As long as it is optional and no one is coerced, is the pleasure cube really immoral? If someone decides they're not interested in real life and just want to live in pleasure up until death is that really wrong? Particularly for people who may be otherwise useless (which is more relevant now that automation is going to get rid of a lot of jobs).

yes because it turns your brain into mush

>>17809356
How is that immoral?

>>17809356
I mean if they have nothing better to do, why not?

>Atheist morality
It's funny they act like SJW victims when you point this out (when they're not promoting it like this thread) as if they don't promote this sort of folly.

>>17809352 (OP)
I think it is bad. Self actualization and not pleasure should be what society tries to maximize.

>>17809392
You failed to explain the issue though, implying you don't actually have any real reason to call it immoral.

>>17809392
>pleasure cube
):<
>pleasure cube (heaven)
:O

Where did the idea that pleasure is immoral even come from?

>>17809412
that's Islam's version of heaven, actually
heaven for the Christians is to be in the presence of God, it's how the "Heavenly Jerusalem" got its name, because God will literally walk among us.
Another point against your comparison is that wants will not exist anymore in His presence because being in proximity to "the Life" will sustain us. The pleasure cube exists specifically as a mean to sate wants indefinitely; in Heaven, there is no want to sate in the first place.

>>17809419
Greek autist Antisthenes
>"I'd rather be mad than feel pleasure"

>>17809424
This is literally all fan fiction.

>>17809432
no, this is at worst a thought experiment and at best an existential question

>>17809437
Christians really be like
>You can either burn in pain forever
>or do basically nothing forever except exist
Imagine being so miserable and against anyone enjoying themselves that you create a scenario where both the good and bad outcomes induce existential dread.

>>17809451
>or do basically nothing forever except exist
you conflate "wants" with "actions". I never said that you would do "nothing" in heaven, I simply told you that there will be no more wants, longings or needs, which are a symptom of uncompleteness.
You don't exist to stave off entropy, or seek the newest high. Highs shouldn't exist in the first place in the same manner as lows, such as pain and depression, since they're fictions created by your fleshy brain and its electrochemical gates in order to fulfill fleshy needs - wants.
Does God do nothing in the Bible? No! He creates and sustains His creations. He intervenes to help them or punish them in order for growth to be had. He counsels and prescribes.
And He does it all not because He _needs_ to, but purely because He is _free_ to do so and He wants to do so.

>>17809426
Sounds like a real joy to be around, imagine being locked in a room with him for a day. Slaps you over the head the moment you stared at a wall for entertainment

>>17809426
based
>my honest reaction to Islamic Heaven

>>17809469
>wow I cant wait to go to heaven and feel literally nothing!
The irony is the same christians will criticise buddhists for pursuing samsara.

>>17809469
>wants, longings or needs, which are a symptom of uncompleteness
>He (God) wants to do so
Calling your own god incomplete is bold

>>17809352 (OP)
Nope. There's no such thing as morality anyway.

>>17809469
Then why do anything or strive towards anything? At least the pleasure cube lets you experience a simulation of stuff, with it presumably challenging you in such a way that you prefer.

>>17809510
That's a fallacious accusation. "A want" is not the same as "to want". Homographs are a thing.
A want is an object that necessarily is wanted. To want is merely to express will to achieve something whether external or internal to the agent. As God is internally One, then all expressions of God's Will - his achievements - are external. An internal expression would be something akin to personal growth (To want to act wisely), which even you'd agree is quite absurd when it comes to an Eternal, Whole, Unitary Existence.
>>17809490
Buddhists still deny the seat of a separate but connected individual experience, thought, which is why most memes when it comes to buddhists in philosophy is that they worship Nothingness rather than true Oneness as an ideal state of being.
In Cartesian Terms, they fully accept and never question the deception of consciousness, instead of asking about the why for the need for deception if there isn't anything to deceive in the first place.

>>17809538
>Then why do anything or strive towards anything?
Because you chose to.

>>17809544
Sounds like a whole bunch of word salad to me. When i last checked, objects are external wants and since humanity desires objects, humanity will keep their wants

>>17809356
fpbp
it is immoral to let someone become lesser

>>17809392
>>17809352 (OP)
>>17809412
The Pleasure Cube and Heaven are both shit for the same reason, and that's because humans don't actually want endless pleasure. This has been discussed to death already. Humans want novelty, heaven and the pleasure cube both presumaly never end, nobody would want to spend an eternity in either place.

>>17809352 (OP)
>"is [x] immoral"
According to who or what ? You can't have morality without consequences, and you can't have consequences without ideology.

>the pleasure cube
Yes because there is an implicit idea in modern society that a person isn't solely defined by his wishes but with what he brings to other people too. A pleasure cube completely voids the interpersonal relations and innovation that someone could bring to society. In current standard morality(tm) for most of humanity, there seems to be an anthropological link between connection to other people and moral worth, so yes, it would be immoral.

>>17809424
>"Erm No actually god is different from the pleasure cube because"
>perfectly describes a pleasure cube
>mfw

>>17809424
Ok so heaven is just a pleasure cube without any of the icky Harry Potter or porn or heroin but functionally achieves the same result. The Bible outright describes heaven as one need with God and singing his praises all day. That's the pleasure cube by any other name.

