I’m not convinced going to school will help him more in the long run than it has harmed him — Pinprick

And so we can agree that it’s dubious whether or not they should be forced to go to school by their parents no? Principle still seems to apply. I would say that depending on the case there are times when forcing kids to go to school is wrong. A case like yours for example is a good candidate.

They’re the ones experiencing the pleasure, so of course it’s good for them... — Pinprick

In order for something to be good for someone that someone must exist first. If you want to say that being born is good for someone because they will experience pleasure then by the same token it is bad for someone because they will suffer. You either take both or neither. You can’t say being born is purely good.

Also, perhaps intent is relevant after all. I don’t view accidentally harming someone as morally wrong, unless it’s due to some gross lack of judgment or neglect. — Pinprick

If someone is harmed due to being born that’s hardly accidental. You don’t “accidentally” have kids. There is planning and a 9 month delay. You knew they were going to be harmed in some way.

I’m pretty sure kidnapping someone causes them distress... — Pinprick

So it’s fine if they were sleeping and didn’t feel it, and had no responsibilities to tend to and no close relations? In other words, if the act of kidnapping itself doesn’t cause any harm is it fine? I doubt it. So why is it wrong?

It is bad when there is not a good reason to do so. It is acceptable if the pleasure they are seeking infringes on the liberties of others, or otherwise needlessly risks harming others. — Pinprick

By this metric you should be obligated to have a child whose life will be perfect. Whose liberties would that be infringing on? Yours? In that case then “denying pleasure” should never be a problem in the case of having kids. So idk why you mention it.

Also by this principle: Having kids needlessly risks harming others (the kids), therefore it is fine to deny pleasure in this case making the act overall wrong.

However, if the risk of harm is minimal, but the potential benefit is large, the risk is worth it — Pinprick

Agreed with some caveats.

and also why having children under most circumstances is ok. — Pinprick

But this doesn’t follow. The potential benefit is much smaller than the potential harm. There are multiple paths here:

You consider having kids as something that can be beneficial/harmful to the kid:

In which case having children is wrong because it unnecessarily risks harming someone. In this case you cannot “counteract” this effect by saying that not having kids denies pleasure because in this case your ARE allowed to deny pleasure (which is why you don’t have to have a child even knowing their life would be perfect).

You consider having kids as something that can’t be harmful/beneficial to the kid:

Comes with a whole slew of problems such as malicious genetic engineering being ok which need to be addressed.

Paying taxes does not improve my situatio — Pinprick

False. Or at least supposed to be false. That’s the premise behind it. If everyone paying taxes does not improve everyone’s situation then that’s a corruption problem.

You can reasonably assume that they will by using the available data. — Pinprick

That’s not good enough justification. For example, I know that people on average are happier when they exercise regularly. Doesn’t give me a right to force you to exercise at gun point does it?

Are we just so divided that certain people crack from the stress of knowing people out there disagree with them so so much? — DingoJones

More specifically, I think there is a distinction to be made between wanting people to agree with you and needing people to agree with you. Everyone has the former. Everyone likes when people agree with them. However some go an extra step and decide that there is something to lose when people disagree. In other words, become entitled to others on the forum reacting to them in a specific way. Become reliant on it like food and water. It’s those people that commit suicide by mod. Their expectations get shattered and so they lash out.

It’s a similar trend to the age old phenomenon of “rage quitting” be it in a video game or a real game. When something doesn’t go your way and you throw a temper tantrum.

I say don’t become reliant on others reacting to you in any specific way whatsoever.

If we think it’s more likely that they will find life worthwhile, — Pinprick

If I happen to be a masochist and I think it’s likely that you will enjoy being tortured does that give me a right to torture you?

So making kids go to school is wrong? What about making them eat vegetables, or going to bed on time, or dress appropriately? What about making people pay taxes, or go to jail/prison, or pay for car/health insurance? — Pinprick

I was implying that all of these things were done to reduce the suffering on them or others. I thought that was obvious. We make Kids go to school and eat vegetables because it’s good for them in the long run. We don’t just arbitrarily make kids do stuff for no reason.

