If that is the rule you wish to use, yes. If not then maybe not.

Convention exists because it appears to be functional for us not because it is some underlying principle of nature or because it is not. What is might be and what might be might be what it is.

Applying abstractions to multiple singular instances and expecting to hold fast is likely stupidity veiled as something many call ‘knowledge’. Whereas ‘wisdom’ is more obsessed with not excepting such knowledge as an unquestionable effigy.

ALL truth claims are workable within set parameters.

If murder is bad - as the very meaning of murder is that of a certain kind of killing that is bad - then murder is bad.

Examples where ‘murder’ can be misconstrued as ‘good’/‘better’ does not disassociate the term from its use as something ‘bad’ in general. Given that circumstances may vary in innumerable ways when we are talking about someone’s death there is quite obviously going to be areas of contention about what is or is not considered ‘murder’. Euthanasia to some people is ‘murder’ and to others it is merely ‘assisting someone to die’.

Nuance in language and interpretations of events and circumstances does not take away from the general meaning of the term ‘murder’ being bad.

Not everyone likes the taste of strawberries but that does not mean that strawberries are considered to taste bad, yet no doubt there is someone out there who thinks something most consider to taste awful to taste bad. The experience of tasting something nice and something bad exists. The variance of experiences does not detract from the existence of such experiences.

Morality is as meaningless as ethics. There is meta ethics and we are never within its reach yet constantly craving its presumed judgement our lives even if that means said ‘craving’ is non-existent. What we do is what we do. How we interpret what we do is merely that … an interpretation of NOT a complete understanding of.

Of ‘something’. It is not a resolution just a statement that there is a ‘directedness’ … ‘towards’ something (the existent or non-existent is a mirage of a dichotomy).

Ethics is unethical and morals are immoral.

Both equally likely. Humans will always push the limits of their understanding even if it rocks the boat.

As for ‘struggling’ as opposed to ‘paradise’ … it seems that the later would not sit well with creatures that are basically defined by their struggles. I cannot recall who said it, possibly Schiller, but to paraphrase … if things do not fall apart humans will inevitably pull them apart simply to give themselves something to do.

A life without trials and tribulations is no life at all.

You must be stupid or simply trolling. I never said “unduly”.

Like I said, nothing more to discuss.

Bye bye

I can see you are a moron now. Thanks :)

Torture is not a positive term. If you cannot except that there is no room for discussion because you are not speaking the kind of English I am familiar with.

We can certainly disagree about what constitutes ‘torture’ and it is likely within that problem you have misunderstood what I was saying.

These are human terms used by humans to explain human phenomenon as if we are able to take a step back and look upon ourselves ‘passively’ and ‘objectively’ (two terms that are also part of our understanding of the human condition).

Morality is immoral in practice and ethics is unethical in practice. They are just markers we use nothing more.

Torture can be ‘right’ but it is never ‘good’ or we would not call it ‘torture’. Why is that so hard to grasp? That was my point about the OP.

You mean ‘right’ or ‘correct’? Which is ‘right’? Both. Which is ‘correct’ neither.

Probably because people with the same kind of views tend to gravitate towards each other. Point being it can be very dangerous to assume what everyone thinks and feels about a subject based on a very limited selection … in most circumstances that is (but in limited selections some rigour must be applied for there to be any reason to take it as meaningful).

I have no reason to believe most people would not wish to ignore that they are eating a dead animal. The world is currently full of brainwashed idiots and propaganda is likely at its highest point in human history too thanks to this ‘wonder’ we talk mass media.

All I know is we are all stupid and we will all die. I will continue to eat meat without an ounce of guilt and scoff at those who simply regurgitate swaddle they saw on some twitter/youtube/instagram horror show of manipulation misinformation born out of boredom and attention-seeking arm waving hysteria.

Interesting response eh? Or is it just more drivel in the ever widening cesspool of disconnected human interactions just before humans become other-than-human?

Why are you asking? My point was that ‘torture’ is not something people regard as ‘right’ or it would be called something else like ‘hugging’.

The OP stated that if ‘torture’ is bad then there must be a ‘moral truth’. Why did they say this? No idea. They just asserted it.

Torture is bad. It can also be argued that ‘bad’ things can be done for ‘good’ reasons. I am not neglecting here that torture is bas ONLY marking that there are exceptions under which a ‘bad’ act can be deemed as better than not doing said ‘bad’ act in the long run.

Show me that someone (other than a masochist or someone otherwise deranged) actively seeks out torture and I will eat my words. Torture is bad is NOT the same as saying torture is ALWAYS wrong.

Speaking for myself I do not avoid such thoughts at all. Maybe a good number of people do? I have no data to suggest most do or do not.

