One can abstain from procreation and promote love. I would get on board with it. Sadly, the everyday messiness of the world often demands that we demand stuff from each other, and "love" the mooshy good feeling can turn into other things. This especially goes when stuff is on the line (products and services need to get produced!!). So, there is some realities that are not amenable to "love".. Managers gotta do what managers gotta do.. People will feel they deserve more, are better, understand more.. are resentful of those who aren't living up to certain ideals, etc. etc. You can probably name a whole bunch of real life scenarios with even just a small group of people where "love" simply breaks down due to the conditions that are mitigating factors, personalities, education, background, beliefs, how people think.. The variations and factors that distort "loving relations" are mind-boggingly complex and multi-faceted. So in the end, though a great notion, I think it just falls flat in terms of how it plays out. — schopenhauer1
And i will accept this conclusion that is prima facie counter-intuitive. What is wrong with it? — HereToDisscuss
It was a weaker form of my view that negative ethics entails that we ought to destroy all human life-which was the main topic the whole time. The weakened version was that.
Do you agree with that at least version? If not, which part of my reasoning was wrong? — HereToDisscuss
Well, what does it mean for the "ethical concerns" to "lie with" individuals? Assuming you are not begging the question by saying our ethical concerns are only about individuals and not society (which is not really correct, see people who advocate such a concept), how does that entail your conclusion that the betterment of society is just some kind of abstract construct that is just really not in touch with this reality?One actually encompasses and respects the individual, and not using them. The other is in a locus that is not where the ethical concerns lie. An principle does not feel pain, people do. Wanting people to be happy and doing something for the principle of happiness are two different things. But it really becomes egregious when the third-party entity is not just happiness (as this can be construed as trying to make the largest number of individuals happy and thus possibly bypassing this argument of third-party), but things like "humanity", "civilization", "technology". People need to be born to keep these kind of things going. That would be a very poor argument for putting conditions of harm on others. — schopenhauer1
I would like to see your argument in a logical form, as i can not imagine such an argument which does not beg the question or has premises that i have no reasons to accept. — HereToDisscuss
All logic starts with premises. You would just reject that, and it would be a waste of time. — schopenhauer1
Well, you could just phone me and say "There is a sale going on over a house you would definitely like and time is running out, i will send you the details and you could tell me whetever you wanr to but it or not." — HereToDisscuss
So, that is not a really good example. — HereToDisscuss
There is always a risk, but it can be drastically reduced. — HereToDisscuss
Physical wellbeing takes precedence over mental wellbeing. I believe the history of medicine stands testimony to this - psychiatry is younger than surgery for example. — TheMadFool
were chosen for their tangible, indubitable impact on our wellbeing — TheMadFool
My point is that pain has very little to do with suffering and science and technology have thus far mostly treated pain. There are cancer patients that are perfectly content and millionaires struggling with depression. There is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that human suffering has declined over time though pain definitely has. — khaled
From the outset, we can’t demand that anyone does anything, but we can demand that they abstain from doing. — Congau
The ideal amount of suffering that a person should cause is zero – an absolute specific number. There is no ideal amount of well-being to be caused. We can only say “the more the better”. However high a number you make (for example the number of people you have made happy in any way) you can always make it higher, and you will never get closer to any perceived perfection. — Congau
Causing zero suffering can conceivably be a duty. You will fall short, but at least you will know when you have transgressed. It wouldn’t make sense to claim that we have a duty to cause as much well-being as possible. You would never come any closer to having fulfilled this duty. — Congau
Ethics by no means stops at negative ethics. A person who does absolutely nothing, is not a good person although he doesn’t cause any suffering. Also, when actively doing something to promote well-being, there will inevitably be missteps on the way that will cause suffering, but it is to be hoped that the suffering will be much less significant than the well-being. — Congau
From the outset, we can’t demand that anyone does anything, but we can demand that they abstain from doing. — Congau
My point is that pain has very little to do with suffering and science and technology have thus far mostly treated pain. There are cancer patients that are perfectly content and millionaires struggling with depression. There is surprisingly little evidence to suggest that human suffering has declined over time though pain definitely has. — khaled
This is really odd indeed. Are you saying that among the countless millions of our forefathers not one single person had the sense to say what you're saying, that suffering is more important than pain or is the more plausible alternative, that pain is the first of our problems, true? — TheMadFool
That said I must agree that medicine has only managed to pluck the low hanging fruit, pain, but then to compare that with the failure to tackle suffering is like disgracing a runner for not winning before the race finishes. — TheMadFool
The procreational decision would be much the same as any other well-meaning act that also may cause collateral damage, wouldn’t it? The only difference is that procreation is not in itself good or bad since the potential sufferer or happy person is not yet existing. If you think life in general is more well-being than suffering, at least procreation can’t be that bad.The procreational decision is the only one where we can perfectly prevent harm without any collateral damage. Someone might say here that if you are supposed to help alleviate suffering, and then cause suffering, then why not the same for procreation? — schopenhauer1
A person has not chosen his birth therefore it would be very unfair to make demands just because he has been born. On the other hand, if you apply for a membership in a club, they can make demands on you as a condition for membership. Then you can choose if you accept it or not.From the outset, we can’t demand that anyone does anything, but we can demand that they abstain from doing.
