It may be possible, but that doesn’t end existence as a whole. — Possibility
the individual is more important than existence. — Possibility
I don't think any concept's "goals" are significant. America doesn't have goals. Humanity doesn't have goals. "Nature" doesn't have goals. — khaled
knowing for certain how much harm you may inadvertently cause with your action. — Possibility
So you could evaluate (by some subjective or arbitrary measure) that your harmful act to alleviate harm is less harmful than what you’re alleviating, but that just invites others who are harmed by your actions to commit harmful acts in an attempt to alleviate their own harm - which by your premise, they are entitled to do. — Possibility
You can’t say what is ‘enough pain’ for someone else — Possibility
and you can’t declare objectively that the temporal aspect of an action ‘doesn’t matter’. — Possibility
Humanity’s objective responsibility towards existence — Possibility
A reality can be seen as flawed when it begins to destroy itself. — Possibility
But this is not what I said. I said that you do not have the choice to have no choices. Again, from what I said earlier, and you keep overlooking this: Like I said, forcing others into a trial-and-error scenario because you like it, or you feel like it, is wrong to do to someone. Certainly it is wrong to do someone in the name of collaboration, or civilization, or to experience X thing that YOU deem is important. — schopenhauer1
It’s exactly because it’s valid from an object standpoint that it can be called a demand. It’s not my subjective understanding of what is happening to person about to make an ethical choice that makes up the demand. I may be wrong so I’m not making any demands, only the ethical system that I subscribe to is making demands. If I support a system that demands Thou shalt not lie (just an example), I’m only saying that if x is a lie, you shouldn’t tell x. I’m not making a judgment about whether x is actually a lie in a particular situation, so I’m not making a concrete demand on you.Well, I don’t believe any ethical demands are valid from an objective standpoint. Ethical demands fail to take into account the perspective of the person to whom you are making these demands. So at best, what you refer to as an ‘ethical demand’ is merely an expression of an ethical perspective. A sound ethical system in my book would enable you to understand why someone would choose to do what they shouldn’t, and to guide them towards doing what they should - without requiring you to do what you shouldn’t. Otherwise, how can it be the truth? — Possibility
But how are people put into this situation in the first place? You already recognized you are an antinatalist, so I am guessing this is something that takes place after the first option has already been not followed? — schopenhauer1
So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and khaled. — Possibility
It’s exactly because it’s valid from an object standpoint that it can be called a demand. It’s not my subjective understanding of what is happening to person about to make an ethical choice that makes up the demand. I may be wrong so I’m not making any demands, only the ethical system that I subscribe to is making demands. If I support a system that demands Thou shalt not lie (just an example), I’m only saying that if x is a lie, you shouldn’t tell x. I’m not making a judgment about whether x is actually a lie in a particular situation, so I’m not making a concrete demand on you.
A sound ethical system, in my opinion, should do exactly what you are saying, namely take into account the perspective of the actor. I don’t know what makes a person choose to act a certain way, so I have no right to judge or demand anything in a concrete case. All I can say is that IF x, y and z are the case, then the ethical system I subscribe to demands action A to be taken.
This thread is about the distinction between positive and negative ethics and my claim is that negative ethics (the system, not a mere person like myself) can make demands, whereas positive ethics is mostly restricted to make recommendations. — Congau
What does our ability to end existence have to do with whether or not it's morally fine to have children
the individual is more important than existence.
— Possibility
I agree with that. It's what I'm saying here:
I don't think any concept's "goals" are significant. America doesn't have goals. Humanity doesn't have goals. "Nature" doesn't have goals.
— khaled
"Existence" is just another concept that doesn't actually have goals or a will but to whom we like to ascribe those properties. Humans actually have a subjective experience, goals and a will though so we should focus on those first I think. — khaled
You can absolutely know for certain that:
some amount of suffering > no amount of suffering
And procreation takes you from the right hand side to the left — khaled
You can argue about the existence of potential or possible persons, but this is what you’re referring to when you talk about a ‘future’ person (or the concept of a person regardless of time) - particularly in relation to ‘force’. A force cannot act against a future or past existence - only against their potential or possibility. That’s basic physics. A force acting in physics can only act on the values of what exists in time.