From personal experience, asking people, I have in the UK women are not willing to kill to eat but men never seem as fussed … maybe that is simply due to me having asked people I know rather than strangers, but I have no male friends I can think of, past or present, that would shy away from it.

Next you will be telling me ‘good’ is ‘bad’ and ‘suffering’ is a form of ‘pleasure’.

There are certain parameters under which language functions and is understood. If you refer to ‘torture’ as not being something nasty it does not mean that ‘torture’ suddenly stops being ‘nasty’ only that you have decided to pass the ‘nastiness’ on to some other term.

Think of instances where people do not starve to death anymore because the government bans ‘starvation’ as a reason for death on death certificates … can people no longer die of ‘starvation’ or has the government merely prevented the language term from being used to implicate death.

Okay … I guess murder and rape are good then because I say so. If you argue against this then you cannot possibly believe what you just claimed.

Torture is not something people seek out. It is regarded as ‘bad’ because of this (like setting yourself on fire is not something people do much).

Of course there are exceptions where under extreme circumstances one could suggest ‘torture’ was the ‘best’ course of action. We do not generally live in a world where extreme situations present themselves … or they would just be called ‘different situations’ rather than ‘extreme’ ones.

I am not at all convinced that many meat-eaters care to hunt?

I think you may have assumed this because it was correctly pointed out that humans have a long history of hunting and gathering and that we are omnivores. Even the OP asked about people going directly to the slaughterhouse rather than prancing about in a forest with a rifle.

Hunting is for the romantic and is a necessary part of managing wildlife in some situations.

I never said anything about hunting.

Since the early 90’s I have been of the opinion that if you are repulsed by the idea of killing and butchering an animal, not willing to kill butcher, then you should not eat meat.

I would happily pay extra to kill the animal I eat because I find it more upsetting not knowing how the animal I am eating died.

I do not think in many places around the world people are disconnected from the death of animals. In western societies this is likely more true given the extent to which supermarkets have taken over.

For me, and my limited span of knowledge, I would go for Phenomenology.

I am also a particular ‘fan’ of absurdism for the average person.

I have no argument with it being compatible with the conservation of energy.

As for the mind body dualism I have to reason to believe there is or is not such a thing. When it comes to that matter I am heavily in favour of the Husserlian approach where such questioning is of no real interest to me.

There is far more that we do not know that gives a window of opportunity to question the mainstream ideas with less popular ones. Long may such interactions continue! :)

@Bartricks Can you provide any example of what a non-material causation may look like to us?

If not then there is nothing here of note as we are effectively talking about something that cannot be measured or experienced. Experience requires change and change requires energy to be transferred.

A ‘non-thing’ exists as an idea of absence not as some ‘other-thing’. There is no ‘thingness’ to that which we cannot grapple with … because we cannot grapple with it because ‘it’ is not an ‘it’.

Given that these threads have been thrown into one thread (mistakenly/stupidly imo) I cannot readily see the propositions laid out.

Your definition of what is means to ‘live’ simply does not fit with my understanding of what ‘life’ is. This cannot be resolved so any disagreement is moot because they do not even start on the same footing because neither of us is willing to give up such key terms and neither see enough flexibility, in terms of being generous with these terms, to make much headway.

If we can at least agree that the conflict between our views is due to having almost entirely oppositional uses of terms like ‘life,’ ‘living’ and ‘comply’ then that is good enough for me. That is how I see it.

Antinatalism is an interesting item to explore. I wish the mods would not be so silly and lump several completely differing points together making it more than difficult to tease out what each person is trying to communicate.

Thanks for your responses :)

No, but historically and into the neat future I cannot see this coming to fruition. Perhaps it is best that we have to fight for freedoms rather than simply having them for free.

I think it makes sense to show particular care when it comes to education for children. For university level EVERYTHING should be on the table.

As for governments, in general, freedom of information should be the norm. In an ideal world there would be no need for any censorship, but obviously the real world is messy. In matter of security there is clearly a good argument for keeping certain pieces of information private.

I believe it is an error to talk about ‘consent’ for a force of nature. Not consenting to live is like not consenting that gravity keeps my feet on the ground.

The question of whether it is better to abstain from procreation may have some credit to it but even then I cannot fathom how we can say one way or another given that our scope and understanding of life is rather limited.

To argue not to have have children is an action that may or may not reduce ‘suffering’. We are in no position to say with any real authority what is ‘better’ only to make personal judgements that sit well with us as an individual among other individuals.

