3 ms·
RE @vacuity, HN limiting depth of discussions and all (oh, the delightful irony!). >Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there? Selfish r
by throwawawawow 3y ago
RE @vacuity, HN limiting depth of discussions and all (oh, the delightful irony!).
>Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there?
Selfish reasons or no, in most cases it's not practically possible to do anything that does not affect others. Whether you have affected them positively or negatively, and whether you are to be held responsible, is for others to decide - mostly arbitrarily, that is to say in accordance with a whole host of suprarational factors.
>Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it.
I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate.
>"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"?
Who said "only"? It's just the default option.
>Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism
Use of intoxicants cause consciousness to change, then, sure enough, temporarily stop existing. It can also cause people to do reckless shit and risk their lives more. The human brain is a brilliant inhibition machine.
Addiction may be understood as a process that occurs within a person's self, or outside of it, depending on where the locus of control is defined. This is beside the point, though. It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of.
You seem to be reading in my comment a distinction between suicide and other self-destructive behaviors; a distinction which I don't remember putting there.
>From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much
People have perspectives, and everyone's is valid (when presented in good faith).
People also have opinions. However, unlike the perspectives, some opinions are incorrect and worth disproving.
What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry.
>Most rational? Really?
According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise?
>I'm not sure about that, but perhaps.
It all depends on the situation, of course. After all, you never can truly be certain what the others see.
>but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful.
Sure, if it helps anyone.
>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.
Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only.
I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable; so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others, because someone promised them that some way of life or other is what will give their lives meaning.
By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
>Is that really what you got from my comment
Not really. I got some help with staying awake though, which was nice. Cheers
- vacuity 3y ago> I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate. I didn't say you made the distinction. I did. I said suicide is acceptable because it cuts one away completely, whereas behaviors such as alcoholism can have severe negative effects on others that aren't merely emotional turmoil. > Who said "only"? It's just the default option. So they have alternatives besides self-destruction and waiting to die but self-destruction is the rational choice? > It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of. True, but upthread, you (or whoever the commenter is) mentioned substance abuse as an example of self-destructive behavior. I just went with it since I don't disagree. > What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry. Opinions are valid insofar as they reflect one's moral axioms and the available facts. I know what you're talking about with regards to identity. > According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise? I was thinking you meant "rational" in the sense of you being reasonably correct. As in, it's rational to not go to areas with smoke if you're trying to evade danger. Seems I misread. > Sure, if it helps anyone. I think it is useful to discuss any harmful actions. > Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only. I didn't say you said that. > I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable; And I'm saying that these things aren't truly "unattainable" and they may be attained in the future. > so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others I doubt the collective environmental impact of these people is very significant compared to the overall global energy consumption and, more pressingly, the potential preservation to be had in working to fix this mess. It's their choice, but saying suicide is most rational seems nearsighted at the present moment. Maybe in a few decades things will really be hopeless. > By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before. Not sure what you're trying to say here.