Which aspect of the article led you to believe that?

The article essentially states one should practice restraint in extravagance; limit unnecessary and luxurious purchases rather than frequently indulging in them, and encourages one to take stock in what their true needs are so that unnecessary purchases can be seen as such.

Did we read the same article?

[deleted]

>Often mischaracterized as hedonism

Title didn't say that. The title said, "debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy"

Epicureanism is hedonism. Doesn't mean it is debaucherous or "hedonistic" in the popular sense.

More likely a bar in Amsterdam but I wouldn't completely pass the opportunity to listen to the album

Often mischaracterized as hedonism, epicureanism is actually [goes on to describe hedonism].

Like bro, you basically argued an excuse for rich people to practice ignorance of the consequences of their actions.

I will say that at least Epicureanism plans for long term happiness, but I still see no traces of selflessness in it.

Epicurus was ahead of the curve in so many ways. The stoics get all the praise, but epicurus really laid the groundwork for a lot of what the stoics proclaimed.

I agree with several things the author states but I would assert certain things I consider facts:

"Value" is a myth, it is neither objective or subjective but fiction. As is "need/necessity". As are "rights" and "duty/responsiblity/obligation/owing". As is "importance". As is "authority" and "legality".

The author mentions "keeping “the good” and “the right” in their separate categories". I agree with the statment but in an opposite way. Morality is not about right and wrong (i.e. accurate and inaccurate, 1+1=42 is not immoral), it is (to simplify) about good and evil (rape is not inaccurate, it is malevolent hence evil hence immoral).

Also, I feel the author is a bit... disingenious when pointing out that "ought" is illogical yet feels that a comprehensible public term "should" inform "our ethics and political authority and legal ontology". "Should" is a myth, we're free to nuke the planet like it's the '60s over the Cuban missile crisis.

Wow, didn't realized he guessed at quantum uncertainty. That does not affect human brains as far as we know (too big & hot for quantum behaviors), but still, he is prescient.

Yes, that is one way of not having kids.

That’s a solid album name right there

You do you bro

He could still be a moral man, it depends on other factors. Is he planning on doing more than just keep imagining?

We can't judge a man for fantasies, no matter what they are. In that sense Batman Begins has it right, it's not who we are inside, that changes a little every day.

[deleted]

Thank you! I’ll look into those matters and will be more explicit with the principles I believe would arise from a reasonable agreement.

The swervature of spacetime.

Ahead of the... swerve?

[deleted]

Epicurus also taught that the universe is infinite and eternal and that all matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles called atoms.

All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space.

“Epicurus deviated from Democritus by proposing the idea of atomic ‘swerve’, which holds that atoms may deviate from their expected course, thus permitting humans to possess free will in an otherwise deterministic universe.”

I like the cut of his jib.

> I think the obvious truth that we generally don't choose our preferences is inherently problematic for the common concept of free will.

But why? First, this has little to nothing to do with determinism. It's also not like humans have spent thousands of years under some illusion that they choose their preferences, since as you point out it's quite obvious. It's clear that people don't generally think this poses a problem for free will or moral responsibility. So why do you?

> Can you explain what makes you think your definition is sensible?

It's a necessary but not sufficient condition, and wasn't intended to be a total definition. It's not easily possible to provide an all-encompaasing definition of something so nebulous as morality that'll get wide appeal.

> no way to distinguish between the processes of the brain which give rise to mental states, including thoughts and choices, and simpler deterministic mechanical systems like internal combustion engines or computers

What does this have to do with determinism? Isn't this just the hard problem of consciousness? It's just as hard for me to look at a brain and find the processes that give rise to mental states in a dualistic universe.

> least until we developed computer programs sophisticated enough to trick people's pattern recognition algorithms into interpreting stimulus from a computer as stimulus from a mind. But even where that trick is effective,

It feels a bit like having your cake and eating it too when you jump from saying that people's intuitions matter when they judge an internal combustion engine as not making choices but somehow don't matter if they were to judge a sophisticated computer algorithm as making them. In any case this:

> that's a pretty convincing argument to most people that chatGPT isn't actually a mind.

Is an empirical statement. Do you have something to back it up? Specifically that people don't think chatGPT has a mind because it's output is predetermined by mechanical processes. Also, what do you think of the fact that people commonly apply "choose"-type verbiage the output of things like recommendation and search algorithms (e.g. "Let's see what YouTube picked for me today")?

> Most people conceive of free will as existing in the universe where there is a possible counterfactual to a choice.

