The position is that it is ‘wrong’ to have children.

@schopenhauer1 I would think an Antinatalist is against procreation because they are against ‘suffering’ not the other way around. It therefore follows that ‘suffering’ is the primary concern here not secondary.

I never believe any of them. As per usual the war is a proxy war and reputation of the US will continue to decline in the eyes of Europe and the opinion of Europe will continue to decline in the eyes of Russia.

The wars in the middle east have been proxy wars to prevent pipelines going down. The US and Russia have been at it ever since the end of the Cold War. It will not end well for Europe as a whole unless … well, I do not see a way out tbh. I can easily see a tactical nuke being dropped and I doubt the US would do much … other than continue doing what they have done for half a century.

Personally I think if they want to fight they should do it over the ocean between their countries rather than playing tower defence across the whole of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

Obviously this is a VERY superficial scope as philosophers still argue today about these distinctions (if any). Undoubtedly they are necessarily connected.

When I refer to (M) I mean ‘morals’. When I refer to (E) I mean ‘ethics’. Debate over the exact differences are argued about in meta ethics. Generally speaking though the manner in which I used them is not some concocted definition, it is the general and widely accepted uses of these terms today in academia.

My main conclusion in any discussion on Antinatalism is that an Antinatalist position cannot be moral and ethical, and to argue against some perceived ‘ethic’ when the position espoused is ‘moral’ is in error too. The confusion can be tackled in meta ethics too if necessary.

I think what lies at the heart of the major disagreements we have seen on this subject on this forum relate to both those arguing for and against Antinatalism ending up arguing whilst being oblivious to the difference between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ - or simply dropping the ball long enough to cause confusion.

I will just deal with one question for now. I used the Trolley hypothetical based on ‘suffering’ which is one key factor in many antinatalist positions.

One quick question for you. The argument for antinatalism surely has to be an ethical or moral one? If not there is literally no grounding for it as any kind of useful argument.

Having a hard time using quotes here due stupid iPad … anyway, will look again tomorrow and see if I can do a better job of explaining the distinctions I claim lie in the Antinatalist views.

No idea where you got this from but it is not a very accurate of how the term ‘pre-science’ is used in anthropology.

What I believe to be the singular biggest difference between these is the current modern scientific view is ‘infinite’ whilst the prescientific view is ‘finite’. Meaning we have, for the most part, transitioned from a relatively recent view of the world in which the boundaries were pretty well established whereas in modernity we are in a boundless realm … ironically the latter is fairly limiting psychologically as we cannot fathom the ‘infinite’ where in the past reality was ‘finite’ and more tangible.

What you have presented is some simplistic form of Christianity versus some simplistic form of science.

@Bartricks Any comments?

@schopenhauer1 Any comments?

We are disconnected from that which sustains us. — schopenhauer1

Where I live most people simply take something apart when it breaks and fix it.

I imagine this statement is closer to the truth in some western cities.

Nice points

I am telling you flat out you are wrong. You made the OP asking about irrealism (which stems from phenomenology).

I have read Kant and Husserl so you telling me it is solipsism repeatedly, when I know it is not, makes me believe you do not really have any serious interest in this subject at all. I guess I should have figured this from the OP so my bad.

Bye

The ‘what’ is irrelevant. You can have sensory experiences that are not true to the physical world (ie. Dreams or hallucinations). Whether the experience of an apple is a hallucination, dream or lucid and conscious does not really make the experience anything other than that of an apple.

Consciousness is ‘conscious of …’. Phenomenology is not bothered about whether there is or is not an apple it is only concerned with the experience of said apple.

The ‘of what?’ question you pose was dealt with by Kant. The ‘thing in itself’ is called noumenon. There is no ‘noumenon’ though in any Positive sense only in the Negative as a limiting boundary for knowledge.

I do not have my copy of Critique of Pure Reason to give you the direct quote sadly. Maybe someone else can.

