[General Battuta]

That's a technical objection, not a response to the point.

[Herra Tohtori]

That's a technical objection, not a response to the point.

Then make better analogy



Full human emotional spectrum is not a disability. Involuntary modifications to it or any other feature of human physiology are unacceptable, assent of the subject must be acquired first.

Removing limbs and parts of genialia and parts of human brain are irreversible changes that should be decided by the person for themselves, not by parents, moral guardians or superintelligent aliens.

It's not their business - only the individual is qualified for such a decision. Baby eaters, on the other hand, take all choice away from their children as they consume them; in their parents' stomach the baby eater children find a new meaning for suffering as they are slowly being digested by a month or longer.

As to the aliens rushing to resque the suffering human children... children do not have the emotional stability and maturity to make a decision like this for themselves, not if it's a permanent one. If the Superhappies can come up with a solution that temporarily disables ability to feel pain and doesn't cause withdrawal symptoms or side effects, then sure, introduce it as an optional antidepressant and anesthetic but forcing it upon all humanity as a permanent solution? I just can't agree with that.

Aside from that (and I'm moving firmly to nitpicking territory here): Have the Superhappies performed clinical experimentation on how humans actually respond to removal of ability to suffer? If they haven't, they can't make anything more than educated guesses as to how it would affect us. What happens to a person who can't suffer? What motivates them? Panem et circenses? Having more lulz doesn't strike me as a viable motivation for getting anything actually ever done. As humans grow, their personality adapts to withstand the negative emotions and suffering. I would think that a person who grows without pain and suffering will be terribly confused if subjected to a situation where negative emotions or physical pain would arise.


And let's up the ante a bit - who's saying the Superhappies are telling the truth about their agenda?

What if they simply want us subservient and unmotivated to improve things because we can't suffer?

After all, removing the ability of one's subjects to suffer is all a dictator needs to maintain their position of power infinitely, to remove all causes for uprisings simply because people won't care what happens to them.

They say they are bad at deception - is this a fact, or a clever ruse?


This thread is awesome, it's like a gift that just keeps giving...

[General Battuta]

I don't see an argument there that can't be easily adapted to justify the Superhappy position (or any other arbitrarily constructed form of suffering). It seems to neglect the principle of mediocrity.

[NGTM-1R]

I don't see an argument there that can't be easily adapted to justify the Superhappy position (or any other arbitrarily constructed form of suffering). It seems to neglect the principle of mediocrity.

I don't see how this is possible, so perhaps you should explain why the refutation of the Omniscient Morality License can be used to justify it?

You are claiming that Herra's argument can be easily adapted to service the Superhappy position because of the references to children and their inability to make a decision like this for themselves (I believe), but you are missing his assertion: if the children are not capable of making the decision, but the decision remains fundamentally optional to their continued ability to function, then making any such decision for them is immoral at best.

Or put more simply: The entire Superhappies agenda smells suspiciously like the promises of some religions. It would silly of us to rail against the precepts of a supposedly just and loving god who wishes to take away our choices, but to bow to an agenda such as this.

If we were to all behave as good Christians/Muslims/Hindus/whatever then that would indeed bring an end to much suffering and conflict. Do you propose the formation of one world religion and the enforced belief in it by all? This is essentially the same thing but on a grander, and considerably stupider in the specifics, scale.

One religion and strict adherence to it by any possible party will simply result in the end of the clash of ideals that pushed human culture and science into the information age, and arguably still does. This will probably slow the overall development of the species. The proposed scheme will do far more. Pain, after all, is an evolved trait meant to inform you that something is not functioning correctly and to provide negative reinforcement against dangerous actions. Without the means to discern pain, how many children and adults will cripple or kill themselves because they did not know their danger? This could be downright disastrous to the continued survival of humanity. The Superhappies could be trying to kill us off, either through violence or a subtler death.

[Herra Tohtori]

I don't see an argument there that can't be easily adapted to justify the Superhappy position (or any other arbitrarily constructed form of suffering). It seems to neglect the principle of mediocrity.

Well, my position is that every sentient being has certain rights and certain obligations.

Rights include things such as autonomy of one's own self and actions concerning oneself.

Obligations include stuff like acting in a way you would want everyone else to act (categorical imperative) which can be expanded to a plethora of moral guidelines such as "if you can't accept someone hurting you, don't hurt others" or "if you cannot give life to the dead who deserve to live, don't be too keen on handing out death to those who deserve death".

Societal obligations may require trading in parts of one's autonomity in exchange of receiving benefits from the society (these would include paying taxes, obeying legislation, fulfilling one's civic duties when requested etc.)


