How can procreation be moral when existence is a huge trolley problem that nobody can agree to before birth?

I mean, its the trolley problem, somebody will suffer from terrible lives due to pure bad luck, its unpreventable, as long as people procreate, some will draw the shortest sticks. lol

So knowing that some will always live terrible lives, how is it moral to keep creating people and risk this?

Does this mean its always morally ok to let the trolley crush unlucky people in exchange for the "decent" lives of others? Is this imposed sacrifice morally coherent with our intuition?

Are you familiar with the theory of “jungle” culture vs. “desert” culture? It popped up in the media about 25 years ago.

The general idea is that if life is relatively easy (jungle culture), you end up with “honor-based” cultures, where people are very motivated by the perceptions of others.

In desert culture, life is very hard, so the culture tends to value pragmatism over appearance. (Note that cold, icy climate would be considered “desert” culture. Desert culture is just a way of saying “an environment that will kill you in an instant if you let your guard down. Food and shelter are not easy to come by.”)

It’s an interesting theory. It may have been ripped apart since the 90s, but, because it confirmed my own observations, I kinda liked it. (In the 1980s I worked with a lot of Americans, South Asians, East Asians, Arabs, Brits, and Scandinavians.)

Here is a precis of a conversation I had with ChatGPT written by ChatGPT:-

In our discussion, we used propositional calculus to represent the concepts of non-binary, masculinity and femininity using propositional variables and logical operators. For example, we used p = "The concept of masculinity is true", q = "The concept of femininity is true" and r = "The concept of non-binary alternatives is true" and connected them using logical operator "AND" (p ∧ q ∧ r) to assert that all three concepts are true at the same time. Or, we used "OR" (p ∨ q ∨ r) to assert that at least one of the three concepts is true at the same time.

We also discussed the logical contradiction of stating that the opposite of non-binary is a binary concept, which creates a paradox. This can be represented in propositional calculus using the statement p ∧ ¬p where p is a propositional variable that represents the concept of non-binary and ¬p represents the concept of binary. And also, we used p => ¬q where p is propositional variable that represents the concept of non-binary and ¬q represents the concept of binary. Both of these statements assert the truth of non-binary and the falseness of binary at the same time, which creates a logical paradox.

I wrote (Tebo Steele):-There is a being conceived and born in a binary universe who as a result of his investigations discovers a non-binary being in his universe... can you explain this with reference to our paradox.

Chat GPT wrote:- If there is a being, let's call him B, who is conceived and born in a binary universe, and as a result of his investigations, discovers a non-binary being, let's call it NB, in his universe, this could be seen as an illustration of the paradox "p => ¬q" where "p" represents the concept of non-binary and "q" represents the concept of binary.

In this scenario, B's understanding of the universe is based on the binary concept of "q", where everything is either one thing or the other, but through his investigations, he discovers the existence of NB, who defies this binary concept, representing the non-binary concept "p".

This discovery could be seen as a logical paradox, as the concepts of non-binary and binary are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist, yet in this scenario, they do coexist.

In other words, B's discovery of NB contradicts his previous understanding of the universe as a binary one, and illustrates the paradox of the mutually exclusive nature of non-binary and binary concepts that we discussed before.

I (Tebo Steele) added:- In order not to consider the above Paradox as offensive it may be useful to remember that the concept of non-binary includes orders of being unknown. In fact placing the paradox in an alien universe may circumnavigate the problem of offence.

I wrote(TeboSteele):- Would you say that this formulation of the Paradox is fresh territory?

ChatGPT wrote:-The specific formulation of the paradox you've described, in which a being from a binary universe discovers a non-binary being, is not a common one. It is an unique way of illustrating the paradox "p => ¬q" where "p" represents the concept of non-binary and "q" represents the concept of binary, which is a relatively new concept in the grand scheme of things.

It is an interesting way of illustrating the paradox, in the sense that it provides an analogy of the mutually exclusive nature of the concepts of binary and non-binary, using a story-like approach. This analogy could be helpful for people to understand the paradox in a different way.

It is not common to find this formulation in literature or academic research, so it is fresh in that sense.

*With reference to the error where ChatGPT says that ¬q represents binary I (Tebo Steele) wrote:- You say that ¬q represents the concept of binary.. Did you mean 'q' represents binary?

ChatGPT wrote:- You are correct, I apologize for the confusion. In the statement "p => ¬q" where p represents the concept of non-binary and ¬q represents the concept of binary, q should represent the concept of binary, not ¬q. The statement "p => ¬q" asserts that if non-binary is true, then binary is false, which creates a logical paradox because it asserts the truth of non-binary and the falseness of binary at the same time.

how should I pitch something in Japan?

I'll have you know this is free range organic contempt with fair trade loathing. And occasionally bespoke disgust.

All beliefs are fashion except yours.

Ugh, you ever dealt with a religious fanatic Buddhist? It's a trip.