Note: Manuel above gave a simple version here:

We may postulate - sensibly in my opinion - something "behind" objects that anchors them, but this "behindness" is no more "real" than what we already experience, it's another aspect of the world, which helps us make sense of experience, as I see it. — Manuel

If you want to really get into this subject matter more intensely you will pretty much have to read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason … but that is no easy task and will take the better part of a year at least.

Are you suggesting that what you experience has nothing to do with what is ‘real’. That does not make much sense.

If you believe noumenon ‘exists’ then you have a misunderstanding of Kant. Noumenon (the ‘thing in itself’) only has negative value. Meaning it is a limitation on what we can know not some physical essence.

Knowledge without limit is not knowledge it is nothing.

Some people really struggle to get their head around this but it is quite simple.

1) We know via experience.
2) What we experience is limited.

If I have money I can buy wool, cotton and SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.

(Viking longboat incoming …)

Bad health. You just said so.

Sounds like Solipsism? Again, there is no direct interest within phenomenology when it comes the concern of what is or is not ‘real’. The interest is in the ‘experience of’ as what is ‘real’ is ‘bracketed’ out of the equation as irrelevant to the pursuit of raw experience.

Solipsism is the view that nothing is real. Phenomenology has no concern for the ‘real’. There are certain features that sound alike but in reality (no pun intended) they are almost diametrically opposed.

but generally 99.9999999999999999999% of people do not give a flying fuck I suspect.

I think this is a case of people imaging people care and that the people imagining this care are also imaginary.

Praxis must be taking the piss … nothing else makes sense.

Generally when we have more than 3 or 4 choices.

I think it's undeniable that Lizzo's art stands for the empowerment of the marginalized — praxis

What is her art? She is a musician right? Does she always make music about such a topic? Is she particularly political?

‘Irrealism’ has its root in Husserlian phenomenology (something people have a hard time grasping). It is not solipsism.

The point of phenomenology was to set aside concerns about what ‘is’ or ‘is not’ so-called ‘real’ or otherwise. Phenomenology is concerned with the ‘experience of’ rather than the ‘experience of something’.

Husserl was concerned about the grounding of science and the manner in which psychology had been absorbed by the physical sciences.

Great title. Other than that I am not quite sure why I should care at all about this?

Are people that bored that this is actually ‘news’ now?

Ever considered that ‘suffering’ may be a goal rather than something to be avoided?

Think about it. What have you ever achieved in life that was of value that did not require some degree of ‘suffering’ … then think about the old adage of ‘the journey not the destination’.

Maybe you did not read my response. The OP asked how do we decide what matters. I said, plain and clear, we do not ‘decide’ at all. What I say ‘matters’ to me may not actuallu matter at all.

The OP did not ask ‘does anything matter?’ Also, the last question is incoherent and the person in question has not bothered to correct the grammatical errors so I am still not clear what they were asking there.

What we wish to do is not always what we ought to do. Nor can one derive what we ought do from what we in fact do. Basic stuff. — Banno

Yes. I never said otherwise.

Profits are used/abused by varying degrees at different times in s company’s history I would imagine.

It is a little like asking ‘where do your personal earnings go?’. There is no ONE answer to this question. I think the only consistent theme is we, and companies, generally try and meet the minimum means of sustaining ourselves then venture, store, save or invest in future schemes.

I have a feeling there is a punchline to this OP?

Like I said, irrelevant. My reality is the only reality I know.

Such a scenario only shows this better. You cannot expect me to be completely fooled by your hypothetical simulator and yet not be fooled by it at the same time.

Question: Should we listen to arguments rather than people? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

This is basically the foundation of philosophy is it not?

I think there may be some issue with assessing more opened ended ideas. Meaning sometimes there is no obvious conclusion and a perspective is being looked at and this can be when ‘people’ act as if the ideas presented are either ridiculous or construed as facts.

‘Debates’ are for personalities ‘winning’ but merely ‘winning’ a debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the position. A debate is just a case of jousting rather than a genuine pursuit of ideas and possible truths.

We do not decide what matters. What matters is present it is just a case of paying attention and being honest with yourself. - not that this is an easy task.

Note: Edit your OP as it is incoherent in places.

