Okay, so no, I don't think my musical preferences are correct (I take it). I was asking because I sincerely had no idea what your response would be.

So I'd have to figure out why you'd think that "in practice, I think my ethical views are correct," but "in practice, I do not think that my musical preferences are correct." — Terrapin Station

On second thought, maybe you do act as though your musical preferences are correct. A lot of people do that, actually. And YouTube comments would be evidence of this.

But, it has to be in some sense 'attainable' for anyone to even entertain it as being realistic? — Wallows

Yes! If your "paradise" is like a wholly black, wholly red, square circle, dry watery ground sky, then it doesn't even count. We can't even have an intelligible discussion about it.

A conceivable paradise of a life without having to work full-time, having millions of pounds, a nice house near a beach, an expensive sports car, and so on, at least makes sense and is in some sense attainable. I could win the lottery.

Causing someone to need something when they don't have to is morally problematic, even if the person is gracious or indifferent to the need they are being forced to need. — schopenhauer1

It annoys me that you see things through such a narrow perspective, and cling to that way of seeing things like fundamentalist, but I should probably not allow myself to get annoyed by that and just accept that you probably won't change.

Others recognise that having needs is just part of a much bigger picture, and that the evaluation should be based on that much bigger picture.

What some posters also don't get is that a paradise is still a paradise, even if it is unobtainable. The question wasn't "Is paradise attainable', but "What is paradise?". — schopenhauer1

No one here doesn't get that a paradise is a paradise. That's an irrelevant truism. Rather, the issue is that some of us here dispute that your so-called paradise would be a paradise proper. And also, no, the objection is not simply that your so-called paradise is unobtainable, it's that it's an inconceivable nonsense. A rough sketch of what I see as a paradise would be a life without having to work full-time in retail, in a sunny climate, with lots of money, and so on. It's still a paradise to me, even if, realistically, it's unobtainable for me. But unlike what you're saying, that makes sense.

What some posters don't see on here is that if it was a paradise, there wouldn't even be the harm of being bored "not suffering" :rofl:. — schopenhauer1

I see that you keep going back to nonsense as if it were sense, without seeming to realise that that's a disadvantage, not an advantage. It's like those people who talk of a God in nonsensical ways, like being outside of time and yet created the world, and they then expect to be taken seriously, as though they're talking sense. It would still be nightmarish, even without suffering, just like the pleasure machine would be nightmarish. I would absolutely hate to be plugged into a pleasure machine and become like a vegetable.

But, would a life without suffering be worse-off than the idealistic notion of a life without suffering (Nirvana)? — Wallows

I assume there was a typo there, and the first "without" should be a "with". No, I don't think that it would be worse off. I think that it's just a common misperception to think otherwise, not too disimilar from people who jump to the conclusion that real life would be so much better without physical pain, even though they probably very much wouldn't want to live with a congenital insensitivity to pain.

But, life is fundamentally rife with disappointment and struggle, and if we assume that this is true regardless of fantastical or wishful thinking, then I suppose there is no other way to put it than state that the antinatalist simply demands too much from themselves or others in order to procreate. — Wallows

That's an understatement.

I can only speak for myself here I suppose, so I would amend my comment to the sort of statement of fact, that I would prefer to live a life without suffering. But, we then digress into wishful thinking, and the near-incomprehensible notion of what such a life would look like(?) — Wallows

Well, given your awareness of all of those accompanying problems, why would you conclude that you'd prefer it over what you do know?! You'd risk a nightmarish existence, like in one of those "be careful what you wish for" horror films?

I am satisfied with this thread. If you aren't, then go ahead and start the poll. — Wallows

It wasn't about this thread, it was about your comment that most people would opt for a life without suffering. If you're satisfied enough not to question that comment, then so be it. You haven't made clear your thinking about what I said: whether you agree with my prediction, disagree with it, aren't sure one way or the other...

If you're sincere, then go ahead and start one, just to asses the reasonableness of out lot, hereabouts. — Wallows

You're not interested enough to do so yourself, then? Even though you were the one who seemed to be offering up that speculation about how most people would respond as some sort of support behind the notion that a life without suffering is preferable.

Because it elucidates under what conditions an antinatalist would allow one to procreate or not? Surely, you can see some merit to assessing that, rather than arguing over how much this world sucks... — Wallows

Only insofar as one might think that that could have some bearing on a meaningful discussion back in reality. If not, then I think that it would be a waste of time to delve into fantasy land.

