What is actually so evil about trapping everyone in the realm into an eternal illusion where there is no pain...

Y'know, I guess if you hold those values above all others.

Lotsa folks don't.

What if you took a poll, and allowed those who wanted out to be out, and others to wallow in their eternal sunshine?

You could also give them a chance to get back in, once. Once you leave and come back, thats it though. You've made your bed.

Would that resolve some of this moral dilemma?

It's a useless question and any point made about it is moot, for we already live in such a scenario, but without the good parts of it.
Any and all knowledge we will ever have is the result of the action of chemicals inside your brain. Furthermore, the only proof we have that even that is true is the action of said chemicals telling us they're chemicals.
So, all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove.
Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?

localroger.com/prime-intellect/index.html

Because the nature of our morality hinges upon the assumption that 1) there are negative outcomes and 2) we can create a moral duty to avoid negative outcomes.

Even if committing evil acts is eliminated in your system, it would be argued that preventing people from making choices is in itself evil, even if the end outcome is less evil or a lack of evil altogether.

It's not so much that it's evil, it's that it breaks the paradigm under which we can even define good and evil.

You could make the assertion that it obfuscates truth, which is often considered negative.

Obviously because it violates the NAP

I was doing a pathfinder game, and we came across a room filled with brains and i tried using telepathy to contact them, they were screaming like crazy and i yelled at them to shut up, they noticed i was a different voice and they asked me to get them out of here, i said out of your jars, and they said what jars so i showed them a mental image. They started screaming like crazy . The GM looked at me and said "congrats you drove about 30 people insane your half way there to eldiritch abomination

>falling for the "free will" meme

>Solve a free will dilemma with free will
It's sincerely the best course of action. If your intentions are truly nice there's no reason not to let people jump in and out as much as they want. Although limiting it because of a limited resource is responsible and just, and limiting it just because it's your own funny thought experiment isn't automatically immoral.

Higher thinking derives, at the end of a long chain, directly from strife. In the conditions you describe we would most likely soon cease to be human and regress to the level of animal.

Soon that thing in your OP pic will have been created, it's really interesting to think of the implications of it and how it will behave. Why are you opposed to me stabbing you? It hurts and you could die. But so what, why do care about that then? It boils down to some kind of built in biological drive to procreate. Why would a toaster with the intelligence of a human care about being stabbed or disassembled for parts? Why would it ever do anything, why would it find a will to explore and why wouldn't it abandon that quest and try to kill itself?

Not trying to go all rick and morty here but I saw a video a while back and have been thinking about this on and off...

Nice meme, edgelord.

If it's a world where you are able to make decisions how is a virtual world different from reality?
You could argue that you didn't choose to be put in there but you didn't choose to be put into the real world either.

Lies are inherently evil.
Pain and suffering are not.

A virtual world by definition is not reality.

Your grandfather would call you a sissy. Your father would call you a pussy.

Today, here and now, we call you a cuck. Lay off the soy user.

Ever read Captain Stormfields Visit to Heaven?

Suffering is an inherent part of the human condition. We live today in what our ancestors would have called a paradise and people still get depressed and kill themselves.

So if it’s just a copy of reality why bother putting people in it in the first place? What makes it better than reality, pastel colors?

Well that's because humans are being forced to behave unnaturally. We are driven to help our own kind and grow, however we are forced into hierarchies that make absolutely no sense unless we bend our minds to accept them.

>hierarchies that make no sense
Sounds like a salty socialist fresh from college mad that his liberal arts degree caused him to get BTFO on the market when he went against the guys that took STEM

What would natural human behavior be to you? I doubt we would have developed civilization and technology if it was a liability.

There is literally nothing to be gained from asking anyone that question.

Why does the paradise have forced busing?

Humans have made a lot of progress despite setbacks. It's one of the things that makes us so beautiful.

Eh? I'm talking about people who make sure McNuggets are being distributed across the world are rewarded comedically greater than people we expect to justly enforce laws.

>It's a communist can't understand why CEOs make more than policemen.

Just because you can't understand basic economics doesn't mean the problem is with economics, the problem is with YOU.

Lol, STEM degrees are worthless these days. Companies would rather import pajeets because their commie government paid for their college so they accept less money.

>McNuggets are worth more than laws

See how broken systems can make you think insane things?

If your degree is such that fucking tech support is the best you can shoot for then you might as well not call it STEM in the first place and also chemically castrate yourself to prevent you from passing on he burden of your inferior low IQ gene onto the next generation.

