Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by caketastydelish, Nov 4, 2019.
Why is slavery wrong if it doesn't inflict suffering on slaves?
Because it isn't fairly balanced.
If I punch you in the face and it doesn't hurt, does that make it right? No. No one should be punched in the face arbitrarily, and no one should be allowed to punch people in the face arbitrarily. We pretty much ALL agree on that. Similarly, one person shouldn't be an "owner" while another basically identical person is a "slave." No amount of "but I treat my slaves really well" can change that.
We have fundamentally different moral axioms. I wouldn't consider punching someone in the face to be particularly wrong if it didn't hurt the person on the receiving end.
If you punch someone in the face your intent is pretty much indisputable, and you need a solid beatdown before you go looking for a more effective way to fulfill that intent.
Why tho? Anyone this person wrongs in some way will just be choosing to suffer, so what is the point of giving them a solid beatdown?
Because whether they choose to suffer about it or not no one deserves to get punched in the face arbitrarily, and we all should be pretty much in agreement about that. So people who wander around with the intent to do harm require...direction.
If it doesn't make them suffer I don't understand of what consequence it is that they don't deserve it.
You seem extremely driven by suffering. And yet, I'm fairly certain that you would be in the camp identified earlier...who support "well, they have a good reason to be suffering about, while Mr First World Problems shouldn't get the benefits of being a sufferer." But they do suffer. You may not think they "earned the right," but they do. So why, by your theory, is that not of consequence? Or did I read you wrong, and are you saying that their suffering over lack of a girl friend who turns into a pizza and a six pack after sex merits the same sympathy we would offer to someone who is suffering about being enslaved?
I think that it is quite clear that some types of empathy are more marketable than others. Racial/sexual minority support is certainly a lot more profitable (for media personalities/politicians/pundits) than paraplegic support, while no one would seriously argue the latter group has it better.
There are many parameters, of course. Some individuals are better positioned to show empathy; usually if you are doing ok it is easier to focus on others than if not (allowing for empathy being there in the first place).
How do you weight the amount of unbalance which makes one deserving of a frown, the amount of unabalance deserving of a beating and the amount of unbalance deserving of a killing ?
What do you make with cases where unbalance is actually desirable/warranted ?
Well you are most definitely wrong about that.
I just think there might be a middle ground between "first world people haven't earned the right to suffer" and "they suffer just as much as a slave"
Leaving aside from the hilarious notion of 'existential ennui' being the worst scourge of the developed world, how do you know that? It's not as if the suffering produced by it can be quantified or measured; you only compare it to your subjective experience. Western man is a diseased and neurotic creature, and there's plenty of physical suffering to go along with it (extremely high cancer and heart disease rates, obesity, loneliness, chronic pain, etc).
Suffering is subjective, subjective experience cannot be objectively compared between two people. It also generally makes little sense to try to invalidate someone's suffering by pointing out that someone, somewhere, suffered worse.
This is all true. But a more recent thing from SSC: "The unusual feature of the modern world is not that you can be exposed to trauma, it’s that you can be removed from it."
Sure. My point was that First World suffering is attributable to our own faith in 'progress', and that we have no basis for claiming that Third World suffering is worse.
The opposite is true, actually. He's entirely wrong to say that things are much better than they were in the past.
Well, we're living in an era of pessimism. In retrospect, the anxieties of our zeitgeist, the pessimism endemic to our culture, will look anachronistic and localized to this moment in time. In 1919, the entirety of modernity was obviously a huge mistake and hitting ctrl-z a few times would have been nice. But I sure as hell would take 2019 over 1919 or any previous 19. You should also talk to a person from a country like India. They certainly appreciate the amenities of modernization, both ongoing in their native countries and in the developed world.
Well, unless you ask, I guess. Given migration trends, on average I'd think the assumption is that the suffering is less.
Yes, and Jesus will return soon! These two expression of piety are literally no different. I actually think that a few decades into the future people will scorn us for being optimistic to the point of delusion.
Maybe the pessimism ends because you get your socialist revolution and all the rich people move off-planet with Elon. Unlikely, but I didn’t rule it out
The meek will inherit the Earth - We'll take the rest of the universe.
Separate names with a comma.