Yeah I'm not so sure about that, I think history would beg to differ. I came to this thread having just listened to a podcast about WEIRD-biases. — ChatteringMonkey

Sounds interesting. Can you point me to it? I have read a bit about common cognitive biases on Eliezer Yudkowsky's blog. The fact that there are biases that pretty much everyone has points to a significant amount of shared mental machinery. Yudkowsky also argues that from an evoltionary perspective, you would expect all brains to be very much alike in terms of hard-wired logic, since it's more or less impossible that a mutation would lead to a different but viable system.

And if we put some belief in that research, it seems like a lot of our reliance on reason and our moral way of looking at things is historically contingent. Myth and tradition were for the largest part of history what determined morality, not reason... although reason played a role there too, no doubt. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, it's true that we can never be actually sure whether or not what we think is reason is not just a rationalisation of myth or tradition. It probably often is. But this seems to be one of those dilemmas that you can only get out of by asserting a solution. And morality is a practical field. So it makes sense to me to say that, insofar as we are all capable of reason, we should try to find universal principles to base our actions on. This will have the highest likelyhood of giving us true - if no necessarily objective - results.

Ok but then you don't have one morality, right? Unless you think different values need not imply different moral evaluations. — ChatteringMonkey

To be honest, after writing my first reply I noticed I was confused about the concept of value in the first place. What are examples of the kind of values we talk about here? Something like a specific religious creed, or something more abstract?

Which is? I honestly don’t remember and I can’t find it. — khaled

There is no one principle that can be universalised. You figure it out by using something like Kant's categorical imperative, or Rawls "veil of ignorance". You ask yourself whether or not you can imaginge all of humanity as acting as you do, and then see if this results in a) an obvious contradiction and b) a world you would want to life in regardless of how and where you lived.

So.... you DON’T have a principle that can be universalized now? I’m confused. — khaled

I have a method to check principles. The number of principles that pass the check is indefinite.

(unlike BLM who were cheered on by the media as they burnt and looted businesses, causing hundreds of millions in property damage and killing over 40 people) — counterpunch

Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people). Why are you posting a number you haven't fact-checked, if you care about scientific accuracy?

Those people, and there were a lot of them - believed there was election fraud, and they sought to occupy government. Good on them, I say. — counterpunch

Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good?

Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns. — counterpunch

The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one.

We apply technology as religious, political and economic ideology suggests, rather than - as a scientific understanding of reality suggests. — counterpunch

Can you elaborate on how a scientific understanding of reality can tell us what to do?

; I don't understand why, hearing him say that, they agreed — Kenosha Kid

Best explanation I have heard is the same reason why people watch the Kardashians or Trump himself in reality TV.

Trump has high status by the standards of the time. He is rich, he is famous and he has power - mostly the power to command media attention and make the left wing angry.

At the same time, his character is perhaps one of the least redeemable imaginable.

This juxtaposition of having higher status than almost every possible voter, while being a worse person than almost every voter creates a pull. He thereby gives voters the feeling that all the things they feel bad about and more importantly that they are told they should feel bad about, aren't.

One of the well known cognitive biases humans have is the halo effect. We equate high status with authority, including moral authority. So Trump is the equivalent of someone selling religious indulgences. Voting for him is like buying forgiveness for all those sins like racism, or homophobia, or nationalism.

I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President." — counterpunch

For someone interested in truth, you sure are awfully cavalier about touting your opinion of things you - by your own admission - do not understand. Why not take your own advice and do research first and talk second?

Looked at in these terms the solution is obvious. — counterpunch

You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem. The problem you identify is that people are too easily swayed by falsehood and emotion. Your solution is clean energy? How are those related? In order to realize your vision, you'd first have to figure out how to motivate people to work together on a basis of shared truth.

As I said before - anyone ought to be free to express their opinions, but what if a medium is used solely for the propogation of lies? Are lies protected by 'freedom of expression'? — Wayfarer

But even if we all agree that they're not, it certainly deserves to be pointed out that e.g. Twitter only started caring about the lies when it looked like it wouldn't hurt their business, and only took drastic action when they were sure it would be more damaging not to do it.

Any other situations where someone can cause another to suffer and it’s not a moral issue? — khaled

I answered this question a couple of times now. Not sure what else I can say.

That the reason should not be useable to make ridiculous things moral. As I said, if A is thinking of causing B to suffer, it is not enough that that A intends to help out B after the fact in order for A to be justified in causing the suffering. — khaled

If you're thinking about morality as a set of general reasons that can be applied to any given situation regardless of circumstance, like the 10 commandments, what you and I think of as morality is nothing alike.

They’re not at all the same. “Suffering is not always bad” is entirely consistent with “Inflicting suffering without consent is always bad”. Therefore they cannot be the same. — khaled

I don't know what you wanted to say here, but I don't recognize the logic. Things that are the same are also obviously consistent.

Again, what you find good and what you’re justified in doing to others are two different things — khaled

If you use "good" in the sense of preference, yes. But I don't see how that is relevant, because I haven't said that you're allowed to do whatever you like.

Where is the line that defines when causing suffering is Willy nilly and when it isn’t? — khaled

It's not willy nilly if you act according to a principle that can be universalised.