Call me crazy but I think it is the responsibility of the parents rather than the taxman when it comes to nurturing children.

Labour have recently committed to the latter. — Michael

Shame they didn’t back it when Lib Dems tried to make it happen. Maybe because the Lib Dems were basically the true opposition for decades in terms of proportional representation.

The campaign waged against proportional representation was taken on by both Labour and Conservatives AND set back the Lib Dems very, very, very far sadly. Imagine a choice between three parties … would at least increase the odds that one of them might not be so bad.

The public is mainly to blame to though. Too many people want to hear make believe policies above the harsh reality.

Anyway, I don’t live there anymore and have no intention to in the future. Good luck

I think it would make more sense to let public decide who leads the party … seems bizarre that the last two candidates standing were probably the worst two.

I heard a lot of interest from friends and family in Nadhim Zahawi.

‘Sanity’? Nice joke :D

Is anyone surprised? I doubt it. This decade long war only ends with both sides sitting down and negotiating peace. It could probably have been avoided. Hindsight is hindsight though.

I was just pointing out that ‘partial mobilisation’ is about putting people on the military payroll into battle. If someone is willing to sign up and take money that is their choice.

If you are in the Russian territorial army or not I would not blame you for running, but I would ask such people to think before grabbing a quick buck next time maybe. I have seen some suspect reports about calling up people who are not in the TA, but needless to say any hint of this kind of story will get wide attention in western media whether it is fully validated or not.

Partial Mobilisation means they call up people on the payroll in the territorial army basically. The people fleeing are likely fleeing to avoid the next step - full mobilisation.

The western media is reporting it like all Russian men of fighting age are being pushed into the military. This is absolutely not what ‘partial mobilisation’ means. Are the Russians sticking to ‘partial mobilisation’ or actually enforcing a ‘full mobilisation’ policy? That is another question.

Conscription? I a not a massive fan of it. I can understand arguments both for and against it. It would be interesting to see how opinions varied between men and women on this matter.

Assume for a second I actually know what I am talking about and stop ranting.

You have not addressed the OP because maybe you did not understand. Ever consider that? If your ‘answer’ was yet another rant about me not knowing what ethics is that is not addressing the OP.

My point was - to repeat for the last time - that Applied Ethics (case determinate) and Care Ethics (interpersonal focus), as they stand alone, both resist any sense of responsibility.

Banno appears to have actually understood. He does not see how Care Ethics is ‘opposed’ to Virtue Ethics though and it DOES NOT MATTER as I have stated several times already. I am not pursuing this to be constantly sidetracked by insignificant points. Either way I have already stated that Care Ethics was set up in opposition to Virtue Ethics because it was deemed as ‘personal’ rather than ‘interpersonal’.

If you again keep on about that I will just ignore you so for the sake of an actual discussion how about addressing the OP? Last chance.

@Agent Smith There are some very well accounted psychological difference between men and women. In many circumstances we could state that women ‘care too much’ due to being more tilted towards ‘anxiety’. Men tend to be more ‘aggressive’ so maybe you could say this makes them less caring?

The point being there are some differences and the fact that women are more interested in people than men (overall) does not necessarily translate as them being more ‘caring’. Also, ‘caring too much’ is not really ‘caring’ - assuming you were framing ‘caring’ in a more positive sense that is.

And I don't see justification as a negative thing; isn't giving leisurely consideration to your actions post hoc a good idea, if it is done with an eye to improvement? Seems to me to be an essential part of the process of developing one's virtue... A feedback loop. — Banno

Well, we are unlikely to see ‘justification’ for an action as a negative thing. We know from the neurosciences that we are bias in terms of authorship to basic actions; meaning we deny or accept responsibility depending on how the outcome is perceived.

This is why I state that Applied Ethics and Care Ethics both shift the responsibility from the individual, in favour of the individual scenario or in favour of the nebulous interpersonal relations tied hard into societal norms and adherence there to.

Maybe if you back up your claim I will answer. If it is just your personal opinion based on nothing much more than personal experience I am not interested.

Nah! They just tend to care about different things.