In the case of self defense it's they get harmed or you do. So you wouldn't be wrong in preferring your own safety. In the case of having children no one is harmed if you don't do it but someone might be harmed if you do — khaled
Rather, name an ethical system under which genetically modifying children to suffer is acceptable — khaled
I don't think there is a point in continuing this then. Because we'll never see eye to eye. You refuse the claim that it doesn't matter whether or not someone existed at the time the harmful action took place and yet do not take the opposite side claiming that it does either. Probably because it is ridiculous to claim that genetically modifying children to suffer is acceptable. — khaled
I think this was called the non identity problem or something. Just replace "life" with "genetic modification" and your entire paragraph can more or less be used to argue that genetically modifying children to suffer is acceptable. — khaled
If you really think that there is no argument that can convince you — khaled
Although that choice would commit you to a lot of stances I find ridiculous. Such as, for example, thinking that implanting a bomb in a fetus and setting it to blow up at 18 is ok but bombing an 18 year old isn't. — khaled
Why does this stop it from being applicable? If it is impossible to give consent, consent is not given. If consent is not given it can't be assumed. It doesn't matter if it was possible to ask for consent or not. — khaled
You wouldn't take seriously an argument based on the fact that Bananas don't consent to being eaten — S
so we shouldn't take seriously your premise that nonexistent offspring don't consent to being born. — S
I would if it can be shown bananas experience pain to an extent close to us. — khaled
You think there is no difference between a banana and a fetus? — khaled
You think that there shouldn't be any change in how we treat them based on the fact that one will grow to be a human? — khaled
Now come on. I didn't make such a claim. You did. — Echarmion
I am not allowed to reserve judgement until I hear a convincing argument? Isn't the rational thing to say that you don't know until you have heard a convincing argument either way? — Echarmion
Possibly, but why is it up to me to prove that it's not acceptable? Because you find that conclusion not appealing emotionally? — Echarmion
Why? Because I don't agree with your first argument I am therefore irrational and impossible to convince? — Echarmion
A reductio ad absurdum only works if we can agree beforehand that the conclusion would be absurd — Echarmion
I think you misread. I didn't claim there is any ethical system that allows genetically modifying children to suffer. When you asked for ethical systems that claim the modification should be wrong I was having trouble thinking of any that find it acceptable. So I asked you to name one that finds it acceptable instead — khaled
When did I say you weren't allowed? — khaled
It isn't. I just thought you'd think genetically modifying children to suffer is wrong because it's simply sadistic. But if you don't think pure sadism is wrong and still need more convincing I can't do that. — khaled
You know what I meant cut the crap. One of them becomes a sentient being and the other doesn’t. Do you think there should be any change in how we treat them based on that fact? — khaled
No, nonexistent offspring don't become anything — S
Would you like to reconsider what your argument is about? Is it about real people or imaginary, nonexistent people? — S
I already pointed out how Utilitarianism would have a problem with that conclusion — Echarmion
Fetuses become humans. I was talking about fetuses in the last reply my bad for not making that clear. — khaled
So, essentially utilitarianism? The problem I see with this argument is that it relies on there being two alternatives, and one leads to less suffering/more utility for the people involved. But when we are making the decision to create those people in the first place, there are no such alternatives. There is one timeline without people and one timeline with people, and you cannot compare the relative utility of these timelines because for one timeline it's an empty set. — Echarmion
so what are you saying? It should be killed? — S
But, even though in itself refutation — S
Consent is only relevant where it's a possibility — S
ahhh, you were talking about antinatalism in general. You’re right, there aren’t many ethical systems in support of antinatalism but I was specifically asking for an ethical system that states genetically modifying children to suffer is ok. Utilitarianism would not be an example of those. — khaled
but that's not helpful for the anti-natalist argument. — Echarmion
I didn’t say it was. I was going to go from there and expand the principle but then you insisted i give examples of an ethical system where genetically modifying children is bad. Now I ask you to find me one where it is considered good. — khaled
As long as it’s nervous system hasn’t been developed, yes. — khaled
Ad absurdium arguments only make sense if we agree killing said fetus is absurd. — khaled
How about: waking people up. The only way you can ask for consent is by doing the act in question. Does that mean you can go around waking up anyone who happens to be asleep? — khaled
I think that the bigger problem is — S
You've misunderstood. I was referring to my refutation of your argument on the basis that consent is inapplicable and irrelevant. — S
That's not about consent, that's about the consequences of waking someone up. For it to be about consent, there must be an option to obtain consent — S
If it was wrong on the basis of not obtaining consent, then you must be able to say to me that I should have obtained his consent first. But we both know that that's not possible. — S
What's this referring to. What problem? — khaled
Alright then. What do you suppose we do in cases such as these where consent isn't available? I say, go with the least risky option, aka the one least likely to harm. If I claimed that having children is not wrong on the basis of consent but on the basis of consequences what would be the refutation to that?
