If you create the conditions for someone to have X thing happen (punched in the face), then you were the person who caused it, whether indirectly or not. The "force" is the X event of being born. What caused the conditions for that birth? The parent. "Who" created the conditions for the child to be born in the first place? The parent? — schopenhauer1
The parents "BLORCED" the child. I don't care what the actual term used is, the meaning I am conveying is that the child itself had no decision in the matter. It was someone else who made that decision for the child and caused the X event (being born) to happen for the child. This is a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth, an effect/affect has happened to a person caused from someone else, that affects that person's whole life and did not involve the actual participant being affected (the child). — schopenhauer1
It doesn't matter! If I enabled you to be somewhere you had no choice in, that is that. — schopenhauer1
I didn’t say they should be punished. I don’t care if they are punished or not. What’s important is to acknowledge that they are doing something morally wrong by not intervening. If you passed a child who was lying face down in a pool and you could save it from drowning just by turning it on the back, you would be a terrible person if you didn’t do it.My basic premise is: if he/she didn't cause it, they cannot be punished for not stopping it. Simply because: it's not their fault. Why are you assuming I need to justify MY premise? You're the one proposing that people should be punished for not stopping actions they didn't cause. So if someone was robbing a store and I didn't intervene am I doing something wrong? — khaled
But in my view, it is that existence is individual which causes suffering, not that the individual exists.
— Possibility
You have not proved this. You simply assert collaboration, et al. It is pie in the sky and in fact is part of the problem. It is using people for an agenda, or overlooking people's autonomy. Actually, it is self-justifying. If there is no individual, there is no abuse happening, therefore, don't worry about it. Case closed. I don't think so. — schopenhauer1
The cause must occur before the effect. — Possibility
Whenever the cause occurs, the effect must also occur. — Possibility
There must not be another factor that can explain the relationship between the cause and effect. — Possibility
So, enable is not the same thing as cause. You can cause an effect, but scientifically you can’t conceptualise an event and treat it like a single effect with a single cause. When you arrange the conditions for an event to occur, you are enabling that event, not causing it. It’s a common misconception - a case of anthropocentrism, that we are the sole ‘cause’ of every event in which we are the only conscious contributor to the conditions. It’s a limitation of our legal and moral systems, for obvious reasons, but it isn’t reality. There are many more interactions that contributed to the conditions for that birth than the parents’ conscious actions - and some of those interactions continue to contribute to the existence of that child throughout their life, even if the parents don’t. That these are not conscious contributors should not exclude them as contributors - even though you’re specifically looking for ‘someone’ capable of consciously preventing the event. — Possibility
I recognise that I appear to be splitting hairs here. But when you charge a parent with ‘violating a principle of non-aggression’ for contributing to a collaborative event, there is something amiss with the conceptualisation. I’m trying to show where the error occurs in relation to reality - not in relation to a moralistic system. So, while I recognise that the parents are considered the ‘moral agents’ within your ethical perspective, the fact that it doesn’t correspond to a broader experience of reality challenges the validity of the ethical perspective itself. When you’re looking at the situation from within that ethical perspective, it’s like trying to make the bed while you’re still under the covers - so I understand your frustration. — Possibility
Yes, the child had no conscious decision in the matter. But no, it was not ‘someone’ else who made a decision for the child. That’s an assumption based on a moralistic perspective of reality. You’re saying that a ‘moral agent’ MUST be held accountable for ‘causing’ an event instead of simply causing an effect that contributes to the event - and it can’t be a ‘god’ or any other collaboration of concepts that has no ‘actual’ individual existence, let alone moral agency. But in reality there is no individual agent who ‘caused’ the event of being born (existence) to happen for the child. — Possibility