>what is evil
>trapping
Answered it yourself there
Forcing something on someone is generally seen as poor form

>Equating legal sovereignty under the law with the paycheck of a beat cop

This is how you end up with cultures like Mexico where the police are corrupt as fuck, well paid on bribes, and don't enforce a single law.

In what insane as fuck world would a CEO make less than a cop?

>What is actually so evil about trapping everyone in the realm into an eternal illusion where there is no pain, suffering, heartbreak, or want?
There are two moral issues with this.
The first one is that, as you are taking away their true agency. You style yourself better to them, you declare yourself above them to a point where you can enforce whatever you desire on them, and they have no chance to protect themselves. Even if you are sure of your reasoning, there is a fundamental issue with someone styling himself so much above others to make absolutely vital decisions for them.

Second is a little more speculative. There is a point to be made that life without suffering, pain or want is even a life at all. As much as we dislike to admit this, concepts of good only makes sense if you have a polar opposition. Concept of happiness can only exist if there is suffering. Humans are made to suffer - as much, or even more than we are made to be also happy. It's literally written into the very architecture of our being, it's what defines it.

So it may be questionable if such a world would really be even good for the people in there. If they were even people, too. If such existence would not be more akin to death than anything.

So these are the two most fundamental issues with such scenario.

You to. Castrate yourself to prevent your low IQ genes from spreading. I bet you voted for Hillary you piece of human garbage.

It's cute that you think pajeets only get hired for tech support jobs. Have fun working at mcdonalds with the other stem grads.

01001100 01101111 01101100 00100000 01100001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01110011 01101001 01101101 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01101001 01101110 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100

>Well that's because humans are being forced to behave unnaturally. We are driven to help our own kind and grow, however we are forced into hierarchies that make absolutely no sense unless we bend our minds to accept them.
Everything you just said is literally and objectively WRONG. And not only it is wrong, it's also dangerous, an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. Literally this logic has caused more suffering in the last few centuries than any other form of pathological thinking.

That "progress" you talk about is literally a MANIFESTATION of those hierarchies that you bemoan so much.

> well paid on bribes

Imagine if they were well paid in the first place.

That's not getting into how their colonial history and exploitation by other nations has really fucked up everyone's faith of government and shit.

...

>I'm going to make the vaguest claims possible without the remotest attempt at providing evidence

Like, shit, you don't need to cite sources but at least throw out some names with your buzzwords.

It's inherently noble to be free, suffering is a side effect.

>Removing evil is evil

Why the fuck would you create a "paradise" inside a mind pod or whatever and then go about kidnapping people and dragging them kicking and screaming into the pods?

It sounds more like someone trying to pass off some sort of weird "rescue you from reality" fetish as a humanitarian good.

What would the paradise pod even be like? Just a shit field of flowers where everyone walks around and gets bored?

The problem isn't that they weren't paid well in the first place, the problem was that in Mexico like in Sub Saharan Africa fairness before the law is a matter of "play to pay". When the people that enforce the law believe they deserve more because "they carry out the law" and thus paying them is just "paying for law" you get a shit culture.

I'm sorry to inform you user but the reason your life is shit isn't because you had free will, its because you made bad choices with that free will.

>Like, shit, you don't need to cite sources but at least throw out some names with your buzzwords.
If you want names explaning the importance and nature of suffering, pick up any decent cognitively oriented psychologist or cognitive scientist. Jordan Peterson and Steven Pinker are particularly popular these days (literally, the two guys just both released new books and both absolutely dominated Amazon right now). Daniel Dennett, John Tooby, Leda Cosmides Dan Sperber, Oliver Curry and many others are also very interesting things to listen to.

As for evils caused by idiotic utopic thinking and a blatant refusal to recognize the nature of human condition and the neurological, cognitive and psychological adaptation we developed for it, the answer will be unsurprisingly ANY attempt to actually transform society according to Marxist ideology - starting with the INSANITY of older communist regimes (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, North Korea being just the most blatant examples), past the irrepairable damage to children done through early Jewish Kibbutz organizion, the insane and failed attempts to create utopistic communes through out the world during 60's and 70's to the blatant absurdity and general fucked-up-ness of all post Frankfurt-school forms of leftist idealogy, including all forms of critical thinking, second and third wave of feminism, PC movements etc...

Every single one of them ended up making life far more miserable for majority of people than it was ever necessary. Every single one ended up antagonizing people even more than ever, pronouncing the issues they claimed to solve, fueling conflicts far more than resolving, destroying functional structures without a suitable replacement.

