The best Ethics books: Reddit reviews

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

You should check out the Better not to have been book. The general idea is that it is more beneficial to have never been born. But, suicide is so hard to accomplish - mentally and physically - that it might not be beneficial to kill yourself.

Besides there are costs involved - say I'm 24, I have finally moved out from parents, live on my own. I have never been as free in my life before. All the childhood that sucked, the school are left behind. Im finally my own person. Health wise this is one of the highest point in one's life. From 30 it's going to go on downhill. Basically this and the next decade are going to be the best time of my life. Might as well make use of it if only to compensate for the shitty early part of my life. If/when it gets bad in my 40s+ I might just opt out of this game, and no family would be great in that regard - I would always be able to leave whenever I would want.

Life is essentially about costs and benefits. Most people trudge on because the pleasure shots they get out weight the suffering and the pain of suicide. It is true for me too (for now). But I would still prefer not to have existed.

/r/antinatalism rules

I highly recommend the book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence, by the philosopher David Benatar.

You may be interested in reading some of David Benatar's works, namely Better Never to Have Been.

I sympathise with much of Benatar and Schopenhauer's writings, with the degrading climate and environment only reinforcing these beliefs. The only reason I remain a fence sitter is because I know I'm a hypocrite, as well as other philosophical and metaphysical beliefs.

I do however advise you not to pay too much attention to the antinatalism subreddit unless you're well versed in filtering biases. It seems to be heavily populated with misanthropes, and in my opinion is a pretty shallow take on antinatalism as a philosophical idea.

Think by Simon Blackburn.

and

Five Dialogues of Plato.

You sound a lot like me a couple years ago

Okay, let's get your mental health in order

What is your money situation? Got health insurance?

1. Sleep. You gotta get your 8-10 hours. Every night. Quality sleep too. Get a fitbit if you can afford it, the one that tracks sleep quality. Otherwise there are free/cheap apps. Watch you caffeine intake. Eat dinner as early as you can. Take melatonin. Optimize your bedroom for sleep quality if you can (40% humidity, 60-67 F temp, air purifier, blackout curtain). Easy on the booze

2. Go to the doctor and get blood work: vitamins, minerals, hormones (estradiol too, sounds like your T is fine), inflammatory markers, intestinal parasites. Depression and inflammation are correlated. Depression and testosterone / Vitamin D deficiencies are correlated. FIx deficiencies with food / sunshine if you can, otherwise supplements. Eat real food, the kind that goes bad. Mostly fish/seafood/shellfish and vegetables. Fish has Omega 3, Iodine, and Lithium, all of which are good for your mood

3. Attitude change. Go get the audio book of Feeling Good by David Burns. it's the intro to Cognitive Behavioual Therapy. Works better than drugs for most people. You can get it free on kobo.com if you sign up (credit card required but not charge until a month). Then get https://www.amazon.ca/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614 . Can find audio book on piratebay. It's an intro to Stoicism, a masculine philosophy of life which helps you think through negative emotions

4. Walk in the daylight / sunshine after lunch every day. It's good for your mood

5. After all that, after you're feeling better, and want some inspiration for school / exercise, read The War of Art (Pressfield), and Can't Hurt Me (Goggins)

You can PM me if you need help

Also, avoid female counselors, they are useless. Find a male CBT therapist if you need one

Sounds like you need a philosophy of life...especially since you already have a doctor of philosophy degree :)..

A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195374614/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_LmVADb2ZYTREF

You are indeed blessed, but you don't deserve an explanation from me with that bullshit sarcasm in your post.

Visit /r/antinatalism and do some reading if you really want an explanation. Spoiler alert: the book is way better than the subreddit.

For real. And no religion has a monopoly on ethics, even though many of them think that they do.

I was raised with Buddhist moral values, and when I was a kid, our family would rescue injured animals (e.g., pigeons), nurse them back to health, and rerelease them into the wild. I don't believe the supernatural tenets of my family's beliefs, but I would definitely still rescue an injured animal.

For a good secular read, I recommend Peter Singer's Practical Ethics. https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521707684

this is exactly what this book talks about, IDK I believe that life is meaningless and am pretty sure that it is NOT about happiness, even successful people may have a miserable life. and I remember J.Peterson saying that it's just a succession of hard choices and challenges that you face every day and that's all.