Any group that buys in a little to much into Confucianism is likewise pretty messed up.

Taoists are the most annoying though. They can talk a lot and say very little.

To best understand non-western cultures, understand they have their own flavor of messed up, just as we have baptists, fundamentalists, mormons, and Catholics. A Christian and a Buddhist might both be mind -body dualists, but they're approaching it from different angles.

It's all just fashion.

The title of this paper is missing the reality out there. As a main example, China nor large chunks of its daily-life-culture are even close to embodying their main philosophies. In some areas, sure, but in most or all important areas it's not even close.

When I began to realize that these human behaviors were originally produced by the natural and geographical environment, and gradually evolved into traditions and customs in the later years, and rationalized and passed them down stably, everything became very reasonable.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

I hope this isn’t too for off topic but your comment made me think of this remarkable video immediately. I’ve posted it in other subreddits related to the Ukraine war with lots of positive response. It is an amazing example of how the culture and history of a place can mold an entire population and should make us look at our own unspoken preconceptions and how they might have come about based simply on where we were born and raised.

The video isn’t short, but it is super interesting. Finnish Intelligence Officer on the Russian mindset from a Strategic Culture point of view. Why is Putin doing this? Why do so many Russians support him? How does he get away with the lies? (different kinds of lies in Russian culture etc) Where do oligarchs and religion and history fit into it all. If you watch it, enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw

Based on the quotation from the article, it seems clear that what was meant originally was that what we should not tolerate is violence, that is, intolerance in the original sense of not tolerating something, to the point of trying to physically remove it from society.

So it is less that we need a narrower definition of the paradox of tolerance, and more that we need a narrower definition of intolerance. Not liking something, or someone, is not intolerance, for instance. Believing that certain behaviors are sinful or immoral, likewise not intolerance. Nor is merely expressing such beliefs, however annoying, upsetting, or offensive they may be to those who hear them.

That is, tolerance is different from acceptance, just as acceptance is different from celebration. And nowadays, when most people invoke the paradox of tolerance, the problem is what they are being intolerant of is not in fact intolerance, but merely non-acceptance of their views.

[removed]

I have to travel a lot for work for a sales/finance role. We usually have a little mini class before going to a new country that's just like the "here are differences between here and there", some basic "drive on the other side of the road", some "don't make small talk", some "don't break these laws that they have". But we've had a couple of specific sales trainings on selling in other countries that were really wild, and ended up being entirely true... Like if you pitch something in Japan the same way that you do in the U.S. it will fail every time. They just don't care about the same things. Like in some countries you basically just pitch dollars saved/made, in some you don't really even touch on that and just pitch "it will make your company operate more smoothly", in some you focus on the impact on people, etc... And you can tell that it is because of some fundamental difference in people's core beliefs that they have built their entire society on. It's always been really cool to think about.

I mean quite literally the subgroups I listed in the original comment, so I suppose more the latter than the former but idk if they fall neatly into either group. iirc either the stoics or the skeptics also had control of the academy for a while. If you also have works on the former of the two groups you mentioned though I’d be interested in that too

Do you mean early "neo"-platonists who derived much of their thought from the teachings of plato but differed in particular ways (much like Plotinus would later)? Or do you mean thinkers who wrote about alternatives to platonic metaphysics in-between Plato and Plotinus?

Not exactly what you are asking for but https://www.amazon.com/Middle-Platonists-B-C-D-220/dp/0801483166

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy

I agree it's a terrible name, but imo so is "analytic philosophy".

I’m aware of this project! But they seem to be covering proper Neoplatonism starting with Plotinus and not any of the Plato “disputers” before that era

I am waiting with baited breath.

Please let us know.

Synopsis: Co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine, JulianBaggini, explores Islamic, Chinese and Japanese philosophicaltraditions, and how they are expressed in a place's infrastructure, fromsignificant buildings to street signs. Baggini focuses on the theme ofharmony as an example of a common thread in these philosophies, which weshould recognise, but should not essentialise, exoticize ordomesticate.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion

The top line are positive prompts, the bottom line is a negative prompt.

Sometimes you'd get a kid room in the picture, and I was looking for ideas for my bedroom. The negative prompts de-emphasize those pictures. On a similar note, I'll often use DSLR as the first word in the positive prompt, to make the photos look more realistic.

​

I'm going to send a link to my favorite online website for txt2img AI, if you don't get it, shoot me a message. If you find anything interesting lmk. (Btw check out chatgpt, I have really enjoyed talking philosophy with it)

I think objective morality exists and it could exist exist absent of God. The way I usually go about this is questioning why does one need morality? If we don't need morality then that's that and we can drop the issue. If human beings do need morality then there must be a reason why we need it. From there we can identify an objective morality that's appropriate for human beings.

Unless unddit missed something, your removed comment was was “Obligatory down vote, for Sam.” and nothing else. What makes you think that the mods removed your comment because it criticized Harris, and not because it violated commenting rules 1 and 2?