[split] Ethics - parental responsibility re: children

[Ahriman]

Shit Rev, that might be missing the larger question.  Why not smoke as much as you want…drink as much as you want…do what you want - aaaaand get any orgasms in with a good friend?

Maybe because anti-depressants don't play nice with booze?

That's why I don't drink. I wish I could.

[emjay]

In Buddhism there's the useful analogy of the 'two darts'... that is, distinguishing between the avoidable and unavoidable aspects of pain/suffering. The person hit by the first dart feels sensory pain, ie raw pain let's say, and that can't be removed, only endured. But the second dart represents the additional pain/suffering we often create mentally on top of raw pain, such as fear (that it won't end for instance, or that it will worsen or lead to this or that etc), exaggeration, delusion etc... that part is avoidable... if you basically don't feed it, or in Buddhist terms, aren't attached to it. So to deal with physical pain, this is what Buddhism teaches... ie that most people naturally are as if hit by two darts when it only needs to be one... ie no magic bullet to get rid of physical pain, the first dart... you just have to endure it... but oftentimes the mental baggage that goes with physical pain, the second dart, is far worse, and that part is avoidable.

I know you guys aren't talking about physical pain per se, but I think this speaks to any kind of suffering really; just our ability/tendency to make our suffering worse by the mental baggage we often pile on top of it.

[Belacqua]

In Buddhism there's the useful analogy of the 'two darts'... that is, distinguishing between the avoidable and unavoidable aspects of pain/suffering. The person hit by the first dart feels sensory pain, ie raw pain let's say, and that can't be removed, only endured. But the second dart represents the additional pain/suffering we often create mentally on top of raw pain, such as fear (that it won't end for instance, or that it will worsen or lead to this or that etc), exaggeration, delusion etc... that part is avoidable... if you basically don't feed it, or in Buddhist terms, aren't attached to it. So to deal with physical pain, this is what Buddhism teaches... ie that most people naturally are as if hit by two darts when it only needs to be one... ie no magic bullet to get rid of physical pain, the first dart... you just have to endure it... but oftentimes the mental baggage that goes with physical pain, the second dart, is far worse, and that part is avoidable.

I know you guys aren't talking about physical pain per se, but I think this speaks to any kind of suffering really; just our ability/tendency to make our suffering worse by the mental baggage we often pile on top of it.

I hadn't heard "two darts" before. That makes a lot of sense. 

No doubt it applies to emotional issues as well as physical pain. Like when you get depressed you get inactive, and the inactivity makes you feel guilty and angry with yourself. It's a terrible feedback loop. 

It occurs to me that my cats feel pain and have hormonal or other physical changes -- obviously -- but don't pass judgement on themselves for it. The pain is just pain. There are some advantages to being a cat, I guess. (In addition to the free food.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Then again, the anti-natalist would counter this by rhetorically asking the question why humankind needs to progress at all anyway (which Ahri pretty much argued earlier in this thread). And once again, I find it's difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. Maybe there isn't any good answer, but we're here anyway and we have kids and like having them, so that's that.

I think we're bumping up against a very common conviction among atheists: that life has no intrinsic meaning, and that we each give our lives the meaning we choose. 

But then if someone chooses not to choose a meaning, I don't see how we can scold that, or say that he's failing in some duty. And if he points out that other people's meanings are just things that they've chosen, and not something objectively real, and that such choices are not mandatory, then consistency demands that we agree. 

That's a common conviction between many atheists and theists.  It's not as if this world or this life has intrinsic value to nutters seeking heavenly reward.  It only has the extrinsic purpose of giving them an opportunity to get right with the big guy before they die.  Their kingdom, as they say, is not of this world.  The anti natalist position, however...a realist normative declaration, tacitly asserts a meaning and purpose to life and moral agency.  The minimally ethical life.  Obviously, if this life is genuinely void of any such content, anti natalism is factually incorrect....but I doubt we'd find too many people here (whether they think it's intrinsic or some meaning they choose to allow or give) that would disagree with the suggestion that we live a minimally ethical life. Don't have to be good..per se, just avoid being bad, at a minimum.

It matters very much to the anti natalist position that we progress, their normative statement is a map of the progress they think we're compelled to make through a minimally ethical life.  It doesn't matter to the rejection of the anti natalist position whether we progress or there's a point to progress, though - as the anti natalist position revolves wholly and completely around the ability of an anti natalist to establish that procreation is...in fact...bad. Not that there is no point to progress. Not that life is unfair. Not that suffering exists. Not that life is meaningless. As I mentioned before, you can make an anti natalist argument even if the setting is heaven, full of purpose and meaning. We hear it on the boards with some regularity. Whenever some atheist with a decidedly negative view of christianity ponders over the hilarious chance of waking up, against their will, in the fundy gods heaven. Fundy god, in that context, has failed to live a minimally ethical life - and gone a step further into the bad as they see it - in that the fundy god had a chance to seek their consent (that human parents don't) and then completely ignored their decision if it was aware of it (here again, human parents do better where we can).

[Belacqua]

Maybe because anti-depressants don't play nice with booze?

That's why I don't drink. I wish I could.

May I ask if there's anything non-destructive that you enjoy? 

At my age you tend to notice the little things -- like today the plum tree was blossoming and the smell was wonderful. It's not enough to outweigh the horror in the world, obviously. But there are some nice things. I've been lucky, I admit.

