Absolutely -- waiting-for-death is not a suitable approach for people who are not old yet -- whatever one thinks of as "old" for themselves. My approach isn't "resignation from the game" altogether, because I, of course, don't know how long I may live yet. I still "engage". — Bitter Crank

Of course you still engage, but you can do it with a lightness (for the lack of a better word) that people who are still in the rat race can't.

Do you give credence to the concept of soul? — ucarr

No.

Do you discover what's extant by determining what cannot be eliminated?

In some cases, yes. Selfhood is one such example.

Did science not eradicate the harm of smallpox to use a simple example. — universeness

And create a million others.

No, it's precisely because I know I can't be that kind of parent that I don't feel qualified to have children
— baker
If you feel you fall short in these aspects yourself does that mean everyone does?

I think that the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is stronger than the one usually presented by antinatalists (about various prospective harms awaiting prospective people).

Of course, given that many people have relatively low aspirations in life, the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is unintelligible to them. They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight.

If not then do you think it's justified that antinatalists would prevent the birth of people such as Albert Einstein as well as people like Ted Bundy?

But they're not actually preventing anyone. Antinatalists are a small, powerless bunch. It's the normal people who believe that procreation is "just fine" and who abort a half of all pregnancies that are actually preventing others, literally.

Do you associate the antinatalist viewpoint with any measure of human cowardice?

Not in the existential sense, but in the worldly sense, yes.

There's nothing to teach. — Harry Hindu

It's not like we're at a philosophy discussion forum, Deepak.

What is the rational reply to someone hating and despising you (for decades) and preparing to attack you with military force?

Do you align yourself with any position on the political spectrum ranging from radical to ultra conservative? — ucarr

No.

Of what does the self consist?

That's what I've been asking you, since you're the one who brought it up.

I'm saying what the self can't possibly be. A triangle cannot be a circle. Identity is something which, by definition, has to be stable, permanent, or it isn't identity.

I'm questioning your equating your personal intuitions with universal ones. Not the use of intuitions tout court. To claim something is immoral, you need to show that others too have the intuition you have (or that they ought to have it). You've done neither.

There is a very significant difference between recognising that all we have to go on are things 'seeming to us to be the case' and assuming, as you do here, that simply by virtue of something's seeming to you to be the case it is, in fact, the case. — Isaac

The argument presented in the OP assumes moral intuition, hence ad populum arguments are all there is. Otherwise we just have the ridiculously messianic claim that whatever@Bartricks feels is moral, is, in fact, moral.

(which is, incidentally, where this thread will end up as Bartricks's threads always do - with the delusional claim that whatever he happens to feel is the case is, in fact, the case) — Isaac

But other people do the same kind of thing. Epistemologically, it's not even clear it's possible to do something else. An argument can be sound only in a particular context, given particular axioms, but not outside of that; whereby the choice of context is not a given, not universal.


Then, like you said elsewhere:

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more?
— baker

Yeah, possibly. I prefer more aesthetic grounds, but I don't know that there's much to choose between decision-making methods. Ones I like are - coherence (with other narratives), aesthetic value (usually inspired by childhood stories, to be honest), a preference for simplicity, a favouring of what I think are more 'natural' approaches... But those are just ways that seem to suit me, I couldn't raise an argument in favour of any of them, except I suppose coherence does make one's life easier to navigate, but then again many people seem to live with extremely clashing beliefs and come to no harm by it so... — Isaac

Children deserve a good life, free from harms but no-one is under any obligation to give it them so procreation is fine. — Isaac

This is Pharisaic. It follows logically, but it goes against the spirit of love for children.

On what ground can you justify arguing otherwise? — creativesoul

The Theory of Evolution, survival of the fittest. It's all the rage, we're all supposed to believe it, yet somehow, be very selective about thinking it through to its logical conclusions.

You didn't explicitly answer my question.

"Are you God?"

Pffft. Fucking morons around here.

Oh, the love is just oozing.

Okay. We all know people can change, however, you view self as tilting towards stability & permanence. — ucarr

The things that change about a person are not the self. The skin is not the self, the muscles, the skeleton, the body fat are not the self, the name is not the self, the clothes are not the self, the ideas the person entertains are not the self, the money the person posesses is not the self, etc. etc.

Is it correct to characterize you as being conservative?

The people who consider themselves conservatives typically do not consider me conservative.

What are you on about? The 'west' is not a worldview, it's just the practice of using reason to find out what's true, as opposed to making shit up or believing something because one's ancestors believed it. — Bartricks

Western culture is "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"??

Shall we look at a rap video with twerking females, as example of "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"?

And it's not geographical. And arguments don't go from being sound to unsound from region to region. I mean, you can't seriously think that if you get on a plane arguments that were sound when you took off will be unsound depending on where you land?

Duh.

Now, which premise in my deductively valid argument do you dispute?

The implicit one, "People are born innocent".

Of course. How else do you think I have my opinion on the matter?

How we respond to a perception of lack etc? — skyblack

Who is "we"? Hence, it seems you're after a universally applicable explanation of gratitude that will hold for every person, regardless of said person's specifics.