Oh. Interesting. So you’ll actually consider it as a harm. So then: what is the justification? — khaled

I said suffering, not harm. And as I already wrote, I consider this merely a statement of fact, not a moral issue.

So why is it in this case you find it acceptable to cause harm as long as the harm causer is confident he can help out after the fact? What’s the justification? — khaled

I did give you the reason. What else is necessary to turn this reason into a justification?

That’s not what’s being said. What’s being said is that inflicting suffering without justification is simply bad. — khaled

That seems to be saying the same thing. Whether or not we frame this as an exception to a rule or the rule itself doesn't seem to matter.

You haven’t actually given any examples where you think it’s acceptable short of birth itself which makes me suspect you agree — khaled

I did. Causing heartbreak. Doing risks sports. Driving a car.

And moreover, this principle does NOT result from or result in “suffering is always a negative”. I agree with you that suffering is sometimes required (I make a distinction between suffering and pain, and think pain is required, but that’s nitpicky and out of scope of the reply) and that it is necessary for growth. That does not give me the privilege to go around causing it Willy nilly. — khaled

You don't have the "privilege" to do things which affect other people "willy nilly". The principle I recognise here is "don't do things willy nilly", not "do not cause suffering".

What I find good, and what I am justified in causing to others are two separate things — khaled

"Good" is a label I attach to actions, not outcomes, so I don't really agree.

Hahahaha. . Great option, dude.. Play this game, or kill yourself.. I mean, "It's an option!". :roll: You see how cruel that sounds? Maybe not. :meh: . — schopenhauer1

I mean, what I wrote kinda says the exact opposite, but whatever.

Once someone exists, the suffering that will incur is bad. Don't allow this to happen, if preventing this is possible. — schopenhauer1

I think I'll just not be convinced that the suffering is simply bad.

It is true that there are fundamental principles which can only be understood, but not proven. If this is one, I don't understand it. And if, after 24 pages of debate, I still don't, then I suppose another 24 won't help.

As I said before: I still think the game scenario is the best analogy. It's as if after being kidnapped into the game, the person was like "But I prepared you for the game, didn't I?" — schopenhauer1

The thing is that life isn't a game. Life isn't optional. You can kill yourself, yes, but killing yourself is, ironically enough, also something you do while living.

Your argument, in simple terms, is that people suffer if they exist, and therefore they shouldn't exist. All this other stuff about "forcing people to play games" is just a bunch of false equivalence, because it all treats life as an option for souls floating around in the aether, which it is not.

But claiming that there shouldn't be people because there shouldn't be suffering is propping up suffering as a metaphysical evil, totally abstracted from anyone actually suffering. What's the reason that there shouldn't be suffeirng? Is it because people don't like to suffer? But then, it makes zero sense to delete the people as the solution to the problem, does it?

I think it's sufficient that you want to have children and honestly judge that you can give them the necessary love and resources in order to allow them to become active members of a free and equal society.

That this will involve suffering on the part of the children is not more or less relevant than that the children will be subject to the laws of gravity.

But that's the point.. do not create dangers for others unnecessarily, when one does not have to. Do not assume people should be forced to play a game because you like it. — schopenhauer1

We just disagree on the "have to". When do you "have to" do something? Taken literally, you almost never "have to" do something, unless it's a reflex or urge you just cannot control. So what "have to" means comes down to your personal moral code. Some people think they "have to" have children. You may think they're wrong, but telling them "don't do it if you don't have to" doesn't help.

On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. — Judaka

Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description.

I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before. — Judaka

Then I can pretty confidently say: you ain't seen nothing yet. I think even r/politics is more obviously left-leaning than this forum. To say nothing of dedicated spaces for anarchists etc.

I would, because it's part of the ideology. Fascists just loath plutocracy, nearly as much as communists do. — ssu

Well it's certainly surprising, then, that at least the two most commonly cited fascist states ended up with a lot of plutocracy.

I mean I do know about the "thid way" and that fascists certainly claim to be interested in widespread economic reforms. It's just that they seem to rarely materialize. But maybe I am ignorant, I haven't really looked into fascist regimes outside europe.

Learn about it. I think Xi is a perfect example of someone who is an successful autocrat, starting from little things as he abolished term limits for himself. — ssu

I do try. He is certainly successful. The question is what direction he will take the country in.

Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called. — DingoJones

Well said. It's hard to avoid labels in everyday discourse, of course, but they have little place in a philosophy forum.

Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”? — DingoJones

It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.

Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao".

Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect. — DingoJones

Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is.

Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no? — DingoJones

Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem.

Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head. — DingoJones

I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time.

That’s not what I meant. I meant you accepted the risk of heartbreak when going into a relationship. — khaled

Heartbreak isn't limited to relationships though, is it?

Only responsible not to increase it. — khaled

Wouldn't it be better though, if we decreased it? I don't get why I should stop worrying about suffering just becasue "it's not my responsibility". Seems selfish and jaded.

False and I explained this. Sigh. If I don’t drive my car I won’t get to work. I NEED to drive my car. Therefore we do a calculation: Is the harm I avoid by driving comparable to the harm I am likely to cause by driving? If the answer is no (ie, I’m a bad driver, or I’m drunk, etc) then I shouldn’t drive. If the answer is yes then I can drive. — khaled

This supposed calculation is imaginary though. You're not really doing anything like comparing the suffering of the two scenarios. How would you even go about doing that? How much suffering does taking the bus or the train cause you? 10, 100, 167? How much suffering is the potential of a car crash worth? Does it matter whether you just got your license vs. having 20 years of experience?

