to harm? Well anyone with anyone who cares about them is harmed, but just beside that we simply do not know what happens at death. It makes no sense that our organisms developed once, and somehow it is YOUR body or MY body. It just, is incomprehensible. Like why didn't I just stay unborn? Why was I not born my sisters body? So we do not even know there's safety in death. And in pre-birth, it's just an assumption that we didn't exist at all, and somehow came to be. As if being born plucked us from the safety of nonbeing and throw us into this alien world of pain and hell. But that makes no sense. There is JUST the world, with its causes and conditions, and its from this world where you came, not 'non-being'.

We can quibble about morality I guess but I think more importantly, your project is simply too optimistic. I'm always reminded of sopranos when Chrissy asks "you ever think nothing good was gonna happen in your life?" And Pauly responds "yeah and nothing ever did - so what?" Haha.

>>85001965
Haha. That's pessimism. There's no cure to the world. Neither antinatalism nor nukes nor whatever it is your proposing will do nothing against a tsunami of billions of years of natural selection. Whatever omnicidal event you manage to produce will be a mere blip in evolutionary timescale. Species will repopulate the globe very quickly. Do you really think you can kill all the animals in the depths of the oceans? Deep in caves? The humans that would hide in shelters and bunkers. Not even the world's entire nuclear arsenal would end life on earth. A giant comet killed some of the dinosaurs. Guess what life continued and here we are.

You are too optimistic. There's no solution. No antinatalism no efilism no nothing will stop the suffering on this planet. Most likely any intervention will just make things worse. Just relax, stop feeling responsible for suffering you didn't cause. If you desire, then don't personally have kids. Others will reproduce anyway though and antinatalism although theoretically interesting (particularly Julio Cabreras), isn't practicle.

Have you read Marie Huot? You might find her interesting. I'm currently reading depressive realism by Colin Feltham. It's on libgen. You might find it relevant.

>1.) The prevention and elimination of suffering is the only absolute moral duty
sure
>pleasure carries no counterbalancing moral weight.
na
they're the same thing