That is not the information I'm referring to. I really don't want to have to walk you through what has already been written. Just read it again more carefully. The data point in question is not about the rusk of harm in general (which is the only rusk I've spoken about considering). It about the rusk of consent violation or displeasure over the matter of existence. — Isaac
Whether that information is unknown or unknowable is irrelevant, because the basis (or lack thereof) for our decision remains the same. — Tzeentch
The benefit. Same as any other risk. — Isaac
Displacement of when decision is made to when person is affected doesn't negate that a decision was made that affects a person. — schopenhauer1
Any type of information that is lacking only affirms the lack of a basis for our decision. — Tzeentch
what if your judgement on what constitutes benefit may drastically differ from that of the individual one is making decisions for? — Tzeentch
it's like buying a suit with someone else's money, while not having the slightest idea of what type of suit they may like. — Tzeentch
Shifting the problem so we now have a decision that is both made (becasue a person exists, which can only happen as a result of said decision) and not made (because we act as if we can still prevent that person from ever existing, which we can only do before the decision) doesn't help.
The core problem remains that all humans necessarily exist. There are no humans that do not exist, and thus there are no humans who do not have existence (and all it entails) "imposed" on them. This logical necessity cannot be changed by semantic games, displaced decisions etc. — Echarmion
If there is a state of affairs that a person is born, there is a person affected by someone else's decision. However, if there is a state of affairs with no person born, then there is a state of affairs where no person was affected by the decision, thus no violation, and no new individual who suffers will take place. All of this is encompassed with colloquial terms like "potential child" etc. — schopenhauer1
If there is a state of affairs that a person is born, there is a person affected by someone else's decision. However, if there is a state of affairs with no person born, then there is a state of affairs where no person was affected by the decision, thus no violation, and no new individual who suffers will take place. All of this is encompassed with colloquial terms like "potential child" etc. — schopenhauer1
if you want to use a term in a particularly unusual manner you'll need to explain it first — Isaac
What on earth kind of heterodox definition of 'conservative' are you using which allows the extinction of the human race to fall under it?
— Isaac
"Does no harm". — khaled
Right. Which is a harm if what I wanted was a suit. — Isaac
if you want to use a term in a particularly unusual manner you'll need to explain it first — Isaac
You've still not given anything close to an explanation of why you think non-action has some moral strength over action when faced with uncertainty about outcomes and the impossibility of consent. Either could equally bring about a negative consequence, or lack virtue, or defy a duty... whichever moral framework you subscribe to, inaction does not just magically trump action. — Isaac
How can you reasonably expect not to hurt others while driving? — Isaac
Then we have no basis on which to make any decisions at all, since all lack millions upon millions of theoretical data points which are impossible to know. — Isaac
Presuming I cannot possibly access that person's judgement I have nothing else to go on. — Isaac
No it isn't, because asking that other person whether they'd like a suit is almost always possible and never logically incoherent. — Isaac
Sure, all you'd need to argue now is that being affected by this decision is equivalent to a violation. — Echarmion
You claim that the "chance of bad outcome" needs to be near 100% for having children to start to be considered wrong. — khaled
And you claim at the same time that putting the bar at >0% is wrong. On what basis?
Whenever I use harm I mean it in the sense that I strictly made the situation worse...
...And I find this is a much more common use — khaled
By being a good driver. Not being drunk. Etc. — khaled
How is it not? A decision was made. This affected the individual being born. The individual being born could not possibly be a part of the decision affecting him/her. — schopenhauer1
The violation occurs because a decision was made affecting someone else, even if the affect for the person is displaced from the time the decision was made and there was no person there previously. — schopenhauer1
Then the argument for inaction seems obvious; by your own words you claim to have no idea what you're getting that person into. — Tzeentch
Why would one feel entitled to make that decision for someone else in the first place, especially considering the fact that the decision is irreversible and can result in a life-time of misery.
You really think it so strange to choose to err on the side of caution here? — Tzeentch
We can have a very good idea what it might be, humans are not radically different from one another in fundamental preferences. — Isaac
Making decisions for others (making decisions that will affect future others - I still don't agree with your incoherent wording), is something that humanity has been doing in this context for several million years and overall happiness ratings for the people who have later been affected by these decisions have been consistently quite high. — Isaac
So on average it makes perfect sense to have kids in the Netherlands as it's extremely likely they will be happy.
EDIT: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2018/27/one-in-five-dutch-adults-very-happy
Only 2.6% is unhappy. Those are excellent odds. — Benkei
We can have a very good idea what it might be, humans are not radically different from one another in fundamental preferences. — Isaac
Disagreed. — Tzeentch
This seems to be based on a severely cherry-picked version of history. There are many things humanity has been doing for much of history, where some have suffered and others and have profited, which we now consider inhuman. — Tzeentch
it seems silly to reduce one's choice to have children to generalizations — Tzeentch
where forcing individuals into existence is a "necessary evil" — Tzeentch
I've changed the details here, but I had a client once who could not read books because he'd convinced himself that tiny invisible people were living on its pages and he would harm them by closing the book.
He would say "but how do you know there aren't, why take the risk? It's not worth it". It seems a similar delusion is happening here, imagining the souls of yet-to-be children looking down on the world thinking "please don't put me there, I prefer it here". — Isaac
You created the very deficiency that eating solves, and call that good. Better to just not create the deficiency in the first place, to not create a body with a need for food. — Inyenzi
But this again only tells me that affecting others is a violation, not why this is so. It's not obvious why any influence I have on anyone should be considered a violation. — Echarmion
This seems to be an unwarranted value judgement, arbitrarily describing one physical process as a "deficiency". The kind of processes involved predate humans, and would still be around if humans were not.
Without reference to the important part - the mind - the argument can go nowhere. — Echarmion
I should really qualify "affecting" as imposing and causing conditions of harm on another person. — schopenhauer1
If you take away any contingent forms of contextual suffering (which is actually common enough to be structural anyways), this form of lack is always there churning away in the psyche, all the more compounded by self-awareness of this very situation that we lack. — 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.