Why do you think there is any inconsistency between those quotes? — Bartricks
Why did you think that when I gave - and you quoted - a definition of objective versus subjective? — Bartricks
the deserved benefits they create are less than the person they create deserves and so we have an injustice overall, not justice promotion; — Bartricks
if the act is not performed there does not exist a person who is being deprived of the deserved benefits the act would otherwise have created. — Bartricks
To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks
An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved. — Bartricks
Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life. — Bartricks
So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life. — Bartricks
This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks
It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay. — Bartricks
Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life. — Bartricks
I don't think that they were trying to be selfish. The argument was that if one didn't procreate, it wouldn't result in the existence of a person who would deserve benefits but be unable to get them. — DA671
Happiness isn't defined by money (many of the happiest people I've met didn't have a lot) but ignorance does undoubtedly play a role in how we act. Reckless procreation is wrong. — DA671
The person deserves more benefit than they recieve. More. The shortfall represents an injustice. — Bartricks
This is indeed all valid and sound. It soundly proves that there is a negative aspect to procreation, that it creates a situation in which there will be undeserved harm which is a bad thing. — Isaac
Yep. That'll probably be why I said...
This is indeed all valid and sound. It soundly proves that there is a negative aspect to procreation, that it creates a situation in which there will be undeserved harm which is a bad thing.
— Isaac — Isaac
So, once more, if you rack up $1m of debt to make $500 grand, you're a shite business person. And if you think the $500 grand is profit, you're an idiot. It's not profit. You're down 500grand. You made 500 grand - but you made it at $1m cost. — Bartricks
So, it's a big black mark against procreative acts that they create a great injustice. — Bartricks
They seem, if we focus on the person who is created by them, to be big moral loss makers. — Bartricks
remember, the benefits the procreative act confers on the person who is created can't be counted among them — Bartricks
So, once more, if you rack up $1m of debt to make $500 grand, you're a shite business person. And if you think the $500 grand is profit, you're an idiot. It's not profit. You're down 500grand. You made 500 grand - but you made it at $1m cost. — Bartricks
You are wrong about an innocent not deserving a happy life. But it doesn't matter as my argument goes through with the agreements secured from you. All that's required is that the innocent deserves no harm. The fact they positively deserve a happy life compounds my case, but is not essential to it. — Bartricks
but I believe harm can be made up for with pleasure (e.g. prick of a needle to be irresistible to women, meet the woman of your dreams). — Down The Rabbit Hole
An overall happy life is more than what they deserve. — Down The Rabbit Hole
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.