The example here was about disabled children, not children in general. You were implying that disability was a harm which it would be immoral to cause with foreknowledge. — Isaac
this is offensive to disabled people because many feel that their disability is a harm because of society's failure to accommodate them, not the circumstances of their birth — Isaac
What I was actually looking for in asking this question was the grounds on which you'd claim the premises of antinatalism were not 'completely ridiculous', — Isaac
Otherwise what distinguishes antinatalism from just 'not wanting to have children'? — Isaac
As I said before, I think you've misunderstood moral relativism. A moral claim is a claim about how others should act, not a claim about one's personal prefernces. — Isaac
But if there's no compelling argument (other than just "well that's what my unusual premises lead to") — Isaac
then I can't see any good reason why someone would repeatedly say something so unpleasant. — Isaac
You've missed the point. You asked about examples of situations where consent is not asked of non-existent persons for actions which may harm them. Finding no shelter from the rain where there might have been shelter definitely harms a future person. I did not ask their consent before removing that shelter. The specifics don't matter. the point is absolutely everything I do has the potential to harm future people by the absence of some resource which I've used that they might have benefited from. I do not ask their consent. Every structural alteration I make to the world might harm a future person who so much as trips over it. I don not ask their consent before doing so. — Isaac
So what is the difference then, you haven't answered the question, only shown that social or biological obligations are not sufficient. — Isaac
What I was actually looking for in asking this question was the grounds on which you'd claim the premises of antinatalism were not 'completely ridiculous', — Isaac
Letting go of them invidividually causes problems. Example: We shouldn't do something to harm people in the future even if the affected party doesn't exist in the present. NOT believing this will mean malicious genetic engineering is fine. Etc. Each premise leads to some unintuitive conclusions when not believed. — khaled
And the "relativism" bit means that there is no moral claim that applies to everyone. So why do you care what I think you should or shouldn't do if I don't try to enforce it (which I won't because I recognize that my view isn't objective) — khaled
For something to be a moral judgement it has to be reasoned about. — khaled
But if there's no compelling argument (other than just "well that's what my unusual premises lead to") — Isaac
Again, how can you have a MORE compelling argument than this? — khaled
Again for the 100th time. Shope didn't make this abount antinatalism you did. — khaled
Once again, not all harm done is your responsibilty. — khaled
Antinatalists do it to a point but then seem to reach "end the human race" as a conclusion and instead of adding another caveat to avoid such an obviously wrong conclusion, they just accept it. We didn't do that with any previous counter-intuitive conclusions, why this one? — Isaac
So what's up with that? — Srap Tasmaner
And again, not disputing accountability, just that suffering from bad decisions, when looking at the bigger picture, is a part of the overall suffering and can lead to bad consequences. As far as being a part of the whole suffering ecology, it is just one more facet that humans face. Suffering can be brought about from contingent external forces or our own detrimental decisions. The origin of the suffering doesn't negate the suffering and certainly doesn't make one more justified. Again, not saying people aren't responsible for their moral actions, just that if those actions lead to detrimental outcomes, it is bad in the same way as other bads. It's just one more negative part of life that humans face.
It's like if I threw you in a game and you didn't ask to play it, can't escape, and aren't particularly good at it. In fact, you have a defect that can prevent you from playing well in many ways. Then I say, "Well, it's justified that you are suffering based on your poor ability to play this game". Yeah, no. — schopenhauer1
just wondering schop, but I’ve seen glimpses of your many long comment chains on this forum regarding AN. Out of everyone you’ve debated, do you think anyone here has ever presented a compelling challenge against your beliefs ? These threads always seem to collapse into people attacking you so I never really know how you feel after — Albero
This assumption isn't a conclusion that needs to be there. — schopenhauer1
It's the Village Green Preservation Society trying to clutch its pearls and scream of the indeceny. — schopenhauer1
So we were talking about accountability in regards to decision-making:
I was trying to get at:
1) Though I recognize that the locus of accountability is at the individual level
1a) Decision-making itself is part of the ecology of harm, similar to natural disasters in that it is part of the human experience. — schopenhauer1
Yes you created some ridiculous scenarios, but that's not how these things usually go. — schopenhauer1
Even granting, and I see no reason not to, that everyone makes poor decisions, does it make any sense to say that being alive caused those decisions? — Srap Tasmaner
I would say that it's not fair to put ALL of your suffering on being forced to play the game. Birth is the first cause of all suffering but not the only cause. Currently people don't count suffering they inflict on themselves as suffering at all but I don't think it's fair to go from that to counting all suffering as a direct result of being born. — khaled