A force acting on an actual person existing in time can be against their physical existence or against their will. In the later case there must be a will (a faculty which determines and initiates action) operating in time that has some value for the force to act against. — Possibility
But this is different again from a force acting on a possible person, which is where you are operating here. An act of force on a ‘possible person’ in time can only be against the possibility of a person existing in the future: this is the only existence in time here that has a value to be acted against. So those applying any ‘force’ against this ‘possible person’ would be you and khaled. — Possibility
So, yes - it could be deemed ‘wrong’ to use force, but if ‘force’ is an act against the value of what exists in time, then perhaps you’re the ones attempting to use force here. — Possibility
Just because I agree that procreation is not a good choice doesn’t mean I would refer to myself as an antinatalist. Antinatalism argues from a moral standpoint, but I don’t see it as a moral issue. The way I see it, how people got into a situation is only relevant to how they should act once there IF how they act has contributed to how they got there. If it’s not something you can change (ie. it happened in the past, before you were aware of its impact) then why waste effort on it that could be better spent collaborating to effect change where you can? — Possibility
My problem with this, besides the major lack of real evidence of an underlying Way is that it can simply be manipulated into anything. So, if I make a decision that makes me suffer, you can say, "Ah, schopenhauer1 was not conforming with the Way!". Or alternatively, you can say, "Ah, don't worry schopenhauer1, in the end it is all a part of the Way!". As you see both versions of this can be used, and it would not matter whether there was a Way or not, just something someone uses as a justification for why your action was "wrong" or why it wasn't "wrong". — schopenhauer1
I'm sorry but this doesn't have much bearing here. When someone is born, THAT is the force. Preventing the "force" of the action (which is the time the child comes into existence). At that time X (when the child comes into existence) is when the force takes place. By preventing the "force" one is preventing that X time from happening. It is as simple as that. — schopenhauer1
What exactly do you believe constitutes the ‘force’ of a child coming into existence? Is it labour? Is it the whole pregnancy? Is it conception? — Possibility
You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action. — Possibility
To prevent the ‘force’ of collaborative action that constitutes a child being born, you would need to address more than the morality of the parents at the time that child is born. By then it’s too late. — Possibility
All politics, and everything else starts from being born in the first place. This HAS to be addressed for anything else to matter.. — schopenhauer1
You seem to be describing this ‘force’ as an event which is in reality a collaboration of events, each with their own ‘force’ of collaborative action.