In the specific sense of "possible counterfactual" you go on to elaborate? I don't agree, and this contradicts what I know of the current results in experimental philosophy. What makes you think this? Especially when you go on to try to say that mass amounts of everyday communication are actually nonsensical.

> the word "choose" only makes sense if there is a possible world in which I ate cauliflower

If your definition of a word implies that it's constantly misused, your definition is just wrong. People say things like your example all the time and clearly understand each other. If you're saying that their use of the word doesn't make sense, you've effectively shown that your definition has nothing to do with they way the word actually gets used.

> If there was never a possibility that I would "choose" cauliflower, I didn't make a choice.

In the context of our discussion, this is question begging. The essence of the compatibilist position is that you make choices even when there wasn't any possibility you would choose differently.

> My mental processes didn't have any effect on the outcome.

They quite obviously did, since they're part of the causal chain that resulted in the broccoli eating. Without them no broccoli gets eaten. They're essential to and directly caused the outcome you're trying to say they didn't effect. This is like trying to say that one ball colliding with another didn't have any effect on the second, now moving, ball.

> In other words, a choice is the ability to actually change the future state of the universe via internal mental processes.

But you have that. Your mental processes absolutely do determine the future state of the universe because they, obviously, cause things to happen. You're trying to also say that it's somehow problematic that those mental processes themselves could not have been otherwise and are themselves the effect of another cause, but it's still not clear to me why you think that.

> There is no "me"

I have absolutely no idea what determinism is supposed to have to do with establishing a line between self and not-self.

> The only time it is possible for free will to exist is if my mental processes are not entirely predetermined the history of the universe up to the current point. Only that allows me to change the pattern of activation of neurons in my brain and central nervous system and muscles so that I can effectuate my genuine preference. Otherwise my body is a mechanism and everything that happens in the mechanism is fully automatic.

But how does this help? This touches on the original question I asked you: what other factor are you requiring in a decision for it to qualify as free? On what basis would you decide otherwise or change your neural firing? It can't be anything about who you are or the facts of the situation, so why would you ever decide otherwise? It certainly can't be your preferences, because those already exist when a decision comes round and quite obviously affect your choices in a deterministic universe.

> But in the sense that people commonly understand it, it also requires that the universe not predetermine our choices

This is another empirical claim. What evidence makes you believe it?

The higher level doesn't need to be able to explain the physical level in order to be useful. If substrate independence applies, it really is unable to. A calculator built correctly is like a window into the platonic world of arithmetics.

The analogy doesn't decisively prove that people have free will. It's point is to show that determinism doesn't contradict it.

According to some pro death and extinction philosophies, these are their arguments that cannot be countered, because its perfectly logical and moral (they claim):

​

1. Nobody asked to be born into a risky world with suffering, since consent is an absolute moral code, this means nobody should procreate because this violates consent that cannot be given (by the unborn).
2. Since the world is a perpetual trolley problem with guaranteed victims of great suffering, then it is morally wrong for us to continue existing at the expense of these victims. The moral thing to do would be to not exist at all and prevent any and all possible future victims, meaning we should blow up the earth or something similar.
3. Animals suffer from the same problem, so they should be blown up together with the planet, to prevent future suffering.
4. A suffering free utopia of the future is very unlikely and even if we could achieve it, it would take many generations of sufferers, so its morally unjustifiable.
5. There are no greater moral value than 100% prevention of all suffering, life exist just to avoid suffering, thus to go extinct, blow up earth or go full Thanos would be the best goal to achieve for all living things.

What is your counters to these "uncounterable" arguments? lol

/u/existentialgoof

Would like your input as well.

What extra term?

Morality is a combination of mutual biological (natural) needs/preferences and rational reasoning using our higher cognitive function.

Basically a consensus of nature and nurture among people.

I also agree that it wont lead to repugnant conclusion, because people actually like quality and quantity at the same time, they wont give up quality just to increase quantity, that's just absurd backsliding, I dont understand why people think the repugnant conclusion is even preferrable by any sane person. lol

As for utilitarianism, it depends, if negative utilitarianism, then sure its absurd and people simply dont assess their own lives that way, but positive utilitarianism could lead to perpetual improvement of morality based on consensus of human preference, see above.

Libertarianism is less about morality and more about individual liberty, but taken to the extreme absolutist sense, which is an unconvincing argument as whatever "liberty" you have cannot exist in a vacuum, it comes with the price of mutual benefit, cooperation and compromise, unless you live alone in the mountains. lol

Theorizing worlds doesn't make them true. The fact we can imagine other worlds doesn't make them exist. They could exist, they might exist, but I'm still not in control of which one I end up in, even if they do exist.

That ignores the purpose of possible-world thinking