It's just an indirect way of complaining about how hard life is and its difficult sometimes to raise any more nuanced an argument than, "get over it!". — Isaac
Likewise if Peter Singer is wrong, then we will have given to charity more than we need have and the economy may suffer. — Isaac
This is your favourite subject, isn't it? You're the antinatalism guy, much like the nuclear weapons guy and the animal rights guy. :grin: — S
It's not spurious at all. I could keep going with what the two have in common, but I don't mind letting it go. I'm impartial enough to accept that there are similarities with your position and both that of the incels and that of the vegans. But you don't like the former, hence you've put forward an alternative. — S
Whereas my justification isn't even deontological, it's consequentialist. — S
Compassion for the individual who will experience harm is countered by empathy for the individual who will have worthwhile experiences, and the alleged injustice of forcing someone into adversity is countered by the unjustified opposition to the opportunity of someone having inevitable worthwhile experiences and most likely a good enough life, the latter of which most people attest to.
Your objections to my counters typically involve a double standard, so they don't count and your problem lingers unresolved. — S
Yes, that's a big difference. I think that it can. And I also think that you're like most people in that you wouldn't even hesitate to apply this reasoning in many other contexts. You reject it here because it doesn't lead to your desired conclusion. In other words, you put the cart before the horse. — S
It should indeed be avoided, but not unconditionally, not at any cost. It should be avoided, setting aside the exceptions, and this is one of them. Your principles here are far too simplistic, and they lead to your adoption of ridiculously disproportionate "solutions" (using a sledgehammer to crack a nut). — S
Yeah, that's another difference. I think it can, and I think that your arguments just don't work. Sure, you can piece something together for yourself and the relatively tiny number of people who share your views, but they have very little wider appeal. They're largely unconvincing. You're not too bad at this debate thing, but you don't stand a chance against someone of equal or superior skill (and I obviously fall under the latter category :strong: ) because your position suffers from a much weaker foundation. You're bringing a knife to a gun fight, mate. :wink: — S
Yeah, I think I'm done with these analogies. It's a weak tactic in my assessment, because I can just as easily come up with analogies of my own to counter yours effectively, as I've demonstrated at least a couple of times already. — S
Although actually, this one's not anywhere near as bad your Buddhist analogy, which formed the basis of your argument in the opening post. I can work with this set up at least, and I already have. I've said my piece about the "obstacle course", the people who go through it, and why I disagree with your take on it. — S
You are aware, I presume, that there are different meta-ethical positions, yes?
You are aware that the anti-natalist stance relies on a particular meta-ethical position, yes?
You are aware, presumably, that David Benetar is not God, he's just a man of the same epistemic status as any of the other philosophers who've arrived at different meta-ethical theories, yes?
Considering that these meta-ethical theories cannot all be true/right, it follows that all but one of them must be wrong.
Given that the philosophers who derived them are of the same epistemic level as David Benetar, it follows that it must be possible, no matter how clear it seems, for someone of David Benetar's epistemic level to be wrong, yes?
If Phillipa Foot is wrong, then decisions made by virtue may mislead us, where they should have been made by consequence. Likewise if Peter Singer is wrong, then we will have given to charity more than we need have and the economy may suffer.
If David Benetar is wrong we will have exterminated the entire human race needlessly.
Do you see why people are lumping you in with extremists? — Isaac
Exterminated is not the correct word though. Preventing people from coming into existence is passive. No one is forcefully doing anything to actual people. That is a big difference, though the outcome might be the same, that no people will exist if taken to its logical conclusion. — schopenhauer1
. I can see why at first, it seems unintuitive to most folks. They are used to the idea that life is good in and of itself, and people need to be born to experience this. They never question this notion. — schopenhauer1
So just wanted to clarify that you are discussing at the level of normative ethics (i.e. virtue theory, deontological, utilitarian, etc.), not meta-ethics. — schopenhauer1
I don't agree that it is a big difference. That the human race will cease to exist is a big deal, the manner in which their extinction comes about is minor in comparison. — Isaac
I think several thousand years of ethical debate rather contradicts this notion. Have you read Moore, for example, who seems to me to be pretty resoundingly questioning this notion, he just doesn't come up with the same answer Benetar has. — Isaac
I'm saying that different meta-ethical positions have different normative implications, and whilst meta-ethical positions are not derived consequentially, some humility is warranted about the fallibility of our rational capabilities when they lead us to conclusions which carry an enormous and irreversible normative consequence. — Isaac
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.