Why is charity a moral act but saving a drowning person is a moral obligation? — khaled
There's a huge difference between seeing someone right in front of you who will die if you don't help them, and deciding whether or not to give to charity. I find it remarkable that you apparently can't see that difference. — Janus
A naturalistic fallacy is when you say "We should do this because it's natrual". For example: "People naturally want to steal therefore they should". That seems to me what you're doing.
There is no 'should'. — Isaac
Bit late for that. — khaled
To be clear, my position is that morality is not imposed from some divine (or otherwise non-physical) external source — Isaac
the idea of 'moral' behaviour is just that behaviour we find ourselves generally inclined toward with a certain category of effect (either internal or external). The inclination (ceteris paribus) is already there. — Isaac
Then how does anyone learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac
By sharing the same arbitrary starting point. — khaled
Well then it's not arbitrary, is it. — Isaac
If that explanation is natural, then there exists a naturalistic basis for that shared understanding. — Isaac
Well then it's not arbitrary, is it. — Isaac
Arbitrary in the sense that there is no reason you should favor it over another one. — khaled
There is a naturalistic explanation for why we have the starting premises we do. However that does not invalidate using alternative premises. — khaled
We have those imperetives. That's what we just established. The's not some 'other' you that gets to decide what the 'natural' you wants. — Isaac
Some of which are 'moral' according to the definition of the word. — Isaac
the definition of the word, which is a community reflection of some grouping. — Isaac
What do we do when those clash? The answer to THAT is not natrualistic. You can explain the instincts and evolution behind both incentives but that doesn't tell you which one we should favor in which circumstance. That's the job of ethics. — khaled
the definition of the word, which is a community reflection of some grouping. — Isaac
What do you mean here? Just sounds like word salad to me. — khaled
a) how this 'job of ethics' is to be done - what do we use to judge — Isaac
b) if there's not a naturalistic explanation (predictive model) to be had regarding which we will choose, then what does the choosing? If, on the other hand, the choosing is done by some natural mechanism, then there exists a naturalistic account of the choice. — Isaac
Just that words are not defined by individuals alone, nor by some rational process. They are defined in the use they are put to in a community. — Isaac
We cannot 'work out' what counts as moral, it is already worked out by the ways we use the word, all we can do as individuals is describe that meaning. — Isaac
a) how this 'job of ethics' is to be done - what do we use to judge — Isaac
Arbitrary standards, again. — khaled
In the same way, figuring out why you favor this or that moral premise while I favor a different one does not say anything about the premises themselves, or which is better (if there is such a thing), or which is consistent. That is the job of ethics. That is what we are debating. — khaled
clearly we have had hundreds of uses of the word "moral" in context of antinatalism. So I'm not sure where your objection that the conclusion is "not moral" but is "just a plan" comes from. It could only come from arbitrarily deciding that one use of the word is "illegitimate" even though we have had threads going into hundreds of posts using it in the context of antinatalism.
We cannot 'work out' what counts as moral, it is already worked out by the ways we use the word, all we can do as individuals is describe that meaning. — Isaac
And as we said, the word has some room for error. And I think "having children is immoral" falls squarely within legitimate bounds of its use. You also think this, or you wouldn't have understood what was being said. It would have sounded like "having children is 134". But it doesn't. — khaled
It's not a job if the standards are arbitrary. There's nothing to be done. Plucking a rule out of thin air is not a 'job' in any normal use of the term. — Isaac
What I'm saying is the judgement of which is better must also have a naturalistic explanation, or be non-physical in origin. If the former, then there is no 'better' in objective terms, nothing to debate. — Isaac
The mere fact that antinatalist premises make claims to be moral and that we can understand what those claims mean does not make then automatically right about that claim. — Isaac
The imposition/don't cause harm premise. — schopenhauer1
What are your views on the trolley problem?
I'm sure you know people who actually think enough to consider anti-natalism and it's arguments are the minority. People will still keep having kids without a care in the world. So, just let them? This would seem to place any alleged concern of "human suffering" along with any alleged efforts or attempts to reduce it secondary to simple avoidance of personal responsibility. Would it not? Perhaps that's all it is to some, elimination of (personal) imposition. So this definition of anti-natalism it is not a "humanitarian" or "moral" belief that "delves into the deepest wells of selfless concern for one's fellow man in hopes of preventing suffering" but rather a simple and independent whim of one's own selfish, personal prerogative. Is it not? — Outlander
It's so bizzare to me that we are 17 pages in and you keep saying "Well actually, your view and my view are both caused by natrualistic means therefore there is nothing to talk about". That there is a natrualistic explanation does not mean there is nothing to talk about. There is nothing about the former statement that implies the latter. And it is clear there ARE things to talk about or you would have stopped talking. — khaled
Using people is not respecting the dignity of the individual. — schopenhauer1
If a person self-sacrifices, that is different than sacrificing someone else for some cause. — schopenhauer1
Yet life is basically a much wider version of that. — schopenhauer1
Bypassing suffering for the future individual is what matters. — schopenhauer1
and their dignity as people. — schopenhauer1
but you can always tack on a 'Why?' — Kenosha Kid
That we do not tolerate certain behaviours under certain circumstances (e.g. allowing a person to die who can easily be saved) but are fine with others under other circumstances (not giving to charity at noon tomorrow) is sufficient to demonstrate that the the moral claim that all suffering is equivalent and any action or inaction that might yield or fail to quell it is as bad as terminal negligence is simply not a reflection of human morality — Kenosha Kid
See above. People will continue to be born, either with the mission or at least inclination that they should or perhaps could better their fellow man and thus future selves in the process, or not. Regardless, births will continue. — Outlander
"People will be born therefore procreation is ethical" is a bad argument. The former says nothing about the latter. It's like saying "theft will occur therefore it is ethica — khaled
I'm asking "Okay, so due to [insert neurological, biological, evolutionary process here (no omniscience required)] we ended up with a desire to steal, is it moral to steal?" The fact that we have an inclination to steal does not make it moral as I'm sure you'd agree. Similarly, the fact that we have an inclination to reproduce, and the fact that most of us think that it is morally fine, does not show that it is. — khaled
To show that we have to agree on starting premises and reason from them. Now if, like Isaac, one of your starting premises is "Anything that leads to extinction is bad because preserving the human race is a worthy goal in and of itself" then of course having kids is fine and that's that. We go our merry ways. I don't share that premise so that's as far as the talk will get (unless you can derive it from a premise I DO share). However this method fails to show what was intended to be shown, that there is some actual error within AN. — khaled
In ethics you argue as to what should or should not be done. The fact that our current moral paradigm (supposedly) does not lead to antinatalism doesn't make antinatalism bunk. — khaled
That would be like saying that the fact slavery existed for the longest time makes it right. This is no more than an argument from popularity. — khaled
I'm hoping if this is going to go on that that doesn't happen because it's just tiring for all parties envolved. — khaled
We don't have a natural drive not to steal. We have a natural drive not to do to others that which we would not have done to us (empathy and altruism) — Kenosha Kid
The fact that it rests on a unjustifiable claim does. One can dismiss it with as little justification. — Kenosha Kid
The best you've got is a self-consistent argument. — Kenosha Kid
For that, you need a compelling argument, not just a self-consistent one. — Kenosha Kid
You’re not addressing the actual question of whether or not procreation is moral — khaled
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.