Having said that the utterly passive life is not a moral life, implies that it has a negative impact on the world. But you can’t pinpoint exactly what that person is doing wrong. He could for example have worked for the poor in the slum, painted his neighbor’s house, played music to cheer people up or an infinite number of other possibilities. Positive ethics doesn’t specify what is wrong. There are no specific demands. — Congau
Contributing to suffering is not the same as causing suffering. If you are one out of millions of people who hurt the environment with your garbage, in this respect no one suffers because of your existence. If you dump garbage in your neighbor’s back yard, your neighbor suffers because of you. In the first instance we can only encourage caution (positive ethics), in the second we demand that you stop (negative) — Congau
The first premise of the argument is not a random belief. It’s something so obvious that everyone agrees on it. (And if they don’t you can go even further back until they agree.)Agreed. But every argument has to have premises. And at some stage you can no longer break the premises down into other arguments. At that point it is a matter of opinion. I'm saying that positive vs negative ethics is one of those irreducible presmises. Just keep asking "Why do you believe this" and eventually you'll have to answer "Just cuz" — khaled
If you have a positive view of life, you will think there’s a greater chance that the unborn child will be more benefited than harmed by life. Then you don’t consider it a great gamble.So it's fine if I gamble with your money without consent? After all you COULD win. I think that if an action risks harming someone else and there is no good incentive to take said action then it is wrong. Even if there is a chance the person in question benefits — khaled
The first premise of the argument is not a random belief. It’s something so obvious that everyone agrees on it. — Congau
Therefore no one has a head start on anyone and so no one has a right to make demands. — Congau
if they had a previous life, we don’t know about it — Congau
Then you don’t consider it a great gamble. — Congau
Um, ok. So all of this gestation comes from nowhere. Nothing caused this? Y — schopenhauer1
... actually using people for some third-party's agenda (the "greater good" principle) and thus discounts individuals for some broad principle. — schopenhauer1
The desire might not ultimately be wrong, but the exercise of fulfilling them are. Thus, desire away at procreation.. It is actually having children that creates the conditions for harm. — schopenhauer1
So "who" loses by not being born? — schopenhauer1
I think we can both make a compromise that the best option is to not procreate. The next best is to promote positivity when we can. That is not contested by me. — schopenhauer1
To do good is to alleviate suffering — ovdtogt
Life is NOT the problem. Suffering is. — TheMadFool
:clap: And failing to make or accept this distinction leads to the "destroy the village in order to save the village" catch-22 absurdities with which many antinatalists indefensibly paint themselves into a vanishing corner. — 180 Proof
To do good is to alleviate suffering
— ovdtogt
Bingo! :100: — 180 Proof
"The best option" is "best" IFF neither "already born" is harmed by not procreating nor the procreated is harmed by being born - both conditions met - otherwise, it violates the prohibition against doing any harm. — 180 Proof
The relationship of sex to pregnancy is statistical not deterministic - not a matter of volition. Not "nowhere" but somewhere other than the couple's (coupling's) choosing. — 180 Proof
Your argument "discounts" prospective parents - procreators - as already suffering individuals ... — 180 Proof
"From nowhere" like thoughts or moods ... The relationship of sex to pregnancy is statistical not deterministic - not a matter of volition. Not "nowhere" but somewhere other than the couple's (coupling's) choosing. — 180 Proof
Strawman. The "already born" who procreate are not a "third party" ... — 180 Proof
Your argument "discounts" prospective parents - procreators - as already suffering individuals ... — 180 Proof
If frustrating / blocking the desire harms either father or mother or both by not having children, then antinatalism is self-harming. Again, "conditions of harm" are not harm itself ... just as (e.g.) an acorn isn't a tree or a caterpillar isn't a butterfly or breathing isn't singing. — 180 Proof
"The best option" is "best" IFF neither "already born" is harmed by not procreating nor the procreated is harmed by being born - both conditions met - otherwise, it violates the prohibition against doing any harm. — 180 Proof
Of course they’re doing nothing commendable by their passivity. I have already said that such a passive life is not a virtuous and moral life. It only escapes the demands of negative ethics but not the recommendations of positive ethics.they’re doing nothing commendable by their passivity. — Possibility
For all we know, we may be in the same situation. Although we are more aware than that vegetable-like person, a lot of things escape us, and we could always make an effort to be more aware. Who knows what you might have done to the delivery boy last time you ordered something.This ignorance is what is ‘wrong’. The delivery boy could get beaten by suppliers every time he has to pick up the delivery - they won’t know that or be able to do anything to prevent it if they don’t interact. — Possibility
In negative ethics we have indeed the right to make demands. I have the right to demand that you don’t murder your next door neighbor, even though I don’t know you nor your neighbor. I don’t have the means to prevent you or punish you, but the abstract right to demand is not dependent on that. If I caught you when you were about to commit the murder, I would have the right to stop you, don’t you agree?An effective positive ethics, in my view, has a corresponding negative ethics and vice versa - but neither gives us the right to make demands on people. — Possibility
The point was to show that I’m basing my argument on something more than just “this is something I just feel like” or “just because”. I start with a premise that seems so obvious to me that I think everyone would agree with it. If the person I’m talking to still doesn’t agree, I’m taking yet another step backwards until we find a common point of agreement.The first premise of the argument is not a random belief. It’s something so obvious that everyone agrees on it.