Remember that you cannot control what others do, say, or think.

If you cannot control something 100%, all you can do is decide how to deal with it. You can train yourself to not care about the stares and comments. Sir Anthony Hopkins said, "Other people's opinions about you are none of your business."

They can think what they want. They don't know who you are. But you do.

I suggest you read A Guide to the Good Life, by William Irvine.

It has helped me immensely.

The Fundamentals of Ethics by Russ Schafer Landau is a great place to start. It's very easy to read, and it's used as an introductory book in my University for ethics class. Especially helpful is that at the end of each chapter it lists reading questions which test if you understood the theories discussed. I highly recommend it.

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Ethics-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199997233?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace

I'm an anti-natalist, i.e. I believe it's immoral to have kids. The brief rundown of why I believe this to be the case is basically just that, no matter what kind of life we live, we're inevitably going to suffer to some extent. We'll face emotional pains, physical pains, disease, injury, degregation, and eventually we'll die. If we aren't born, we don't experience any of those things, so that strikes me as a pretty clear positive. We do miss out on the good things in life, but since we aren't born, there is no mechanism by which we can regret missing out on these things, so that doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Naysayers to this point of view tend to say either:

1. If avoiding suffering is good, then missing out on pleasure is bad; or,

2. If it isn't bad to miss out on pleasure because we don't regret it, then it isn't good to miss out on suffering because we don't appreciate it.

However this symmetry isn't appropriate in my view. Avoiding suffering is just a flat out good, regardless of whether or not you appreciate it, and regardless of whether or not you're born. But missing out on pleasure is only bad if you actively regret it or feel bad about it. If you miss out on something you would have enjoyed but you don't care, then that's not really a bad thing.

That's basically a quick and dirty introduction to David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, which is what converted me to this way of thinking.

And no, I don't want to kill myself.

r/antinatalism took an interesting philosophy and used it as an excuse to call people “breeders” and say some pretty hateful shit about anyone having kids. The subreddit is fucked but the idea itself is an interesting perspective, I would recommend this book if you're at all interested in this philosophy

I would suggest the recent work of Peter Singer. He is a famous Utilitarian thinker and one of the first and leading voices in the west regarding animal rights etc. He is not without his faults, but I think he is trying to create a philosophy that, as you say, offers some practical advice on becoming a better person.

I recommend this book of his: https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Ethics-Peter-Singer/dp/0521707684

Thanks. I don't see why this would be inconsistent with anything Pruss said in what I quoted above. If you want more information, though, Pruss has an extended discussion of the relevance of QM to the PSR in his book.

link

A guide to the good life ancient, the art of ancient stoicism. It was life changing for me.

Good to know. I'd suggest reading an intro text like Schafer-Landau's The Fundamentals of Ethics for a better understanding. The critique that you're responding to, that consequentialism is indirectly self defeating, is a pretty standard one that any consequentialist worth their salt has responses for. Anyways the thing is that there's a lot going on here in your question, part is about metaethics, part is focused on normative ethics, and the one added here is about moral epistemology ("how do we know what moral truths are true"), which is why I think the best approach is to read a more comprehensive intro like Schafer-Landau's.

Combining a stoic philosophy with daily mindful meditation really helped me with that. I really cut down on my obsessive rumination and was able to move on from some past hurt emotionally. It may have been the single most helpful change I've made in my life.

If you're interested in stoicism, I recommend the following book to get you started: http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614

Wow, very touching - well done. You're describing an unfamiliar state to me, but you made it clear how to empathize.
Whomever the protagnist may be, I would wish that you/she/he would become less dependent on others in terms of what controls yours/theirs wellbeing - read more here. In any case, you can take pride in your ability to write. Great job!

A nice encapsulation of unhappy love with a low chance of ending happily. A feeling/situation that most of us have tried.

I like the visual language and your examples. I would love to see a bit more specificity to avoid it being too general.

If this is autobiographical, take solace - things will be better. Recommended reading.