We do not consent to breath, nor do we think about breathing every second of the day, yet this does not necessarily mean we are forced to ‘comply’. There are certain situations where the term ‘comply’ can be readily applied but I cannot see how you can bring me to agree that ‘comply’ applies to living a life. It just does not make sense to use that term here. I can understand why you can, with some force, make it appear as wholly applicable to ‘living’ but it is just a term used loosely and no matter how hard it is forced it does not hold up for me.

I can only assume you frame ‘evil’ as ‘suffering’. If life exists therefore ‘evil’ must exist. So then, should all life be exterminated so rid the world of ‘evil’/‘suffering’ or does committing such an act (that many would label as ‘evil’) okay if the end result is the complete annihilation of ‘evil’?

I know that people overtly fond of the antinatalist idea do not wish death and extinction on the human race, but at the same time they effectively are shifting towards that result if procreation itself is regarded as propagating ‘evil’.

The ‘buddhist’ belief is more or less that it is a lie that life must contain some suffering … this is perhaps partially true but it depends exclusively on how one defines and delineates ‘suffering’ and ‘evil’.

If the base argument you are offering up is simply that people born will inevitably ‘suffer’ to some degree then I cannot disagree. I would also add that ‘suffering’ is tied into learning, change and growth so one either opts for change, learning and potential growth or they opt for oblivion and death … that is where any serious dogmatic application of antinatalism falls down.

As a means of questioning our existence it is a worthy idea to ponder on and see where our personal sense of responsibility lies.

It is not at all clear cut to everyone what the difference between ending a life, taking a life or even defining what ‘life’ is in the first place. That is why there is so much contention around items such as abortion and euthanasia.

Surely you know what I am on about now and why it is an intrinsic part of what antinatalism is bringing into question. What can we do about suffering? Yet, why not ask if we should look to eradicate suffering completely if the price paid is effectively the end of all life now and in the future? Clearly there is a wide area of middle ground that for some reason is difficult for us to realise and explore.

It is a very broad question. If you honed in on a particular instance then maybe I could offer up a more precise answer.

Who? Same answer. It depends. One-size-fits-all is a myopic approach.

Such IF questioning can be useful though. I personally would look to forming several bodies to assess information, if needed, for more specific situations. The UN could certainly be one that could provide some expertise as it had a history of trying to manage complex cultural and political interactions.

I never once said it was not an ethical idea. Do not bother quoting my words back at me just read them in the context written.

An ethical idea can be turned over without it being taken as wholly applicable to real lived lives - like with the trolly problem.

There are no real ethical arguments. They are just positions to consider and jostle with because there is no way of drawing a clear line under some item that is universally right or wrong. Antinatalism as an idea is on par with the trolley problem it is just dressed up differently.

I am pretty sure I answered well enough?

Neither nor, rather than either or. It is a sweeping statement to side with one or the other and lacks any kind of nuance. In some circumstances freedom of information makes more sense than in others.

I would say it is worse for everyone to insist on complete freedom or rigid constraints as a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to how information can be distributed and the kinds of arguments against exposing people to items others may deem inappropriate.

What I believe is buried in your OP is the questioning of moral/ethical relativism.

Anything could be justified, but subjective justification is just that … subjective.

It makes perfect sense to pick what students learn and the order they learn it in. Does a pedagogical system necessarily have to be framed as ‘just’ or ‘unjust’. I think the idea of ‘justification’ tries to saddle education as something that takes place in a courtroom.

Just like with ‘offence’ a particular method of education is not at all compatible with every person at any age. As for ‘offence’ in education I would strongly insist that ‘upsetting’ students with ‘questions’ is something every teacher must do at some point so the student can learn how to deal with problems that rouse emotional responses in them. The difficulty faced by every teacher is picking and choosing where and when to ‘challenge’/‘offend’/‘question’ students … this inevitably leads to situations where students ate sometimes more ‘offended’ than challenged. It is dance between the student and the teacher, and consider that whilst the student has only to deal with one teacher at a time the teacher has to do this multiple times for a relatively poor wage and high stress.

This is just the tip of the iceberg … it is a very complex environment to work in and I have seen many teachers fall prey to being put into a position where they too often assume they are smarter than every student to the point that they feel scrutinsed unfairly if they make errors (which they will).

A classroom works well if there is a reasonably large and equal share of humility between teachers and students. A know-it-all teacher is perhaps far worse than a know-it-all student. If there is one thing a teacher should teach - not that I believe in ‘teaching’ per se - it is to teach students to question everything rather than cling to answers as an end goal.

An answer that cannot be applied to, or open up, more questions is not worth anything much at all.

The question remains how we are meant to relate to some hypothetical omnipotent, omniscient person when we are neither.

