Either you are being purposely evasive of what I have brought up as a consequence of your own argument, or you are really not understanding how much this has to do with it. Either way, I'm not sure how to help you more than the very simple way I just explained it. — schopenhauer1
Re antinatalism, it's not an issue of consent, because when we're talking about nonexistent people we're not talking about someone normally capable of granting or withholding consent. We need an existent person for that. — Terrapin Station
And what the fuck does that have to do with talking about nonexistent kids being deprived of anything? — Terrapin Station
Knock knock..hello..Because with your SAME LOGIC of NON-EXISTENT people, we can say that there is no harm to any actual person who is NOT born, but there may be CONSIDERABLE harm to those who ARE born... I'm using your very argument about NON-EXISTENT people to make an antinatalist claim, ala Benatar's asymmetry argument. — schopenhauer1
That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I'm typing. I'm not saying anything even remotely resembling the notion of nonexistent people being deprived of anything. — Terrapin Station
As I just added above: If you want to repeat the same garbage over and over don't use my posts to shit post in response like that. How about commenting on the actual content of my posts instead. Don't waste my time with the same old crap that has nothing to do with anything I was talking about. — Terrapin Station
I already said the point I'm getting at.. but I can walk you through it slowly, and in your case, in a circular holding pattern kind of way, where you will not see the forest for the trees of the argument, but here we go, baby-steps.
1) You think consent does not apply to a non-existent person, correct? It would be a category mistake or something of that sort, correct? — schopenhauer1
Yes, and I said nothing even remotely approaching the notion of nonexistent people being deprived of anything. So bringing that up in response to my posts means you're ignoring the content of my posts to start repeating the same prepared talking points for the thousandth time. — Terrapin Station
It simply takes consent off the table. So this means that neither antinatalist nor natalist arguments could be able to bring up consent. So this means that the only issue is harm.But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingly pro-natalist if one focuses on consent) actually implies antinatalist conclusions (if one focuses on the fact that no actual person loses from not being born). It is not a tenuous connection either, but at the very heart of the logic whereby your objection is being used. So what you think shuts down one argument actually facilitates a much stronger argument that is in favor of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1
But your points feed right into mine, so to not demonstrate how your logic about non-existing things not having certain things apply to them (seemingly pro-natalist if one focuses on consent) actually implies antinatalist conclusions (if one focuses on the fact that no actual person loses from not being born). It is not a tenuous connection either, but at the very heart of the logic whereby your objection is being used. So what you think shuts down one argument actually facilitates a much stronger argument that is in favor of antinatalism. — schopenhauer1
But all of this ameliorating (helping, putting a bandaid on, etc.) can be avoided by simply not having a new person in the first place. Done, presto. No one exists to be harmed (or need help from being harmed), and no one exists to be deprived of good. Done. — schopenhauer1
That would only be relevant if someone were saying something about depriving nonexistent persons of something. — Terrapin Station
And what anti-natalist is not risking the harm of other people every day? One can certainly avoid driving. But even pedestrians can cause accidents, voting could contribute to the next world war, selling or helping produce a wide range of products could cause harm, buying a wide range of products can and likely does contribute to companies that harm someone. (and these risks are often for those who have not consented, but then, consent is off the table, if both sides agree on that) — Coben
It's relevant when discussing nonexistent or potential people. — schopenhauer1
The point is about risking harm on behalf if others. ALL harm can be prevented if no one is born AND no actual person is deprived by not being born. — schopenhauer1
If consent is not available it should be assumed that it is not given. — khaled
I don't agree with this, but i'l focus on: you are not eliminating your harm. Here you are at a bird's eye view looking at an 'if everyone agrees scenario'. I am looking at antinatalists in situ and seeing they are risking harm in the ways I mentioned and more. If they want to argue this in consequentialist terms - iow it is worth that risk to prevent greater harm - then they open the door for people risking harm in pronatalist ways.ALL harm can be prevented if no one is born AND no actual person is deprived by not being born. — schopenhauer1
