What I am saying makes sense and is factual. We didn't consent to be born. — Andrew4Handel
It is irrelevant whether someone can consent to be born — Andrew4Handel
It is irrelevant whether someone can consent to be born — Andrew4Handel
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you mean the soul would only choose if it couldn't know that it was choosing a "bad life"? — John
Yes, and according to our two alternative scenarios, you either chose this prior to life or the very notion of choosing it is incoherent; take your pick. — John
The theory that souls do not pre-exist bodily life is equally unfalsifiable, so again what you say here is irrelevant. — John
That's only if you believe that life is suffering and if you believe that it is morally preferable to avoid suffering (and of course that's only to the person who thinks this). The kid who wasn't born maybe would have wound up thinking that life is suffering and that suffering is preferable to not suffering, or any other sort of alternative. — Terrapin Station
In that I think that
(a) "All of these potential people that we're not creating might be really upset that we didn't create them, so we'd better try to have as many kids as possible"
and
(b) Antinatalism
are equally ridiculous, for the same reasons. — Terrapin Station
That's nonsense; for example when people consent to marry they never know how it will turn out. — John
(..)and I also agree with you about how tiresome and childish the anti-life, anti-natal sheep are. — John
You don't think so, even though what I said in the quote above can be demonstrated by example when it comes to pets and children? — Sapientia
No, that kind of complex abstract thinking is far beyond the capabilities of pets and toddlers. Mutually beneficial? Yes. Mutual consent? No, obviously not — Sapientia
But is morality subjective as you say?
If you look at the past, morality was subjective. Different cultures had their own moral standards. Infanticide was common. Child marriage was practiced. Women extra-marital affairs were stoned to death, an eye-for-an-eye was a form of punishment, etc.
But take at a look at now. All the above are now considered immoral universally. To make the long story short, we are, undeniably, approaching moral objectivity. Does this trend in the moral world have a sound rational basis? I don't know but what we can glean from it is, deep down in the subconscioud(?), we do believe morality is objective. — TheMadFool
How do you feel about the suffering of non-human animals capable of feeling pain? Is it wrong for them to procreate? — Srap Tasmaner
If it is wrong to procreate, is it also wrong to allow others to procreate? — Srap Tasmaner
How do you define objectivity then? The definition I'm familiar with is a certain observation is objective to the extent it can be corroborated by as many individuals, instruments as possible. Keep in mind that the credibility is directly proportional to the number of confirmatory data points. In addition, this is important, the issue being evaluated is subject to rational analysis.
You think this is the ad populum fallacy BUT note that this fallacy is committed when the argument depends exclusively on the number of people holding a particular belief. This is not the case with moral issues. There's reason behind a moral belief e.g. killing someone deprives him of a meaningful, enjoyable life. So, no, there's no ad populum fallacy going on. And I think we can be objective about morality. — TheMadFool
But take at a look at now. All the above are now considered immoral universally. — TheMadFool
I actually don't think this pet - children equivalence will go down well with some people. Anyway... — TheMadFool
Prevalent practice permits of guardianship on moral issues - pets and children. However, this is like an improvised speech, just a place holder. It hasn't been subject to rigorous analysis. This is the point of the OP. To add, simple practice doesn't mean it's morally right. Slavery was a practice but we realize it's immoral. — TheMadFool
So, if someone is mentally immature it's ok to decide on his/her behalf? This to is just a place holder - an improvisation that prevents paralysis of thought and action. — TheMadFool
You appear to saying we should be believe anything that is a possibility with no evidence. — Andrew4Handel
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.