Its not meant to blame parents per se — schopenhauer1
Personally, it seems a little too reductionistic for my tastes. To me, it may imply that if something terrible happens the event can all be traced back to your parents for being responsible since they brought you here in the first place. — Albero
They are claiming that if you just made better decisions you wouldnt be so bad. — schopenhauer1
And everyone knows Baden is a well respected man about town, doing the best things so conservatively. — Srap Tasmaner
(Damn, which thread am I in??). — Baden
What both of you did want to talk about -- not with each other but with the rest of us -- is that there is someone else who is responsible for that harm — Srap Tasmaner
I think my morals do apply to you. I just recognise that you will have different morals that you (might) think apply to me and that there's no objective means of determining who's right. — Isaac
and letting others do the same? — Isaac
But if believing them leads to antinatalism then each premise leads to counter intuitive conclusions if believed too. You haven't removed the counter intuitive conclusions by believing them. — Isaac
If you're claiming that your premise is actually that we should seek consent from those potentially harmed by our action where we have a legal responsibility to do so, or some legal right may be infringed, — Isaac
The point is that everyone does this. Except antinatalists. Antinatalists do it to a point but then seem to reach "end the human race" as a conclusion and instead of adding another caveat to avoid such an obviously wrong conclusion, they just accept it — Isaac
That claim wouldn't have been made if the topic of the thread hadn't drifted to antinatalism. — khaled
And I never made that claim. I never said that if your child bangs his head against a wall despite you warning him of the consequences that you were responsible for that. — khaled
What is your claim anyway? You must consider parents responsible for something, or you'd have nothing to say. I could guess, but you could just say what that is. — Srap Tasmaner
I am not here to say that antinatalism leads to intuitive conclusions. I was saying that not believing in its premises also has consequences so that is the justification for why you would believe them. It then becomes a matter of which is the least counterintuitive which is of course subjective. — khaled
I think we'd both agree that regardless of whatever criteria I use to determine whether or not consent is required that requiring consent when you're about to harm someone is pretty reasonable no? — khaled
That antinatalism an in internally consistent system that doesn't rely on premises that are too unpopular. — khaled
Yes, but this is part of the main point I'm trying to make. You seem to have this sharp line between a moral intuition used as a premise and a moral intuition used to reject (or choose between) counter-intuitive conclusions. I can't see any justification for such a divide, they're all just moral intuitions. — Isaac
No, not in the least bit. — Isaac
It isn't. It relies on premises (moral intuitions) taken without the usual caveats which is not at all popular. — Isaac
you just pick the intuitions that have the most intuitive conclusions — khaled
And for antinatalists, antinatalism IS the most intuitive conclusion. — khaled
Let me limit harm to "Psychological or Physical damage done to an innocent party (not self defence) that is not done with the intention of helping that party (not surgery, vaccines, etc)" — khaled
Resonable? If so, and assuming giving birth to someone is harming them, that harm is done on an innocent party and is not done to help them (because they didn't exist to want help) so is not permissable. — khaled
It uses all the same caveats except "Ending the human race is to be avoided at all costs". — khaled
what caveats would YOU put on "You should ask for consent before harming someone". I'd rather you answer that first even if you don't reply to anything else. — khaled
As to what parents are reponsible for, they are partially responsible for every kind of suffering their child experiences except in the case where the child willingly brings harm to himself despite being warned by them that that would happen. If the child is harmed in any way that he didn't bring upon himself fully they are partially responsible. — khaled
Why are you adding that particular set of limits and not some other common constraints such as harm done in the pursuit of wider social objectives (like punishment for crime), or harm done where the harm is considered 'character building', or harm done where a greater harm would befall if not done — Isaac
All common caveats to the definition of 'harm' in this context, many of which could be used to mitigate the harm of conceptions, all of which you conveniently leave off your addendum. — Isaac
No. I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist, but tell that to the parent who's saving up children's toys for their as yet un-conceived grandchildren, or planting a woodland, or putting money into a trust fund. Who are they imagining will enjoy these things? — Isaac
We might, perfectly reasonably, have a child on the grounds that they'd probably like to enjoy some of what life has to offer. — Isaac
and all agreed it was so, then ending the human race would become a viable moral option — Isaac
Oh and it's not "...at all costs" — Isaac
1. That the person exists, is conscious, is able to respond, and is judged to be of their right mind - absent of either you have to guess what they might want done (where the harm might be weighed against benefits).
2. That no wider important social objective is undermined by avoiding that harm, if so a balance might need to be made - we're a social species, not just a bunch of unrelated individuals.
