What's the "extent" here? The strength of the associated emotions? — Echarmion
In one case you have something that's measurable - like an emotional reaction. In the other, you have abstract values like "bodily autonomy" or "self-determination" which have no intrinsic scale. — Echarmion
not having children also causes someone to experience something they'd rather not experience. So we have a conflict here, how is it resolved? — Echarmion
the suffering you experience is incomparably small to that which you are planning to inflict to alleviate it. There is a much better solution to this known as adoption. Or volunteering in child care. Or or or or.... All of these inflict a lot less suffering and still solve the problem. — khaled
But if you were to rank these abstract values wouldn't they be ranked by the strength of the associated emotional reactions anyways? — khaled
In other words, when both doing and not doing something will result in some suffering, you obviously pick the version that results in the least suffering. I wouldn't even mind valuing your own suffering above that of others when doing this. — khaled
You could, but I wouldn't. — Echarmion
I suppose that'd be some kind of moral realism or evolutionary morality. I'd consider that an is-ought-fallacy though. — Echarmion
Certainly, as we have already alluded to, property rights would be a lot weaker, since mass produced stuff would be legal to take if you really needed it. — Echarmion
What fun is there in repeating ourselves — Albero
Apply your own standard and try to support your claims instead of throwing them out. Funny you’re chewing someone out for not supporting their claims about BLM on the leftist forum thread right now. — khaled
The presumption is.. First it is okay to put someone in the mess.. and it is only okay after the fact, and not question whether it is okay to put someone in the mess in the first place. — schopenhauer1
Simple and straightforward. I like it. The standard argument against this is either “It’s not a mess” (false, it very much can be) or “But we need to” (False, outright). Or the worst “It’s fine to get people in messes because they don’t exist yet” which is ridiculous and can easily be dismantled with the malicious genetic engineering example or the forced to play a game example. — khaled
I forgot about “If they don’t like it they can just kill themselves so it’s fine”. That’s gotta be the worst. Strange what can come out of otherwise rational people’s mouths when this is the topic. — khaled
How would your rank them? — khaled
Not necessarily. You could argue that weakening property rights in this manner does more harm than good since you can't really tell who has the strongest emotions, and use that as justification to keep them the same. — khaled
Seeing as you are happy reaffirming your view with schopenhauer1, I think I'll leave it at that. This discussion has gone on a long while, and I think we're past the point where any of us will learn anything. — Echarmion
Based on relevance to continued practice of one's freedom, so life would rank highest, as the conditio sine qua non, then bodily autonomy, since you can only act through your body, and so on. — Echarmion
But if we're willing to allow such general and abstract notions of suffering — Echarmion
As I said before, you use actual, emotional suffering as your standard for the clear examples, but as soon as the water gets muddy you fall back on more generalised notions of "danger" and "harm" to shore up the holes. — Echarmion
Seeing as you are happy reaffirming your view with schopenhauer1, I think I'll leave it at that. — Echarmion
What do you think of people who say that people need to be born into non-ideal circumstances so they "strive" to do better, and get themselves to more ideal circumstances? In other words, they think that the value of getting out of a less ideal state to a more ideal state is a goal above and beyond not suffering? — schopenhauer1
I don’t think those are the same thing. I agree with the latter not the former. I agree that there is value of getting out of a less ideal state to a more idea state, and that that is preferable to not suffering at all (heck, I don’t think this is possible). — khaled
Sure. And this doesn’t violate your principle. Because your principle isn’t “denying pleasure is bad”. That would lead to the PC scenario. Your principle is “Stopping people from seeking pleasure is bad”. Even if we were to propose potential happy beings, not having children is NOT in fact stopping even these beings from seeking pleasure, it is simply not providing it for them — khaled
Which is very weird if you consider not having children bad because it “stops someone from experiencing pleasure”. This shows that having children is not, in fact, stopping anyone from doing anything. — khaled
Agreed. Except having children makes THEM also have to deal with the problem as PART of all the suffering they’ll endure. So it’s a totally inacceptable solution. — khaled
No. Because they don’t exist. So this cannot possibly be for them. Making someone exist for the sake of that person is incoherent. Closest you’ll get is “So I can see my child happy” which is not actually for the child but for you. — khaled
No. Because again, the suffering you experience is incomparably small to that which you are planning to inflict to alleviate it. There is a much better solution to this feeling known as adoption. Or volunteering in child care. Or not being self loathing and stupid enough that you let societal expectations determine how you feel about yourself to this extent. Or or or or.... All of these inflict a lot less suffering and still solve the problem. — khaled
“It’s bad but it’s not that bad” isn’t actually a reason to do something at all. — khaled
But, there are examples in society where people are forced to do things against their will, even when there is the potential for harm. Mandatorily sending kids to school is a good example. — Pinprick
Some, perhaps even most, do not want to go to school, but we judge that doing so benefits them, so we send them anyway. — Pinprick
I don’t consider not having children as bad. — Pinprick
I object to propagating your personal choices, which boil down to mere opinion, as if they should be some sort of absolute rule (which is precisely what AN does, unless I’ve misunderstood something). — Pinprick
I would never judge someone else’s decision to have, or not have, children as bad. — Pinprick
The actual act of giving birth is amoral, because it causes no harm/pleasure. — Pinprick
I can wish good on someone for their own sake. Like wishing that my loved ones continue to have a happy life after I’m dead. I won’t be there to share their happiness, but I wish them the best nonetheless. — Pinprick
Why can’t it be the same for a child? — Pinprick
Could it be argued that reproducing is a biological need, similar to sex or companionship? — Pinprick
It isn’t meant to be a reason, it’s a justification. When you are considering doing something, isn’t it good practice to weigh the pros and cons? — Pinprick
I think the only thing you can do with someone like that is ask them how often they inflict suffering on non-dependents because it “makes them better”. They probably never do. Which makes it highly dubious that they actually believe what they say they believe — khaled
I also have a notion, you may disagree with, that existence short of being an ideal existence, would be one where someone should not be born into — schopenhauer1
I guess, my question to them is, why do they think it is justified to impose this game on someone else? — schopenhauer1
I don't agree. I think if we know the person in question will find their life worthwhile then it's fine. Problem is we don't. — khaled
What to trust? — schopenhauer1
The summative evaluation for me. If they don’t consider it a problem as a whole then why should I? And how do you aggregate these moments anyways? You’re suggest some sort of objective measure of “worthwhile ness” which is different from the guy simply telling you it was worthwhile. — khaled
it looks like it's below a 6, but when asked to sum later on it is an 8 or something. I'm just saying sometimes there are biases even in answering a question like that due to social expectations, forgetting each moment actually felt, etc. — schopenhauer1
You could say that this "forgetting" then clears out the bad that was experienced prior, but I don't know. — 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.