These are extremely toxic and antisocial industries and they make society much worse off.
Prostitution, substance abuse, suicide, and other self-destructive acts, are the only measure that is available to us for enforcing that Leviathan keeps its end of the social contract: that our bodies and minds are first and foremost our own, and only when we infringe on others' freedom may ours be curtailed.
The day one becomes unable to destroy oneself is is the day freedom becomes permanently unattainable.
Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational.
Self-preservation may be rational behavior for animals. But humans are qualitatively different from animals in at least the following aspects:
- We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment.
- We are continuously aware of our own mortality.
In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die. (Terror minimization theory.)
It gets better. A being that exists, can suffer, dread, and die; not to mention, cause others to suffer, dread, and die. A non-existent being, on the other hand, doesn't have any problems at all. "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence. You don't exactly act self-destructive because you want to exist more, quite the opposite.
So, from a thinking being's perspective, self-preservation is at least as irrational as self-destruction, if not more so. Of course, either way, people's thinking is much less rational than we give it credit for, while people's actions - much more. But this only reinforces the point: that the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction is simultaneously the most counterintuitive.
(Incidentally, if this line of reasoning makes sense to you, you can check out "Every Cradle is a Grave" by Sarah Perry. If it doesn't, also check it out, it probably contains a rebuttal to your first few arguments, and then you have no other choice but to really start thinking.)
>it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself.
It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself. See: the environment, the economy, the culture. All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity.
Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living. Some of them even revert to what they perceive as "traditional" value systems - ironically, the same ones that made life hardly worth living in the first place.
But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s
Perhaps, but I made a distinction between plain suicide and other self-destructive behaviors. Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there? Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it.
I'll respond to the rest of your post without pressing the distinction.
> Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational.
I think self preservation is sensible as a default. It's ultimately a matter of opinion, but I go off the premise that we live to do whatever it is we choose to do, and therefore self destruction should be a last resort.
> - We have language, which lets us continue our thoughts beyond the immediate moment.
Ignoring the evidence of language in other animals (though you might convince me that human language is more sophisticated), I don't see how this is relevant to justifying self destruction or many other things.
> In that light, many of the relatively irrational choices that we make, can still seem more rational in comparison with an alternative of just sitting around and waiting to die.
"Many" and "an alternative of just...waiting to die" suggest a far greater scale of "rational irrationality" than I think actually occurs. How often are people faced with situations where their only realistic alternative boils down to "waiting to die"?
> "Destruction" is just the process of going from existence to non-existence, and "self-destruction" is just an egosyntonic drive towards non-existence.
Nevermind, I'm bringing up that distinction again. Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism. "Just" is a strong word.
> from a thinking being's perspective
From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much.
> the most rational evaluation of the question of self-destruction
Most rational? Really?
> It's still way easier to see than all of the collateral damage you make when not destroying yourself.
I'm not sure about that, but perhaps.
> All turned to shit, thanks to the presumably rational actions of presumably rational actors pursuing individual self-preservation and prosperity.
You're not wrong to be cynical about that, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful.
> Which is why you see so many young people finding life hardly worth living.
I don't think they would be taking the most rational course of action through suicide. In fact, I highly doubt more can't be done with the their effort than without.
> But of course the prostitutes are to blame /s
Is that really what you got from my comment? It was one example and not slut shaming. Realistically, a child born of a prostitute isn't going to have a great childhood. That might change in the future if society shifts more towards sex workers that are fairly treated, but that's not here.
>Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there?
Selfish reasons or no, in most cases it's not practically possible to do anything that does not affect others. Whether you have affected them positively or negatively, and whether you are to be held responsible, is for others to decide - mostly arbitrarily, that is to say in accordance with a whole host of suprarational factors.
>Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it.
I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate.
>"Many" and "an alternative of just...waiting to die" suggest a far greater scale of "rational irrationality" than I think actually occurs. How often are people faced with situations where their only realistic alternative boils down to "waiting to die"?
Who said "only"? It's just the default option.
>Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism
Use of intoxicants cause consciousness to change, then, sure enough, temporarily stop existing. It can also cause people to do reckless shit and risk their lives more. The human brain is a brilliant inhibition machine.
Addiction may be understood as a process that occurs within a person's self, or outside of it, depending on where the locus of control is defined. This is beside the point, though. It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of.
You seem to be reading in my comment a distinction between suicide and other self-destructive behaviors; a distinction which I don't remember putting there.
>From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much
People have perspectives, and everyone's is valid (when presented in good faith).
People also have opinions. However, unlike the perspectives, some opinions are incorrect and worth disproving.
What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry.
>Most rational? Really?
According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise?
>I'm not sure about that, but perhaps.
It all depends on the situation, of course. After all, you never can truly be certain what the others see.
>but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful.
Sure, if it helps anyone.
>I don't think they would be taking the most rational course of action through suicide. In fact, I highly doubt more can't be done with the their effort than without.
Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only.
I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable; so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others, because someone promised them that some way of life or other is what will give their lives meaning.
By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
>Is that really what you got from my comment
Not really. I got some help with staying awake though, which was nice. Cheers
I didn't say you made the distinction. I did. I said suicide is acceptable because it cuts one away completely, whereas behaviors such as alcoholism can have severe negative effects on others that aren't merely emotional turmoil.
> Who said "only"? It's just the default option.
So they have alternatives besides self-destruction and waiting to die but self-destruction is the rational choice?
> It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of.
True, but upthread, you (or whoever the commenter is) mentioned substance abuse as an example of self-destructive behavior. I just went with it since I don't disagree.
> What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry.
Opinions are valid insofar as they reflect one's moral axioms and the available facts. I know what you're talking about with regards to identity.
> According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise?
I was thinking you meant "rational" in the sense of you being reasonably correct. As in, it's rational to not go to areas with smoke if you're trying to evade danger. Seems I misread.
> Sure, if it helps anyone.
I think it is useful to discuss any harmful actions.
> Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only.
I didn't say you said that.
> I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable;
And I'm saying that these things aren't truly "unattainable" and they may be attained in the future.
> so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others
I doubt the collective environmental impact of these people is very significant compared to the overall global energy consumption and, more pressingly, the potential preservation to be had in working to fix this mess. It's their choice, but saying suicide is most rational seems nearsighted at the present moment. Maybe in a few decades things will really be hopeless.
> By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
Not sure what you're trying to say here.
On the other hand, smashing up some proverbial deck chairs or even breaking a metaphorical Wallace Hartley arm is an acceptable way of making people acutely aware that the ship is, in fact, sinking.
>What of a child born from a prostitute
IMHO abortion belongs in the list of acts of radical bodily autonomy outlined by GP.
You should try posing that question to the kind of person that works to restrict safe access to it.
What you'll get is a reminder that a great deal of our society doesn't really understand "cause and effect" -- and are completely willing to drag down everyone else through completely socially sanctioned acts, such as political participation.
That seems to err on the side of intentional damage. I don't know how to evaluate destructive protests. I suppose some suicides are clear protests, but I don't think all suicides are, and someone really shouldn't drag others into a mess they made.
> You should try posing that question to the kind of person that works to restrict safe access to it.
Well I'm not that kind of person, and I was referring to a child that was already born.
> What you'll get is a reminder that a great deal of our society doesn't really understand "cause and effect" -- and are completely willing to drag down everyone else through completely socially sanctioned acts, such as political participation.
Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there. Malice, ignorance, and whatnot are serious problems, but their prevalence doesn't justify drunk driving and the like.
That's an interesting statement. Do you think that sex workers should not be allowed to have children? Any other noteworthy groups in your eugenics policy?
If we're talking about destructive urges, another popular one would be alcohol, and yet we have many many examples of how it needs to be accessible to an extent to serve as a release, even if sometimes it still causes serious damage.
Put differently, the societal cost of outright banning some self-destructive things ends up being higher than just regulating them because a ban doesn't actually stop much.
We even seem to be heading towards a similar realization for many drugs (eg Marijuana).