So no, this is NOT a violation of non-aggression because at the moment of birth/existence, an event has happened to a create a person that was a collaborative effort which DID include the pre-conscious action of several actual contributors that continue to constitute the person created, as well as the conscious or unconscious action of the parents and a number of other conditions of which no agent in relation to the birth/existence of that child may be consciously aware - not even the parents. — Possibility
When viewed from within the moralistic system, the only way to make sense of this reality is to exclude the interaction of non-moral agents. But then it isn’t reality, is it? And what you deem to be ‘wrong’ with the interaction of the world is precisely where you have ignored, isolated and excluded what is real about the interaction of the world. — Possibility
Okay, but then what does it have to with the principle of non-aggression? Enabling you to be somewhere, whether you thought you had a choice in being there or not, is not an act of aggression. If I fall asleep on the train and end up five stops past where I wanted to be - is that the train’s fault for enabling me to be there? Or the train driver’s fault? — Possibility
‘Aggression is wrong, UNLESS the intention behind that aggression is to prevent more aggression - then aggression is not wrong’ is an example of self-justification as a result of cognitive dissonance. — Possibility
Your problem is with the amount of ‘suffering’ that appears to necessarily come with the existence of the individual. I believe this ‘suffering’ is a result of prediction error - as each ‘individual’ predicts, tests and then adjusts their mental concepts to better correspond with reality. The more we interact with reality, the more prediction error we experience. It’s in our best interests, then, to continually adjust our concepts to suit our interactions with reality, so that our predictions are more refined and accurate as a result. This is easier said than done, of course. Pain, loss, lack and humiliation are all signs of prediction error - avoiding these signs that we need to adjust our concepts is not the answer to reducing suffering - taking the steps to understand where the prediction error occurs and then adjust our concepts is. — Possibility
What this broader understanding of reality this leads me to (eventually) is that I don’t matter as an indivisible, isolated existence in the universe: I matter as an aware, connected and collaborating participant in the unfolding universe, in the whole of existence. — Possibility
Parents conceive and birth children- check. — schopenhauer1
When something is conceived and birthed, someone becomes born- check. — schopenhauer1
Only conception and birth from the parents or intentional efforts by fertility clinic which still need the desire from at least one parent- check. — schopenhauer1
At the end of the day, it is the will of the parent that allows the birth to take place. If birth was fully unpreventable, then you may have a point. But practically all birth is. — schopenhauer1
Again, you have not explained your non-agent based system which apparently leaves morality of individual agents as irrelevant. This can be used to justify anything- the murder was the cause of the universe from unknown multiple causations. There is no need to do that. Without the agent, the violation would not have occurred. You want to have this holisitic perspective of reality, but even if that were true from a birdseye view (which we cannot prove), existence is felt and experienced at the individual level. There is no way of getting around it. The main reason this is dangerous, is people will then use it as an excuse to not have any responsibility or accountability to whether they cause harm to others. — schopenhauer1
I didn’t say they should be punished. I don’t care if they are punished or not. What’s important is to acknowledge that they are doing something morally wrong by not intervening — Congau
But when the possibility of acting comes very close to you and the amount of inconvenience it costs you is very small — Congau
Actually the law also sometimes identifies a duty to act — Congau
Here's the thing, you are really over-emphasizing the idea that antinatalism is trying to "blame" parents. You are not quite getting where the emphasis is. Antinatalism is trying to inform the parents that be simply preventing birth, they can prevent harm. There isn't supposed to be a post-facto blame of what has already occurred. I see that as a big glitch here in your reasoning. You are not even putting the focus where antinatalism is putting the focus. It's not about blaming things on people or holding them in contempt, etc. — schopenhauer1
They would eventually find a way AND justify it from their perspective - such is human capacity. So you see, your perspective of their morality IS irrelevant in preventing harm. And you’ve even admitted that the moral perspective you’re advocating is impractical and contradictory in reality, so your ethics has nothing to stand on - which is why you’re arguing to prevent individual existence as the only way you can see to effectively prevent harm.