The more educated society, the less of an effect. — enqramot

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now.
— baker

But maybe less of a prey to choose from? Stronger resistance? — enqramot

No. Just more educated villains.

When self-help books titled to the effect of "The art of not giving a fuck" or "First take care of your own ass" get to be praised by many people as giving sound advice, you know what time it is.

He didn't talk much about virtue. His focus was on love and forgiveness. — Tate

You mean hatred and contempt?

I'd urge the Putin and company, the attacker, to quit bombing :fire: and send the troops home now. — jorndoe

While the West continues to hate and despise Russia, as it has always done?

Those who present contempt and hatred as good things, as virtues, should not be surprised by the consequences of what they teach.

Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c. — ucarr

By not regarding as self that which is subject to change.

Science can help you with all three of those? — universeness

No.

If not you then your kids or their kids but if there are no more kids then the human adventure dies along with the suffer/learn why/ prevent the suffering process, due to the whims of spoilsport antinatalists.

I really don't think this is something to fear.

Yeah, I can appreciate that but you might have been the father of the one.

No, it's precisely because I know I can't be that kind of parent that I don't feel qualified to have children.
Not having a definitive solution to the problem of suffering is even worse than not being able to feed and clothe the child.

Procreating creates an innocent person. And an innocent person deserves a harm-free happy life. That's not something you can give them. So you've done wrong - a great wrong - if you create that person. — Bartricks

This view is limited strictly to some particular Western worldviews, namely, mainstream Abrahamic religions and secularism.

The vast majority of the human population, however, believe in some kind of serial reincarnation or rebirth; a view in which it takes the will and actions of at least three entities to synchronize in order for conception to occur (namely, the prospective mother, the prospective father, and the prospective child; and in the theistic variant, the will of God). In Dharmic religions, they do not believe that a newborn child is innocent; rather, that a person has a "karmic debt", and this is why they are (re)born to begin with.

IOW, for a traditionalist Asian person, your argument would be unsound. Just pointing out the limited applicability of your argument.

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

This is so cold.

It's understandable that you might feel this way about some stranger or their children. But to feel this way about your own (prospective) children??

It clearly isn't moral intuition - people disagree with you, so it can't be intuitive, can it. — Isaac

A fallacious ad populum.

People have children all the time and virtually no one judges it to be moral problem

Empirically not true. From eugenics to some people regretting that they had children to antinatalists, some people do judge procreation as a moral problem.

Unless you're reaching for some magical, or supernatural source of moral rules, you've got nothing to go on to judge intuition other than how people actually behave.

People's behavior can reflect their intution, or not. So your point is moot.

The issue at hand is, actually, who or what is the authority in these matters.

If you make the most basic behaviour of humans immoral, it's your judgement of moral intuition that's wrong, not humanity.

Another fallacious ad populum.

People do not see the harms of life as being significant enough to meet the threshold of "characterized by intense suffering" that would be required to initiate this 'wrong-maker'. — Isaac

Clearly, some people do see it that way, at least some antinatalists do.

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

It's best framed as an ideological stance.

Every day, many Buddhists chant this sutta:

Think: Happy, at rest,
may all beings be happy at heart.
Whatever beings there may be,
weak or strong, without exception,
long, large,
middling, short,
subtle, blatant,
seen & unseen,
near & far,
born & seeking birth:
May all beings be happy at heart.

Let no one deceive another
or despise anyone anywhere,
or through anger or irritation
wish for another to suffer.

As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
cultivate a limitless heart:
Above, below, & all around,
unobstructed, without enmity or hate.
Whether standing, walking,
sitting, or lying down,
as long as one is alert,
one should be resolved on this mindfulness.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html

What is more compelling: One's nightmare experiences in childhood and adolescence that led one to decide to not parent a child, or a logical argument? — Bitter Crank

Depends on the person or the topic.

There are many things one doesn't need to experience for oneself in order to know one doesn't want to experience them and to instead take preventative action against them.

Never look at yourself, huh.

My child would be my flesh and blood, mine, and of course I wish to have no harm come to him, so I would do everything to prevent any such harm, including not conceiving the child at all.
— baker

Interesting that you have already chosen a gender for your imagined child and suggested a singular ownership rather than joint ownership with your imagined partner in procreation. — universeness

It's no good being female in this world; and men cannot be relied on.

Can you give a clear idea of exactly which harms you might be unable to protect your imagined child against?

Illness, old age, disease.
Not being able to satisfactorily answer his existential questions.

Are you ok with, accidental bumps/bruises/scratches/throwing up/nappies containing something akin to nuclear waste?

Sure.

would you also not have a child because it might become a drunk or a junkie or even worse, a UK tory or a US Republican later in life?

Are you concerned your imagined child might become a serial killer or be the antichrist?

No.

What actual list of harms/learning opportunities do you want guarantees against?

Growing up, I had existential questions that the adults refused to answer, or gave useless, or worse answers to.
Such as, "When you'll get older, you'll become numb, and then life will be much easier."

Early on, I swore I would rather not have a child at all than to give him such answers.

Good points.

The more educated society, the less of an effect. — enqramot

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now.

