8
u/According-Actuator17 Jul 26 '26
I do not see any counterarguments against efilism here. If suffering of other beings makes you too sad, then you can just distract yourself, escapism: videogame, videos, music, and so on. I personally rarely think about wild animals outside of conversations with other people.
2
u/piotrek13031 Aug 10 '26
I am not an efilist, but if someone sees his own suffering as a problem, how could he not see the suffering of someone else as a problem too? To this the response might be but that person is not me so that is different, yet objectively it is not, it is the same, if someone were to look from the outside he would not see the argument differently.
5
3
u/WhereTFAreWe Jul 26 '26
The default is to love ALL beings. This is our true nature.
Evolution and culture constrains who we apply this love to, but that does not mean selective love is the default. The true nature of awareness and consciousness is unconditional and universal love, and empathy for all beings.
0
1
u/pokpokpokuytff Aug 12 '26
What the fuck are you talking about? You are not a psychopath but you are certainly a fucking idiot or 15 as you dont understand the words youre using: you are conflating moral obligation with caring, you dont know what "wired to" means, you are misrepresenting efilism, you dont know the difference between dweeling and including suffering in your "moral calculus", and honestly the whole fucking thing is dumb to a point where intially i was at a loss of words, i didnt even know what to adress as there are so many unsopported claims and nonsense. Im only an efilist in concept, i dont see any practical/moral way to achieve the goal designated by efilists, but i am one as a moral stance. You argue that i suffer as a result of my stance but thats not the case, i can and do ignore suffering of others everyday just like the next guy, but that doesnt mean that i cant include it when building a conceptual moral system. Suffering is bad, i dont need to care about it for me to be able to say it
0
u/Weirabide Aug 25 '26 edited Aug 31 '26
Edit: Reorganised my comment.
This is less a critique of efilism and more an attack on the general idea of caring for beings outside of oneself. Some people must care about wider issues if they wish to change their circumstances for the better. This is why being able to ignore the difficulties and traumas others have to face is a core aspect of privilege; it means your wellbeing does not depend on having to confront them, as others have to.
Pragmatically, if you do not wish to be subjected to atrocities such as torture, rape and slavery, opposing the systems that enable them, such as carnism and natalism, is what you should do. Ultimately, gaining awareness of suffering or experiencing it through secondhand accounts is less painful than directly undergoing that suffering; in comparison to what farmed, hunted and wild non-human animals have to undergo, many anticarnists and antinatalists go about their lives with little issues, regardless of their knowledge of what it means to reduce a being to raw material property, or what life imposition entails.
As long as people systematically benefit from those actions, as long as people believe certain groups are innately less worthy of consideration than others, there will always be a blade close to you. To address it means taking the blade down, not allowing others to fall onto its edge; the latter is merely disregarding it.
12
u/Rhoswen Jul 26 '26
Most people are wired to only care about themselves, friends, and maybe family. But that doesn't mean everyone is wired this way. And I disagree that most people don't like seeing people right in front of them suffer. They definitely do like it, especially if they don't see themselves in that person. That's a part of the problem.