— Congau
I'm highly skeptical of the use of "everyone" there. First off how do you know it's everyone? — khaled
I only roughly outlined my argument here. It’s in the middle of the reasoning process, and that’s exactly where you can attack me if you find my conclusion implausible, not at the first premise."No one has a headstart on anyone else" does not logically translate to "no one has the right to make demands". — khaled
In that case he would disagree with my first premise and I’d have to take a step back. I’d say, ok, maybe you think you know that, but if the person had had a previous life, he would actually have been a different person in that life. If Peter used to be the prince of Persia in his previous life, that prince would have been something different from the current Peter. This Peter started when he was born. Do you agree? If he does, we have found a common basis, if he doesn’t, I have to make another effort. Again, it is not just an emotion that I have.if they had a previous life, we don’t know about it
— Congau
Someone might claim they do. How do you prove them wrong? — khaled
If life is almost always worth living, there isn’t much of a gamble. If the odds were a million to one to win a big prize, I think I’d be justified to gamble with your money (especially if you didn’t have much money anyway). What are the odds that the unborn life will not be completely miserable? It’s up to you to judge.Oh so at least we're considering it a gamble now. Good. This is honestly further than most people are willing to give for antinatalism.
Can I buy a house with your money without telling you? — khaled
I start with a premise that seems so obvious to me that I think everyone would agree with it. — Congau
If the person I’m talking to still doesn’t agree, I’m taking yet another step backwards until we find a common point of agreement. — Congau
that’s exactly where you can attack me — Congau
but if the person had had a previous life, he would actually have been a different person in that life. If Peter used to be the prince of Persia in his previous life, that prince would have been something different from the current Peter — Congau
If the odds were a million to one — Congau
It’s up to you to judge. — Congau
For all we know, we may be in the same situation. Although we are more aware than that vegetable-like person, a lot of things escape us, and we could always make an effort to be more aware. Who knows what you might have done to the delivery boy last time you ordered something. — Congau
But if negative ethics includes both ‘don’t harm others’ and ‘don’t use force’, then wouldn’t you need to allow one to be violated in order to uphold the other in this situation? So how do you decide which one is more important to uphold? — Possibility
"de facto" forced and "physically forced". — schopenhauer1
Humans are 'de facto' forced to stay alive for fear of death. — ovdtogt
You see a runaway trolley moving toward five tied-up (or otherwise incapacitated) people lying on the main track. You are standing next to a lever that controls a switch. If you pull the lever, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. However, there is a single person lying on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do? — ovdtogt
I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. The question is a moral one. Should you intervene or not? What are you responsibilities? The five were ordinary day laborers and the 1 was a famous doctor who can save many peoples lives. It wishes merely to illustrate that it is very difficult to make value judgments. — ovdtogt
It is ok to prevent the harm of someone else if their negative ethics is being violated by a third-party. The autonomy of the person has already been violated. Violating non-aggression is not bad if one's autonomy is going to be or has already been violated from another's aggression. — schopenhauer1
I'd like to add that a possible justification for negative ethics is its association with autonomy. By violating a principle, autonomy is being violated. By forcing or harming someone, it not respecting their autonomy. — schopenhauer1
Not very sound principles then, are they? We’re back to square one. If following one principle causes another principle to be violated, then one or both principles are flawed. — Possibility
And now you’ve added a third principle - or is this your underlying principle? Is autonomy for you a fundamental right? This would explain your stance a bit better: non-existence being the only way to respect ideal autonomy in every sense. — Possibility
