4 ms·

If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fac

by eurg 5y ago

If the reduction of suffering is not something that you internally see as valuable, you might want to check with a psychologist (I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly). While I can construct philosophical arguments and know what nihilism is, outside of thought experiments this is highly unusual for any individual capable of any empathy at all.

omega3 5y ago
Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.
- amusedcyclist 5y ago
  Most people may not be concerned with reduction of suffering but those that argue for not killing animals for food definitely are. I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with being fashionable.
- dsomers 5y ago
  I disagree, the rate of vegetarianism has been increasing over the years and the rate of people demanding more ethical meat products e.g. free range eggs and chicken becoming more popular too. This is the free market catering to demand that was almost non existent 30 years ago.
- shawnz 5y ago
  Most people probably don't preoccupy themselves with reduction of suffering, but that is not the same as saying most people don't see value in reducing suffering.
- logifail 5y ago
  > I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way Could it be that reduction of _observable_ suffering is what many people are actually concerned about, not the underlying suffering as such? It's OK to buy a burger - just as long as you don't have to watch how it's made. It's OK to buy a $5 imported shirt - as long as you don't have to observe the conditions under which it was produced.
- adrianN 5y ago
  There is a difference between not actively working on reducing suffering and not seeing a point in reducing suffering.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.
- amusedcyclist 5y ago
  Its true though, not being able feel empathy for anyone or thing that is not normal. So any individual who can't would be well served going to a psychologist or being expelled from society entirely. Reduction of suffering being good is generally viewed as axiomatic. I don't want any part of any moral code that doesn't assume that. And I frankly don't care about the feelings of those who are indifferent to suffering.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I think it is a pretty big leap from 'maybe this is not automatically good' to 'you must be a pscyhopath.' If there were no trade-offs, then it would be a short discussion and we could definitely fall back on axioms.
    - amusedcyclist 5y ago
      Theres a huge difference between the statements "Lots of humans eatanimals for sustenance and there is a tradeoff between the value we derive vs the suffering of the animals" vs "Prove that I should care about suffering".
    - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
      I mean more likely the OP is just being edgy and is only performatively apathetic at a surface level, but the only thing we have to go off of are their words, which do point to some deeper problem.
  - matz1 5y ago
    >or being expelled from society entirely So the main reason to exploit animal is because the other human hate it and that other human could harm you. I see so it has nothing to do with the animal suffering itself.
eurg 5y ago
Some additions: I want to second the clarifications by adrianN and shawnz -- there is a difference between not actively caring about suffering, and not even seeing the point in anyone caring about it. It seems my "I in fact believe you should see a psychologist" worked exactly as well rootusrootus implied it would. Many seem to think I want to label the previous poster as a psychopath, and do so in hatred. That was not my intention. I admit, I fail at communication, regularly, even more so the more I try to refrain from it. Although suggested otherwise, my message did *not* contain a diagnosis. Given this extremely limited context, I doubt anyone could give a proper remote diagnosis. And I especially did not attach a psychopathy label to the previous poster. I personally know of at least three mental/neurological atypical (and not voluntarily chosen) states that cause people to (partially) adopt nihilism, and I'm sure mental health professionals have seen quite a few more.

by eurg 5y ago

omega3 5y ago

Thanks for the diagnosis, I think it's not as highly unusual as you might think. I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way. Of course, it's not a fashionable thing to say (see the downwotes) and I'd love to be proven wrong but I just don't see it.

amusedcyclist 5y ago
Most people may not be concerned with reduction of suffering but those that argue for not killing animals for food definitely are. I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with being fashionable.
dsomers 5y ago
I disagree, the rate of vegetarianism has been increasing over the years and the rate of people demanding more ethical meat products e.g. free range eggs and chicken becoming more popular too. This is the free market catering to demand that was almost non existent 30 years ago.
shawnz 5y ago
Most people probably don't preoccupy themselves with reduction of suffering, but that is not the same as saying most people don't see value in reducing suffering.
logifail 5y ago
> I bet outside of their relatively small social circles humans aren't preoccupied with reduction of suffering or altruism in any meaningful way Could it be that reduction of _observable_ suffering is what many people are actually concerned about, not the underlying suffering as such? It's OK to buy a burger - just as long as you don't have to watch how it's made. It's OK to buy a $5 imported shirt - as long as you don't have to observe the conditions under which it was produced.
adrianN 5y ago
There is a difference between not actively working on reducing suffering and not seeing a point in reducing suffering.

rootusrootus 5y ago

> I mean that plain matter-of-fact-ly When you find yourself having to qualify such a statement, that could be a useful indicator that what you said isn't constructive.

amusedcyclist 5y ago
Its true though, not being able feel empathy for anyone or thing that is not normal. So any individual who can't would be well served going to a psychologist or being expelled from society entirely. Reduction of suffering being good is generally viewed as axiomatic. I don't want any part of any moral code that doesn't assume that. And I frankly don't care about the feelings of those who are indifferent to suffering.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I think it is a pretty big leap from 'maybe this is not automatically good' to 'you must be a pscyhopath.' If there were no trade-offs, then it would be a short discussion and we could definitely fall back on axioms.
  - amusedcyclist 5y ago
    Theres a huge difference between the statements "Lots of humans eatanimals for sustenance and there is a tradeoff between the value we derive vs the suffering of the animals" vs "Prove that I should care about suffering".
  - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
    I mean more likely the OP is just being edgy and is only performatively apathetic at a surface level, but the only thing we have to go off of are their words, which do point to some deeper problem.
- matz1 5y ago
  >or being expelled from society entirely So the main reason to exploit animal is because the other human hate it and that other human could harm you. I see so it has nothing to do with the animal suffering itself.

eurg 5y ago

Some additions: I want to second the clarifications by adrianN and shawnz -- there is a difference between not actively caring about suffering, and not even seeing the point in anyone caring about it. It seems my "I in fact believe you should see a psychologist" worked exactly as well rootusrootus implied it would. Many seem to think I want to label the previous poster as a psychopath, and do so in hatred. That was not my intention. I admit, I fail at communication, regularly, even more so the more I try to refrain from it. Although suggested otherwise, my message did *not* contain a diagnosis. Given this extremely limited context, I doubt anyone could give a proper remote diagnosis. And I especially did not attach a psychopathy label to the previous poster. I personally know of at least three mental/neurological atypical (and not voluntarily chosen) states that cause people to (partially) adopt nihilism, and I'm sure mental health professionals have seen quite a few more.