Woke up to 7,500 subscribers and 300 paid ones today 🥹
Thank you so much. This means the world to me.
Let me return the favor.
Drop your Substack below so I can check you out! I’m happy to subscribe to what resonates. Feel free to pay it forward to others as well.👇
You made it, you own it
You always own your intellectual property, mailing list, and subscriber payments. With full editorial control and no gatekeepers, you can do the work you most believe in.
Today's real 'fake news' incident (which added $2.4 trillion in market value and erased it nearly as quickly) hopefully will be dissected in every journalism class and newsroom.
I agree with this, with one exception. I think that it is, in fact, possible to argue people out of the 'pleasure isn't good, but pain is bad position.' Among other things, even worse than implying utopia is worse than a barren rock, it implies it would be morally neutral to press a button that would make no future people ever happy again--and that utopia is no better than everyone just living slightly worthwhile lives with no suffering. That a life filled with love, good food, and general joy is no better than musak and potatoes.
This argument works against a crude statement like "pain bad, pleasure neutral," but fails against the following formulations:
(1) All conscious existence has negative value. What we call "pleasure" can make it less negative, and sufficient quantities of "love, good food, and general joy" can help the value of a life asymptotically approach the zero level, but they can't make existence better than nonexistence.
(2) Lexical negative utilitarianism and related axiologies. (e.g. Pleasure is good, but not good enough to offset even trivial amounts of pain.)