There’s no reason to equate negative ethics with rule ethics. Whenever I judge that for whatever reason you would be doing something morally wrong if you did x, I claim that I have the right to demand that you abstain. “Demand” doesn’t always amount to much, though, I’m merely using the word to distinguish it from a mere recommendation. I by no means think I have the right to use force against you every time you transgress ever so little. I could say “don’t lie to your spouse about your whereabouts last night”. In a sense I can demand that you don’t, even though it’s not really my business and quite frankly I don’t care. In fact, I probably shouldn’t even tell you so to your face, but I would still call it a demand. My dictionary doesn’t mention anything about force in connection with “demand”. “Demand” can be used when it’s imperative that you do x (or don’t do) whereas “recommendation” is for cases where there are also other possibilities. In negative ethics the “don’t” indicates that there is no other possibility, doing it would be plain wrong. In positive ethics the “do” is not the only possibility. (It would be good to give your money to charity, but it would also be good to spend it on your child’s education.)if negative ethics includes both ‘don’t harm others’ and ‘don’t use force’, then wouldn’t you need to allow one to be violated in order to uphold the other in this situation? — Possibility
In negative ethics the “don’t” indicates that there is no other possibility, doing it would be plain wrong. — Congau
If people agree that it is an ethical requirement to act in a certain way, the demand has achieved its purpose. All precepts of negative ethics are demands (not my demands but demands that the followers of a system subscribe to). Whenever there’s a “don’t” and the followers know it, they are not in doubt that they should abstain from doing it.By defining the doing of the ‘don’t’ as ‘wrong’, given that it doesn’t prevent the doing, what do you hope to achieve? — Possibility
Everyone would agree with that, right? No, need to take it further back. (And if they don’t, well, I’d be wasting my time talking to them anyway.)I don't think you can do that forever. I think there will be premises you can't take back further. Example: A + B = B + A. Try to take that one back further — khaled
I could come up with an answer to that too, which would be pretty much along the same lines as the previous answer, and I’m sure you could produce a strawman objection to that too, but what’s the point? I have never heard anyone claim something like that. For any realistic conversation I have now produced a first premise that people would agree with.What if someone claimed that he lived in heaven before he was born? — khaled
If people agree that it is an ethical requirement to act in a certain way, the demand has achieved its purpose. All precepts of negative ethics are demands (not my demands but demands that the followers of a system subscribe to). Whenever there’s a “don’t” and the followers know it, they are not in doubt that they should abstain from doing it.
Positive ethics, on the other hand, often deals with recommendations instead of demands. Then the followers don’t necessarily have to act in a particular way.
Sometimes, however, also positive ethics uses demands that must be obeyed. (“Honor thy father” for example). — Congau
Of course the demands must correspond to a broader understanding of reality. Any ethical system worthy of the name is based on a perceived truth. I would naturally try to convince people to subscribe to my understanding of reality since I believe it’s the truth (if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have that understanding) and follow the commands that I think belong to a sound ethical system. I’m quite sure you do the same and even people who never tell others directly what they shouldn’t do, have a perception of valid ethical demands.So am I to understand that your aim is to convince others to subscribe to a system of behaviour that is limited by such demands - but not because those demands correspond to any broader understanding of reality? The important thing for you is not to approach reality or truth, as such, but that the system of behaviour is adhered to - that one’s perspective of reality must be limited by what is ‘right’, and one must ignore, isolate or exclude what is ‘wrong’ according to these stated limitations. — Possibility
Of course the demands must correspond to a broader understanding of reality. Any ethical system worthy of the name is based on a perceived truth. I would naturally try to convince people to subscribe to my understanding of reality since I believe it’s the truth (if I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t have that understanding) and follow the commands that I think belong to a sound ethical system. I’m quite sure you do the same and even people who never tell others directly what they shouldn’t do, have a perception of valid ethical demands. — Congau
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.