3. That you don't have good reason to believe you already have consent - I add this one because the 'before' bit is ambiguous - how much before, to what specificity? — Isaac
Either of us could dig in and argue that it's "really" the fault of the other. (I'll spare you the arguments, and assume you can fill them in yourself, though I find them pretty interesting.) I think both accepting some "share" of the blame is just a way of saying we've decided not to argue about whose fault it "really" is. — Srap Tasmaner
If a drunk driver kills somebody, is the bartender who served them partly responsible? What about the dealer that sold him the car? — Srap Tasmaner
There are so many "variables", and your judgment of responsibility can swing back and forth with each detail I could add to a story; why is that? — Srap Tasmaner
I think you'll say no, but schop will say yes. — Srap Tasmaner
I think you have it in mind that genuine responsibility can be assessed — Srap Tasmaner
Are you sure you're done? Couldn't we parse that further? Couldn't I still be partly responsible if I warn you not to do something but I'm not certain you understood me? — Srap Tasmaner
What if I give you a blanket warning to do nothing that might lead to you suffering, is that okay? — Srap Tasmaner
Neither you nor schop are willing to consider our intentions. — Srap Tasmaner
But you know for a fact that's false, because hardly anyone you've ever presented the argument to accepted it, right? — Srap Tasmaner
So now you need to claim that they're not logical, maybe not even capable of being logical (again, some extra pessimism), or that they're capable of it but engaging in motivated reasoning that blocks the inference they really should make. — Srap Tasmaner
or griping about the world without actually having to bear any responsibilty for doing anything about it. — Isaac
I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist, — Isaac
As far as you're concerned, the only option available for rejecting anti-natalism is denying the principle that is applied after the causal analysis is done: if someone wants to say, yeah I'm down with causing unjustified suffering, you pack up your argument and leave. — Srap Tasmaner
They can fail morally, fail intellectually or they can agree with you. — Srap Tasmaner
It is literally stupid, in the sense of not knowing or pretending not to know something everyone knows, — Srap Tasmaner
that if you're going to talk about who caused what to happen you're already swimming in moral seas. — Srap Tasmaner
Why are you adding that particular set of limits and not some other common constraints such as harm done in the pursuit of wider social objectives (like punishment for crime), or harm done where the harm is considered 'character building', or harm done where a greater harm would befall if not done — Isaac
I could ask you the same question. This is a vanilla vs chocolate argument. — khaled
All common caveats to the definition of 'harm' in this context, many of which could be used to mitigate the harm of conceptions, all of which you conveniently leave off your addendum. — Isaac
Because I think those caveats are BS in other words, very unintuitive. — khaled
It would still be wrong to say that they are doing them for "Non existing children". Did you read that sentence? It makes zero sense. You can say they are doing it for the benefit of people will exist but definitely not for the benefit of literal nothingness. — khaled
The whole basis of the argument of antinatalism is that the actions you do have moral weight even if the person they affect doesn't exist yet and on the basis of THAT you shouldn't have children because it will result in them being harmed in the future. This is a central belief to antinatalism so it baffles me that you think every antinatalist doesn't believe in it. — khaled
If you admit that an act has moral weight even if the affected party doesn't exist yet then what do you do about the fact that the child would be harmed as well. — khaled
I could now argue "It is perfectly reasonable to not have a child on the ground that they'd probably hate some of what life has to offer". — khaled
Let me ask you this: Why does there need to be a disease AND everyone agree that ending the human race was preferable for ending the human race to become moral? — khaled
This really undermines your premise that "Anything that ends the human race is bad and should never even be considered" — khaled
So what exactly is your problem if everyone tomorrow became an antinatalist and jointly decided that the human race should end. Because you've raised this issue from post one, implying that "ending the human race" is an unacceptable conclusion a jillion times but here you add the very important caveat "against its members' wishes". Antinatalism does NOT end the human race against its members' wishes so what is your issue with it now? — khaled
So do you approve of malicious genetic engineering? Because it is not wrong according to caveat 1. — khaled
The first statement doesn't lead to the second. — khaled
It might also work as a paradox of game theory, but I'm not going to work that out. (Not in this post anyway.) — Srap Tasmaner
This is actually your problem, right here.
Anti-natalism is not a moral position at all. It is, as I said before, a logical paradox. — Srap Tasmaner
Morality is how we manage to do that, and how we manage to go on doing that, generation after generation — Srap Tasmaner
The question is why on earth anyone would publish their personal preferences in a public forum when those preferences are the metaphorical equivalent of saying one prefers mud-flavour. We've no cause to say you shouldn't, but it's just a really weird position with nothing in favour of it. — Isaac
If you know already that there are perfectly reasonable caveats which avoid antinatalism (just ones which you happen to find unintuitive) then there's nothing philosophically interesting here - psychologically interesting, certainly. — Isaac
ah but you're really benefiting them in the future when they exist", that's fine (but unnecessarily clumsy) — Isaac
I don't see how that changes anything. — Isaac
Where have I suggested the antinatalist doesn't believe this? — Isaac
No. I know antinatalists have this weird idea that you can't do anything for a person who doesn't yet exist,but tell that to the parent who's saving up children's toys for their as yet un-conceived grandchildren — Isaac
Balance that against the pleasures they might experience. — Isaac
a stupid mistake in their agreement to end it — Isaac
I've literally written the exact opposite of this in a comment you even reply to further down — Isaac
Yes it is. Do you even read what I write? "1. That the person exists, is conscious, is able to respond, and is judged to be of their right mind - absent of either you have to guess what they might want done — Isaac
So being logical when it comes to ethics is a problem now? If that's what you think then I don't really value your opinion much. — khaled
nobody answered schop’s question — Albero
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.