Why would it be the other way? I think this is purely up to subjective judgement, though it is a common fact that most people are much more loss averse than gain seeking and I'm one of them — khaled
The path to hell is paved with 'positive ethics'. — ovdtogt
What justifies a positive ethics? When children and people love life. What makes people hate life? Lack of love.
Love is that thing that when you don't feel it it's just a word, it's like it doesn't exist. It's only when you feel it that you see how important it is and that you see the point.
You're constantly conflating love and happiness with well-being and pleasure, they aren't the same. You can be well off and experience lots of pleasures while having a life devoid of love and happiness. You're constantly missing the most important part of the picture. — leo
While you're on a mission to spread antinatalism, I'm on a mission to tell you that if you had received more love you wouldn't see things that way.
You would have preferred not to have been born, so you want everyone to feel that way because you think you have it all figured out, but most people don't feel that way and don't want to feel that way, because they still feel or believe in that thing that you've stopped feeling and believing in.
I'd honestly want to meet you, to help you see what you've forgotten to see, because I can't show it to you using words on a screen, and it pains me to imagine you following that path for the rest of your life. Reading your threads it feels like your life has become completely devoid of joy, and all that's keeping you here is that mission to destroy life, because you think you're doing a good thing, but all the people you're ever going to convince are those who focus on the suffering like you. — leo
Positive and negative ethics can be a seriously useful distinction when exploring moral systems...
Broadly, all humans have values that are important to them, and morality is roughly the process of promoting/protecting those values in rules/judgments/decisions that encode or enshrine them... — VagabondSpectre
As such, positive ethics are more about agreement than justification. — VagabondSpectre
You'd have to explain this a bit more. I'm not quite getting the scenario. If we prevent birth, and that person who was prevented from birth might have caused suffering to others in large quantities.. is it that sort of thing? I'm not quite getting it. — schopenhauer1
Since there can be exceptions to this principle, can you tell us how we can know when we can violate this thing and why we can violate it at these times-that is, why they are exceptions to the rule?As I've said elsewhere: Except for cases which I acknowledged- children needing guidance from parents, self-defense, or the threat-of-force, there are no excuses other than people have an agenda, and they want someone else to follow that agenda and that agenda is more important than the non-aggression principle. — schopenhauer1
The topic was about whetever negative ethics on it's own entails we ought to kill all life or not. So, my scenario was obviously about that-i do not know why you thought my scenario was about procreation. — HereToDisscuss
Since there can be exceptions to this principle, can you tell us how we can know when we can violate this thing and why we can violate it at these times-that is, why they are exceptions to the rule?
I believe this approach may work better instead of us just repeating our points. — HereToDisscuss
As I've said elsewhere: Except for cases which I acknowledged- children needing guidance from parents, self-defense, or the threat-of-force, there are no excuses other than people have an agenda, and they want someone else to follow that agenda and that agenda is more important than the non-aggression principle.
— schopenhauer1
Since there can be exceptions to this principle, can you tell us how we can know when we can violate this thing and why we can violate it at these times-that is, why they are exceptions to the rule?
I believe this approach may work better instead of us just repeating our points. — HereToDisscuss
I have to agree that this is where your argument breaks down, schopenhauer1. A principle should be able to stand without exception, otherwise it is neither a foundation, nor is it fundamental as such. It’s like the Ten Commandments...followed immediately by hundreds of qualifying regulations and exceptions... — Possibility
As a suggestion of positive ethics, I offer the following ethical principle: increase awareness, connection and collaboration. There being no positive without a corresponding negative, one should also strive to reduce ignorance, isolation and exclusion - but that’s pretty much the same thing. I think you’ll find that this principle stands without exception (although it requires more courage than most of us can summon on our own). — Possibility
In following this ethical principle, procreation often appears to be a good thing, but it’s ultimately an act of ignorance - one that also encourages parents to isolate and exclude in a number of ways. So to reduce procreation, we should be increasing awareness of more far-reaching and less exclusive ways to connect and collaborate in the world. — Possibility
Negative ethics seems more effective, even when it’s flawed, only because it allows you to perceive yourself as ‘good’ simply by opposing certain behaviour in others. But negative ethics is for evaluating our own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. It isn’t meant to be prescriptive, and employed as such, it can only limit our actions, not encourage them. — Possibility
Positive ethics gives us a path to follow, a way to go. Negative ethics only tells us which is the wrong way. — Possibility
I mean, obviously I have lots more reasons but challenge is a good one. What else is there to do? I mean, religion likes to call all this testing but really I think its challenging and I'd be very open to hearing your thoughts on the value of The Challenges of Life.