I'm not going to adapt into a situation where I would be required to abandon my autonomy to the degree demanded by the superhappies. I don't recognize their moral or ethical superiority. If might makes right, and they can force me to give up my autonomy, then I'm not in a position to argue, but I would not agree with it on a fundamental basis.


Both the Superhappies' and Baby Eathers' ethical principles clearly don't appreciate the right to personal autonomy and therefore are in breach with mine. Since there's no real ways of measuring which ethical or moral system is superior to others, I must just stick to my guns here.


And my ethics says that subjecting forced changes upon technologically inferior species is not justifiable, just as eating children is not justifiable in the context of "modern" Baby-eaters (it may have been justified long time ago, but now it is just a remnant of a repugnant cultural habit preserved by the social norms - much like mutilation of children exercised in many Earth cultures is still being done.


Oh and if you refer to mediocrity principle - that humans are in no way special - then I'll call on its corollary (which I just invented): No other alien species is any more special than humanity.

[General Battuta]

it may have been justified long time ago, but now it is just a remnant of a repugnant cultural habit preserved by the social norms

But, see, I think the key point is that this is exactly how the Superhappies feel about us, and I think they feel the same way about our arguments that our flaws are adaptive and necessary that we do about the Babyeaters'.

[Herra Tohtori]

it may have been justified long time ago, but now it is just a remnant of a repugnant cultural habit preserved by the social norms

But, see, I think the key point is that this is exactly how the Superhappies feel about us, and I think they feel the same way about our arguments that our flaws are adaptive and necessary that we do about the Babyeaters'.

Except that they should also be considerate of our respect for the individual's right to decide for themselves how they want to be. I would have no problems with them offering the change process as a suggestion, but considering that the story implies we already had the ability to do it to ourselves, that would be a moot gesture and our happiness could easily be improved better by other means.

Further on, if humanity had the means to do this to themselves, why do the Superhappies think we haven't done so? Do they so underestimate us that they think it hasn't been tried already? If the Superhappies think pain and suffering are not necessary components of normal (and healthy) human existence, then they have the burden of proof considering THEY are the ones suggesting the change, or mind their own business.

The difference between humans and baby eaters is that we don't kill our children or cause them to suffer on purpose. If the Superhappies claim that denying our children the pain inhibition system or whatever is the same as actively hurting them, I call shenanigans on that because they still haven't provided proof that life without ability to suffer (which is different than life without suffering) wouldn't have detrimental effects on individual humans and the species as a whole.

To justify the removal of negative feelings from children to "ease their suffering" would not be justifiable, if it turned out that human beings would in fact do better with the ability to suffer. In such a case, denying that ability from developing children and youth would be incredibly cruel, as they would not be able to develop the coping mechanisms to handle such a thing, even if the system was temporary and could be disabled upon adulthood.


No, the only viable option is to wait until certain degree of physical and emotional maturity, then offer the option of abandoning the ability to suffer to individual humans. If they accepted, it should still be a non-permanent, reversible solution. If they declined, and retained their unmodified emotional spectrum, then what right would the Superhappies have to deny them their own choice?


On that note, I wonder what sort of oppression masochistic Superhappies would experience.

[NGTM-1R]

But, see, I think the key point is that this is exactly how the Superhappies feel about us, and I think they feel the same way about our arguments that our flaws are adaptive and necessary that we do about the Babyeaters'.

Then they're giant flaming hypocrites.

They have not elected to meet us as superiors, and they cannot pretend to the sort of vast superiorities needed to even begin to rationalize such a thing. The Superhappies are not the Shivans, to use a familiar metaphor, vast and incomprehensible to our limited intellects. By being able to actually couch their motivations in terms we can understand and then communicating them with us, they have chosen to engage with us intellectually, thus proving that we are not so different we cannot construct arguments for each other to examine and critique. (As we are in this thread.)

The method they have chosen exposes them as equally flawed in moral authority. But their unwillingness to reason shows them blinder to perceive it.

Or in other words: if the Superhappies want to make something like this stick, then they need more than just a radically different system of values; they need to be something like Cthulhu.

[General Battuta]

I'm sure the Babyeaters could decide to stop eating babies on an individual level if they pleased - they have the technological ability. But eating babies is so vital to them, not eating babies so criminal and alien, it would be revolting.

Look, allow me to eat babies

If the humans think eating babies is not a necessary component of normal (and healthy) babyeater existence, then they have the burden of proof considering THEY are the ones suggesting the change, or mind their own business.