It's no more practical than trying to figure out whether your future child will experience more happiness than suffering. So I'd argue it's not just having kids that you cannot actually justify. It's damn near anything.

Please explain to me how it implies that because I don’t see the connection. Or more importantly, the significance of this observation were it true. — khaled

Well if causality is sometimes almost enough, but responsibility needs to be additionally socially mediated, and sometimes it's only socially mediated without causality at all, then the system has two mutually exclulsive principles - reponsibility is based on empirical facts like causation, and responsibility is based on social mediation. You need at least a third principle to decide when to apply which.

Agreed but that’s not what’s happening here. Billy’s parent is not plotting to blind billy at his 15th birthday. No. Billy’s parent is genetically engineering Billy to be blind. There is no billy at any point to be harmed here. If you want to say Billy got harmed or blinded you have to treat billy as if: — khaled

Well, I don't say that.

Which is exactly what you do when you claim that by genetically engineering them to be blind you blind them. Just look at the structure of the sentence. “By genetically engineering billy to be blind you blinded billy”. “You blinded billy” clearly assumes the existence of Billy. You reject this. You say we can’t assume this. So why is genetically engineering someone to be blind wrong. Because “intending to harm people in the future including those that do not exist yet” is FACTUALLY not what’s happening here. Billy’s parent has no such intentions. In fact he intends to be a model parent for his blind son. — khaled

I agree. But you do intent to have a blind child instead of one can see. That intent can be malicious, as I explained below.

Assume the parent of said child did this. And answered “Yes, this should be a universal principle”. Now what? Is it ok? — khaled

What you're asking here is whether or not what I say is still true if people disagree. Obviously the answer is yes.

Also I like how here you don’t consider the perspective of the child even though a paragraph ago you were saying that poor billy got blinded. Which is it? Did billy get harmed or not? — khaled

I think you got me confused for someone else here, because I did not write that.

Agreed. Ok now what? Because that doesn’t lead to your view. What WOULD lead to your view is something like “Choice is more important than suffering therefore I am allowed to inflict suffering on others so that they have choices”. I don’t think either of us can agree with that one. — khaled

I think I do agre with that. Not in any given case, but yes, in some cases it's ok to cause suffering so that those that suffer (or sometimes even other people) have more choices.

You conflate your personal philosophy about how one should live with how one should treat others. I can consider that there is more to life than minimizing suffering. But it takes an extra step to then say “Therefore I am allowed to inflict suffering on others if I deem that it would maximize their choice” — khaled

I agree with the sentiment here. Obviously one should be humble and careful, well aware of the possibility of making a mistake. But I don't think we need to avoid dangers at all costs either. Nor do you. So the difference between us isn't really that I inflict suffering on other and you don't. It's just that I consider different reasons sufficient.

I do not think socialism can belong to the left and that capitalism is on the right. — Judaka

"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what.

What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label.

To anyone who doesn't think there is a leftist bias, I direct you to the poll done on political affiliations in another thread. 60% left, but more importantly 0% right. An example from this very thread came from Pfhorrest when he said “ I'm sorry about reality's well-known liberal bias. Feel free to hide from reality in a right-wing echo chamber if you really prefer.” — DingoJones

I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias?

It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments.

You derive the universality from a shared biology then? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, you could say that. Though my metaphysics skew constructivist, so I'd say shared mental faculties.

While I would agree that we have many more similarities than differences because of our shared biology, there are differences too... so it seems to me that could only make for a tentative universalism at best. — ChatteringMonkey

I think our shared reasoning is pretty fundamental. Pretty much everyone agrees with the scientific method, for example, even those who completely disagree with some of it's commonly accepted findings. The concepts we represent by basic propositional logic or algebra are accessible to anyone who we ordinarily consider sane.

So you think differences in moral evaluation can only be a matter of flawed reasoning? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. Though I would qualify this by saying that no-one has flawless reasoning all the time, so I'd nevertheless expect there to always be different moral evaluations.

To me it does seem like there are also differences in moral evaluations not because of flawed reasoning, but because of genuine different values. — ChatteringMonkey

People have genuinely different values, but I consider the aim of a moral philosophy to moderate the expression of these values so that they can coexist.

And how do you define fascism? — ssu

I wouldn't class strong economic control as a defining part of fascism. I'd say the core elements are: A strong focus on the family and the nation as the essential social organisations, a focus on "law and order" and hierarchical, autocratic rule, fetishism for the military and/or police, restrictive social order aimed at recreating an imagined past "golden age" and of course disdain for democracy.

China is drifting towards fascism under Xi, I don't know enough about the internal politics to judge how far it is on that way.

Except that China's government lead economy has done quite a lot, which in my view comes close to fascism. — ssu

Most outside observers describe China's economic system as capitalism with a strong state. What makes you differ?

But that's not what I mean by "authority" here, and using "authority" to mean that sounds strange to my ear. — Pfhorrest

But it is what authority does, right? Make the laws, enforce them etc.

