any thing happening to them — Andrew4Handel
Not "anything happening to them." It has to be an action upon them by another agent, or performed by them in conjunction with another agent. — Terrapin Station
Having a child is acting to impose experiences on someone else. — Andrew4Handel
The person who lets someone into a concert hall — Terrapin Station
Having a child is not letting someone in. — Andrew4Handel
I think he means that other people have different considerations and evaluations of life. — schopenhauer1
The consent issue only arises in humans because of our unique cognitive capacities. I don't know what other animals would think about procreating if they could reflect and reason like us. — Andrew4Handel
Who? Andrew? khaled?
And if they're talking about that--"other people have different considerations and evaluations of life," then they're not talking about anything that I've been talking about. Do they not understand what I'm talking about? — Terrapin Station
Okay, but what would that have to do with anything I'm talking about? — Terrapin Station
Consent is for specific actions.
Give an example of a specific action you have in mind — Terrapin Station
The same with khaled, all their arguments can be subsumed in the one I just gave. It can be characterized in a way that still takes your objection into consideration, and as stated earlier, makes a powerful argument with that objection at the core of its logic. — schopenhauer1
I disagree with your characterization of consent. If you do not rape someone then you are refraining from an action because you respect someones consent. Refraining from actions not doing actions is the main way that consent is respected. — Andrew4Handel
I gave my own experiences of being forced to go to church and school also I was forced to eat what my mother chose for me — Andrew4Handel
The person in the location where the bomb goes off. That would be a person who exists who is normally capable of granting or withholding consent.
They're not "a person who doesn't exist yet." — Terrapin Station
So I wasn't saying there was something wrong with merely planting a bomb. I wasn't saying anything about risks or potentials or anything like that. I was covering the base where someone isn't literally touching another person's body, but where there's an agent capable of consenting to things done to their body where there's a causally-demonstrable chain back to someone else. — Terrapin Station
What if it was. What if someone set a bomb to exlode BEFORE a certain baby was born and set it to explode AFTER he was born. — khaled
That's irrelevant. The issue is that when the person walks into the location where the bomb goes off, they're an agent normally capable of granting or withholding consent. Thus at that point, they either consent or not to being bombed. — Terrapin Station
When a person walks into a situation that brings them ANY harm — khaled
So if the bomb goes off non consentually who is at fault? The person that planted it right? — khaled
Ok so if a child is run over by a car and loses all functionality in his leg. There are two causes for his loss of functionality. First of all, the car hit him (non consentually). Second, he was there. But why was he there in the first place? Because he was born (non consentually). So you can say part of the reason he was harmed was that he was born non consentually can we agree?
Or do you not consider enabling harm a factor at all? — khaled
No. Because the light desingers and manufacturers did not intentionally cause this harm. While giving birth to someone is very intentional and done with full knowledge it would cause them harm. — 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.