Published on January 27, 2025 3:59 AM GMT. In a world fraught with inequality, climate disasters, and systemic oppression, the ongoing debate between Endurists and Serenists takes on a new urgency. Whereas Endurists argue that death is the ultimate harm, we, aligned with Serenist principles, believe that ignoring the conditions leading to suffering misses the mark on human rights. This discussion isn't merely philosophical; it's about grounding our policies in empathy and prioritizing measures that alleviate pain and inequality. From health care to environmental protection, understanding suffering as the greatest harm can fundamentally reshape our approach to social justice.
Choosing Compassion Over Condemnation: The Case for Valuing Suffering in Policy
All Versions
Jan-31
Religion
Score: 0.50
Published on January 27, 2025 3:59 AM GMTAuthor’s NoteLongtime LW lurker, occasional contributor (under other aliases). This post introduces a taxonomy of preferences centered on one question: What do agents treat as the "worst thing"?Core Framework:<ul><li>E…
From Lesswrong.com
Jan-31
Religion
Right Variant
Score: 0.80
Published on January 27, 2025 3:59 AM GMT. Amid polarizing debates on issues ranging from abortion to euthanasia, the Endurist-Serenist divide provides a crucial framework for understanding conservative values. Endurists, recognizing death as the ultimate harm, inherently value every human life, reflecting principles that stand against practices like physician-assisted suicide. This perspective champions a return to traditional morals that prioritize life's sanctity above all, arguing that policies should foremost protect life. By focusing on preventing death, society upholds the dignity of human existence and emphasizes the importance of life-preserving measures in law and ethics.
From Lesswrong.com