I was only pointing out that you offered no new perspectives on life that people didn’t know of. — khaled
It says so right there. “I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering they didn’t know about before”. And so it’s not a lack of perspective. — khaled
On the other hand if you meant that there is some sort of objectivity to your view, that can’t be true because it’s an argument from extent. — khaled
Right, my point being everyone has heard your phrasing before. That life is a mistake, or that it’s enforced slavery, etc. It’s not a new take. — khaled
It's precisely because people don't see the perspective that ANs are proposing a new way to look at it. — schopenhauer1
I don't know where you get this idea about objectivity and extent. — schopenhauer1
But is that meeting the threshold of "overly controlling pervasive parts of the lifeguard's very being and overlooking the lifeguard's negative experiences egregiously over a long period of time for an X cause"? I don't think tapping the lifeguard meets this. — schopenhauer1
And yet it still doesn't mean it's right. — schopenhauer1
That I don't think is true. People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. I mean, a slave born in a relatively tolerant setting may think that slavery isn't that bad. A person who engages in certain psychological gymnastics might justify a lot of things. And surveys and interviews cannot be relied upon just because at a time of the interview someone says "such and such". Are people's assessments of themselves always accurate? Are personality tests completely accurate just because someone is answering questions about themselves? So then people don't have ideals of what they think they are? Of what they think the interviewer wants to see? Of what society wants? Of what they think is good vs. what they do? Etc. etc. — schopenhauer1
I think limitations are lived out and options are touted. I don't know if that makes sense to you. — schopenhauer1
What is lived and what is summarized can be different. — schopenhauer1
People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. — schopenhauer1
Do you think there is an "objective way to phrase it"? And if there is how do you know it is yours? — khaled
There is no objective way to phrase it. Morality is mainly about emotional appeal. — schopenhauer1
What once was seen as perfectly moral might be seen as excessively overlooking life. — schopenhauer1
Which sounds subjectivist to me. And other times you say “slavery was as wrong back then as it is now”.
Which is it? Are there objective moral laws we can find? And if so what makes you think “having children is wrong” is one? If not, is the whole point of this thread nothing more than an emotional appeal? — khaled
My theme here is that moral "sense" often grows over time or incorporates new things over time. It's like the Hegelian dialectic a bit.. It's nascent but through historical and other processes playing out and making its way known. — schopenhauer1
That is to say, it is wrong, but we don't "realize it" until some contingent time in our historical development. — schopenhauer1
it would be to not harm unnecessarily and to not overlook someone's dignity — schopenhauer1
The moral sentiment is where the normative is grounded in. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and can be anything. — schopenhauer1
It might not even be better by being necessarily "innovative" as much as more understood in detail — schopenhauer1
My point is that this is one such disagreement. It is a disagreement about facts of the world. We both agree that a certain amount of imposition is too much. Except you, want to convince everyone that birth does objectively fit the bill of too much imposition. How can you do that with any objectivity? — khaled
Humans, have self-reflection and greater awareness of actions, thoughts, and can use language. — schopenhauer1
I can understand certain claims for consistency of veganism and antinatalism, as they are often rooted in the same moral sentiments. — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.