Yeah I can, it’s good because they will experience pleasure. More specifically, it gives them the opportunity to do so. You agree that’s good, right? — Pinprick

But not good for them. That would make no sense.

I don’t see it as black and white, there’s definitely some gray areas. Not having children does prevent them from experiencing pleasure, but sometimes doing so is justified. — Pinprick

Oh so preventing people from experiencing pleasure is not bad now? Only sometimes bad? Ok where are these gray areas? When is preventing people from experiencing pleasure bad and when is it acceptable?

The outcome of murdering someone is certain, but that’s not the case with having children. It is certain that they will experience pleasure/pain (unless they happen to have whatever disease it is that doesn’t allow them to feel pain), but we have no real idea of how much of either they will experience. — Pinprick

The outcome of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is uncertain, as the gun might jam. That doesn’t make it ok to do. It is ridiculous to require certainty to say that something is wrong. Because then nothing is ever wrong

Acts that directly cause harm can be considered wrong, but simply being born does not directly cause harm, or pleasure for that matter; it just creates the opportunity — Pinprick

I’m sure you’d agree that kidnapping someone and putting them in a forest to fend for themselves is wrong. Even though it doesn’t actually cause harm, or pleasure, only creates the opportunity. Why is it wrong then?

It’s a denial of the opportunity to experience either, which is fine to do as long as there is a good reason to do so — Pinprick

But a second ago you said it was fine to deny but did not provide a reason. Why is it you require a reason here? A second ago it was a “gray area”... Until you clarify exactly when denying pleasure is acceptable and when it isn’t you’re just being disingenuous

Besides, doesn’t AN claim not having children is for their benefit — Pinprick

False. That claim would make no sense as there is no one to benefit. And no one to be harmed. Which is why not having children is a neutral act.

Having children on the other hand is a risk act that is not accompanied by consent nor can be said to improve anyone’s situation which makes it wrong. So far you have not provided an example of an act which does these things that you consider fine except having kids.

’m not meaning to. The pros outweighing the cons is a pro. — Pinprick

You cannot know that the pros will outweigh the cons. And that’s not what you said. You said “the pros are likely to outweigh the cons”.

it looks like it's below a 6, but when asked to sum later on it is an 8 or something. I'm just saying sometimes there are biases even in answering a question like that due to social expectations, forgetting each moment actually felt, etc. — schopenhauer1

Yes and I'm saying that we should use the 8 despite of this. Because the remembering self is what really matters. Or at least, there is no reason you should favor the 6 over the 8 (experiencing over remembering self)

You could say that this "forgetting" then clears out the bad that was experienced prior, but I don't know. — schopenhauer1

Yup. That's my position.

What to trust? — schopenhauer1

The summative evaluation for me. If they don’t consider it a problem as a whole then why should I? And how do you aggregate these moments anyways? You’re suggesting some sort of objective measure of “worthwhile ness” which is different from the guy simply telling you it was worthwhile.

for the badness in play is not contextual, does not depend on anything form its being bad. — Constance

False. I think it's very clear that badness is contextual. Murder is bad, killing in self defense is not for example. Similarly, torturing a child is not bad, if they are a child of Satan.

I also have a notion, you may disagree with, that existence short of being an ideal existence, would be one where someone should not be born into — schopenhauer1

I don't agree. I think if we know the person in question will find their life worthwhile then it's fine. Problem is we don't.

I guess, my question to them is, why do they think it is justified to impose this game on someone else? — schopenhauer1

They don't really I think. Only say they do. Yet they would seriously object to being kidnapped and forced to play some VR game or other.

But, there are examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will, even when there is the potential for harm. Mandatorily sending kids to school is a good example. — Pinprick

There are no examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will unless it reduces suffering to them or others. Or at least there shouldn’t be.

Some, perhaps even most, do not want to go to school, but we judge that doing so benefits them, so we send them anyway. — Pinprick

There you say it yourself. You cannot logically say that being born is good for the person being born.

I don’t consider not having children as bad. — Pinprick

But by your own principle, if not having children is “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” and that is bad, then it should be mandatory. So either having children is not preventing anyone from doing anything, or “preventing someone from experiencing pleasure” is not bad. There is no other way out.

