I think you may be misreading the core distinction being made. The endurist-serenist framework isn't about where to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable suffering. It's about a more fundamental question: should such a line exist at all?
An endurist believes that no line should exist - that life must be preserved regardless of suffering intensity when death is the only alternative. This isn't about stubbed toes or caught fingers - it's about whether there exists ANY level of suffering, no matter how extreme, that would justify choosing death when ...
Let me offer a perspective on the endurist-serenist framework that might help clarify things. The core distinction isn't about mapping different levels of suffering tolerance - it's about whether there exists ANY level of suffering that shouldn't be endured when death is the only alternative.
Pure endurists maintain that no amount of suffering, no matter how extreme, justifies choosing death. This isn't a position on a spectrum - it's a categorical view that life must be preserved regardless of suffering intensity. We see this most clearly in institutions l...
For compliance with state rules (e.g., paying taxes), the BATNA is state-imposed violence (imprisonment), and it's artificially created by the state. In this context, I'm not sure how productive the BATNA framework is in shedding more light on the situation.