Science can help you with all three of those?
— universeness
No. — baker
If you feel you fall short in these aspects yourself does that mean everyone does? 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?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
To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks
so you're just changing the topic — Bartricks
Children deserve a good life, free from harms but no-one is under any obligation to give it them so procreation is fine. — Isaac
Ad populum arguments are not fallacious here unless you're arguing for moral absolutism. — Isaac
If you create a mess for someone else and say that no one is obligated to get you out of that mess…Don’t create that situation for someone in the first place. — schopenhauer1
It is then distilling out the patterns for consistency — schopenhauer1
vague intuitions. — schopenhauer1
And how do we gather these vague intuitions from other people? — Isaac
There are patterns in moral intuitions — schopenhauer1
How do we learn about these patterns — Isaac
Are you trying to get at the idea that what people report is simply what is morality? — schopenhauer1
I'm asking you how we come to learn of these patterns which we are to rationally assess. — Isaac
Intuition is usually a vague sense that’s all. This feels wrong or right. — schopenhauer1
Or are you saying that the intuitions of other people are irrelevant. That simply whatever you think is right is right? — Isaac
I have a vague notion harm is wrong — schopenhauer1
Well then intuitions are not misapplied. Your intuition is that we shouldn't risk unnecessary harm on others without their consent, and you are not having children as a result.
What possible grounds could you have for assuming other people share your intuitions on the matter? — Isaac
Still depends entirely on the reason for creating the mess and the extent of the mess. Creating a minor mess, without intent to harm, and for good reason is basically morally fine by most people's standards.
Again, if it's not fine for you, that's up to you, but we shouldn't be surprised that unusual conclusions arise from unusual premises. — Isaac
Creating a mess, without intent to harm, but with knowledge that it will harm, and for no good reason for the person it is affecting because no one exists yet to need it, is not fine by most standards. — schopenhauer1
It is. We consider it fine in many contexts. — Isaac
. Seeing as having children is just about the most consistent human activity ever, it's ridiculous to dismiss it as a relevant context. — Isaac
As we've discussed before. Intuition don't go around neatly packaged with little labels on them. We can only gather what they might be from our behaviour and feelings. If most people feel morally fine about having a baby that's very good evidence that they have s moral intuition such that it is st least fine, if not actually advised. — Isaac
2. Almost every single human of the 10 billion or so that have ever lived have all made sa mistake which you (and a couple of others# have finally spotted 400,000 years later. — Isaac
I would never unnecessarily harm someone to any significant degree. — schopenhauer1
This is the arguments vegetarians/vegans make though. — schopenhauer1
Some cultures think that gods are in the rocks and the trees. Ancient Romans thought that it was cool to subject people to gladiator events and torture for entertainment. It was pretty consistent in their culture. Others thought burning at the stake was good for suspicion or actual having the "wrong beliefs". So? — schopenhauer1
a lot of practices are no longer seen as good. Moral intuitions can change over time.. — schopenhauer1
1. Other people have a slightly different intuition to you.
2. Almost every single human of the 10 billion or so that have ever lived have all made some mistake which you (and a couple of others) have finally spotted 400,000 years later.
You're attempting to argue that 2 is the more plausible. — Isaac
The point doesn't really require a thread. It's much as above. Either your intuitions are always right (God-complex), or everyone's intuitions are always right (relativism), or some generalised sense of human intuitions as a whole are what's right. Dismissing the former two as ridiculous, we're left with the latter.
The latter requires an ad populum argument to arrive at the 'general sense' — Isaac
Neither would I. We're talking about putting people in conditions in which they may come to harm. Not deliberately harming them. I do the former every time I take to the road in my car. — Isaac
They are no less mistaken for exactly the same reasons. — Isaac
You keep jumping to the beliefs of cultures. What we're talking about are the moral intuitions which guide those beliefs. I don't think any moral intuition guides the belief that there are Gods in rocks. — Isaac
You're not presenting any alternative. If we cannot look to people's behaviours to determine their intuitions, then what? Where do we look instead? Unless you answer this question you're just building castles in the air. — Isaac
Moral practices change over time. I don't see evidence that moral intuitions do. — Isaac
It's not sufficient to say that because looking to cultural practices for moral intuitions is flawed you can just make up your own and claim them to be universal. — Isaac
This was not a proposition of mine, it was a corollary of what Bartricks said about deserts not creating obligations in this context.
If what children deserve doesn't create an obligation to provide it, then procreation is not made immoral by that fact since no one is morally obliged to see to it that those deserts are brought about. — Isaac
For you, is innocence/guilt a creation of human conscience or does it have any significance outside of humans or they're like? — universeness
Is antinatalism a pointless viewpoint because the universe has no inherent significance/meaning without the existence of lifeforms such as humans, even antinatalist ones. — universeness
If lifeforms such as humans went extinct, do you think evolution/natural selection would simply continue and another lifeform like humans would emerge? — universeness
Innocence is not our creation. It's a status that someone has, not something we bestow by our attitudes. If I believe you're guilty of something, that doesn't mean you are - even if I manage to convince everyone else that you're guilty of it — Bartricks
I do challenge your argument. I asked you if the purpose of the universe is linked to the existence of humans. If antinatalism were realised it would damage that purpose, would it not?If, by the 'meaning' of our lives, you mean their purpose, well clearly the purpose of our lives is to do what is right. By procreating then, one goes against the purpose of one's being here. If you disagree, you need to challenge my argument. — Bartricks
I don't know. But evolutionary forces do not have moral obligations. We do — Bartricks
among them is an obligation not to procreate. Note, I have not argued that we have an obligation to stop the production of persons. I have argued that we, as individuals, are obliged not to procreate. — Bartricks
No, that is not analogous. — schopenhauer1
it is not guaranteed that someone will be harmed. — schopenhauer1
not appropriate for this particular thread.. As Bartricks would say.. stay focused — 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.