4 ms·

Yeah, that's something a rational person should do. Self destruction hardly ever is rational however, and it's near impossible to see all of the collateral dama

Yeah, that's something a rational person should do. Self destruction hardly ever is rational however, and it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself.

throwawawaw 3y ago
Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. Self-preservation may be rational behavior for animals. But humans are qualitatively different from animals in at least the following aspects: - We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment. - We are continuously aware of our own mortality. In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die. (Terror minimization theory.) It gets better. A being that exists, can suffer, dread, and die; not to mention, cause others to suffer, dread, and die. A non-existent being, on the other hand, doesn't have any problems at all. "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence. You don't exactly act self-destructive because you want to exist more, quite the opposite. So, from a thinking being's perspective, self-preservation is at least as irrational as self-destruction, if not more so. Of course, either way, people's thinking is much less rational than we give it credit for, while people's actions - much more. But this only reinforces the point: that the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction is simultaneously the most counterintuitive. (Incidentally, if this line of reasoning makes sense to you, you can check out "Every Cradle is a Grave" by Sarah Perry. If it doesn't, also check it out, it probably contains a rebuttal to your first few arguments, and then you have no other choice but to really start thinking.) >it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself. It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself. See: the environment, the economy, the culture. All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity. Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living. Some of them even revert to what they perceive as "traditional" value systems - ironically, the same ones that made life hardly worth living in the first place. But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s
- vacuity 3y ago
  > Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Perhaps, but I made a distinction between plain suicide and other self-destructive behaviors. Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there? Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it. I'll respond to the rest of your post without pressing the distinction. > Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. I think self preservation is sensible as a default. It's ultimately a matter of opinion, but I go off the premise that we live to do whatever it is we choose to do, and therefore self destruction should be a last resort. > - We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment. Ignoring the evidence of language in other animals (though you might convince me that human language is more sophisticated), I don't see how this is relevant to justifying self destruction or many other things. > In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die. "Many" and "an alternative of just...waiting to die" suggest a far greater scale of "rational irrationality" than I think actually occurs. How often are people faced with situations where their only realistic alternative boils down to "waiting to die"? > "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence. Nevermind, I'm bringing up that distinction again. Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism. "Just" is a strong word. > from a thinking being's perspective From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much. > the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction Most rational? Really? > It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself. I'm not sure about that, but perhaps. > All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity. You're not wrong to be cynical about that, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful. > Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living. I don't think they would be taking the most rational course of action through suicide. In fact, I highly doubt more can't be done with the their effort than without. > But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s Is that really what you got from my comment? It was one example and not slut shaming. Realistically, a child born of a prostitute isn't going to have a great childhood. That might change in the future if society shifts more towards sex workers that are fairly treated, but that's not here.

Yeah, that's something a rational person should do. Self destruction hardly ever is rational however, and it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself.

throwawawaw 3y ago

Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. Self-preservation may be rational behavior for animals. But humans are qualitatively different from animals in at least the following aspects: - We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment. - We are continuously aware of our own mortality. In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die. (Terror minimization theory.) It gets better. A being that exists, can suffer, dread, and die; not to mention, cause others to suffer, dread, and die. A non-existent being, on the other hand, doesn't have any problems at all. "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence. You don't exactly act self-destructive because you want to exist more, quite the opposite. So, from a thinking being's perspective, self-preservation is at least as irrational as self-destruction, if not more so. Of course, either way, people's thinking is much less rational than we give it credit for, while people's actions - much more. But this only reinforces the point: that the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction is simultaneously the most counterintuitive. (Incidentally, if this line of reasoning makes sense to you, you can check out "Every Cradle is a Grave" by Sarah Perry. If it doesn't, also check it out, it probably contains a rebuttal to your first few arguments, and then you have no other choice but to really start thinking.) >it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself. It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself. See: the environment, the economy, the culture. All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity. Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living. Some of them even revert to what they perceive as "traditional" value systems - ironically, the same ones that made life hardly worth living in the first place. But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s

vacuity 3y ago
> Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Perhaps, but I made a distinction between plain suicide and other self-destructive behaviors. Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there? Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it. I'll respond to the rest of your post without pressing the distinction. > Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. I think self preservation is sensible as a default. It's ultimately a matter of opinion, but I go off the premise that we live to do whatever it is we choose to do, and therefore self destruction should be a last resort. > - We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment. Ignoring the evidence of language in other animals (though you might convince me that human language is more sophisticated), I don't see how this is relevant to justifying self destruction or many other things. > In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die. "Many" and "an alternative of just...waiting to die" suggest a far greater scale of "rational irrationality" than I think actually occurs. How often are people faced with situations where their only realistic alternative boils down to "waiting to die"? > "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence. Nevermind, I'm bringing up that distinction again. Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism. "Just" is a strong word. > from a thinking being's perspective From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much. > the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction Most rational? Really? > It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself. I'm not sure about that, but perhaps. > All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity. You're not wrong to be cynical about that, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful. > Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living. I don't think they would be taking the most rational course of action through suicide. In fact, I highly doubt more can't be done with the their effort than without. > But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s Is that really what you got from my comment? It was one example and not slut shaming. Realistically, a child born of a prostitute isn't going to have a great childhood. That might change in the future if society shifts more towards sex workers that are fairly treated, but that's not here.