I object to propagating your personal choices, which boil down to mere opinion, as if they should be some sort of absolute rule (which is precisely what AN does, unless I’ve misunderstood something). — Pinprick

You’ve misunderstood something. I’m not a moral realist. I’m arguing against the claim that “there is something wrong with AN” which is the topic of this post. No one so far has been able to show what this thing that is wrong is.

I would never judge someone else’s decision to have, or not have, children as bad. — Pinprick

Would you judge a murderer? Probably. So the reason you wouldn’t judge someone’s choice to have kids has to be that you don’t consider it a moral issue. I would ask why. Does it not result in harm? Why would it not be a moral issue?

What about malicious genetic engineering? Would you judge someone who genetically engineers their child to be blind? Probably. But why is THAT a moral issue but birth itself isn’t?

The actual act of giving birth is amoral, because it causes no harm/pleasure. — Pinprick

False. You literally just argued a paragraph ago that not having children is a denial of pleasure. Which means that having children causes pleasure (as well as harm). Which is it? Make up your mind.

I can wish good on someone for their own sake. Like wishing that my loved ones continue to have a happy life after I’m dead. I won’t be there to share their happiness, but I wish them the best nonetheless. — Pinprick

Yes. But they exist in this case don’t they? Who said anything about you?

Why can’t it be the same for a child? — Pinprick

Because they don’t exist until you make them exist. So it can’t be that you’re doing it for them. You can’t do something for someone that doesn’t exist and claim it’s for their own sake. Because they don’t have a “sake”. Because they don’t exist.

Could it be argued that reproducing is a biological need, similar to sex or companionship? — Pinprick

No. Sex and companionship are hardly needs. Food is a need. Because you die when you don’t get it. You don’t die when you don’t get any of those things.

And even if it is a need, following it in this case would be like a starving person stealing from another starving person since it’s a need that when satiated, propagates to others. Still wrong.

It isn’t meant to be a reason, it’s a justification. When you are considering doing something, isn’t it good practice to weigh the pros and cons? — Pinprick

Yes but “The cons aren’t that bad” is not a pro. So idk why you’re framing it as if it is.

I think the only thing you can do with someone like that is ask them how often they inflict suffering on non-dependents because it “makes them better”. They probably never do. Which makes it highly dubious that they actually believe what they say they believe

even without being certain of it. — Olivier5

We agree if this is changed to “and one cannot be certain of it”. I also assume the possibility of truth. Not that there is any way to confirm such a possibility though

You don’t know it is true though. That is the point. You require undoubtable knowledge not just belief.

What do you think of people who say that people need to be born into non-ideal circumstances so they "strive" to do better, and get themselves to more ideal circumstances? In other words, they think that the value of getting out of a less ideal state to a more ideal state is a goal above and beyond not suffering? — schopenhauer1

I don’t think those are the same thing. I agree with the latter not the former. I agree that there is value of getting out of a less ideal state to a more idea state, and that that is preferable to not suffering at all (heck, I don’t think this is possible). I don’t agree that that can be applied when treating others. It is a personal philosophy to find meaning in suffering. It is problem to then go around inflicting suffering on others because you find meaning in it.

Based on relevance to continued practice of one's freedom, so life would rank highest, as the conditio sine qua non, then bodily autonomy, since you can only act through your body, and so on. — Echarmion

Still there seems to be a clear contradiction. You’ve stated before that there are situations where having children is wrong. I don’t see how you can get that if life outranks suffering in your hierarchy. Same with how you get malicious genetic engineering to be wrong. Your system does not match up with your own moral intuitions.

But if we're willing to allow such general and abstract notions of suffering — Echarmion

There is nothing abstract about it. Weakening property rights means I’ll get random people coming into my house and taking my stuff. That causes distress. And I can’t stop them because I can’t easily prove that they don’t need the stuff. There is nothing abstract about this. There is a very concrete consequence to weakening property rights in the way you’re suggesting. So we shouldn’t do so.