I’m not saying there is nothing we can do to prevent harm any more than you are. You’ve backed yourself into a corner, though. You can’t prevent existence - only individual existence. So your argument that the individual is more important or valuable than existence unravels at this point. — Possibility
The way I see it, you’re trying to convince parents to act against the possibility of a child - to do what they can to prevent the potential existence of another individual, because this is the only way you can see to effectively act against the possibility of harm. I’m okay with this, but it has nothing to do with any moral act of a parent against their actual child prior to the existence of that child. — Possibility
We all know ALL harm can be prevented by simply not procreating. — schopenhauer1
People decide to have a child for all sorts of reasons - but most of them stem from the fearful realisation that individual autonomy is either not a priority or not possible. Anyone still striving for individual autonomy as a priority has no reason to procreate, sure - but that striving becomes a Sisyphean effort. Most people eventually recognise through prediction error that the world doesn’t work like that, and they adjust their conceptual system to better suit reality. Procreation is often a key coping mechanism at this point. But beyond our fear is the realisation that procreation is a feeble, half-assed effort to wrestle some form of relevance from our ‘individual’ participation in existence, and that we are capable of much more effective participation in far more collaborative achievements than simply creating another individual. — Possibility
THIS is my problem. We don’t know this at all. Harm continues to occur regardless of procreation - I’m not even sure what gives you this idea. You’ll have to explain. — Possibility
Okay, you seem to be yourself very conflicted. I don't know what to say to that. I agree with your sentiments that people can collaborate in other ways. Yet you somehow justify procreation through some odd "recognition of reality" that you seem to be railing against at the same time. Again, I don't know what you're trying to prove here other than people procreate and that somehow they are "justified" but for some obtuse reason of "existence" or some such thing. — schopenhauer1
ALL harm for any future progeny can be prevented. Unless you don't have a concept of a future or a person that CAN be born into that future, I don't see what explanation you need. Again, morality is at the margins- that is to say, what people as agents can actually do. Of course, being that morality is not a big utilitarian "greatest good" game, what you can acutally "do" is not about greatest good, but not using people for some outcome you want to see. — schopenhauer1
It's all about the margins. You are not in charge of existence as a whole, just what you are able to do as an agent. You are able to prevent harm for another person by simply preventing birth. That is all the argument is for. You are overstepping what the argument is even advocating. — schopenhauer1
What you’re talking about is only preventing harm to your own progeny - not preventing ALL harm. That’s hardly the same thing. In fact, it barely rates a mention in terms of preventing ALL harm. What are you hoping to achieve? An end to existence? — Possibility
I’m aware of this. But you are not preventing harm for another person by denying their existence, because that ‘person’ does not exist. So you’re not doing any ‘good’ here. You are not doing anything, so how can you be an agent? You’re denying possibilities because you believe the cost is too high. That’s your prerogative, but rest assured the universe will continue to exist without your involvement. ‘Harm’ and ‘force’ will still be experienced, as a result of the inevitable interaction between ignorant and isolated, ‘individual’ will. We have the capacity to change that, but we have to recognise our capacity as an agent, and then do something with it.
Negative ethics on its own is about denying agency, which kind of defeats the purpose. You cannot do or be ‘good’ by refusing to do or be anything in relation to existence. — Possibility
I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all. — Possibility
I believe doing so will ALWAYS reduce suffering — Possibility
that procreation is ‘forcing’ others into existence and suffering against their will, and therefore violates the negative ethics of ‘don’t use force/aggression’ and — Possibility
‘don’t harm’ — Possibility
I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles — Possibility
positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony, — Possibility
I’ve also argued that these principles of force/aggression and harm will ALWAYS break down in application to reality - but everyone seems to just sweep that aside as if it’s insignificant — Possibility
So you take my words out of context now. ALL harm onto another person that would be harmed otherwise. Period. The goal is not end of existence. The goal is not causing any harm to another person. This does not happen by not procreating. — schopenhauer1
No, you are doing "good" because you are not causing harm. Not causing harm is always good. You can be doing good by NOT doing anything. I am not asking people to be salvation for existence itself. In fact, that is a category error. I agree that existence will exist. The ethic isn't about that though. It is about preventing harm when one can. Not procreating perfectly prevents all harm for another person who might otherwise be harmed. — schopenhauer1
Yet you exist and you interact. Whatever the reason, you remain as a walking contradiction to your own principles. And you expect others to believe that your principles reflect the truth? Nope. — Possibility
I no longer think we should be so afraid of causing what other people think is ‘harm’ that we do nothing. That’s not living. Pain, for instance, isn’t ‘bad’ in itself. It’s prediction error: notification from the system that it requires more energy, attention or effort than was budgeted for. This doesn’t justify inflicting pain on others, but it does mean that sometimes what we initially evaluate as ‘harm’ is not necessarily as harmful as we think. Pain allows us to grow, change, improve and to understand the world better - not so we can just avoid pain or other prediction error, but in order to interact with the world and help others to predict more accurately. Prediction error is just evidence that we haven’t yet perfected this. — Possibility
I think you and I are not so different. It seems that you genuinely want to only do what’s best for everyone, and this is your way of evaluating that. But I’ve learned that it’s better to act and be wrong than to not act at all. We should forgive ourselves and others for errors of ignorance, offer our energy, attention and effort to repair connections when we make mistakes, and recognise the pain, humiliation and loss of prediction error as a sign that we’re learning more about how to interact with the world. This is life. Otherwise we’re all just rocks floating in space.