I mean something much more like what you're calling "teleology". Liberty is people getting to pursue their own goals, authority is some people getting to impose their goals on others. In loose language, doing what you want to do vs being told what to do. — Pfhorrest

I think it's important here to distinguish between instrumental goals and ultimate goals. The authority that limits instrumental goals is very different from the one setting the ultimate goals. The latter is, for lack of a better word, a kind of divine authority.

Within the reference frame of the political spectrum as you see it, please. — Pfhorrest

I think we still have some of the most equal and liberal societies in History, but many old caste hierarchies have simply been supplanted by economic hierarchies, which are getting worse in many places. And this leads to increasing authority of the bad kind.

Which side do you think has the correct definition of liberty? — Pfhorrest

Neither, though I think especially in economic terms, the left / anarchist thinkers are a lot closer. The right wing seems, at best, stuck with classical liberalism, which is about 200 years behind.

Ok, I expected you to make a stronger claim to universality because of the next sentences you wrote : — ChatteringMonkey

I mostly wanted to distance myself from the idea of a "divine logos" or similar. I only have access to my own reasoning. The best I can do is vet my reasoning by having other look for flaws. But even if all humans agreed to a principle, we could not technically be sure that it's universal in the ontological sense.

Some alien might come along with entirely alien reasoning. Our principles wouldn't be universal to them.

The idea that the rules we make and laws we vote should to be in accordance with morality, only really makes sense if there is one universal morality, right? — ChatteringMonkey

Universal among the moral subjects, yes. But since it's unlikely we'll ever all agree on just what that universal morality is, we'll always have to hope we're not mistaken.

Are liberty and equality (so likewise authority and hierarchy) two sides of the same coin, where you can't have one without the other? Or is each a threat to the other, where one must choose which is more important to them? — Pfhorrest

I always have a problem with the liberty vs. authority angle. In my mind, authority can preserve liberty as much as endanger it. Authority is a tool, not a form of leadership. I'd say the opposite of liberty would be something like teleology. There is either a pre-determined goal for the society, or the goal is to allow everyone to pursue their own goals.

As to authority and hierarchy, they're obviously connected in practice. In theory, it's possible to imagine authority without hierarchy. That's essentially the theory behind representative democracy. The representatives have authority, but there is no hierarchy between them and the voters.

Liberty and equality, on the other hand, seem more intrinsically linked. Hierarchies make you more or less unfree by definition. Which may be a further argument in favour of replacing authority with something that has a similar relation to hierarchy as equality has to freedom.

Is the status quo one of liberty or authority, equality or hierarchy? — Pfhorrest

Tough to say without any reference point.

Which of these values belong to the "left", and which belong to the "right"? — Pfhorrest

Both left and right are a bit split, but I associate authority and hierarchy with the right, and equality with the left. Both sides will claim liberty, though with very different definitions.

In principle though, when you have the chance to not cause harm on someone else's behalf good idea to do not do that, and certainly not one that causes a whole life time worth of harmful experiences. — schopenhauer1

That may be a good enough heuristic in many cases, but that doesn't make it a convincing principle.

I don't assume because some people do this, I therefore should do it on behalf of another person, just the same as if you like a certain game you shouldn't force someone else to play it, or if you like some harmful activity others should be a part of it to cause you insist. — schopenhauer1

But you apparently do not think this is because we respect other people's right to make choices for themselves. It's all only about reducing suffering, except in any of the cases where suffering doesn't seem all that important, like when we allow people to drive personal motor vehicles just for their own convenience even though doing so massively increases the risk of causing suffering for other people.

Similarly, it is not okay to force others into harmful situations because we insist it is good for them. — schopenhauer1

But that's just the claim you make. We aren't forced to agree with it.

In the case of heartbreak you are not forced to endure the pain, you accepted the risk by going into the relationship. — khaled

That's not really how emotions work. You can't decide to not be heartbroken.

And when did I say we shouldn’t do that? The only case when we shouldn’t is with dependents. If your child suggests taking up parkour with a bunch of shady kids 15 blocks away from home you have a responsibility to stop him as a parent. Your responsibility is, more precisely, to minimize his suffering. Which probably means you’d try to fit in his interest in the least dangerous way. — khaled

I still don't see why you say that we should care about suffering for future people and dependants, but for independent adults only their choice matters, and the suffering caused is suddenly no longer relevant.

What is absolutely wrong though is forcing people who are not even your dependents to play dangerous games. I’m sure we can agree on that. But as I said, everyone is free to risk their own suffering as much as they want, just don’t risk anyone else suffering unless they’re your dependents and you’re doing it for their own good. — khaled

But everything from driving your car to going mountain climbing risks other people suffering. If that was really the standard, we'd have to all lock ourselves into our rooms and interact as little as possible.

And this is another non sequitor. “More than the sum of its parts” doesn’t lead to “should continue”. Again, you’re just shoving that part in there. “Should continue” is its own premise. — khaled

Perhaps. It might be one of those things human brains just tend to associate.

Agreed, causation is not necessary for responsibility, as you can get it in other ways (socially mediated). But it is almost sufficient in my view with the conditions I outlined in the car example. — khaled

This would seem to imply that at least the ethics of reducing suffering are not monolithic, i.e. they aren't derived from a single principle, but rather multiple competing ones.

Which is what makes it pseudo impossible. Very hard claim to reasonably prove. — khaled

Isn't it kind of a problem to have a moral system that requires things that are practically impossible?