However obviously that is not to say negative ethics aren't without challenge as you yourself can attest but it would be interesting to hear what you feel is more challenging; negative or positive ethics? Or are they both different challenges that aren't worth comparing in that way? — Mark Dennis
So how would you respond to the notion that their may be ways to edit our very experience of suffering into something not only tolerable but useful? I mean if your children could be like Claire from heroes or wolverine from X-men with a regeneration factor and had access to a mental switch to turn off pain sensation at will and is immune to most diseases and can freely choose to opt out of life due to fatigue or the human lifespan remains largely untouched how would you feel then?
Y'know assuming we can survive climate change and travel and colonise the rest of our solar system. To be honest to that end I feel gene editing might become vital to surviving different environments. I'm sure future Astronaughts could do with the ability to maintain muscle mass in zero g for starters.. — Mark Dennis
You mean through things like envy and financial access to such methods leading to vast merit based differences and prejudice fueled ever more by increasing wealth inequalities? I mean; the ego of a human dictator is somewhat tolerable because at least they are mortal and bleed... However how do you contain the ego of someone who can habe god like abilities the common man could never dream of having? Scary notions indeed. — Mark Dennis
The principle is the standard, and it indeed DOES break down after birth. This is the intra-worldly affairs darthbarracuda mentioned, versus the interwordly affairs. Simply speaking, the standard would be PERFECTLY followed before birth, but indeed, the messiness of time/space makes this perfection a broken reality — schopenhauer1
No, the violation at birth of non-aggression and non-harm in order to follow your "collaboration" agenda just doesn't fly. You are making people HAVE to follow your agenda of collaboration. Why does this matter more than things like not causing conditions of harm upon another? You think it sounds good, so someone else MUST live this collaboration scheme out? Not a good excuse. — schopenhauer1
Not sure what you mean. It can encourage to not do something you might otherwise do. One of the best examples of this is by not procreating thus not forcing and not causing the condition of harm on others. — schopenhauer1
Not even a quack, let alone a qualified doctor, would prescribe beheading as a cure for a headache. The aim is to treat the malady - suffering - AND make life enjoyable or at least livable. I guess I'm saying, in a very important way, antinatalists are unable to distinguish the patient (life) from the disease (suffering) and this leads them to the mistaken conclusion that life (patient) = disease (suffering). — TheMadFool
People make choices in that direction in the form of suicide. — TheMadFool
I guess I'm saying, in a very important way, antinatalists are unable to distinguish the patient (life) from the disease (suffering) and this leads them to the mistaken conclusion that life (patient) = disease (suffering). — TheMadFool
Of course the antinatalist will now mention inevitable irremediable suffering to revive their now dead argument but for such situations people generally agree that people so unfortunate be given the choice to end their lives. However, this in no way gives any support to the antinatalist position that all life, everywhere, always = suffering. — TheMadFool
So by what principle would you be making those choices? — Possibility
To the extent that I am ignorant of, isolated from or excluding the effect my actions may have on others, those actions are more likely to be perceived as forceful or harmful to someone. By instead acting to increase awareness, and choosing to connect and collaborate in some way with every interaction, I minimise harm and aggression without the need for negative ethics, and continue to exist and to act without fear. — Possibility
But, assuming that you have the power to "prevent" people, by not doing it, you let the 15 billion people come into the world and have their consent violated. Are those individuals not the center of your ethical considerations because they are not born or..? The problem is-in the scenario i presented, it is not only the living people that will be autonomous but rather also the people that are not born yet.Ok I think I see. You are saying, shouldn't we prevent people who will cause pain to others. My response would still be that once born, considerations of other people's autonomy come into play. This autonomy is based on the fact that it is individuals who are the center of ethical considerations, not amorphous principle calculations (like the greatest good or something like that). Thus, the amorphous utilitarian calculation of destroying people who cause harm, would not be moral, even with good intentions. There is preventing harm and there is non-aggression. Both have to be followed. — schopenhauer1