When people act based on positive ethics, they sometimes make mistakes and they can’t control how the world responds. But if they base their actions on negative ethics, then they don’t act at all. That’s not living, it’s not ‘doing good’ and it’s not autonomy - it’s fear. — Possibility
By an ethical system I simply mean whatever ethics a person supports. It can even be completely individual; that person being the only one in the world to follow a particular system. You bind yourself in the sense that if you act outside it, you are inconsistent.So are you saying that when an individual subscribes to an ethical system, they bind themselves to that system and are therefore no longer in a position to question the demands of that system? Does an ethical system exist in and of itself? What is an individual’s relationship to that ethical system? — Possibility
Of course I assume in this example that he really can save the child, that’s a part of the premise. If you can do a great service to someone with a minimal effort on your part, then it’s deeply immoral not to do it. Make the service smaller and the effort bigger, and at some point it becomes debatable whether the act can be demanded of you. But in an extreme example like this, there can be no doubt that it would be very bad not to act. Or do you disagree?How do you know those conditions have been met by someone? Maybe the guy COULDN'T turn the kid around and save him from drowning because of some disability — khaled
To turn it around: The act of conception itself doesn't benefit anyone at the time it is done but that doesn't mean it should not be allowed. No one is either harmed or benefited at the time. There is a chance it will harm someone in the future, but there’s a greater chance it will benefit someone.the ACT of conception itself doesn't harm anyone at the time it is done but that doesn't mean it should be allowed — khaled
I couldn’t convince a monkey or a chicken or a retarded person, but why do you care about those who lack the intelligence to understand? The point is that an axiom like A+B=B+A can indeed be explained. You don’t just say it’s true “just because”.You keep assuming you can convince anyone of anything. That as long as you explain it slowly enough everyone will agree. I don't think that's the case at all. — khaled
Or do you disagree? — Congau
The act of conception itself doesn't benefit anyone — Congau
There is a chance it will harm someone in the future, but there’s a greater chance it will benefit someone. — Congau
The point is that an axiom like A+B=B+A can indeed be explained. You don’t just say it’s true “just because”. — Congau
why do you care about those who lack the intelligence to understand — Congau
I am not opposed to if someone wants to cause pain to oneself, but I am opposed causing it for others if possible. That is the difference here. — schopenhauer1
to justify that because there is always some collateral damage, that therefore everything is contaminated, and thus any harm is permitted is nonsensical. — schopenhauer1
I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all.
— Possibility
What's the difference? They sound the same to me — khaled
You can't reduce suffering to below zero yes? Antinatalism proposes a method for reducing suffering to 0. You can't beat that — khaled
I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles
— Possibility
Where do my arguments do that? — khaled
‘don’t harm’
— Possibility
This was — khaled
positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony,
— Possibility
How? They will contradict each other by definition — khaled
The only thing I swept aside was the idea that if an action takes place before the person to be harmed exists that it is allowed — khaled
By an ethical system I simply mean whatever ethics a person supports. It can even be completely individual; that person being the only one in the world to follow a particular system. You bind yourself in the sense that if you act outside it, you are inconsistent. — Congau
Let me ask you: If the capacity to choose between paths was available, but we lacked the capacity to be aware of that choice (of either the capacity to choose, the range to choose from or the paths available), then who is responsible for the path taken in absence of awareness? — Possibility
when you take into account everyone’s experience, including that of whoever appears to be responsible for the ‘harm’. Being aware of how actions that contribute to ‘harm’ are positioned in relation to everything else that’s going on from others’ POV reduces the chance of ignorantly contributing to ‘harm’ elsewhere when we respond. There are no isolated or autonomous individuals - every action we initiate is an interaction on many different levels, whether we’re aware of them all or not. It’s not an excuse to be ignorant, but a challenge to be more aware. — Possibility
People can lack awareness of something. I didn't doubt that. The point was to try to not cause harm. That is all. I am not denying that some people might lack awareness how or who they are harming. — 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.