1) presumes objective morals. It is simply a fact that one must avoid harm. That is THE CRITERION — Coben
It also seems to run counter to the values most people have, since most people are willing to risk harm to others and also would prefer to live even if their lives include suffering or harm. — Coben
But since the odds seem to me enormous that these people will, like people now not share the anti-natalists values, both about having children and also that removing potential harm is the value that trumps all others, there is an inherent disrespect even to the values of those who could come to be. — Coben
I can see anti-natalism as a personal choice. I can't see why the anti-natalist values should dominate all other values. — Coben
And I cannot see how an anti-natalist lives up his or her own philosophy, given that they risk harming others all the time. And since their values may be wrong - if there are objective values - they are risking causing a catastrophy, should they be successful if all future human life never comes into existence. yes, if the only or must value is not causing any harm is objectively GOOD, then preventing all future humans would be ok. But there's a risk you are not right about what is objectively good, but you take that risk and try to change the world. Unless you think you are infallible about such things, why do you get to take such an enormous risk along with all the day to day risks you take around harming others? — Coben
Alright. Explain this one then. Why did you say planting a bomb to explode later in a public park is wrong? — khaled
Who exactly is the something or someone capable of granting consent in the bomb example? — khaled
I didn't argue it shouldn't involve harm. I criticized your arguments that we should not risk harm, and in that specific place in regarding the fact that you seem to know what objective values are. I am not telling you how you should or should not evaluate parenting in your life. I am arguing that your case others should value risk of harm above all else is not justified, for a variety of reasons.I do not see why an ethics regarding procreation, shouldn't involve harm, — schopenhauer1
For you. That's your values. Ones not shared by many, so not universal, and nothing you have said justified one must view it your way. I see nothing objective. That's the way you want us to view it.The asymmetry in regards to harms vs. goods comes into play when making a decision to start a life. — schopenhauer1
I disagree. There is the rest of the family and anyone who cares about people who want kids. This is a core desire of many people, most. Then if everyone follows antinatalism, there are no future generations, which means anyone who wants to leave a legacy: scientists, artists, etc., cannot leave it. That would lead to a lot of feelings of meaninglessness, depression, etc. Then anyone who feels part of some long line of humans accomplishing, exploring creating, even if they themselves are not specifically adding directly to the legacy, these will also feel depressed in large numbers. So if you are effective you are causing harm.Once it is seen that no actual person is deprived of anything prior to birth, any premium put on a value other than harm (to experience accomplishment and love, for example) would not matter for anyone but the parent putting a premium on this value being carried out. — schopenhauer1
Your value. And one not shared by other peopleHarm is the only consideration that matters at this point prior to birth. — schopenhauer1
Apriori logic? In any case, I never said that or assumed it. I am saying that the very people who harm you are trying to prevent in the vast majority will not, if they come to existence, share your values. I am not saying you are harming them. I am saying that the people you want not to experience harm would not if they came to life share your values.Again, you are ignoring the a priori logic. No one is in a locked room saying "but I could be living!! — schopenhauer1
So, I could take the harder avenues and provide you theories that people can be harmed by life, but still identify it like a slave who may not mind their situation but is definitely harmed by their situation, but I'll simply take the easy road. I'll refer you to the thousands of posts I've made showing how we are harmed in very particular ways, despite our identifying with the very thing that harms us.. — schopenhauer1
the only consideration that matters here is the the lifetime of collateral damage of undue suffering and collateral damage — schopenhauer1
Because any other value besides harm to a potential child, would be using that child for a parent's X agenda and outcome they want to see carried out by that child. — schopenhauer1
That is the thing, there is no risk with antinatalism. No person actually will be deprived of anything. We are not playing with other people's lives in antinatalism. ANY and ALL risks will ensue if someone is born, however. Once born, other considerations come into play, as the asymmetry of non-existing people is no longer part of the logic. It would be a category error to equate the two as using the same ethical logic in everyday life of those who already exist. — schopenhauer1