As I said before, you use actual, emotional suffering as your standard for the clear examples, but as soon as the water gets muddy you fall back on more generalised notions of "danger" and "harm" to shore up the holes. — Echarmion

I have no idea where you’re getting this. Nothing that I’ve said so far has not referred to very concrete suffering. I am very against the idea of referring to anything else when talking about morals.

Seeing as you are happy reaffirming your view with schopenhauer1, I think I'll leave it at that. — Echarmion

I don’t see what me and shope’s talk has to do with anything.

I forgot about “If they don’t like it they can just kill themselves so it’s fine”. That’s gotta be the worst. Strange what can come out of otherwise rational people’s mouths when this is the topic.

Only in the first. Not in both.

The presumption is.. First it is okay to put someone in the mess.. and it is only okay after the fact, and not question whether it is okay to put someone in the mess in the first place. — schopenhauer1

Simple and straightforward. I like it. The standard argument against this is either “It’s not a mess” (false, it very much can be) or “But we need to” (False, outright). Or the worst “It’s fine to get people in messes because they don’t exist yet” which is ridiculous and can easily be dismantled with the malicious genetic engineering example or the forced to play a game example.

These consequences are predictions, things I'm concerned about — Isaac

Ok. In that case I’ll add they they’re reasonable. I’ve seen them very frequently with other ANs, though mostly the ones that misinterpret the argument.

In conceptual terrain, you get lost in logical contradictions if you assume that none of what you can say can be true (the liar's paradox). — Olivier5

How about “None of what I can say is true except this”? Paradox resolved.

Or something like “I cannot know that what I say is true but I don’t see how this can be false so I’ll believe it”. Paradox resolved.

So the concept of truth is necessary for science, if only to rule out what is certainly not true. — Olivier5

I didn’t say the concept makes no sense. I said it’s unachievable. If a scientist comes out and says he’s “figured it out and there is no longer reason to doubt his findings” then he’s not a scientist.

Philosophers do that all the time though. I haven’t found one whose findings have not been critiqued as of yet. Maybe that says something.

Because in the process you come up with better and better solutions to problems. At no point does your conclusion become unfalsifiable though.

also to assume that we can say something true about it. — Olivier5

Is to say that there is a point at which you can be sure you’re not making a mistake. Which from the definition of a mistake, is impossible. Short of some sort of divine intervention which waves the problem away.

But without them one lands logically into very weird territory. — Olivier5

What’s the weird territory you land in for not having:

also to assume that we can say something true about it. — Olivier5

Because I can’t think of any.

False on all accounts. Apply your own standard and try to support your claims instead of throwing them out. Funny you’re chewing someone out for not supporting their claims about BLM on the leftist forum thread right now.

Of what? — Olivier5

Why do they need to be of anything? I literally just said "perceptions with no world".

Granted though I'm venturing into some very weird territory here and I do in fact agree that we're all living in the same world and I'm not an idealist. But I just wanna see how far I can take this. In my view, there is an objective reality, but one that is inaccessible, and is just there out of logical necessity (because perceptions need to be of things).

But as for an objective morality however, that I don't see at all. Doesn't seem to be a logical necessity required for anything. Nothing about reality implies an objective morality in an of itself. And postulating an inaccessible objective morality doesn't seem to have any practical value.

These idealists must have assumed they lived in the same world as other people, then. — Olivier5

They didn't.

Well then, once again there would be nothing to agree or disagree — Olivier5

Does that setup somehow make it impossible for people to have the same perceptions/views? No.

Last I checked idealists did not spontaneously lose their ability to collaborate with others.

Oh, so you agree we all live in the same world? — Olivier5

Those aren't the only two alternatives. How about: No world, only perceptions? Like the idealists like it.

if your world is different from mine, — Olivier5

And what does "They don't actually live in the same world" even mean? Here you are proposing the existence of multiple, objective, and independent worlds. Idk why you are still doing that.

The closest thing it could mean that makes sense is "Why would we want everybody to have the same views when they don't actually have the same views", which I answered. But also, not postulating an objective reality doesn't prevent people from having the same view as you so idk where you get that either. — khaled

channel 1 and I was watching some crappy western movie on channel 2 — Olivier5

What is channel 1 and channel 2 supposed to be analogous for?