I agree with you about disaffected working folk - there should be a way to reactivate a Reformist Left (as opposed to a Cultural Left, which may be seen more as a product of elites and latte sipping hypocrites).

When I speak with working people I often hear that for them much of what passes for the Left hates and mocks them because the left is about elitism (education) and cultural issues they don't relate to and is palpably snooty about working people and the suburban life. I can see why they say that. 'The Right' has an opportunity to say - hey, we're not elitists, we don't dig modern culture much either, we just want all people to live the dream and make money for their family and be left alone by academic wankers and interfering governments. This can be seductive. — Tom Storm

The right-wingers have a plebeian mentality, regardless of their education status and wealth.

I agree with both your answers, but the question seeks a deeper answer; why do they want to overthrow the Government, what motivates their participation in a "culture war". — Janus

They probably don't see it that way, but more in terms "so that the truth may prevail".

this taste for revolution is coming, it seems, from the disaffected working class; those who you would expect to be more aligned with the left.

No, I think the disaffected working class align themselves with right-wingers, because their focus is on material wealth, it's that plebeian mentality.

So, Trump seems to have played on this disaffection and duped people into thinking he is all for the worker, the 'every woman and man'.

I don't see it that way. People are eager for wealth, so they look up to the wealthy; but only to those wealthy they can already relate to, ie. those with a plebeian mentality, ie. the right-wingers.

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!! — creativesoul

Are you God?
Else, on what grounds can you fret about what they do or don't do?

If you look at the core teachings of Jesus, you have things such as
Love God.
Love your neighbor and enemies.
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Forgive others who have wronged you.
Don’t judge others.
Now these things may not resonate with you, but these teachings appeal to many people even outside of Christianity. — Paulm12

Show me someone to whom those teachings "appeal", and I'll show you someone who expects, even demands, that _other_ people should behave in line with those teachings, while they themselves absolutely abhor being expected tobehave that way.

For most people, morality is all about how _other_ people should behave.

Furthermore, there are many parallels to Jesus's teachings and the teachings of Buddha

If I had more time, I'd take you up on this.

When I say Christianity speaks to the human experience, I mean that whenever people appeal to a "common humanity," they are usually doing so under the influence of Christianity, especially in western society.

That's a claim that esp. Christians and those Christianity-adjacent people like to make, but a study of cultural history suggests otherwise. (As has been already addressed in this thread.)

Either way, the fact that these ideas are still around are either a testament to the influence of Christianity or a testament to how Jesus's insight/the teachings of Jesus do resonate with many, perhaps most, people on a fundamental level.

Jesus brought the sword. Yeah, that really resonates with many many people, on a fundamental level.

Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

Oh, does it? Or are people just thinking hard how they can capitalise on the backwardness of others?

The drop in crime that began in the late 1980s was (at least in part) a result of R vs. W. The unwanted children who were not born did not become problem youth. — Bitter Crank

Yet the exploitative nature of the relationship between men and women never changed.

As long as men get what they want, it doesn't really matter whether abortion is legal or not, right.

Both the pro-life stance as well as the pro-choice stance treat women the same way: as sex toilets for men. In the same way men use toilets to urinate and defecate, so they use women's vaginas to excrete semen.

And both the pro-life stance as well as the pro-choice stance train girls from early on to accept this order things, and to even be proud of it.

The best a woman can be in this world is a fool, a beautiful little fool.

1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence? — Tate

Chronic pain, among other things.
Social ostracism, disenfranchizement.

I'm happier now than I have ever been. I'm busy, I'm reading a lot of history. I listen to great music on the radio and internet. There's the small house and weedy lawn to look after.

Death, like an over-flowing stream
Sweeps us away; our life is but a dream,
an empty tale, a morning flower
cut down and withered in an hour. — Bitter Crank

A view suitable for people who have pretty much ended their worldly efforts and are now just waiting for death, pleasantly.
But it's not possible to live with such an outlook when one still has a long way to go, because then such an outlook is counterproductive.

I've always taken the view that living life is the point. Making meaning. Why do we need a foundational guarantee for purpose? — Tom Storm

For when the intutitive optimism like yours wears thin.

* * *

It's just we've solved the issue. It's not our problem you don't like, or understand, the solution. — Harry Hindu

But you can't, don't, won't teach others your solution. You simply blame them. (So typical for religious/spiritual people and optimists.)

It's called a dictator. — Tate

No, it's called scapegoating.

First, to set the tone for discussing "individuality".

I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.

Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation — ucarr

I don't consider them to be "enemies of individuality" at all. One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation.

I exist, you exist, others exist, that's not a problem.

It seems you have an underlying assumption here, but it's not clear what it is.
It seems you're after a universally applicable explanation of gratitude that will hold for every person, regardless of said person's specifics.

Not sure what you're asking.

It seems that for most people, their intuitive response to an experience of lack is not gratitude, but sadness, contempt, or anger.

No doubt support for Ukraine is prolonging the war, but the primary cause of its duration is Putin. The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin.
/.../
That the US is responsible for Ukrainian deaths? I disagree. I believe the cause is Putin. — Tate

Such extraordinary powers ascribed to one man. Talk about the cult of personality!