If the humans claim that denying our children the ability to live en masse or whatever is terrible, I call shenanigans on that because they still haven't provided proof that life without ability to eat babies wouldn't have detrimental effects on individual babyeaters and the species as a whole. The whole foundation of our species is the ability to eat babies, it is the definition of good, the metric by which all morality is measured. Failing to eat babies is the ultimate evil.

To justify the sparing of babies or the removal of their consciousness to "ease their suffering" would not be justifiable, if it turned out that human beings would in fact do better with the ability to suffer. In such a case, denying that ability from developing children and youth would be incredibly cruel, as they would not be able to develop the coping mechanisms to handle such a thing, even if the system was temporary and could be disabled upon adulthood.

I actually can't translate this as easily but I'm pretty sure a Babyeater could in a heartbeat, something like 'sparing babies would destroy our entire social order, the soul of the Babyeaters is the pain of eating our beloved children, and noone who fails to experience that pain can be called a true Babyeater'. We're talking about something neurally wired into them.

The individual freedom argument doesn't roll for me because we routinely deny individual freedoms to individuals who impinge the freedom of others, and by allowing ourselves to suffer, we bring great pain to all Superhappies. We're basically attacking them, as if we'd walked up to them with a contagious and devastating memetic virus and just let it spread, in spite of the fact that we possess a cure we could have used.

oh and this for a moment

(The difference between humans and baby eaters is that we don't kill our children or cause them to suffer on purpose.

I'm of the opinion that a negative act is pretty much morally equivalent to a positive one.

[Herra Tohtori]

To turn the tables:

Superhappies just don't like suffering and can't understand how it could be beneficial to any species, because it hasn't been beneficial to them (or the detriments have been too great to offset benefits).

From that standpoint, removing all suffering would be a valid point of view but they are failing to take into account the psychological and physiological differences between Humans and Superhappies, which are significant enough that Superhappies shouldn't be making assumptions that what is good for them is good for everyone, and what is bad for them is equally bad for everyone.

This betrays a fundamental immaturity in their reasoning: The thought of pain is so uncomfortable to them that they are able to justify its removal from any species they encounter, by any means necessary.



To be honest, I can't believe a species like that would fall into this sort of reasoning in reality, but I guess for the story's purposes it had to happen...

I'm of the opinion that a negative act is pretty much morally equivalent to a positive one.

You mean leaving good thing undone is equivalent to doing a bad thing?

I could agree to this if it wasn't for the context; there is no guarantee whatsoever that removing the ability to suffer from children would be a good thing - thus leaving it undone can't be treated as equivalent to doing a bad thing to a child.

If it turned out that people who have the ability to suffer will do better in life than those without that ability, that would mean the children without the ability would grow up to be emotionally (and possibly physically) crippled adults.

That would be a bad thing.

If the humans think eating babies is not a necessary component of normal (and healthy) babyeater existence, then they have the burden of proof considering THEY are the ones suggesting the change, or mind their own business.

The baby eater children don't have a healthy and fulfilling life, as opposed to children who grow up to become able to cope with occasional bouts of unease...


The switcharound analogy is incomplete because there's no conclusive proof that leaving children with ability to suffer counts as "leaving a good thing undone", while eating a baby eater child is definitely a "bad thing to do" for the baby eater child (considering it brutally ends their existence in a prolonged death).


The argument thus relies on whether or not removing the ability to suffer would really advance and improve the state of human existence. Until that question was resolved with some degree of certainty, the Superhappies have no justification for their claims, and they are undressed as what they are - an attempt to force THEIR standards on OTHERS, just like adult baby eaters enforce their standards on the baby eater children by eating them.


TL;DR:

Eating of the baby eater children is only for the benefit of adult baby eaters, while there is a definite possibility that letting human kids retain their ability to suffer could actually result in net benefit for them, and it would require quite a long research period with a test population to ascertain the functionality of humans without ability to suffer.

*breathe in*

Ethical implications of required tests, unpleasant.

[General Battuta]

The notion that oh, our system might work but theirs definitely doesn't just strikes me as too certain, too unambiguous. The fundamental dynamic of 'it's okay for us to change the Babyeaters, but not for the Superhappies to change us' is just too self-interested and suspect.

[NGTM-1R]

The fundamental dynamic of 'it's okay for us to change the Babyeaters, but not for the Superhappies to change us' is just too self-interested and suspect.

There's a reason I didn't take that stance.

[Herra Tohtori]

The notion that oh, our system might work but theirs definitely doesn't just strikes me as too certain, too unambiguous. The fundamental dynamic of 'it's okay for us to change the Babyeaters, but not for the Superhappies to change us' is just too self-interested and suspect.

Never said it was ok for us to forcefully change the Babyeaters.