Why should we want everybody to live in the same world if they don't actually live in the same world? — Olivier5

As I said, there are countless advantages. Having people who agree with you is great. You can cooperate, agree on certain things, reinforce each other's beliefs, defend each other from opposing beliefs, create a harmonious community, etc etc. I'm sure you can think of many more on your own.

And what does "They don't actually live in the same world" even mean? Here you are proposing the existence of multiple, objective, and independent worlds. Idk why you are still doing that.

The closest thing it could mean that makes sense is "Why would we want everybody to have the same views when they don't actually have the same views", which I answered. But also, not postulating an objective reality doesn't prevent people from having the same view as you so idk where you get that either.

Changed it. Don't need the "of it" in that sentence.

there is nothing to try and agree about. — Olivier5

False. We can still agree and disagree about our perceptions. In the sense that we can have different ones. And we can also want everyone to have the same ones as us. There are clear advantages to that.

Otherwise e.g. the flat-earthers' world would be actually flat — Olivier5

What does "flat earthers' world" even mean?

You do need to agree that the world is one in spite of our different views of it, in order to WANT to resolve differences of opinion — Olivier5

Doubtful. Or else every moral relativist would never speak about morals again. But they do. Wanting agreement is not dependent on whether or not a correct version exists. I would say wanting agreement precedes the meta consideration of whether or not a correct version exists.

Then it is in principle possible to judge whether or not God exists between these on the basis of that difference, and you’re not appealing to things beyond all phenomenal experience after all. — Pfhorrest

To do that we’d have to understand what happens to consciousness when we die. We don’t yet.

We can’t ask the dead if they’re in heaven. You can twist any of the major religions to fit in with the science. And it’s not even hard to do so.

Two people who agree that there is an objective answer and disagree about what it is have reason to try to sort out which if either of them is right — Pfhorrest

But they will never know is the point. You’re proposing an inaccessible objectivity. There is no point at which they can’t doubt the agreement they came to. There is no point at which they know their answer is the objective one.

If they think there is no such thing as objective answers at all then there’s no point trying to figure out what it is — Pfhorrest

Sure. But that doesn’t preclude trying different answers, seeing which work best, and reaching agreements. Which is exactly the same thing that you would be doing if you propose the inaccessible objectivity anyways. It only precludes going for the objective answer. Which is not possible even if you proposed an unknowable objectivity anyways.

You can analyse people's biases, it makes sense to do so. And hence you can start to resolve differences of perception. — Olivier5

To postulate an objective reality that we can be wrong about is to say that everyone is biased. Or at least, that there is no way to tell that you have the “one and only unbiased objective view”. So you still can’t resolve these differences conclusively. All you can do is reach an agreement. Which you don’t need that postulate for.

You can reach agreement without objectivity. Which is what makes me wonder why you would want to postulate an inaccessible objectivity. Seems as useless as proposing the existence of an undetectable, massless teapot that cannot interact physically with anything. Just why?

So if you admit that we might be wrong about what is objectively real, is that the same thing as saying there is no objective reality? I suspect your answer to that is "no", so why the double standard when it comes to morality? — Pfhorrest

My answer is "What's the difference?" Or, in more detail: Why propose an objective reality that you can be wrong about? What advantage does that give you that a lack of an objective reality lacks? What does it allow you to say that the no objective reality model doesn't? Same question with objective moralities. Though I guess this is more meta-meta-ethics now.

There are things that feel good to some people in some circumstances that are still wrong, but they're wrong on account of them feeling back in other circumstances or to other people. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for clarifying. If that's what you mean then I largely agree.

Claiming that there's something that's good or bad in a way that has no bearing whatsoever on what hurts or pleases anybody anywhere ever is as absurd as claiming that there are facts about reality that have no observational implications. — Pfhorrest

Even more absurd, because claiming that something is good or bad forces you to act in a certain way whereas claiming some super convoluted physical explanation for things that uses 50 more variables than required doesn't actually change anyone's behavior, it just makes calculations harder.

