if it is evil, why does it exist? — Riley
if it is evil, why does it exist and co-operate with nature? — Riley
The law, that is to say, the end of a thing by virtue of its essence, shall be oriented to reproduction. — Riley
I'd say only the latter, since only people who are born and who have developed mentally a bit have notions of what counts as suffering. — Terrapin Station
But that is not even the debate when starting a life. — schopenhauer1
Self-consciousnes brings are unnatural in-and-of-themselves because they can contradict the natural law. — Riley
Has the understanding of teleology in relation to ontology escaped you? It Was my point that self-consciousness, which manifests the will, is contrary to the natural law. — Riley
And it should be made clear: that the natural law is in relation to teleology. Not the will and not to the individual in-and-of-itself. But rather the parts to the whole than the whole to the parts.
The eyes for seeing, the heart for pumping. These all have their end. Which is why I see that you misunderstand precisely what is being said by the words 'natural law.' — Riley
Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified. — Riley
Anti-natalism doesn't have to be forced for it to be evil. The same way murder is evil. Precisely why it is evil... you chose to do it — Riley
Murder, rape and theft are not natural. They are not oriented in nature through some teleology which is intrinsic to their ontology — Riley
I'm not sure you understood any of the language I've used. Teleology, the law, nature, etc. — Riley
However, there is obviously a teleology to the end of the sexual organs and to the species itself. It seems idiotic to contradict that — Riley
"There's nothing that the eyes can do that's not part of their nature."
Hmmm.... you just accepted the idea of teleology. Teleology is that which is the end of something in relation to it's ontology. Which you just verified. — Riley
Since those who argue for it cannot argue for it to not be against the natural law. Which of course, means that anti-natalism is evil and not vice versa. — Riley
That just sounds like a naturalistic fallacy to me. — khaled
You already stated what I was going to. Incidentally, did you see my post about the growth-through-adversity and undue suffering idea — schopenhauer1
Cough cough... The natural law is an idea based in teleology and is a metaphysical argument. So saying I committed a naturalistic fallacy is baseless. — Riley
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.