— Congau
Why not and why? I agree with you but not everyone does. — khaled
No, you can’t demand that people pay taxes if they have never worked. If a person chooses to be a vegetable, you can’t demand anything from him.You can demand that people pay taxes, for instance. — Possibility
A person has not chosen his birth therefore it would be very unfair to make demands just because he has been born — Congau
The only difference is that procreation is not in itself good or bad since the potential sufferer or happy person is not yet existing — Congau
No, you can’t demand that people pay taxes if they have never worked. If a person chooses to be a vegetable, you can’t demand anything from him. — Congau
Of course we can say there is something that justifies our beliefs. Whenever we make a philosophical argument attempting to be rational and logical, that’s our justification. Sure, another person would disagree and present logical arguments for his views, and since there is no third-party judge we can never settle once and for all who is ultimately right, but that doesn’t mean there’s no justification. If you think everything is just emotional bias, there’s no reason to do philosophy. (This goes beyond this thread, though, and would merit a separate thread.)Again, some people genuinely disagree with this. They believe that just being born is grounds for making demands of someone. Again, I agree with you but you can't say anything justifies either of our beliefs other than a shared sense of empathy (or whatever you wanna call it). There is no objective basis for this stuff. — khaled
There’s never an independent third-party judge to settle anything, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make objectively reasonable arguments.So asking "what justifies a positive ethics" is ultimately only answerable by "because it makes sense to me" — khaled
I was referring to procreation as such. You don’t know if the future child will predominantly suffer or be happy, so procreation as such is not bad.the sufferer not existing at the time the action was caused is irrelevant, the end result is the same, someone got hurt — khaled
I meant of course “can” as in “having the moral right to”.A government, king, authority, etc CAN still demand it — Possibility
“Negative impact on the universe” is really something so minuscule that it doesn’t count. Besides, you can only cause individuals to suffer not the universe in general.A person who does absolutely nothing is not far off dead. In the meantime, their very existence - breathing in and out the way they do, consuming oxygen and energy, displacing air, etc - can be seen by some as inadvertently causing suffering, depending on your perspective. If you exist and do not make effective use of the suffering you will cause just in choosing to live, by finding something to do that will offset your unavoidably negative impact on the universe, then what are you still doing here, and why make more like you? — Possibility
“Negative impact on the universe” is really something so minuscule that it doesn’t count. Besides, you can only cause individuals to suffer not the universe in general. — Congau
If you avoided all interaction with other people, lived on a deserted island or isolated in house (say you had a fortune and paid a landlord and a delivery boy, making them happy), it would be possible to live without causing suffering, but it wouldn’t be a good and a moral life. We can’t demand (meaning we don’t have the moral right to demand) that that person does something specific. In positive ethics we can only make general recommendations, many things would be good to do, but none of them is necessary. For negative ethics we can (have the moral right to) make very specific demands: Don’t kill Peter! Don’t do A! — Congau
There’s never an independent third-party judge to settle anything, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make objectively reasonable arguments.
Imagine two scientists arguing whether the Earth is round or flat. No one can settle that discussion for them, but I for one believe, based on thoroughly convincing arguments, that the Earth is round. I arrive at conclusions about ethics in the same way, through convincing arguments. There’s no difference. — Congau
I was referring to procreation as such. You don’t know if the future child will predominantly suffer or be happy, so procreation as such is not bad. — Congau
So in choosing the procedure that ends all pain, you would be choosing death. Does reflecting on that change your mind? — frank
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.