— Possibility
That can be said of any event. What prevents all parts of the event(s) leading to a full existence is not procreating in the first place from the very start. — schopenhauer1
I agree that our being born should not be declared evidence that ‘procreation is good/necessary’. In order for our being born to matter, our own existence must be deemed our BEST opportunity to effect change in the world - not simply a step towards ‘creating’ someone else with a maybe better chance of achieving. It’s a cop-out, a cowardly attempt to pass the buck, as well as ignorance and hubris to consider that the best possible use of my capacity for awareness, connection and collaboration is to simply continue my genetic existence... — Possibility
Yes - this is why you cannot declare the ‘force’ of an entire event concept to be ‘immoral’. It DOES matter what constitutes that ‘force’, because your evaluation of a collaborative force as immoral renders all participants culpable. — Possibility
If you want to attack the morality of a single participant, then you need to address their specific, conscious contribution to that ‘force’. Which means that you need to consider their interaction with the event well before it occurred in time. — Possibility
An individual is as much a concept as existence. That we only talk about humans as having a ‘will’ and then prioritise that will is a symptom of anthropocentrism in how we conceptualise our experience. — Possibility
continuing to ignore, isolate and exclude the subjective experience, goals and will of others as it suits us. — Possibility
What our ‘suffering’ (from prediction error) and impending eco-crisis demonstrates is that the individual is NOT more important than existence — Possibility
that we are an integral part of ‘something’ broader, which we are too self-absorbed to acknowledge because we might be humbled by it - and that might cause us to ‘suffer’ even more. — Possibility
That ‘the individual is more important than existence’ is a gross misconception that causes more suffering than it can hope to remove — Possibility
If we are certain of nothing else, we are certain that something exists. I’m thinking we should focus on that first. — Possibility
That the individual is more important to the individual is obvious. But the individual is just another concept drawn from how we perceive reality. — Possibility
‘Suffering’ is also a subjective concept of value, which is commonly negative in relation to the individual to whom it refers. — Possibility
So anything you can KNOW from this statement is entirely dependent on the value attributed to each element by each individual — Possibility
No, no, no. If someone murders someone else, it is not the universe's fault and thus no one is directly culpable. That itself is a cop-out. — schopenhauer1
Don't create the new person, period. If it's live birth, it's parents. If it is a test tube baby, it's the components of that. It is not hard to point to what was a direct cause of birth of something. — schopenhauer1
Ok then existence is a concept made up by another concept. A concept squared. The point is "existence" doesn't have a subjective experience as far as we know. Do you think existence feels hurt when someone doesn't have a kid? If not then why should we prioritize existence's "goal" over our own? — khaled
Again, you’re referring to collaborative efforts, not an act of ‘force’. I’m trying to point out that what you’re calling ‘immoral’ cannot be identified as such because there is no single, conscious act of ‘force’ by an agent in time that can be defined as procreation. It IS hard to point to what act was a direct cause of the birth of something. You can point to key contributors, sure. But you have yet to pinpoint the act of ‘force’ you seem to think exists here. — Possibility
In a murder, you can say it was also hard to define "when".. What makes it murder is a couple factors that have to come together- intent, planning, the actual act itself.. etc. Maybe the guy survived actually, but the doctor did something that actually caused the final demise of the person. — schopenhauer1
What you need to create another person is two parents. At which point you deem the "force" is another matter (conception, gestation, primary consciousness, secondary consciousness, birth, identity, etc.). — schopenhauer1
Incidentally, the manslaughter charge doesn’t necessarily shift culpability to the doctor, of course. — Possibility
But you still haven’t shown that the parents committed a conscious act of ‘force’. You show the parents, and then you show the ‘suffering individual’ who didn’t HAVE to exist (and I agree with you there), and you expect us to ‘naturally’ conclude that there was an act of ‘force’ committed by the parents in creating that suffering individual? Nope.
I will agree that the parents contributed significantly, and are primarily responsible for that ‘individual’ from the point they become aware of its actual OR potential existence. But you have yet to convince me that they’ve acted with aggression or force against an individual. — Possibility
If someone kidnapped you and brought you to this (what they perceived to be) amazing obstacle course and said you cannot get off it because it will be as good for you as it was for them, are they right in doing this to you because they thought it was good for you? No it isn't. So the force doesn't have to have malintent. I understand well the various reasonings for not thinking of birth as "forcing" someone into anything. But that is the point, to provide a perspective they weren't thinking of earlier. I don't know, slavery might have been thought of as justified at some point too based on conceptions that they didn't consider. (That is being real charitable of course). — schopenhauer1
So, I don't think the force matters as to the intent of the force. Someone can force something on someone without knowing it. They may be blissfully ignorant that this is the case. In fact, that might be a reason to keep promoting antinatalism, so people won't be ignorant of it anymore! — schopenhauer1
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought your “just cuz” was supposed to indicate an emotional reaction.I notice you keep saying emotions this emotions that but I never mentioned emotions or anything to that effect. "Just cuz" doesn't translate to emotions. You and I believe that A + B = B + A just cuz, there is not further explanation. — khaled
I’m really curious how you would justify that. If you knew that one blink of your eye would prevent an armageddon, but you refused to blink, that would be an extremely immoral behavior according to my understanding of morality. I could argue for it, but I want to hear your explanation first.I think if someone could have blinked and saved the world from nuclear armageddon, but chose not to do so, he is completely not at fault (provided of course he didn't cause the armageddon) — khaled
True, but I was just turning around your argument. The same applies to what you’re saying. How can you harm nothing?How can you do a favor to NOTHING? — khaled
Well, some people sometimes say: “I wish I had never been born”. If that’s possible, one could also say: “I’m glad I was born”. I think most people would choose the second sentence.Most people would have chosen to be born, or don’t you think so?