Well, here I chime in and to the defence of schopenhauer1 (which has been extremely dogged in his asymmetric and symmetric notions of suffering) would say that suffering is a choice. If one were allowed to choose between a life with suffering (which can be called even a brute fact of existence), then I again suppose that most people would coffer a choice of no suffering. See the idealism here with respect to an existence in the "real" and "paradise" world? — Wallows

Why don't you do create a poll on the forum? My money would be that most people on the forum would choose a life with suffering, because a life without it would be much worse. It would be horrible. And I think most people on this forum, perhaps unlike the general population, would be intelligent enough to realise that.

My main point with the notion of a paradise where an antinatalist would actually allow one to procreate is an abstraction of the highest sort. If you fail to see any merit in discussing a perfect world where an antinatalist would actually allow procreation on their part is a failing on your part I assume. — Wallows

Now all you have to do is actually explain why you think that. Do you also think that there is merit in discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

In practice do I think that my musical preferences are correct? — Terrapin Station

I reject your suggestion that what I said of you in relation to moral stances is sufficiently similar to musical preferences to make that analogy a true analogy.

No, I don't at all. It's not that I don't want to use that word. What I'm saying is that my moral stances don't extend beyond me in some way where there's some sort of error that other people are committing in not feeling the same way about them. — Terrapin Station

In practice, and going by my understanding of the statement, you do think that your moral stances are correct, in spite of what you say. To deny this would be a performative contradiction.

Computer broken. Bing bong noise. Email.

It's an IT Crowd reference.

Again, it's just that you're not a subjectivist on reason, and via objective reason, you believe that you can arrive at correct moral stances. — Terrapin Station

Of course I'm not a subjectivist on reason. And yes, you can arrive at correct moral stances through reason. You think that your moral stances are correct, just like I think that my moral stances are correct. You just don't want to use those words, whereas I have no problem with doing that. And the only other alternative to arriving at the correct moral stance through reason is to do so coincidentally through guessing or something. There's no such thing as "subjective reason", and the term "objective reason" is redundant.

There could just be different opinions about it where one opinion isn't correct where that has nothing to do with how any particular individual is thinking about it. — Terrapin Station

It's not a matter of opinion, so in that sense it doesn't matter whether there are different opinions about it. Whoever says that it's reasonable is objectively mistaken.

I am a subjectivist on reason. — Terrapin Station

Well that's easily refuted. If reason were subjective, then, for example, whether affirming the consequent is reasonable would be moot. But it's not.

Right. "More sensible" is "in accordance with reason," and you're not a subjectivist on that. Since you think that moral stances can be reasoned, you're not actually a subjectivist on moral stances.

I am a subjectivist on reason. — Terrapin Station

I'm a moral subjectivist, but reason is objective. There's no inconsistency in that. Do you need me to explain that to you? Moral stances can be reasoned whether one is a moral subjectivist or a moral objectivist and irrespective of which of those positions is true. You reason your moral stances, too.

You don't think it's just more sensible to you though. You think it's more sensible in general. Which is not a subjectivist view. — Terrapin Station

No, whether it is or isn't will depend on how you interpret that. You must be interpreting it in a way which leads you to that conclusion, so just don't do that.

As you've agreed, you think that reason transcends personal opinion, and you think that moral views can be arrived at via reason. Again, this is not a subjectivist view. — Terrapin Station

I'm not a subjectivist on reason, if that's what you mean. The objectivity of reason is part of what distinguishes it from opinion. And don't deliberately phrase what I've said in a misleading way. I'm not a rationalist. Even Hume acknowledged the role of reason. Hume wasn't a rationalist. It's true that reasoned opinion, the right opinion, transcends the personal opinion of some whacko. That's consistent with subjectivism, just not subjectivism of your more radical, unrestrained, individualist brand.

You apparently think that moral stances can be arrived at via reason and that reason somehow transcends people as individuals. — Terrapin Station

Moral stances can indeed be arrived at through reason, just not reason alone or "pure reason". And yes, I suppose you could say that reason transcends personal opinion. An individual can be unreasonable, someone's personal opinion can be completely wrongheaded.

You're not really a subjectivist on this stuff, then. — Terrapin Station

No, that's a non sequitur.

That you have the stance you do isn't the same as saying that your stance is correct and alternates are incorrect in general. — Terrapin Station

That I endorse a more sensible way of approaching the matter than you do isn't the same as putting forward a stance that isn't compatible with subjectivism or for which the term "correct" can't apply.

Would you vote for AV rather than PR? — Michael

I'd vote for neither. I'd vote to keep FPTP. Although admittedly I have a conflict of interest as a member of the Labour party.

I don't know if you misread my response above. I said that the only thing that I can imagine as a "test" is thinking about whether the principle really matches one's feelings/intuitions.

So, in other words, thinking, "Do I really feel, or are my intuitions really, that we should have no crimes that are words starting with the letter 'M'." And then if the answer is "Yes," it has passed the test. — Terrapin Station

Then we've easily confirmed what your problem is. You have a faulty test. It might well pass your test, but your test itself is wrong. That's obvious from the sort of content which it passes.

