I didn't say anything about sperm and eggs, though. — Terrapin Station
You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things, but of course that would introduce a bunch of nonintuitive upshots that you don't want to introduce. — Terrapin Station
I did. — khaled
Well, because you seem to imply that life is not worth living because it contains harm in it — Wallows
Does life then only make sense in some highly idealized utopia where no suffering is to be experienced? — Wallows
That's fine. But you just argued that I said that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things. I did not say that. — Terrapin Station
You responded with "I did." — Terrapin Station
Sorry that was a misunderstanding. The "I did" was a response to when you said "But I said nothing about sperm and eggs" — khaled
You would be applying it to specific instances, when at the procreational decision-making level, it prevents ALL harm for a future life. Again, self-evident that being born causes harm, and procreation causes people to be born. — schopenhauer1
If you were to put it that way, the only counter to it would be for someone like me to note that I don't feel the same way about suffering that you do. I don't feel that it's the only thing that matters and/or I don't feel that it outweighs other things to an extent to suggest avoiding it altogether. — Terrapin Station
If I think something is a problem, it is because of a specific scenario, a specific set of properties that obtain in that situation, and for me, I also like to significantly "err" on the side of permissibility, so that some things I only see as a problem if they're severe enough--which is why I don't think that any physical violation is an issue if it doesn't have lingering--at least a few days--non-microscopically-observable (physical) effects for example. — Terrapin Station
Even with your very callous and indifferent way of looking at suffering (for how other people may experience it versus you, let's say) — schopenhauer1
So starting with this, my view doesn't ignore other persons' opinions. Most people don't think that only suffering matters, and most aren't so miserable that suffering greatly outweighs everything else. — Terrapin Station
Every sentence in your post has something that needs to be addressed, so I'm not going to do it all at once. One thing at a time. — Terrapin Station
So you're the arbiter and interpreter of what most people think? — schopenhauer1
Ha, same for you — schopenhauer1
Just an observer. You must think it's possible to observe this stuff, via reports from people, otherwise what in the world would you be addressing? — Terrapin Station
Good to know that we'll be keeping things succinct and focused. — Terrapin Station
Besides the fact that people report more positively than actual lived moments day to day, — schopenhauer1
What? You're saying you know their actual experiences better than what they're reporting as their experiences? — Terrapin Station
So first, that's about accuracy of recall. — Terrapin Station
What would it have to do with a claim that you know better than other people (per their reports) whether they've have positive or negative experiences? — Terrapin Station
I'm not saying I know better, but that people reporting positive overall evaluations, often don't recall accurately their bad experiences when making those evaluations. — schopenhauer1
Okay, but the only way we can know that is by the person (a)stating that experience F was negative in their evaluation, while experience G was positive, then (b) them recalling experience G in much more detail than experience F.
That tells us nothing about "reporting more positively than actual lived moments day to day." — Terrapin Station
I would say you are a partial cause for having them in the first place. "I tried my best but the world sucks bucko" doesn't relieve you of responsibility. — khaled
Solution A to suffering: Don't have the child
Result: No suffering (good) and no pleasure (not bad because you don't owe future children pleasure)
Chance of success: 100%
Solution B to suffering: Prevent every instance of suffering by creating a utopia
Result: No suffering (good) and a lot of pleasure (good)
Chance of success: idk but I don't think it's that high
What happens if it fails: Suffering (bad)
So i'd rather go with solution A — khaled
Even if I lived like a hermit that won't spare a single animal's life, or at least the chances of it doing so are extremely low. It would only add to food loss and reduce the amount of services I could have provided other people. On the other hand, me not having a child CAN (didn't say it would) spare someone an entire lifetime of suffering. And I am not one for taking risks for others without their consent, so I won't have children. — khaled
It doesn't matter how much I like a job, I can't force you to work it. — khaled
Again, I just don't see that an action that risks harming people to the point of them committing suicide without consent from them and only to satiate one's own desires is moral. — khaled
"life is good" is often wrought with internal biases that distort events of the time versus remembered. — schopenhauer1
Sorry that was a misunderstanding. The "I did" was a response to when you said "But I said nothing about sperm and eggs"
— khaled
That was after the post in question.
(Perfect opportunity for you to bring up block time, by the way.) — Terrapin Station
That's fine. But you just argued that I said that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things. I did not say that. — Terrapin Station
Secondly, I don't know why you're wasting so much energy on this — khaled
Why don't you just say that you're "against procreation, not because it does something to someone else against their consent, and not because it 'causes' suffering, but because it creates people who are bound to occasionally suffer in some way or another," and either you consider that suffering sufficiently weighty to suggest avoiding it altogether, or you only care about suffering and its elimination, regardless of how slight the suffering might be compared to non-suffering, regardless of its exact character? — Terrapin Station
If you are presented with the option to pick between A, B, C and D and you pick C using your free will, you were caused to pick C by two things
1- Your free will
2- The fact that C was an option in the first place — khaled
If I was caused to pick C by the fact that it was an option in the first place, then how could I have picked another option?
You're not saying that a cause can obtain without the effect in question, are you? — Terrapin Station
A door requires two keys A and B. Turning A is not the cause of the door openeing. Turning B is not the cause of the door opening. Turning A AND B is the cause of the door opening. In the same way: Being able to perceive/experience suffering is not the cause of suffering. The stimuli that cause suffering if perceived are not the cause of suffering. Being able to experience suffering AND there being a stimuli for suffering are the causes of suffering. — 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.