Well no it isn’t. Malicious definition by google: Intending to do harm. There is no one being harmed here. I called it malicious because I (reasonably) recognize that we should consider these “potential people”. But that’s just naming. And you think they shouldn’t be considered at all, since they’re not harmed. — khaled

You can intent to harm people in the future, including people who don't even exist yet. Intent always references a future state of affairs. This is really not all that complicated. You can consider the interests of future people. You can have (one-sided) duties to them. You can intend to harm them.

You just can't treat them as if they already existed before you decided to cause them to exist. Which you do if you claim that, by making them exist, you're forcing them to suffer.

What if the intention of the parent was just purely preferential? He just likes blind people for some reason. Just a fancy. Now is it ok? Surely not. But why? — khaled

We can compare two possible existences - the one of the seeing child and the one of the blind child. Not from the perspective of either of the children, but from the perspective of everyone else. So we can ask ourselves whether the principle that "I should act according to my fancy when deciding on the capabilities of my future children" is a moral one. Can we want that to be a universal principle? I'd say no. It seems very obvious that doing so would incur various problems for anyone around all the blind, deaf, etc. children. It would keep these children from helping or inspiring people they might otherwise have.

If I agree with the premises, and the logic, I must agree with the result. Maybe you have a way to get “having children is acceptable”, logically, without relying on premises I disagree with, that I haven’t heard yet. I’m not omniscient, I don’t know every argument there is. If you did find such a way, I’d probably not be an AN anymore. But so far I haven’t found that way. — khaled

I think the most basic thing we'd need to agree on for you to consider my view convincing is that choice is more important than suffering - that what life is about is being who you are, not just trying to get it over with as painlessly as possible.

My dream is - everyone does what one is supposed to do rather than want to do. — Ansiktsburk

But what one is supposed to do would have to take into account what one wants to do - since you're probably less effective at doing something you don't want. Markets are a decently well working cybernetic system to get that kind of result in some circumstances. That's why market economies have historically had the edge over planned ones. Of course, that does not mean this will always be the case.

This is more a Chinese or Stalin like system. — Ansiktsburk

What about the dangers of concentrated power though? Some individualism might be necessary to prevent someone capturing the system and making it work for their personal benefit.

I take it that you mean that, even though we choose individually, the principle according to which we choose is the same for everybody, universal? — ChatteringMonkey

Well we assume it is. We cannot really know, since we only have access to our own reasoning. So the principle would have to be something universal according to our own reasoning.

But what is there to make it wrong? There’s essentially no outcome, and no one is harmed, so why call it wrong? — Pinprick

This requires answering the question why we call anything "wrong". I'd argue that, insofar as "right" and "wrong" have a unique purpose, that purpose is to tell us how we should act. And since we're neither omniscient nor omnipotent, it follows that what is wrong can only be an intention - something aimed at an outcome for a given reason - not the outcome itself.

I still think it is wrong to put any cause above unnecessary (unprovoked) suffering when it comes to making decisions on other people's behalf. — schopenhauer1

Right, and I disagree. I don't see how your position could consistently avoid dystopian scenarios where everyone is forced to conform to some exact code of conduct so as to avoid all possible suffering for others.

Yeah, I don't care if you do it to yourself. — schopenhauer1

Non-sequitur. Do you disagree that humans don't always try to avoid suffering?

I am not forcing you to follow or read them. Certainly I didn't cause your very existence where this suffering for you has taken place ;). Don't worry though, you'll suffer again and again and again.. — schopenhauer1

I just wonder whether or not you realise that you're doing at least as much preaching as everyone else here, and that there is no difference between you arguing for your position and I arguing for mine. Noone of us has any more or less right to influence other people's thoughts.

That is my criticism.. Using people's suffering for some other goal that you have for them. — schopenhauer1

Ah, then i think the misunderstanding may be that you think I want other people to suffer so they can self-realize, but all I am saying that self-realisation is more important than suffering.

This sounds like doublespeak.. work sets you free shit. One avoids suffering if one has to chose between suffering or non-suffering (unless one is a masochist I guess). — schopenhauer1

Neurologically simple Animals avoid suffering if they can. Humans do sometimes, but hardly all the time.

But intentionally putting people in positions where you know they will suffering X amount (a lifetime's worth of individual instances actually) in order for some abstract cause of "freedom" is what I am saying is wrong to do on someone else's behalf. — schopenhauer1

Yes, well, I knew that. But that doesn't convince me that my own position is wrong.

Oh this one again.. the person who will exist if you procreate won't exist? — schopenhauer1

No. The person who will exist if you procreate - will not exist if you don't. So, if you don't procreate, they won't exist. And hence they won't have a dignity to protect.

Having a moral philosophy is fine. Acting on a philosophy that affects others, by causing them to suffer for an abstract cause like, "realizing themselves" and "freedom" is not. — schopenhauer1

Then stop writing posts that talk about your moral philosophy, including anti-natalism, this instant, or be branded a hyporcite.

The OP was a sarcastic comment in regard to the occupation of the US Capitol by protestors concerned with alleged election fraud. The dialog in question is between two commentors (A and B), who have some philosophical disagreement or misunderstanding. — TunnelVision

In the most general terms, the disagreement seems to be about where you draw the line between a simple mistake and willful ignorance.