I don't suppose I'm going to be able to get details on that. — Terrapin Station

Well, what do you think? You presumably acknowledge the problem with a methodology which allows for all kinds of nonsense, which would be a consequence of looking for the answers to these kinds of questions simply through someone appealing only inwards to their own feelings or intuitions, because that in itself wouldn't rule out all of the nonsense. So whatever it is that leads everyone to the right answers, that would be a better methodology. That way, the nonsense can be ruled out. We could just disregard any nonsense conclusions stemming from misguided feeling or intuition and focus instead on the conclusions which make sense, the ones which have actually been thought through properly.

And they do have that right, just not without consequence, at least if you're in a country with decent laws.

Okay, I'm bored of you now, because ironically you're the one who is giving me nothing of substance whilst demanding it from me. Clearly you were just drawn to intervene based on pure emotion and aren't actually interested in my criticism, which you've obviously decided against addressing. Just another white knight.

I thought you'd been following the discussion. He's not just innocently bringing up a fantasy out of the blue. It apparently comes from Schopenhauer: surprise, surprise. And the implication is that it should be taken seriously in our reasoning on this topic. But I think that that suggestion is to endorse bad philosophy. I don't think that we should take it seriously at all. It's barely comprehensible and totally unrealistic. Those are cons. This is criticism. Criticism is a fundamental part of philosophy. That's more philosophical in nature than your distracting ad hominems. If you were to focus more on what I'm actually saying, instead of this knee-jerk reaction of yours, then maybe you wouldn't be having such a problem seeing the point.

I find people prosthetising to be much more intolerable than speaking out against islam as part of some conspiracy theory. — DingoJones

Why? All they're doing is helping people by providing them with artificial limbs. Leave 'em alone.

What's the other option? — Terrapin Station

A methodology which doesn't permit all kinds of nonsense.

Bing bong noise.

Well, I think it is elucidating in what set of circumstances an antinatalist would warrant procreation, even if that means imagining perfect worlds or such... — Wallows

What is it with people in this discussion and avoiding direct questions? Are you in training to become a politician?

So you were referring to my reply to what he said, rather than what he said, but you don't want to come out and directly say so. Fine, whatever, there's loads of merit in talk of completeness nothingness lack of lack of lack of non-watery non-liquid oceans.

It's short for Aswang. — Shamshir

:rofl:

Well, I am addressing your concern wrt. my sentiment or question as to what kind of conditions are permissible to have children to an antinatalist. Which, then evolved into imagining a possible state of affairs (utopias, paradise, etc.) where an antinatalist would feel comfortable in having children... — Wallows

I'm none the wiser after that reply. You don't see any merit in my reply to what he said, or you don't see any merit in what he said?

I am sorry, but what you said ("she is feisty") sounds dismissive of Swan's worth. She may be passionate about her ideas, but so am I, and you, and most everyone here. Her gender ought not to influence our thinking, and her picture, absolutely not. (Actually, both do, and I am the first to admit. But we must behave as if they did not. Out of respect.) — god must be atheist

I'm always dismissive. It's kind of my thing. It's her thing, too. But I'm better at it.

She's fiesty. I'll give her that. More like a Jack Russell than a swan.

But since you're the one trying to add complexity to where there isn't any, it's quite evident you're projecting on my answers. — Swan

I knew this would turn out to be amusingly ironic. Hate is an intense dislike. Lots of people have an intense dislike. Obviously not just the kind of people in prison for committing crimes of passion.

Who's overcomplicating here? Who's creating problems instead of easily solving them?

Hah, coming from a philosophy forum, I don't see any merit to this. — Wallows

In what I said or in what he said? If the former, then can you explain it? Because it seems to me to be the opposite of good philosophy. It seems to me to be the epitome of bad philosophy. You know, like the sort of unrestrained stoner speculation kind of stuff. Like, hey man, can you imagine if there was an ocean that wasn't blue or watery or full of liquid? If I've got my sensible hat on, I would be like, why? That's just stupid. But if I just wanted a bit of senseless entertainment...

Halfwits believe one can be arrested without having committed a crime. Halfwits and authoritarians believe in arbitrary arrest. — NOS4A2

Okay, but are you full yet? Or still a bit peckish?

And when are you going to create that discussion about the idea that music can invoke feelings being wizardry? I've been waiting in anticipation.

Should be easy to find a law or something that states you don’t have to have committed a crime to be arrested. Hell, it’s how law enforcement works everywhere. — NOS4A2

It doesn't need to be explicitly stated in those exact words when it's so obviously implied, in the logical sense, that even a halfwit could figure it out without much trouble.