Basically we have no answer, the unluck minority still suffers and no philosophy could make them feel like their suffering is worth it, because honestly its not, this is why we have suicide and people begging for their lives to end.

Maybe we need a philosophy that could accept this unchanging fact of existence and somehow still able to justify the existence of the lucky majority at the expense of the few, statistically speaking. Its the eternal trolley problem of existence, but somehow make it ok to sacrifice some people for the many, even if the victims strongly protest it.

Otherwise we'd end up with Antinatalism, Pro mortalism and Efilism, quite depressing.

I very much agree, what is the point of developing "oughts" if not to make existence worth living?

However, this could also lead to pessimistic philosophy like Antinatalism, Efilism, Pro mortalism, Nihilism, etc. Because some may see suffering as something unpreventable, at least for the unlucky ones and believe we "ought" to not exist, so we dont have to suffer due to bad luck.

Its easy for us to say we ought to live with suffering when we are not the ones that end up on the extreme end of the suffering spectrum, just like how democracy may vote for things that are good for the majority but terrible for the minority.

Personally, I have yet found a philosophy that could speak for both the majority and the minority with regard to suffering. Should we continue the species knowing that some will always have terrible lives not worth living? Should we end the entire species because of some victims of terrible lives? We dont have a clear cut philosophical answer, as far as I know.

One for all or all for one?

As said, there is no "right" or "wrong" in moral consensus, only what the majority of a group will agree to uphold and defend.

You are still conflating moral consensus with some kind of objective "rightness" or "wrongness", these things dont exist in reality.

Morality can never be objective, because you cant find them in laws of physics or fabric of reality, its a subjective human concept developed through group consensus, that's it.

Antinatalism would say this is just prolonging the suffering of unlucky people, we will never solve suffering and its not worth it.

Different countries, friend, meaning different localized group consensuses, there are some universal group consensus as well, like dont kill babies for fun.

Group consensus does not mean global only, it can be separate groups across region, culture and borders.

We are more morally "dominant" because most groups agree with not killing for honor, correct, right or wrong have no relevance when it comes to moral consensus, only numeric matters.

1000 years ago most groups believe women should have less rights than men, it changed over time as more and more groups are convinced that this is a bad idea and eventually it became the dominant moral consensus to give women equal rights, a few groups not agreeing to this mean little but to prove that morality is still a consensus, the only difference is localized consensus or widespread consensus.

Not actively challenging moral rules is basically consensus.

Laws are moral consensus, officially.

Policies are moral consensus.

Granted laws and policies will change be improved upon, but also through consensus.

Morality will always be subjective go group consensus over time, its an emergent aspect of human society.

Any claim of definitive or objective morality is just foolish, like claiming rocks are good/evil without considering the subjectivity of human development.

Lol, really? You wanna redefine Utopia because its official definition is too "pedantic" for you?

I think 99% of them want to be not starving and not be in a war first, lol.

Religion is something people use to justify their suffering, without suffering they wont care as much about god's plan and mysterious ways.

>unusual definition to suffering

Lol, what is suffering to you? How about some examples?

False equivalence though, dread is far from suffering.

people should stop defining suffering as anything that pains them, because the word loses its meaning, common intuition would define suffering as pain so intense and prolonged that it makes people avoid it at all costs, including suicide.

Antinatalism, Efilism and Promortalism would say its impossible to get rid of suffering so we might as well not exist, blow up earth and spare future generation from suffering. lol

Very poor artists and deep thinkers. lol

Which would prefer to not be suffering from their poverty, so they have the luxury of thinking about philosophy more. lol

Lol suffering will always be subjective to the sufferer, there is no such thing as universally objective suffering that you could measure and apply to every person on earth.

The point is, subjective suffering is still suffering and you cant say someone is or is not suffering if they themselves are screaming in pain from their suffering, be it physical, mental or circumstantial.

Not having beluga caviar is a very rare subjective suffering, if you can even call it that, unless you have some sort of severe mental illness where not eating them would make you become suicidal and scream in pain. lol

Sure, I agree, but if you are suffering intensely, it wont matter what anyone says, the only thing that concerns you then would be to fix the suffering first.

There is no such thing as an extremely happy sufferer of extreme pain, no matter how much they may try to rationalize their suffering.

When you suffer, you cant even begin to search for meaning, you just suffer and all your thoughts and energy are spent on getting out of suffering.

When you are not suffering, you have all the luxury in the world to Nietzsche or Camus or Stoic your way into whatever meaning you prefer to keep on living.

Not suffering is the prerequisite for everything else.

Honestly, most people are not in a hurry to find any deep meaning to life, they just wanna live healthy, happy and enjoy the finer things of life, most die happy this way too.

Only philosophy major and philosophiles spend A LOT of time on this, lol.

I did? ok then.

*starts chasing him away.

I dont think sense making is the problem for most people, its more like "I dont wanna suffer, if I dont suffer then I dont really care."

So suffering and avoiding them is the actual concern, of most people.

They can make whatever sense they want later, without suffering in the way.

You are very picky, go away you. lol

it means perfect knowledge is never perfect, always seek more knowledge, perfection is impossible. That's all we need to understand.

What book? This thread is about the article describing the concept and history of utopia.

You do understand the definition of Utopia, right?

"The tau that is knowable is not the eternal tau" - Lao Tzu.

Utopia cannot exist because perfection is an imaginary human concept that will never occur in reality, man made or naturally.

Its like the concept of free will, no such thing. lol

Is this the philosophy sub or complain about people from other sub sub?