A says that people stormed tha capitol building thinking their election was being stolen, and that this is a completely natural reaction to their beliefs and, in that context, even a commendable sign of courage.

B on the other hand thinks that what these people believe cannot simply be accepted as a "honest mistake", but must rather be considered willful ignorance. He apparently believes that the people were not just duped, but that they are rather using the false information merely to cover their pre-existing beliefs and interests.

So their disagreement isn't about the merit of riots of protests as political action, but about whether or not you believe Trump supporters honestly believe what they claim to believe, or whether that is just a convenient cover for whatever grievances they wanted to express anyways.

I don't get how I can't take from this that it is okay to enable conditions of suffering of the future individual to occur. — schopenhauer1

That's not, however, what you initially said.

Also, what I think to be wrong is to put some issue like "realizing themselves" is some principle for which needs to take place above and beyond the indignity of causing conditions of someone else's suffering. Unnecessarily putting someone else in a position of suffering so they can "realize themselves" is a strange position to me. — schopenhauer1

I did not say that people need to be born in order to realize themselves. Though if I did say that, then the suffering would be literally necessary, so I don't understand your criticism either way.

What I said is that what is moral and what is not is not based on some quantification of suffering caused by a given course of action. Avoiding suffering is only an instrumental goal. The ultimate goal is a state of freedom, not a state of no suffering.

Simply not procreating doesn't impose anything on anyone and certainly keeps in mind the dignity of the person who one would have enabled the conditions of suffering. — schopenhauer1

Obviously it imposes duties on people - not to procreate. But more to the point, I don't see how someone who will never exist can have dignity.

This indeed goes back to that paternalistic idea that other people need to live life out for YOUR idea of what is valuable for THEM to experience. — schopenhauer1

Having a moral philosophy and acting on it isn't paternalistic.

I should perhaps clarify that I am using "troll" in the more modern sense of:

someone intentionally trying to disrupt or manipulate online conversations and communities.

This was an example to illustrate that intention doesn't always matter. Maybe you intent to drive while drunk, but you don't intent to harm somebody. The harm done is an accident, made more probable because you are drunk but still an accident. Unless you are going to say that it is driving drunk itself that is immoral, regardless of whether you hit someone or not. But I don't think that's how we typically look at it, it does seem to matter that you hit someone or not. — ChatteringMonkey

I'd most definetly say that driving drunk is immoral regardless of whether or not you have an accident. It's also illegal in most countries, I'd wager. The immoral intention here is not to cause harm, but rather to intentionally ignore a rule that ensures everyone's safety for your own benefit. A case might be made for a situation where you didn't expect to get drunk but honestly miscalculated the effect the drinks would have, but that's a rather fringe case.

You have the rules of the game, you have the law,... and then you also have morality? Makes you wonder where morality actually comes into play. — ChatteringMonkey

I'd say on all levels, more or less. The rules of the game could itself be immoral, and so might the law. But the law might also be based on morality, but be less exacting.

I consider morality the principle according to which we individually choose our actions in accordance with reason. Rules we make - for games or in the form of laws, should conform to morality insofar as they do make provisions, but they do not need to (and arguably shouldn't) require fully moral actions. I.e. not everything that's immoral should be illegal, but by and large everything that is moral should also be legal.

You already quoted it. It just didn't say anything like what you then wrote.

I only wonder why Nos is thinking what he thinks. The danger is that people do not see each other as reasoning beings anymore and do not recognize each other as such. — Tobias

To the best of my ability to tell, NOS does not actually believe most of the things he posts. Most of the time, he is exactly repeating the current pro-Trump propaganda. There have been several instances where he actually started posting it before it was reported by mainstream news.

I consider it fairly likely that NOS is a profile of a professional troll.

Not sure what you are saying. — schopenhauer1

I am saying your representation of what I said was either mistaken or dishonest.

And this indeed is the heart of our difference. I don't presume to "teach" another person a lesson of suffering as a goal that needs to be played out by that other person. — schopenhauer1

You seem fine with presuming to put words into other people's mouths though.

Now we know that you think lying is always wrong for example (categorical imperative). — khaled

This often misunderstood example was not actually about the categorical imperative at all, but about responsibility for unforseen consequences.

Because one is justified and one isn't. And I already went into what justified means. — khaled

You'll have to forgive me for not remembering the specifics.

I don't see how they contradict. Why can't you have your self and ALSO think that one ought to inflict as little unjustified harm as possible? — khaled

I didn't say that they were necessarily contradictory. But there are situations where they lead to clearly incompatible results. Someone who is concerned about self-realization will allow people to make certain decisions, even if others find them stupid, and even if they involve the risk of suffering. We do allow people to engage in very dangerous sports for example, even though the overall suffering of the world might be much reduced if everyone refrained from doing it.

I'd say the latter comes from the former. If putting people in jail caused more harm than not putting people in jail, we wouldn't have a law that puts people in jail. — khaled

Just historically speaking, this is manifestly false. You can maybe claim this about some especially well working justice systems, like in the nordic countries. You certainly can't make the claim for the US, or any early 20th-century european country.