>>17809352 (OP)
>as long as it is optional and no one is coerced, is heroin addiction really immoral?

>>17809848
If heroin didn't basically destroy your body would it still be immoral?

>>17809359
It’s essentially suicide by rollercoaster, and if you need a more comprehensive understanding of how that’s both immoral and undesirable then take a trip to Kensington in Philadelphia. Pursuit of pleasure as the ultimate goal above all else (hedonism) leads to inherently immoral behavior as people steal from each other and throw others under the bus to get their next fix. It’s antihuman behavior that prolongs extended isolation and misery by excluding relationships for the purpose of overexerting your dopamine receptors.

>>17809851
The Pleasure Cube destroys your brain and your body through addiction. You are selling your agency through enslavement to physical passions. Whoever sells you the soma benefits materially at the cost of your own demise; you become a debtor but instead of selling yourself for credit you sell yourself for a short term temporary high that needs to be continuously placated for the sake of continuing the rush it gives until chemically it can no longer give a rush.

>>17809889
We're talking about a hypothetical pleasure cube that does not.

>>17809894
And I’m breaking down metaphysically why pursuit of physical pleasure does not lead to human fulfillment

>>17809901
But you're framing it in the sense of a drug dealer profiting from the physical harm. The thought experiment is more that in a vacuum is submitting to nothing but pure pleasure while trading off free experience inherently wrong.

>>17809773
I think the reason why people think endless pleasure is shit is mostly because people cant imagine what endless pleasure is like. The reason people seek novelty is because old things slowly start to become less enjoyable overtime, its our brain telling us to do something else
If things were always as fun as the funnest time you had with something, you would probably never feel the need to do anything else

Is this what God wants for you? Repent and believe

>>17810089
Why do Christians think just telling people to believe is an effective approach? I can guarantee not a single person has been converted just by some retard telling them to belieb

>>17810094
Most christians were introduced into their faith effortlessly when they were children. They didnt have to give it that much thought or consideration so its natural they would expect everyone else to integrate into their faith as easily as they did

Alot of them struggle to understand that random adults are significantly more stubborn than children who are copying their parents. About as stubborn as they would be if someone were to try to convert them to buddhism or something

>>17809392
>>Atheist
Stop being obsessed with people who realize you believe bullshit

>>17810054
>do the same thing over and over and it never grows old
So effectively becoming retarded and getting stuck in a groundhog day simulation. Lovely
I think I will take my chances outside the abrahamic pleasure cube

>>17809352 (OP)
Fundamentally, it's anti-life. Life with all its becoming and trials, painful love and loss, struggle and doubt, pain and passion. It's the ultimate aim/fantasy of the last man.

I think that the comic is hot, not because I want it, but because I have a hypnosis/mind break kink.

In the real world you can do fent, see where that gets you in the real world.

The distinction between Godly heaven is that god is all good, by definition, (the sky father archetype creates order and good/categories), and you are united to the creator of the universe, whereas in the pleasure cube, you are just on fent forever. the joy in heaven is ritchus and the pleasure in the cube is degenerative.

>>17811421
*righteous

tldr no matter which way you cut it, it's anti-life, anti god or both.

>>17811421
I feel this misses the point though. Fent is bad because it is deadly, not just because its pleasurable. If fent had no health downsides it wouldn't be as bad arguably.

>>17811308
Everyones already retarded including you, theres not much to lose. When was the last time you interacted with anyone and didnt think "wow what a retard"? Its been years for me

>>17811730
Seems to me you are just unable to see your own hump. Try to mingle with better people

>>17809352 (OP)
Ultimately, the moral problem with hedonism is that a person who solely pursues pleasure becomes a burden on the community, consuming the goods that others work to produce while giving nothing in return to those who support him. The hedonist is basically a parasite.

So, the morality or immorality of the "pleasure cube" depends on the economic and technological state of civilization as a whole. Right now, it would be immoral, but if we get to the point in the future where automation has eliminated work and resource scarcity, it would no longer be immoral.

>>17812707
No i see my hump too, im also retarded. Your standards are just so low that you are proud of human unga bunga. I only remember a single person from here about 2 years ago that didnt feel like a glorified ape and funnily enough they thought they were a midwit

>>17809352 (OP)
Well it takes up good resources like electricity and water from people who actually actively contribute to society.

>>17809773
You’re not going to like where you end up. :)

You must realize that it is impossible to judge some normative ethical quandary as moral or immoral without having a coherent answer to questions of meta-ethical grounding. If all meta-ethical systems are equally valid, then how can one hope to have an 'objective' answer to a normative ethical question which is informed by a meta-ethic?

The pleasure cube question points towards a deeper issue: is there any way to adjudicate between different meta-ethical claims? If so, how? If not, the question is doomed to lead to a relativistic answer, where the pleasure cube is only bad in one's opinion, but not in reality.

>>17812767
That's retarded. Parasite doesn't equal hedonist though one could say they are correlated to some extent

>>17812767
You can have the best of both worlds. Rewire the human brain to feel immense pleasure from doing productive things so you get people both being happy hedonists and helping others

But then the question arises on what exactly productivity is attempting to achieve in the grand scale of things. You wouldnt want to accidentally program people to seek unending economic growth until the planets resources cant sustain the human race anymore, that would not be ideal

>>17809870
working hard is technically also suicide