So given the choice between a reading with addressable solutions, and one that can never be achieved and so no one would ever argue for, you intentionally selected the second interpretation. Because this allows you to reduce the argument to an absurdity, and then disregard it. But you’re just fucking lying to yourself, you’re not really achieving anything except finding a way to arrive at the conclusion that you had pre-selected.
But on the other hand, ending all suffering is such an unrealistic demand that no one would say it seriously. Stubbing your toe is suffering but would anybody prioritize ending it? You can read it as a hyperbole if you will.
End deliberately human caused suffering is not the same as end all suffering.
End all suffering implies preventing all animals starving or eating each other. Or animal genocide so nothing is left to suffer.
I think that’s a pretty hyperliteralist take.
You just inserted the word “all” and hoped, we wouldn’t notice but I did
I would argue that ‘end’ implies ‘all’, aka ‘eliminate suffering’.
If it said ‘reduce suffering’ or ‘minimise suffering’ that would be different.
So given the choice between a reading with addressable solutions, and one that can never be achieved and so no one would ever argue for, you intentionally selected the second interpretation. Because this allows you to reduce the argument to an absurdity, and then disregard it. But you’re just fucking lying to yourself, you’re not really achieving anything except finding a way to arrive at the conclusion that you had pre-selected.
But that’s kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.
But on the other hand, ending all suffering is such an unrealistic demand that no one would say it seriously. Stubbing your toe is suffering but would anybody prioritize ending it? You can read it as a hyperbole if you will.
But that’s kind of the point of the OP in the first place. End all suffering, wait not that suffering.