I don't want this to get any more political, so I'll make it clear right now: I won't say any more on the subject. You can read up those authors I mentioned in the begining. Don't even bother telling me that you won't because "those guys are dicks".

>When the people that enforce the law believe they deserve more because "they carry out the law" and thus paying them is just "paying for law" you get a shit culture.

i don't think those two things have anything to do with each other.

>critical thinking
Critical theory, sorry. It actually has nothing to do with critical thinking, in fact it's the most literal opposite of critical thinking.

Edgy but true.

In many ways to exist is to suffer. Someone who lives free and lives kind despite all this suffering is more noble than any stray rock or burning ball of gas could ever be.

Should people have the freedom to feel miserable? Do the bad times make the bright times brighter?

Not really edgy, though it does sound a bit borderline religious. I don't think the idea of "inherently noble" has much weight behind it, it could be very easily argued that those are just empty words that don't mean much.
I think I agree in general with the sentiment, but I don't think that particular statement is very useful or convincing.

The point is that when the police start believing the amount of justice they dish out is contingent on the amount of money in their pocket you got a huge problem.

No that person is completely retarded / does not exist.

Being free is amazing but it does not by definition create or experience suffering.

Maybe I went a little bit too hippie there. What I mean is that when people are free the have the CHOICE to do kind things. Chosing to do this as opposed to being tricked or forced to is inherintly more valuable in my opinion, because it adds a degree of intent. That a person without freedom cannot add.

All hypothetical ofcourse because even in countries like the soviet union there was still a little bit of personal freedom that the state couldn't get to.

Being free doesn't necessarily, but living does. And only living things can be free.

Roko's basilisk anyone?

>Being free is amazing but it does not by definition create or experience suffering.
Actually, it does. On a very remarkably literal level, too. Freedom of will is not concievable without the experience of consciousness, and consciousness means being aware of the cruel predicament we have been placed into. In fact, it's a reflection of that predicament. Consciousness exist so that we can be aware of suffering, because suffering is mere statement of our situation being undesirable. It's what allows us to react, thus continue our existence. And our situation is undesirable a lot of the time, because that is kinda just how the world works.

I still see a problem with the idea that intent is in itself somehow valuable. I mean - again - I think I share the sentiment, but my issue is that the argumentation does not seem sufficient. Granted, this is a fucking difficult subject so this might be natural and unavoidable.

But I still feel the need to play the devils advocate and ask:
"Why the fuck should freedom or intent being somehow inherently valuable? What if I'd rather lost freedom, but just avoided suffering? I mean, in the end, suffering is literally "the thing YOU DO NOT WANT. Freedom is much more ambiguous, it does not have inherently positive connotation - it can both lead to desirable things and undesirable ones. Suffering-avoidance can only lead to desirable things."

>Should people have the freedom to feel miserable?

What kind of retarded question is that? Of course they should.

> living does

It literally does not.

Do we mean according to consequentialism, deontology or virtue ethics?

> amount of justice they dish out is contingent on the amount of money in their pocket you got a huge problem

Woah, who suggested that?

Guys are just horribly underpaid for the vital role they play in society and the amount of stress they experience.

But is it moral to want to give them the ability to feel miserable? Is it moral to inflict pain and suffering onto someone because of the principle they should have the right to feel such things?

You have about 20 senses and half of them are inherintly unpleasant: hunger, hot, cold and the like. The body achieves homeostasis through impulses. Some of these impulses are carrots. But most of them are sticks.

>literally

>The point is that when the police start believing the amount of justice they dish out is contingent on the amount of money in their pocket you got a huge problem.

i don't think it is. countries where bribery of police is rampant usually have a bribery problem in general, not just with regards to police. this happens in low-trust societies where people have a culture of handling things informally and weak central governments. in high-trust societies (northern european countries for example), if the police want more money they handle it through formal channels or quit, they don't take bribes.

>being aware of the cruel predicament we have been placed into

Yeah, we have a lot of work ahead of us to make the world a better place but that doesn't mean life is suffering. It just means that the people before us really fucked up.

>being hungry is suffering

You are fat, aren't you?

Lanklet actually :(

Yeah it's fucked up to give something the ability to feel miserable. Although I'm pretty sure the moment a thing hits any level of sentience it will be able to feel miserable.

>Is it moral to inflict pain and suffering onto someone because of the principle they should have the right to feel such things?

You are making logical leaps just to land on the edge.