You can pretend to know what you do not know but I do not see how such is at all relevant as a foundation to build a argument from. As a place to explore from and create new ideas … maybe there is something there for someone with an extremely open mind and/or a more fluid interpretation of the terms used.

People often get offended by antinatalism, as a position, rather than antinatalism as an idea. The former appears as a personal dogma whereas the later is merely a place to think about what it means to bring life into the world, how we were brought into the world and how we can apply/should/might apply terms such as ‘responsibility,’ ‘ethics’ and ‘innocence’.

This has all been pointed out to you before though and remains unanswered, ignored and/or attacked with vitriol.

Antinatalism is certainly an idea worthy of contemplation. As a doctrine to be applied to a humanitarian lived life it has no foundation. Believing that procreation is not the best idea is fine too. Trying to provide ‘ethical’ evidence for it is complete nonsense though.

It may or may not be ‘better’ not to live a life (assuming such can be judged by some hypothetical omnipotent being) but we as mere human beings have sparing insight into that we cannot do more than attach a highly sceptical and unrealised concept to - the concept of ‘omnipotence’.

You will find there is more relation to asking ‘What an Ant aught to do?’ and any answer from such a hypothetical is just as relevant as from an omnipotent being (who we cannot relate to as much as an ant).

If you just ask if a human had the choice to end all suffering by stopping procreation in some fashion or another then ‘aught they’ do so? Then there is the question of how this would be done.

Antinatalism is merely a thought to ponder not a realistic position to take as we are not omnipotent nor if any being omnipotent ‘exists’ can we shoehorn in human sensibilities.

@Bartricks The ‘confusion’ yiu talk about is likely due to struggling to take on some completely intangible alien position and then stating ‘aught to’ as if it is a given.

Isi Training? Oe si U jbiq?

An estimated 90% of population dead due to disease … and you think civilisations just bounce back after that? You do understand that the black death killed 33%? You do also understand that this was not merely a singular disease but a ‘tsunami’ of diseases and illnesses that crippled them?

I see you have short sightedness. Do not assume your own faults are as prominent in others :D

This is not a tantrum. I am merely mocking someone talking shite because they feel like some moral pinnacle who feels that points blame where they feel it is due … yeah! 90% dead … insignificant! Plus it does not play into my views of colonialism and racism so I can just ignore that … it is ONLY 90%. No need to pay attention to recent discoveries in the Amazon basin made by archeologists … they just ‘assume’ the physical data is true … but ‘truth’ is relative … blah blah blah :D

See? Mocking not a tantrum ;)

I just checked the wiki page … it appears you chose to read what suited you and ignored the rest.

On this subject I am sure I know more than you given that you literally stated some glaring untruths/assumptions based on some weird selective reading from a wiki page.

“Dilute horrors” ? What are you talking about? Whole civilisations literally collapsed before a gun was fired … I call that horrific don’t you?

You want to focus on the butchery in Brasil by ex-cons more? Or perhaps the barbarous ways on some native tribes? Or the slaughter of families in the black hills whilst the men were away waging war?

Who is making assumptions? Oh er … archeologists and historians not people who read selective wiki entries to fit into their sense of knowledge.

My entire point was you wrongly attributed aggressive invading Europeans as the primary mover in the downfall of the American peoples and their civilisations. The additional point was that you clearly know next to nothing about Cochrane and his contributions in South America.

You think people coming from Europe could some how not breath? Be serious. As soon as a reasonable number of people were infected it led to collapse of civilisations in the Americas without ANY hostile intention on the part of those landing there.

There is evidence for this along the Amazon where it was reported there were large kingdoms by explorers. Upon returning later no one found these mythical kingdoms … because everyone died of disease. Modern archeology has shed light on this.

You need to read up on your history :D

So many assumptions you make there it is laughable :D

I was just stating a fact about what happened to the indigenous peoples of the americas. To equate the spread of disease with genocide is silly. It is estimated that over 90% of the population died due to the ravages of disease … such is NOT genocide.

The Portuguese were incredibly brutal because they literally emptied their prisons and sent them to Brasil. If you were being sold as a slave you would 100% want to be taken to the states rather than Brasil that is for sure!

Lord Thomas Cochrane was a significant figure in South America. He almost single handedly booted the Spanish and Portuguese out. Interesting guy to study if you like history.

There was mass corruption that led to the regime shift. I am talking about astronomical levels of corruption here btw.

Was Lulu innocent or set up by US officials? Probably the later … but I’m a cynic :D

They likely would be being referred to as ‘people’ rather than peoples ;)

Most natives of the Americas were actually wiped out by disease rather than - as many like to believe - war and genocide. War and genocide barely did anything compared to this.