[emjay]

In Buddhism there's the useful analogy of the 'two darts'... that is, distinguishing between the avoidable and unavoidable aspects of pain/suffering. The person hit by the first dart feels sensory pain, ie raw pain let's say, and that can't be removed, only endured. But the second dart represents the additional pain/suffering we often create mentally on top of raw pain, such as fear (that it won't end for instance, or that it will worsen or lead to this or that etc), exaggeration, delusion etc... that part is avoidable... if you basically don't feed it, or in Buddhist terms, aren't attached to it. So to deal with physical pain, this is what Buddhism teaches... ie that most people naturally are as if hit by two darts when it only needs to be one... ie no magic bullet to get rid of physical pain, the first dart... you just have to endure it... but oftentimes the mental baggage that goes with physical pain, the second dart, is far worse, and that part is avoidable.

I know you guys aren't talking about physical pain per se, but I think this speaks to any kind of suffering really; just our ability/tendency to make our suffering worse by the mental baggage we often pile on top of it.

I hadn't heard "two darts" before. That makes a lot of sense. 

No doubt it applies to emotional issues as well as physical pain. Like when you get depressed you get inactive, and the inactivity makes you feel guilty and angry with yourself. It's a terrible feedback loop.

Yep, that makes sense. In Buddhism, suffering has a much broader definition than what we'd typically associate with suffering (ie physical pain and obvious negative mental states) - such as the notions of impermanence and 'unsatisfactoriness', ie nothing lasts forever, so everything is, as you might put it, contingent, and is therefore subject to loss - but I figured this two darts example was one of Buddhism's more immediately relatable/less abstract/less subtle teachings, so thought it might be helpful here.

In case you're interested in learning more, there's a book on Buddhism that I think would specifically appeal to you. I was curious if there was anything similar to a Bible in Buddhism, as in a centralised compendium of the Buddha's discourses ('suttas'), and found that no there wasn't; a lot is preserved but not in a single volume akin to the Bible and not in any seemingly organised/structured manner. But the book I'm recommending to you, is basically the author's magnum opus, attempting to do pretty much that; to compile a selection of suttas from across the whole breadth of Buddhism, and into a logical, structured, and meaningful order, and with thorough and insightful commentaries on everything.

The reason I think it would appeal to you specifically is that it gives equal if not more focus to the traditional/religious (as in religion, as you defined it before, more about community etc than what is specifically believed) aspects of Buddhism... ie family life, rules for good living (essentially), community, ethics, its equivalent of virtues etc... ie it's written from the perspective, from the outset, of someone shopping for a religion and all that that entails from your sort of perspective. Whereas for me, my primary interest in Buddhism has always been in the philosophical and introspective aspects... the insights into the mind and psychology, rather than... or more than... the religious aspects. This book covers both in equal detail, and is a wonderful book, a great history and introduction as much as anything, but it's just clear from its structure that it has a different focus to a lot of the books I've read thus far on Buddhism, and more akin to your sort of perspective. Anyways, in case you're interested, the book in question is In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon, edited and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi, ISBN 9780861714919.

It occurs to me that my cats feel pain and have hormonal or other physical changes -- obviously -- but don't pass judgement on themselves for it. The pain is just pain. There are some advantages to being a cat, I guess. (In addition to the free food.)

Another book I've been reading lately might have something to say on that. It's the most compelling book I've read on consciousness so far, Being You by Anil Seth, and a book that really attempts to address the hard problem/'phenomenology' of consciousness... well, where we're used to talking about the soft and hard problems of consciousness, it defines another type of problem, 'the real problem of consciousness', slap bang in the middle between the two. Whether you agree that it does address the hard problem is always going to be a matter of opinion, but personally I think it bridges the gap very well and makes a very strong case, but I would be very interested in hearing your verdict if you chose to read it.

Anyway, how it relates to what you've said, is that it has a chapter talking about animal consciousness, and talks about an interesting research finding where dogs for instance, do not recognise themselves in a mirror... which in humans is considered a key cornerstone in the development of the self and of a 'theory of mind', as in the ability to model other people's minds not just our own... suggesting then that some animals' experience of a self, if they even have one, may be very different than ours even when our intuitions, often anthropomorphic, suggest otherwise. Monkeys were another example. So yeah, very interesting, and well worth a read imo.

[Ahriman]

That's why I don't drink. I wish I could.

May I ask if there's anything non-destructive that you enjoy? 

At my age you tend to notice the little things -- like today the plum tree was blossoming and the smell was wonderful. It's not enough to outweigh the horror in the world, obviously. But there are some nice things. I've been lucky, I admit.

I enjoy writing, and cuddling with my dachshund.

[Ahriman]

There really is no point to being alive beyond doing what you want to do. Just do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't fuck up other people's lives too badly I guess, but even that's an arbitrary distinction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, awesome? Do what you want to do- and pass on making objective moral judgement on your betters….in future.

[Ahriman]

There can't be such a thing as "betters" if human life isn't really worth anything. That being said, if we want to play the "betters" game, I would say I'm better than you (and most people) because I know the truth and have successfully integrated the truth into my life stream, whereas most people have not, and never will. Meaning I'm living a more authentic life than most people, ostensibly making me better than them.