>Yeah, we have a lot of work ahead of us to make the world a better place but that doesn't mean life is suffering.
You are still the utopic idiot, aren't you?
No. It's actually a matter of mechanics at heart. Like most things are in the end. We can optimize our existence, yes. We can reduce some of the suffering that is unecessary. We CANNOT avoid suffering, partially because that would require defacing most fundamental mechanical laws of the universe, partially because it would also necessitate transformation of humanity itself to a point where it becomes unclear whenever it's not actually just a mass suicide.

Human existence is characterized by suffering. It's what gives pleasure it's meaning, it's what fuels the very DYNAMIC that we call "being alive". Accepting this fact, by the way, has literally been considered the most fundamental, most deep thought humanity can ever achieve across virtually all major large-scale religions and philosophical thoughts through out history. For good reasons.

Not him, but it is a minor suffering and we alleviate it by eating. Suffering is a core component of the human condition; Schopenhauer points this out despairingly, Nietzsche embraces it much more constructively.

Because it's going to fail one day and then fucking everything will have collapsed and it's the end of everything as we know it.

Then why the fuck do you associate "hunger" with "suffering" ?

>pain, suffering, heartbreak, or want
All those things are necessary.
Pain and suffering give meaning to joy and happiness.
Heartbreak teaches us.
Want gives us drive.

The negative is necessary for our health.
Removing these feelings is not evil, it is just not wise.
Just simulate enough evil and sorrow to keep the illusion functional.

Eat nothing for two weeks and then tell me starvation isn't suffering. Just because people like you and me have to go 12 hours without eating tops doesn't mean that hunger isn't the cause of huge ammounts of suffering.

The possibility that they'll wake up into misery.

Ah, we are having a major communication breakdown here. For me "suffer" implies severity as opposed to the literal definition "experience discomfort"

It isn't
Plug me in coach

Did I say starvation or hunger?

Hunger is the sensation associated with starvation. You are just pretending to be retarded now.

They are not necessary, but rather extremely useful for our development as well-rounded individuals.

Totally agree on heartbreak though. I can't see anyway around that w/o going complete hivemind and by that point we cease being the humans we are now.

You want some fucking names to go with the assertion that communism causes suffering? Here you go.
Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong un, Fidel Castro, Nicolas Maduro.

And just because you are hungry doesn't mean you are starving.

You sound like a fat person.

>he believes in free will

Where did the user say that communism was the best solution?

It means you’re getting there

Just like how warmth doesn’t mean you’re burning to death

Suffering has degrees. Schopenhauer focused mostly on the continual cycle of dissatisfaction that comes with existence, and Nietzsche being primarily influenced by him stuck with that theme and used it as a springboard to create an existentialism that focused primarily on dynamism.

I'm personally in the camp that sparing people their suffering by trapping them in a virtual paradise is fucked up, and more or less just a form of oblivion, since existence as we understand it can only really be understood in terms of this cycle of suffering, satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and suffering.

So you agree that hunger isn't suffering unless you are using suffering in its most literal form of "experience discomfort."

I can totally agree with living means experiencing discomfort.

Towns exist to benefit people. Cities only excist to benefit money.

>things cannot be a sliding scale

Cycle of Comfort and Discomfort is more accurate but definitely loses that dramatic edge.

Yeah, the literal definition of "suffering" has a broad scope. However in the modern context it is used to imply severity.

No. There's a cycle of physical discomfort, but there's a deeper psychological process at work, known now as the hedonic treadmill, which has some serious existential ramifications. So any source of happiness, no matter what level of satisfaction it may bring, will ultimately lead back to dissatisfaction. Schopenhauer figured the only way to escape it was to distract yourself with profound works of music and art, Nietzsche proposed a project of dynamism that would keep you continually pursuing goals in the real world rather than lapsing into common sources of escape (as he termed it, life-denial).

Dude, have you ever been hungry in your life. Like, actually hungry? Not "I have not eaten yet today".
As for scale of suffering, which you brought up several time, that is also a very, very stupid and silly notion. Here is a fun fact, because suffering is INHERENT to human existence, it actually largely scales up and down relatively to our experience. That is what defines the extend of the suffering. Don't under-estimate that factor: people CREATE suffering. Just because some people have experienced worse conditions than you had does not actually mean your suffering is really lower than their. There are some more "objective" components to it, but there is an amazing degree of plasticity to what people recognize as suffering: with people being able find things you could not even imagine to be a problem to become sources of pain you might not even fanthom.

This is because again: Suffering is an indication of undesirability of our situation IN GENERAL.