It depends on the individual in question and how they're thinking about them. — Terrapin Station
So the answer is no? I'm just saying that not making sense from a subjectivist/emotivist standpoint isn't really a problem with antinatalism only — khaled
So obviously you're not a subjectivist or emotivist. Why pretend to be one? — Terrapin Station
Obviously one is not going to adopt a philosophical view about something that results in that thing making no sense, right? — Terrapin Station
Okay, but you'd realize that someone could just as well think "Creating suffering people is morally neutral" right? — Terrapin Station
"Is genetically modifying a child to suffer as much as possible ok by you?" — khaled
"suffering more than they would without modifications" then — khaled
They could just say, "I have no opinion on that; all I have an opinion on is that creating suffering people is morally neutral" — Terrapin Station
Basically, you're banking on the idea of reasoning about this stuff — Terrapin Station
you're also trying to do that from the perspective of moral utterances needing to be maximally generalized — Terrapin Station
Yes it is. Because a world of the "morally irresponsible" is impossible. The chances of it are highly unlikely — khaled
but I thought we were reducing it to pleasure = good, pain = bad for the sake of argument — khaled
but I'm finding it to be nothing but an exercise in idealism based on a dim view of the human experience. — staticphoton
Why does the "human experience" need to be lived out in the first place? It sounds like a knee-jerk idea of "because existence has some good points, or because I have grown from pain, existence must be good for people to have to live through". That however, does not logically cohere — schopenhauer1
I prefer to not pretend my personal moral judgment is above nature's design. — staticphoton
That makes no logical sense. Nature's design? Humans have freedom of thought and can do any number of actions. Nature here implies there is only one path someone can or should follow. If it is "should follow" that is the naturalistic fallacy. — schopenhauer1
Impossible and highly unlikely are far from being the same. For the sake of argument, if you erase the morally responsible all you have left is the morally irresponsible. — staticphoton
Yes, but as I also stated, that reduces the argument to a depth nearing meaninglessness.
If the whole purpose of this thread is an exercise in argumentative skills then I'm bowing out. I was trying to understand the concept as a meaningful, implementable plan, but I'm finding it to be nothing but an exercise in idealism based on a dim view of the human experience. — staticphoton
I prefer to not pretend my personal moral judgment is above nature's design. — staticphoton
Ok so we’re not using pleasure good pain bad anymore then. What’s the alternative you’re proposing? Also, antinatalism is not a plan. In the same way that “murder is wrong” is not a plan. Note that a world without murders is unimplementable and neither is a world where everyone is not an antinatalist. That doesn’t take away from whether or not they make sense does it? — khaled
Nature doesn’t design. Also does that mean if you had bad vision you wouldn’t buy glasses to preserve “nature’s design”? What about vaccines? As I said, we have gone against nature’s design plenty of times already. Unless you mean something else by nature’s design and I’m talking past you — khaled
Birth = bad makes sense to you and a very small minority. — staticphoton
There wasn't a point in which humans became "separate from nature" and began to create eyeglasses and vaccines, we do exactly what nature endowed us with to do — staticphoton
A simplistic rationalization doesn't necessarily make it morally correct. — staticphoton
Nature also allowed us all to be antinatalists no? So I don’t see a problem here — khaled
So I was trying to make it easier for you.we have gone against nature’s design plenty of times already — khaled
no matter what I say you will never accept the premise that there is merit in the balance of suffering/happiness, I don't see the point of continuing. — staticphoton
If ending suffering by ending humanity is your ideal — staticphoton
So I was trying to make it easier for you. — staticphoton
In the end it is all a matter of belief, and we are free to believe what makes sense to us. — staticphoton
Ending humanity is not my ideal. It’s a side effect. “Humanity” is not a person. I’m not actually harming anyone here whereas one can be harmed severely by being brought into a world where harm is possible — khaled
At least you haven’t shown me a good reason yet. — khaled
you take a risk of harming someone else for no good reason — khaled
That YOU find value in the balance of suffering/happiness that is no good reason to assume a stranger would find value in the same is it? — khaled
You’d have to convince me that there is some moral good resulting from having children, as in, someone somewhere benefits from it so much that the suffering of the child is outweighed. — khaled
Let’s just get one thing clear: do you think that if someone had a child and provided them with an absolutely perfect life (as measured by the child) that that someone has done something good? — khaled
Ending humanity is not my ideal. It’s a side effect. “Humanity” is not a person. I’m not actually harming anyone here whereas one can be harmed severely by being brought into a world where harm is possible. If you harm someone by NOT having children then I’d be arguing you’re a hypocrite for not having MORE children — khaled
The key here is "us" in your quote. You are making a decision on behalf of someone else, and then hoping post-facto that they will agree with your decision, or that harm is not greater than pain for them. — schopenhauer1
I don't think in those terms — staticphoton
What I consider a good reason, you don't. — staticphoton
Per your own reasoning, values are not genetically inherited, they are taught. And to assume that those reared by me are "strangers" is a belief I don't share either. — staticphoton
If you are making a decision to contribute to the greater good by not having any children, — staticphoton
suffering" thing is "bad". — staticphoton
and life should end. — staticphoton
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.