Which part? That philosophers rely on intuition? It's not like it's a secret they're trying to hide, they'll openly admit that they are. Have any discussion with a moral realist and the argument for it is ultimately going to rest on some strong intuitions the person has

Look, there's even a book about it! https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746

"Moral Mazes" - buddy sent me this book. It's been collecting dust in the corner for months. Maybe I'll thumb through it.

This classic study of ethics in business presents an eye-opening account of how corporate managers think the world works, and how big organizations shape moral consciousness.

https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Mazes-World-Corporate-Managers/dp/0199729883

Read these, and put your mind at ease about not having children.
https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265
https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contrivance/dp/0143133144

> Can we say that antinatalism as a position is flawed or doesn't have any philosophical merit?

Benetar's Better Never to Have been addresses one of the difficulties of advocating antinatalism in the Preface:

> Many readers will be inclined to dismiss my arguments and will do so too hastily. When rejecting an unpopular view, it is extraordinarily easy to be overly confident in the force of one’s responses. This is partly because there is less felt need to justify one’s views when one is defending an orthodoxy. It is also partly because counter-responses from those critical of this orthodoxy, given their rarity, are harder to anticipate.

Antinatism directly conflicts with orthodox beliefs with which we are raised, with which we are familiar, and which most folks use to justify their struggle of life. The fact that antinatalism is counter-intuitive to most folks does not make the argument bad. The fact that antinatalism is not conducive to selling Hallmark cards, or helpful in the quest to convince folks to produce more human capital stock, does not mean the position is inherently flawed.

Statements can be true despite their making us sad.

That is a difficulty some folks cannot get past when assessing antinatalism. They are so hung up on the practical issues that follow from antinatalism that they cannot clearly assess whether the arguments are internally consistent, or follow from true premises.

Of course, the answer will depend on your rubric for discerning whether or not X has philosophical merit.

This won’t help immediately, but you should read Irvine’s Good Life. He goes specifically into this kind of thing, including how to deal with insults.

If your dad is being an ass, first ask yourself “is what he saying true?” If yes, then you should thank him. He’s helped you become a better person.

The second thing you need to consider is if you respect your father. Is he well informed? Does he understand what he’s talking about? If so, you might want to heed his words. If not, why are you paying them any attention? In fact, he probably deserves your pity rather than frustration.

The best way to respond to any perceived insults or whatever is humor. Not one-upsmanship. Simply laugh it off. At your core, don’t take whatever is being said seriously. Alternatively, simply don’t respond.

Finally, understand that when you allow your father’s behavior to impact your mood, you are handing over control of your tranquility to him. There are two harms, whatever harm your father is actually doing, and what you perceive as harm.

All of this presupposes that you understand your philosophy of life and are working from a core bedrock, or framework. You need to address this first before you will likely have the confidence to navigate your father’s behavior. In the meantime, I’d suggest looking at those interactions as a sort of way for you to practice applying your philosophical mindset.

Objective means mind-independent and can be true or false regardless of our attitudes and opinions about that thing.

An intuition is an initial, intellectual appearance, how something seems to us. We use intuition every day to confirm a lot of things. “Something can’t be green and red all over” is an intuitive statement and doesn’t require empirical evidence. Rejecting intuition as a means of acquiring objective knowledge is ridiculous, because we literally use it every day.

You should read the literature on it, because you’re not being totally correct in your definitions and reasoning.

https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746

There's a book I've been meaning to read for many years called <u>Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence</u> by David Benatar.

Antinatalism is a fringe belief and deservedly so. Nevertheless, I'm interested in reading this book... someday... because it (presumably) offers a rigorous argument for its views. Very intelligent, capable, highly educated people can have more than a high school understanding of logic and still believe things that the rest of us believe are utterly mad.

I'm not really trying to argue with you here. I just thought of that book when I read your comment.

Im a beginner stoic myself, and highly recommend A Guide To The Good Life by William B. Irvine.

Gives a great insight into what stoicism is.

After I finished that I will read The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual by Ward Farnsworth.

You should read Peter Singer.

He gives reasonable argument for why people should be Vegan in Practical Ethics, I don't agree with everything he says but his arguments are convincing.

Read David Benatar's book: Better to never have been. Its one of the more popular antinatalist books.

In my opinion, all parents should read this book before deciding to have a child.

https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265