If it makes no noticeable difference whether it's true or not, how are you to assess its truth? — Pfhorrest

But it does make a huge difference in the case of God. A difference that will last an eternity.

I'm not suggesting that individual hedonic value can be directly equated with societal-level moral judgement — Isaac

Good. That's all I was saying was not the case.

You could, but I wouldn't. — Echarmion

How would your rank them?

I suppose that'd be some kind of moral realism or evolutionary morality. I'd consider that an is-ought-fallacy though. — Echarmion

I didn't say that's how they should be ranked, I said that's how I would rank them. So no.

Certainly, as we have already alluded to, property rights would be a lot weaker, since mass produced stuff would be legal to take if you really needed it. — Echarmion

Not necessarily. You could argue that weakening property rights in this manner does more harm than good since you can't really tell who has the strongest emotions, and use that as justification to keep them the same. The law, and what is moral, are different. For example: Committing suicide is illegal in most countries, so that cops can detain you. Doesn't make it morally wrong.

And this is also why I said "I wouldn't even mind valuing your own suffering above that of others when doing this". However too much would make you what we normally dub a "selfish cunt".

What's the "extent" here? The strength of the associated emotions? — Echarmion

Yea

In one case you have something that's measurable - like an emotional reaction. In the other, you have abstract values like "bodily autonomy" or "self-determination" which have no intrinsic scale. — Echarmion

But if you were to rank these abstract values wouldn't they be ranked by the strength of the associated emotional reactions when violated anyways? I don't see any other meaningful ranking.

not having children also causes someone to experience something they'd rather not experience. So we have a conflict here, how is it resolved? — Echarmion

Who? The parent? Then as I said to Pinrick:

the suffering you experience is incomparably small to that which you are planning to inflict to alleviate it. There is a much better solution to this known as adoption. Or volunteering in child care. Or or or or.... All of these inflict a lot less suffering and still solve the problem. — khaled

In other words, when both doing and not doing something will result in some suffering, you obviously pick the version that results in the least suffering. I wouldn't even mind valuing your own suffering above that of others when doing this.

My point is that stealing form someone you hate feels good, yet is wrong. So pforrest's claim that what is morally right is what feels good hedonistically, is false. That's it. You seem to be agreeing.

Indeed. So why do you hate the person? Are all wars considered morally wrong, for example, despite that fact that they involved much suffering? It seems that in most calculations of 'moral', these considerations have already been taken somewhat into account. Stealing from a orphanage would definately cause more guilt than stealing from someone you hate, but it would also be considered more morally wrong, especially if you hated the person in question for good reason. — Isaac

What does this have to do with anything. Also the "it" is ambiguous, idk what you mean.

What is guilt if not a 'bad' feeling, thus rendering the activity one which does not 'feel good'? — Isaac

Do you know what "despite" means?

And I would say that it is pretty clear that how much guilt you experience varies greatly depending on context. Stealing from an orphanage is likely to produce a lot more guilt than stealing from someone you hate for example. The latter might even overall feel good (in the one instance).

This clearly specifies a reason for inclusion in the category 'morally wrong', not the category 'moral claim' which has not, in this topic, even been mentioned. — Isaac

If that's what you're referring to then yes, obviously how an activity feels goes a long way in determining whether or not we consider it right. If it brings about a lot of guilt it is usually labeled wrong.

But that does not lead to pforrest's claim that what is right is what feels good to do. As there are many cases where something feels good to do despite the guilt.

The idea that the only common factor in what is considered 'morally wrong' is that lack of ulterior motive is ridiculous. — Isaac

Agreed. Which is why you should learn to read carefully.

The label in question was "Moral claim" not "Morally wrong".

How does this explain the overwhelming grouping of moral codes, the presence of specific brain regions activated in moral decision-making, the similarity of endocrine response to moral activity, the overlapping psychology of anti-social behaviour with moral impulse control problems, the involvement of regions like the vPFC in moral decision-making, the commonality in criminal psychoses... — Isaac

Read the second response. Maybe you'll finally understand.