Or else you get situations where you're "respecting the law" by putting people in jails that radically increases chances of repeat offences and doesn't actually reform behavior at all. Forgetting that the whole point of jail was to reform and to protect the population, people choose to instead "respect the law" and mistreat inmates resulting in repeat offences and no one benefiting. and A lose-lose situation, and why I hate appeals to "respecting" or "preserving" fictions over people. — khaled

But there is also an opposite danger involved here: "reforming behaviour" can also be understood in the way China does it - turning into people into nice, conforming parts of society. An approach to justice that is solely concerned with protection and rehabilitation leads to this as a logical consequence - a consequence some early 20th century criminologists actually arrived at. So while I agree that one of the goals of criminal justice should be to prevent repeat offenses, another goal needs to be to have sentences that are commensurate to the crime. And that of course implies that the sentence is more than merely a tool for rehabilitation, and instead an actual punishment - intentionally inflicted suffering for the purpose of re-establishing equality.

Sure. But that's not "mankind". And saying that all humans share a certain quality does not lead to the conclusion that mankind should survive. Putting value in "mankind" itself is required to say that. — khaled

True. But it is suggestive of the idea that the whole of interconnected humans is more than just the sum of it's parts, and that in some way, it ought to continue. Perhaps that's just the biological imperatives speaking though. The actualy justification for having children does not need to be so lofty. I'd consider it sufficient if your children can contribute to a future society of freedom, irrespective of whether they're necessary for the survival of the species.

For the case of biological parents it's pretty clear. I would say you can also take on responsibilites for yourself. So for example, a life guard has a responsibility to save drowning people even though those people would drown if left alone and the lifeguard wasn't around. But a pedestrian doesn't. The difference is that the lifeguard has taken on a responsibility the pedestrian didn't. And I think these responsibilities are socially mediated. If you want the benefits the society gives you (in the case of the life-guard, money) then you have to respect the responsibilites it places upon you. — khaled

And I just continue that thought to conclude that, since responsibilities are sociall mediated, rather than attaching to mere physical fact, causation is a common starting point for responsibility, but it's not a necessary or even a sufficient one.

Not really for me but the situation required to say that having children is wrong is basically impossible. It would be when someone would suffer so much from being childless that their suffering is comparable to the suffering of their children across their entire lifetimes. — khaled

How would someone ever know?

Sigh, I'm so tired of this argument. Ok let's take this to its logical conclusion. There is no "them" to put in any situations. Therefore if a parent genetically engineers their child to be blind even though they would have been fine otherwise that parent did nothing wrong. Since they didn't harm anyone. Since there was no "them". You and I both disagree with this. I don't want to keep going around trying to find the metaphysical setup that you will find acceptable so I'll ask you to resolve the conflict.

Malicious genetic engineering is wrong, yet there is no one being harmed. How? Why is it wrong then? — khaled

It's wrong because it's malicious. The intention makes it wrong. Not the result. The child is indeed not harmed, because this child was always blind and will always be blind and could never, under any circumstances, be any other way.

Whether or not some act is moral cannot be answered without knowing according to what intention, based on what guiding principle, it was taken.

But if you think that having children should not be affected by the day of the week and at the same time you find that having children on tuesday is wrong, then something is wrong with your system. And I am sure we can agree that whether or not having children is wrong should not depend on the day of the week. Therefore it must be some other principle gone whack. — khaled

Yes, but this kind of reductio only works so long as we're on common ground, which we're not for the most part in this discussion. You consider things absurd that I don't, and vice versa.

You have tried repeatedly to find faults in my system by saying things like "What about surgery" etc. So far I think I've shown it's internally consistent. What I'm trying to find out is whether or not yours is internally consistent WITHOUT relying on premises that I disagree with such as "The preservation of mankind is the ultimate goal". Because I have failed at finding such a system so far. — khaled

Internal consistency is not the same as disagreeing with a premise. It would be a sign of lack of internal consistency if you would agree with my premises but still disagreed with the result. You won't find a system that has premises that you agree on and is internally consistent, because if this were the case, we'd have the same opinion.

I can see where you are coming from. Any pain chosen for another is a violation in some pure theoretical sense. — five G

Including breaking up with someone that loves you, for example?

Surely you can at least see how antinatalists see creating the unnecessary suffering as the crime that is being prevented. They don't see the logic in some deeper "meaning" in letting the "crime and punishment" be carried out. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I can see how you arrive at the conclusion. It just seems to me you're thereby forgetting just why suffering matters. You're treating suffering like metaphysical evil, that needs to be eradicated "just because".

From where I stand, suffering (and perhaps even more importantly the fear of suffering) matters insofar as it keeps individuals from realising themselves.

If you can prevent the suffering that the crime induced, would you? — schopenhauer1

Yes, though not, of course, at any price. But this is because causing the suffering is a crime, so we have already established that it has special significance.

I wouldn't try to prevent suffering by heartbreak.

Well maybe "When X happens it's ok but otherwise it's not". Any sort of condition at all. Instead of "just decide on a case by case basis". — khaled

Well I consider morality to be on a case by case basis. There is a general principle according to which you decide, but there isn't a canon of commandments like in the Bible. You just look at a situation and apply the categorical imperative to your best ability.

That's exaclty what my quote was saying. We find different amounts unacceptable. But there is large agreement on them. — khaled

It's not just about amounts though. Causing heartbreak is more acceptable than slapping someone across the cheek, even if the latter is a much shorter amount of much less severe pain.