That is good and all (and i did not quote the later part because it would have been too long and did not have to do with what i was going to say ), but you are presenting examples:I was asking for the rule. Anyways, judging from what you have written, i think i got the rule:Yes, in the instance of procreation one would perfectly be following the principles of non-harm and non-aggression by abstaining from procreation. AFTER someone is born, they are an autonomous person, an individual, someone who has an identity to point at in the world. Once born, circumstances of time and place are immediately something to consider. There is the fact that people need time to develop into autonomous individuals, and there is the fact that sometimes, at the end of life, or in unconscious situations, individuals can lose their autonomy as individuals. If ethics is at the level of individual, we have to define individual. People become more autonomous over time. The time of being an adult would be one's most autonomous. However, prior to this, the parent/guardian can have some say in the upbringing of the individual because the assumption is that the person is not developed enough to be autonomous yet. Thus, it would be immoral to leave a baby/small child to defend for itself when this leads to obvious harm for that person. The non-harm principle would take place here as there is less autonomy of the child. Once that person is an adult, the full non-aggression principle, comes into effect, and thus "forcing" something (even if you think it is good for them) would be violating this principle. We can debate "when" that transition comes to be, but that would take us down a rabbit hole that is probably beyond the scope of what we are trying to get at. It is not about the impreciseness of that transition, but that a transition does take place... — schopenhauer1
But, assuming that you have the power to "prevent" people, by not doing it, you let the 15 billion people come into the world and have their consent violated. Are those individuals not the center of your ethical considerations because they are not born or..? The problem is-in the scenario i presented, it is not only the living people that will be autonomous but rather also the people that are not born yet.
Maybe you should say why you think those are not individuals that matter. — HereToDisscuss
But i do not think that is your rule, since we know that people will make babies left, and thus, humanity will break this principle if we continue to follow this principle. Therefore, the principle would not apply to the above scenario.
What exactly is the rule that applies universally? — HereToDisscuss
I'm not understanding how the principle would not apply in this case because "humanity will break this principle". — schopenhauer1
Okay, what does that have to do with anything again? — HereToDisscuss
Premise A: For every situtation, the principle applies to that situtation if and only if the person affected is fully autonomous (or is autonomous enough) and following that principle will not result in the principle being broken by someone else.
Premise B: Following the non-agression principle in this particular case will result in the principle being broken by humanity. (Because humanity will procreate and thus violate it many times, not to mention will force animals to procreate too)
Therefore, the principle does not apply to this particular case.
If you have a problem with Premise A, then give me your own rule like i said just before the thing you quoted. — HereToDisscuss
[ ... ] my main argument which is that the negative ethics of not causing conditions of harm and the non-aggression rule was violated in order to follow a positive ethics. — schopenhauer1
It just means that unfortunately, once born, negative ethics will always in some way be violated. In a way, another reason for antinatalism ... — schopenhauer1
[ deontological table ] With these two sets of conditions for the rule, it is clear that procreation follows under the first rule. That is it is bad because it is violating the non-aggression and non-harm principles. There would be no conditions whereby procreation is justified ... — schopenhauer1
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.