Alex_Steiner

On Pseudo-Prin­ci­pal­ity: Re­claiming “Whataboutism” as a Test for Coun­terfeit Principles

• Alex_SteinerMar 27, 2025, 5:17 AM

  1 point

  0

  in reply to: Mis-Understandings’s comment on: Non-Con­sen­sual Con­sent: The Perfor­mance of Choice in a Co­er­cive World

  For compliance with state rules (e.g., paying taxes), the BATNA is state-imposed violence (imprisonment), and it’s artificially created by the state. In this context, I’m not sure how productive the BATNA framework is in shedding more light on the situation.

Non-Con­sen­sual Con­sent: The Perfor­mance of Choice in a Co­er­cive World

• Alex_SteinerJan 27, 2025, 3:05 PM

  4 points

  1

  in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: Death vs. Suffer­ing: The En­durist-Serenist Divide on Life’s Worst Fate

  I think you may be misreading the core distinction being made. The endurist-serenist framework isn’t about where to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable suffering. It’s about a more fundamental question: should such a line exist at all?

  An endurist believes that no line should exist—that life must be preserved regardless of suffering intensity when death is the only alternative. This isn’t about stubbed toes or caught fingers—it’s about whether there exists ANY level of suffering, no matter how extreme, that would justify choosing death when that’s the only alternative.

  The Catholic Church provides a clear example of pure endurism—they maintain that suicide is never permissible, no matter how extreme or hopeless the suffering. This isn’t about finding an acceptable threshold—it’s about rejecting the very concept of a threshold.

  So when you ask about where to draw the line, you’re already operating from serenist assumptions. The core philosophical divide is about whether such a line should exist at all.

• Alex_SteinerJan 27, 2025, 3:02 PM

  2 points

  0

  in reply to: JBlack’s comment on: Death vs. Suffer­ing: The En­durist-Serenist Divide on Life’s Worst Fate

  Let me offer a perspective on the endurist-serenist framework that might help clarify things. The core distinction isn’t about mapping different levels of suffering tolerance—it’s about whether there exists ANY level of suffering that shouldn’t be endured when death is the only alternative.

  Pure endurists maintain that no amount of suffering, no matter how extreme, justifies choosing death. This isn’t a position on a spectrum—it’s a categorical view that life must be preserved regardless of suffering intensity. We see this most clearly in institutions like the Catholic Church, which maintains that suicide is never permissible, no matter how extreme or hopeless the suffering.

  The existence of varying individual tolerance levels doesn’t negate this fundamental philosophical divide. The key split remains between those who believe ANY amount of suffering should be endured when death is the only alternative (endurists) and those who believe there exists some level of suffering that shouldn’t be endured in those circumstances (serenists).

  The fact that most people’s practical positions fall somewhere between pure endurist and pure serenist stances doesn’t make this a false dichotomy—it just reflects the complex reality of how philosophical principles manifest in human psychology and behavior.

Death vs. Suffer­ing: The En­durist-Serenist Divide on Life’s Worst Fate