1- Having children risks disasterous consequences for the child
2- Actions that risk disasterous consequences for others are wrong when a less risky alternative is possible in cases where consent is unavailable
3- Having children is wrong because a less risky alternative is possible (not having children) — khaled
1- Having children risks disasterous consequences for the child
2- Actions that risk disasterous consequences for others are wrong when a less risky alternative is possible in cases where consent is unavailable
3- Having children is wrong because a less risky alternative is possible (not having children) and consent isn't available (due to lack of time machine) — khaled
Nonexistence is not a "less risky" alternative for the child though. Non-existance is not more or less pleasant than existence. That's a category error. — Echarmion
Nonexistence is not a "less risky" alternative for the child though. Non-existance is not more or less pleasant than existence. That's a category error. — Echarmion
The point is one alternative means no one experiences harm and no one is deprived of good (because there is no actual person who exists). — schopenhauer1
The other alternative is someone is born and guaranteed will experience some harm. — schopenhauer1
Non-existence- no one is born/no one is deprived = win/win. — schopenhauer1
The idea that someone could have had more good experiences or whatnot if born matters not, in this procreational scenario. The risk khaled is talking about is mitigated and no actual person is alive losing out on anything. — schopenhauer1
Nonexistence is not a "less risky" alternative for the child though — Echarmion
Non-existance is not more or less pleasant than existence — Echarmion
The point is one alternative means no one experiences harm and no one is deprived of good (because there is no actual person who exists). As I've seen on here before, there are no "ghost babies" wailing for existence. The other alternative is someone is born and guaranteed will experience some harm.
Non-existence- no one is harmed/no one is deprived = win/win. The idea that someone could have had more good experiences or whatnot if born matters not, in this procreational scenario. The risk khaled is talking about is mitigated and no actual person is alive prior to birth, losing out on anything. — schopenhauer1
True, but not having a child avoids the risk of having a child who lives a life that isn't worth living. Although that risk is vastly outweighed, so, in the vast majority of cases, this risk doesn't matter as much as he suggests. — S
It has nothing to do with pleasantness. Is it or is it not true that existence has a greater risk of harm than non existence? It is true. That is the definition of risky — khaled
is the problem of people who think that it should be killed because of faulty anti-natalist reasoning. — S
I'm a living example, for starters. I am glad to have been born. — S
It isn't even difficult to think of examples — S
And moreover, if life isn't worth living anymore, then guess what? You don't have to live — S
I'd agree that the parents avoid that risk. Not the child though, because there isn't any child that has avoided the risk. — Echarmion
First off, you haven’t shown it to be faulty yet. — khaled
Secondly, if antinatalist reasoning is actually followed there would be no fetus to kill or not kill. — khaled
Me too. However that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not you are glad to have been born doesn’t determine whether giving birth is right or wrong. You and me are lucky enough that the risk paid off, that doesn’t mean it was ok to take the risk in the first place. In the same way that if person A stabbed person B and person B turned out to be a masochist and enjoyed it, that doesn’t make stabbing in general okay. — khaled
The fact is, in real life the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. Name a situation where this isn’t the case. — khaled
Please come up with one not birth related where there someone is said to be justified to do something that risks severely harming someone else when consent is not available and where a less risky alternative is available. Because giving a birth related example and using your own personal experience doesn’t work as I’ve shown. — khaled
As I’ve pointed out before, this line can be used to justify literally any atrocity. The fact that someone can commit suicide to get out of a situation they hate doesn’t justify putting them in that situation the first place or risking putting them there. — khaled
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.