Causes are the forces that necessarily result in property F (of some entity x) obtaining versus some other property. If c is the cause of F, then c can't occur without F occurring. — Terrapin Station
Life also contains positive experiences. Some people see their life as a net negative, some other people as a net positive.
If you see negative experiences as what has to be eliminated, why don't you kill everyone? That would be more effective. You may convince a few people not to have children, but there are still billions having children.
However if instead of focusing on negative experiences we focus both on negative and positive experiences, the goal could be instead to reduce negative experiences and increase positive experiences, to make life a net positive for most people. And then life would be a net positive as a whole, and that's better than the absence of life. — leo
I dont have to show how every connection leads to birth. By definition, all forms of suffering come from being alive in the first place. If you want to refute the self evidence of that, despite what you know to be true, — schopenhauer1
Do you mean force as in actual physical force? Are we talking pure physics here? Electromagnetic, Gravitaitonal, strong and weak nuclear? — khaled
Then is lying in court wrong if it directly causes someone to get jailed unjustly? — khaled
What is the force that necessarily resulted in the property Dead (of the guy that got blown up due to having a bomb implanted in him) obtaining versus the alive property? Can you peg it EXACTLY? Including every physical interaction inside the bomb? — khaled
(it's weird that you'd not be aware of this--that you'd not know that we know very well how bombs work, we can do forensics very well, etc.), — Terrapin Station
I am aware of this but you asked me PERSONALLY to peg every form of suffering on being born as if that is an argument for why it is unpeggable so I'm asking you PERSONALLY to explain to me how bombs work lest the bomber remain innocent. — khaled
There is a positive aspect to every job and a negative aspect, however I think we can both agree that forcing people to work ANY job against their will is wrong. It doesn't matter how good or bad the job is. I have no right to FORCE you to work it. — khaled
I can leave the job if I don't like it. It's not like people who are brought into being are doomed to eternal torture. If they don't like the experience they can just say fuck it and leave the world. I suppose the only case where people are forced to stay is when they're made to believe that if they kill themselves they will spend eternity in hell, but then you could focus on preventing that. — leo
Also I think the idea of consent doesn't apply to people who don't exist yet. If you say risking suffering on someone against their will is bad, people who don't exist don't have a will so you're not doing anything against their will. Also it's not just risking suffering, it's also risking wonderful experiences. — leo
No, I asked you to give the specific causal chain for one example. Because that's going to require that you rule out environmental factors, free will factors, etc. — Terrapin Station
Childbirth causes severe pain for both the child and the woman. — khaled
If you see negative experiences as what has to be eliminated, why don't you kill everyone? That would be more effective. You may convince a few people not to have children, but there are still billions having children — leo
The fact that they have a working brain. Also it's scientific fact. — khaled
Oy vey.
In other words, I'm asking you because there's no way that you can know that a baby experiences pain at childbirth. Having a working brain doesn't imply that--lol.
And it can't be a scientific fact, because there's no epistemic method for seeing whether it's the case or not. — Terrapin Station
Alright. I am saying that subjectively childbirth should be wrong for you because it checks all your criteria for a subjectively wrong action — khaled
So if I hire you to work as a sewage cleaner and make it so that in order to leave you have to cut your own wrists after going through extreme levels of suffering the likes of which you can't imagine and then you're not allowed to take any other job that's fair right?
Suicide isn't easy. If there truely were no obstacles for leaving life/the job I wouldn't be an antinatalist — khaled
1: Idea of consent doesn't apply to people who don't exist yet:
It very much does. Would you say it is ok to genetically modify a baby so that he is constantly in severe suffering? Maybe give birth to him with 9 limbs all of which are broken? After all he didn't object did he? — khaled
2: Risks wonderful experiences
Agreed. However you have a moral obligation not to risk giving someone negative experiences non consentually while you don't have a moral obligation to risk giving someone positive experiences. Ex: I don't have to donate to charity but I HAVE TO NOT steal money. This is what makes stealing money to donate to charities bad — khaled
Let me ask you something. Is it moral to genetically modify a baby to ensure it suffers as much as possible. Say, by giving it 8 limbs all of which are broken. — khaled
I've already given him the main argument- no loss to an actual person, but harm was prevented. No agenda was had on behalf of another person. — schopenhauer1
Ok, that's good. I just know how these go sometimes. They eventually just lead to frustration as one side may not be trying to actually get anywhere. — schopenhauer1
I don't see a difference between an unconscious person unable to consent and a non existent person able to consent. — Andrew4Handel
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.