You can't care that much about frustrating the will of another being, otherwise you'd set aside the trivial exception of the time in which there is not yet a being, and instead consider a little further down the line when there will be a being, and a being with a will that'll inevitably be frustrated from time to time. — Sapientia
Believing that there is no good reason to have children is practically anti-natalism, if not technically. — Sapientia
Did you mean everyone or anyone? — Sapientia
It's not trivial. You can't harm the non-existent. Therefore, no wrongdoing has occurred. — Thorongil
I'm not seeing any semantic difference between the two. — Thorongil
Merely repeating that which I've already acknowledged is pointless, and your denial is without explanation. How is it not trivial in light of the fact that the contrary will be the case, according to your own reasoning, as a result? It's incredibly shortsighted not to take that into consideration. — Sapientia
I'm not surprised. — Sapientia
Look, I'm not a consequentialist, despite what appears to be your attempts here to make me one. I don't judge the moral worth of an action based on the consequences of the action. I've given you my criterion for judging the moral worth of an action, and based on it, I cannot judge procreation to be wrong. There's nothing more for me to say. — Thorongil
So enlighten me. — Thorongil
I would also claim that it's irrational for anyone to have at least one child; not just myself.
Poisoning is undoubtedly wrong, once again because it deliberately frustrates the will of another being. — Thorongil
My example was specifically about cases of poisoning which do not frustrate the will of another being — Sapientia
This is oxymoronical. You can only poison people who exist, whether the effects are immediate or not. You can't poison or harm in any way that which does not exist. Note also that the harm I'm talking about here is metaphysical, as I said in a previous post: it affects the will of a person. You can deny someone's will without harming them physically. In the case of poisoning someone, it doesn't matter when the effects take place, for if poisoning is inconsonant with the person's will to live, then wrongdoing has occurred. — Thorongil
but you might not be using the word "will" in this way. — Sapientia
I'm probably not. — Thorongil
But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. — Thorongil
I suppose I could try to challenge the straw men you create for my presuppositions above, but I also must confess that I have no interest in doing so because of the very deep and long rabbit holes it will take us down. — Thorongil
Since one of your presuppositions seems to be positivism[...]. — Thorongil
You're probably not? What kind of answer is that? — Sapientia
And if you aren't using it that way, then did you not think that it'd be helpful to clarify the way in which you are using it? — Sapientia
You can tell no such thing. Do not presume to know my intent. — Sapientia
n the absence of a clear position from yourself, I addressed in parts of my post what I thought could be your position. — Sapientia
It is not. — Sapientia
Life is hard, and often miserable, so why demonize one of its few pleasures? — Wosret
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.