— Congau
That question makes no sense. If there are "people" then they've already been born, they can't choose to not have been born. — khaled
I could argue for it, but I want to hear your explanation first. — Congau
True, but I was just turning around your argument. The same applies to what you’re saying. How can you harm nothing? — Congau
Well, some people sometimes say: “I wish I had never been born”. If that’s possible, one could also say: “I’m glad I was born”. I think most people would choose the second sentence. — Congau
If the student still doesn’t agree or understand, I could do it even more slowly and elaborate until he gets it. — Congau
You keep coming up with analogies that cannot be the same thing. If you chose instead NOT to bring me to this obstacle course, I would still exist, and still have a will that I can exercise independent of you. I could even choose to go on the obstacle course myself, if I thought it might be good. But there is no will to go against prior to existence, and no will that is ‘freed’ by preventing that existence. That’s not a reason to procreate, but it is a reason why you cannot accuse those who do procreate of ‘force’. — Possibility
So you’re saying that ‘force’ is in the eye of the beholder? In that case, you can only know that you’ve caused someone to endure something once the action is in the past and one evaluates that action from their own perspective. That’s not force. I’ve already agreed that procreation is an act of ignorance - but it’s not ignorance of a will that doesn’t exist. — Possibility
If the child comes into the universe and upon the millisecond of their arrival, the child was punched in the face, and it is well known that upon birth, one gets punched in the face, is that forcing the child to get punched in the face? Now extend that over the course of a lifetime, and instead of a punch it is all suffering. You don't need a will to go "prior against". You just need to cause something to happen to someone else (that extends into autonomous adulthood) that is not ascertained by the person this is affecting. — schopenhauer1
It matters not whether there was bad intent regarding procreation. The fact that someone was forced is what matters- good intentions or not. That's why the analogy of the obstacle course is in fact apt. Would it matter if prior to that person's existence, there was no actual person? What if I upped the stakes like Khaled has stated, and said that the child would immediately upon existence experience worse things (let's say the parent thought it was good, but the child didn't)? Is that right? It is not intent. It is the fact that it is the violation of non-aggression PLUS the fact that one is causing ALL conditions of harm on another person. Both big nos to do to someone else. — schopenhauer1
No, it isn’t forcing the child to get punched in the face. The punch in the face is a separate event in which one can identify an act of force. This act of force occurs in time against the actual, existing child. Using passive language doesn’t change the fact that someone does the punching (not necessarily those who contributed to the child coming into the universe), and associating the punch with the child’s arrival doesn’t make them the same event with the same agent.
What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense. — Possibility
What do you mean by ‘prior against’? That doesn’t make any sense. — Possibility
But you haven’t shown that someone was forced. And again, you’re using passive language to conceal the agent of any force the child may experience immediately after existence, implying that this force (which appears to act against an existing will in time) is the result of bringing the child into existence in the first place. The child’s existence enables an act of force, sure - but it doesn’t cause the act. — Possibility
I get that you’re looking for a way to prevent further suffering, and that you’ve logically determined the most effective way is to prevent individual existence in the first place. But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists. — Possibility
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.