This. And we decide slightly differently but largely similarly. — khaled

But then the question you'd have to ask yourself is why, in this specific case, you decide significantly differently from the vast majority of people.

If you agree there is a value judgement involved here, you'd have to ask yourself why we shouldn't treat the suffering entailed by living the same as the suffering entailed by heartbreak. Unfortunate, but not morally wrong to inflict outside of very narrow circumstances.

I don't see what the self has to do with anything. — khaled

The self is the reason we consider killing a cow to eat it morally permissible so long as the cow doesn't unduly suffer, but killing a human isn't.

In other words the self is exactly the reason why morality is not simply about avoiding suffering.

No, you're free to experience as much suffering as you want to. So it just becomes "You should inflict as little suffering as possible". I don't really think that's a new or unreasonable view. Heck I'd say you'd agree with it if it wasn't put in this context. — khaled

I do think it's unreasonable though, because I can clearly come up with plenty of examples where I'd value other concerns higher than the suffering involved. "Inflict as little suffering as possible" is a purely instrumental command, it only tells you how to go about doing things, not what things to do.

We put people in jail not based on some calculation of the suffering this will avoid, but based on more abstract notion of respect for the law. We may dress this up as a decision to avoid some vague amount of suffering in the future, but I consider that an ex-post rationalisation.

Because humans suffer but "mankind" doesn't. Often when we say something bad happened to "mankind" we mean that something bad happened to certain people. But sometimes not. Sometimes we forget that "mankind" is just a concept that can't suffer. Like in the case of birth. If everyone decides tomorrow to have as few children as possible so as to lead to the extinction of mankind slowly while maintaining quality of life, then "mankind" certainly suffers, but people don't. It is in these scenarios where I find appeals to "mankind's suffering" disgusting. When no person is actually suffering and the concept is treated as a person. — khaled

Fair enough, I can see your point. But I do think that in order to consider empathy more than just an emotional response to perceived suffering, you must consider there to be some shared quality that all humans have. Something that binds you to humans in general not just to specific humans you might know. Otherwise, why worry about them?

Because for dependents you are partially responsible for all their suffering. So it is your responsibility to mitigate it as much as possible. For non-dependents you are not responsible for their suffering so it is not your responsibility to mitigate it. — khaled

Where does that responsibility come from though? Biological children are not the only kind of dependent there is. So it can't be merely that the suffering was caused by the biological parents.

False. "Forcing" maybe not the right word, but whatever word you want to use it must include: Putting them in a situation where they might suffer that is very difficult to get out for selfish reasons without asking. I find "forcing" fits the bill the best. If you don't like the word then just replace it with "Putting them in a situation where they might suffer that is very difficult to get out for selfish reasons without asking" — khaled

I don't think it must include that at all. The word "them" refers to nothing here. Noone is "put into a situation" by existing. Existing is the situation.

It's as wrong as saying a stone is forced to obey the laws of gravity. It's not. The stone is part of the laws of gravity, it's not in some way separate.

If the discussion of the specific scenario leads to a counterintuitive conclusion that may be a sign that the answer might have to be changed. So if your answer makes it so that having children is wrong on tuesdays, then maybe the answer has to be changed. — khaled

This doesn't follow though. It's only true for your position, because your position is absolute - having children is always wrong. It is this refuted if we can find a single example where having children is not wrong.

The same isn't true for the reverse. If having children is wrong on Tuesdays, that doesn't affect my position at all. I only need a single second of a single day to make the point.

But I don't see what's weird about participating in that discussion because it is exactly how we test any moral premise ever. We test it till it breaks then we find a better one. Idk why no one is willing to do that from your side. — khaled

Because it's irrelevant whether or not any specific justification of having children holds up to scrutiny. You'd have to establish that no justification is possible. This cannot be done by going through examples, because the number of examples is indefinite.

In certain cases we do think intent to harm isn't necessary for something to be immoral, like say in case of doing harm because of drunk driving or negligence. — ChatteringMonkey

I'd consider drunk driving a case of negligence. And what makes negligence what it is is your failure to act according to your duties before the outcome is unavoidable.

Using the drunk driving example: if there is a chance you'll end up drunk driving, don't drink in the first place.

For example, is it wrong for me to shove pins in a Trump voodoo doll because I’m intending to do him harm? — Pinprick

But if you're certain that this cannot work, you're not actually intending harm - you're just pretending to. And if you think there's a chance it might work, it seems to me that it would be wrong.

You're right that intentions and outcomes cannot be looked at separately though, because intention, in the moral sense, is selecting an action based on a desired outcome and given ability to bring it about.

So here we have basically the same actions that are judged completely differently because context matters. — ChatteringMonkey

But is this a sign of different moral approaches or merely of different factual information? We always have to infer the intentions of others from outcomes.

Football players also agree to a specific game with specific written and unwritten rules. Which is why things that would otherwise be considered assault aren't if they can still be considered part of the game.

There is of course, nothing inherently wrong with people storming capitol building to kick out shitty governments. — StreetlightX

In the same sense that shooting someone on the street isn't inherently wrong. It all depends on who is doing it, and more importantly why.

Now you sound like BLM supporters when explaining the looting. — ssu

That's the point, I think.

What's different is the motivation and the symbolism, not the fact that there is violence.