Asklemmy

43942 readers

659 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Does giving up on yourself require giving up on everyone else? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I am cleaning up a years old mess and mulling over abstracted inner philosophy as one does. So why do other people care if someone wants to check out, punch their own card, start life retirement. Why would there ever be a stigma or law against such a thing, (other than profiteering from misery). In my attempt to reason why some worthwhile human might find it offensive, independent of outside influences like religion, the only thing I can think of is the idea, "to give up on one's self implies giving up on everyone else," like perhaps the person that takes offense does so out of their desire to help but lacks an effective means or opportunity. True/not true, is there some facet I am neglecting? What do you think?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I have a very cynical reason. If you look at what most religions say about it (against), you have to wonder why they all agree on it and it seems to me that if you off yourself, you're not supporting the team. When there weren't many humans, you really needed a bunch of team players on your religion making more babies, and the dead ones can't carry out your crusades.

Now we put capital above religion, but it's the same thing: we need workers for our factories. We need babies to become workers for our factories. Dead people can't make cars or babies.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

True. In some sort of utopian society where labour was a choice and mostly revolved around research and progress to further humanity's understanding of the world and minimization of suffering powered by all sorts of fancy technology eliminating both pain and boredom, the average Joe Schmoe would have hardly any real purpose, and it's hard to make an argument that if that utopia aligns with one's values today yet one can't contribute to some major scientific research that one is anything but yet another CO2 emission source.