Just do raids to rob some of their children and form a population of them that doesn't eat their children, then make them take care of the problem. They'd likely be quite motivated to change the main population's cultural eating habits. And just keep a firm technological step between us and them so that if they decide to go to war against us, we would have the deterrent for that.

PROBLEM, BABY EATERS?


And the same about uncertainties applies to Superhappies just as well. They are of the opinion that our way definitely doesn't work while theirs might. They haven't shown any factual basis for this belief.

It is the epitome of unambiguity for the Superhappies to assume their superiority justifies their policies toward others, when it in fact merely enables it.

Technological superiority, one does not ethically superior make, hmmm?

[General Battuta]

Pffft you're just doing the same thing. SAME THING. I call shenanigans.

[Herra Tohtori]

Pffft you're just doing the same thing. SAME THING. I call shenanigans.

Yes, except the Superhappies and Baby Eaters are wrong and we're right.

[NGTM-1R]

Pffft you're just doing the same thing. SAME THING. I call shenanigans.

'

I don't see an argument there that can't be easily adapted to justify the Superhappy position (or any other arbitrarily constructed form of suffering).

Problem, officer?

[General Battuta]

Pffft you're just doing the same thing. SAME THING. I call shenanigans.

Yes, except the Superhappies and Baby Eaters are wrong and we're right.

oh okay

I'm pretty sure the Superhappy reaction to us is analogous to our reaction to some bunch of savages eating their own **** and suffering through a 95% mortality rate through some choice of their own: good lord why. And while the Superhappy reaction is alien to us, even morally hegemonistic, I think we routinely can and would muster the same kind of outrage towards situations that touch our particular 'god no, it shall not stand' nerves. And I'm inclined to view most allegedly logical or ethical arguments for our own rightness vs. Superhappy wrongness as rationalizations for that kind of centrism.

[Herra Tohtori]

I'm pretty sure the Superhappy reaction to us is analogous to our reaction to some bunch of savages eating their own **** and suffering through a 95% mortality rate through some choice of their own: good lord why. And while the Superhappy reaction is alien to us, even morally hegemonistic, I think we routinely can and would muster the same kind of outrage towards situations that touch our particular 'god no, it shall not stand' nerves. And I'm inclined to view most allegedly logical or ethical arguments for our own rightness vs. Superhappy wrongness as rationalizations for that kind of centrism.

Well, it would be easy for us to determine that the savages suffer from high rate of disease, famine and exposure to elements, and thus have not only lower material quality of life compared to non-savages but also less of it on time axis.

Emotional well-being is more difficult to measure, but we could definitely provide humanitarian aid to these savages. If they were savages by circumstance they would accept it gladly - if they were savages by choice, the adults could reject it. You raise an interesting point though - would it be ok to leave the children of the tribe to consciously suffer along with their parents?

No. If it was a tribe of savages by choice, the adults could be deemed unfit as parents, and children could be assigned with other legal guardians. There is no justification for putting a child through material suffering like that - make the choice for yourself, but putting your child to the risk of premature death due to all the problems doesn't justify it.


Again the analogy fails in that there's no definite proof that ability to suffer is a bad thing as such, whereas there's a high risk of actual suffering associated with the high mortality rates, bad nutrition and - most likely - lacking education in savage growing environment. I wouldn't be able to comment on how functional and balanced adults of their savage society the children could become, but based on how much more they could become, it would be also justifiable to say they would be able to have a better life away from their parents.

Like I pointed out before: Life without ability to suffer does not equate to life without suffering. It is our responsibility to provide for our children and protect them from harm, but to also teach them to protect themselves from harm. Without ability to suffer, there wouldn't be motivation to learn that.


My standing point here is that there hasn't so far been a single point of evidence for the assumption that detracting from human emotional capability would somehow end up as net benefit for individual and species - it is an assumption spawned by a species that has had a very different evolutionary history, very different social development history and most of all very different physiology and brain chemistry.

By contrast it is easy to prove the detriments of savage life compared to... non-savage life. There is ample amount of material evidence to the fact, whereas the Superhappies could have at most run a limited number of simulations of how humans would react to losing the ability to suffer, considering this is a first contact situation.

[Scotty]

Question:  Does anyone know if babyeater children can even feel pain, or that the experience IS painful to them in the first place?  All we have to go on are the speculation of the acting xenobiologist, who has no proof one way or the other.

I mean, what if being eaten is a positively orgasmic experience to the babyeater young?

[redsniper]

It's not. It's described as being a horrendous, drawn-out, tortuous death in the story. Even if it isn't rigorously experimentally proven to be such, for the sake of the story and scenario I think we can assume it as bad as the author says.