I am arguing that your case others should value risk of harm above all else is not justified, for a variety of reasons. — Coben
For you. That's your values. Ones not shared by many, so not universal, and nothing you have said justified one must view it your way. I see nothing objective. That's the way you want us to view it. — Coben
I disagree. There is the rest of the family and anyone who cares about people who want kids. This is a core desire of many people, most. Then if everyone follows antinatalism, there are no future generations, which means anyone who wants to leave a legacy: scientists, artists, etc., cannot leave it. That would lead to a lot of feelings of meaninglessness, depression, etc. Then anyone who feels part of some long line of humans accomplishing, exploring creating, even if they themselves are not specifically adding directly to the legacy, these will also feel depressed in large numbers. So if you are effective you are causing harm. — Coben
Your value. And one not shared by other people — Coben
Apriori logic? In any case, I never said that or assumed it. I am saying that the very people who harm you are trying to prevent in the vast majority will not, if they come to existence, share your values. I am not saying you are harming them. I am saying that the people you want not to experience harm would not if they came to life share your values. — Coben
You are imposing your values on others who are alive and presuming what is of value to be prevented for potential others. It does them no harm, since they are not yet, but it is absurd since they are merely your values and not those you want to protect's values. — Coben
Easy road? save the little ad homs. And seriously why would someone who presents preventing harm as the only value use an ad hom? Hypocrite. I am well aware of the vast ways one can suffer being alive and I am also aware that people can delude themselves. But again, you assume that harm is the only criterion we should use when making decisions. And two, just because it can be the case that people are deluded, who are you to decide that that possibility means homo sapiens should end`? That your values should reign and that you are in a position to evaluate the lives of others. What if you are deluded in your calculations`? You are being vastly more presumptuous than any single parent who decides to have a child. You are universalizing your priorities and your value. A value you cannot live up to yourself. — Coben
You just have a value. Like someone who hates butterscotch icecream. In a variety of ways you keep saying that we must prevent harm to anyone at all costs, period. That's your opinion. And I suppose that's what apriori logic means to you. You know it, so you state it. — Coben
But you are also a human, and also potentially fallible, right. You know that right. And as I said above, you are now taking the risk that you will effectively spread a value as the value, but you are wrong about that.
I get it. You can't imagine how. But that's the point. Fallible humans often cannot imagine how they could be wrong.
You are taking a risk your ideas are wrong. And the ulitmate risk you anti-natalists are taking is that you convince people to agree with you, homo sapiens ends this generation
and you were wrong.
And actually what you did was a horrible mistake.
Because we fallible humans might be wrong about something. — Coben
Now because I know life involves risk regardless of what I do. My action, my inaction, my ideas, might lead to harming people alive or not alive yet. I know this. And yet I continue to live and try to both make things better and reduce harm. I take the risk that my total contribution will not be postive. — Coben
But you, since you think one should not risk anything are being a hypocrite. Both in your daily life, since you risk harming others born and not born, jsut walking down the street. And certainly arguing the end of the species, since, despite your inability to consider it, you might be wrong about what one should value. What you consider objective values might be wrong, even though you can't see it. Unless you are claiming omnsicience. Yet you take these risks.
It's hypocrisy — Coben
No explanation why your value is objective.
No explanation how you live up to the rule of not risking harm.
No explanation why your way of evaluating value should apply to people who in the vast majority disagree with you.
Repetition of your apriori.
It's not a case.
You'e expressed an opinion, in a variety of paraphrases.
And you want to impose that opinion on all human life.
I am sure you are capable of paraphrasing your opinion in yet more ways, but I don't have interest in reading more and the ad hom was the icing on a cake I won't eat.
Take care. — Coben
Consent is an issue when:
(a) we're talking about a particular action that one is an actor in--either via performing actions on another or having actions performed upon by another — Terrapin Station
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.