This is not about law, so not sure why we need to make those comparisons. — schopenhauer1
It's not the universe handing down what is right. — schopenhauer1
Do not create unnecessary harm for another without cause (ameliorating a worse situation). Same for the axiom of unnecessary impositions and violations of consent. — schopenhauer1
The responsibility to have prevented this unnecessary harm, in this case lies with the person who creates the conditions for all other harms (and impositions) to occur for the future person who will be born from the decision. — schopenhauer1
Note, this doesn't mean that the parent is the cause of all specific harms, simply that the parent is the cause of not preventing (and more accurately, enabling) the conditions for these unnecessary harms. There is a difference you are conflating. — schopenhauer1
And when I say "My child will suffer" I am saying "My child will do this comparison you are speaking of and wish for a different state of affairs". That's it. No metaphysical mumbo jumbo. — khaled
It was an analogy, to explain the principle. — Echarmion
Does the universe do that, in your opinion? — Echarmion
What's so hard to understand about the fact that I just don't agree with this principle? You keep repeating it like some sort of magic incantation, but I already stated outright that I disagree. — Echarmion
That's the disagreement again. I don't think it does. There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with. — Echarmion
I'm not. I just disagree that the parent has that responsibility. — Echarmion
But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed? — Echarmion
Also note, that the condition of being born, in order to "know" one is being harmed and imposed upon, doesn't compute in this argument. It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. The person who would have been affected, does not need to be born to know that this was prevented. It is simply about that situation not occurring for someone else. It is about not creating a future condition. You certainly do not need someone to exist currently for this condition not to be created in the first place. The thing is, it really is not a hard ethic. It's certainly not the only one, but it's not a difficult one to put into practice. Just don't do something that is easy to prevent. — schopenhauer1
But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed? — Echarmion
There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with. — Echarmion
I already acknowledged this and gave you an answer for the difference. — schopenhauer1
Why? Your answer will be truly telling if you understand the difference I explained. — schopenhauer1
It is both. Still, better to prevent harm than not to. In absence of a justification to do otherwise. What’s difficult about this.
The "conditions that allow harm to be assessed" are precisely that someone is harmed for you. Which I find so weird. This quote amounts to "But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing harm here?"
"Harm assessment" happens when you wish for a different state of affairs because of what just happened to you. In other words, ANY prevention of harm would amount to "preventing the conditions that allow for harm to be assessed" by this definition. Let me give an example: — khaled
Where is the hard line between "general" and "specific" responsibilities? Also what happened to "special suffering" whatever that was? — khaled
In the second, we're comparing Bs feeling to nothingness. — Echarmion
You can't very well arrive at the conclusion that B would rather never have existed, because that's inherently contradictory. — Echarmion
As to the "hard line", it's between saying something like "one has to always minimize suffering" and saying something like "you're responsible for protection this person from suffering caused by getting lost because you're their tour guide". — Echarmion
False. We are finding that in one option B will have negative feelings. In the other he won’t. So we pick the one where he won’t. We are not saying that “if B is not born B will feel neutral”. Or anything to that effect. — khaled
“Rather never have existed” makes no sense. B was never in a position to choose. He couldn’t have rathered never existed, or rathered existed at that. — khaled
That is not what is being used as justification for not having B. What is being used is that having B caused unjustified harm, whereas not having B doesn’t. It is irrelevant HOW it doesn’t cause unjustified harm, only that it doesn’t whereas the alternative does. — khaled
If you only care about suffering that requires: A- a specific person who exists now and B- a specific harm then you will run into a lot of trouble.
This has malicious genetic engineering come out as fine. Since there is no person who exists now that you could harm. Nor is there a specific harm. Blindness in itself isn’t harmful, it just makes it more likely you’ll run into harm.
So how do you have MGE come out to be wrong in light of these requirements? — khaled
We've been over this, and I already gave you my arguments for how it can nevertheless be wrong. — Echarmion
And we're back to repeating the same sentences over and over again. Maybe if you say it another 100 times, it'll suddenly be convincing. — Echarmion
I literally just explained to you, and you agreed. So I am confused why you're now turning around and telling me that, no, we don't need a comparison of different states of affairs that B experiences. — Echarmion
“if B is not born B will feel neutral” — khaled
Here:I don't know what you're referring to here, can you quote it? — Echarmion
The responsibility to have prevented this unnecessary harm, in this case lies with the person who creates the conditions for all other harms (and impositions) to occur for the future person who will be born from the decision.
Note, this doesn't mean that the parent is the cause of all specific harms, simply that the parent is the cause of not preventing (and more accurately, enabling) the conditions for these unnecessary harms. There is a difference you are conflating
Edit: Also note, that the condition of being born, in order to "know" one is being harmed and imposed upon, doesn't compute in this argument. It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. The person who would have been affected, does not need to be born to know that this was prevented. It is simply about that situation not occurring for someone else. It is about not creating a future condition. You certainly do not need someone to exist currently for this condition not to be created in the first place. The thing is, it really is not a hard ethic. It's certainly not the only one, but it's not a difficult one to put into practice. Just don't do something that is easy to prevent. — schopenhauer1
I have already explained that I think suffering is only relevant insofar as it affects people's ability to practice their freedom. It follows naturally from this that there wouldn't be a general responsibility to prevent all suffering altogether.
What point do you want me to expand on? — Echarmion
It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. — schopenhauer1
But then, procreating someone will lead to this scenario, even as you have defined it thus: "Affects people's ability to practice their freedom".. — schopenhauer1
You weren’t using this highly limiting definition for the word “harm”. — khaled
Do you want to argue that having B does not cause harm? Because I think we agree that it does. — khaled
What about that not having B does not cause harm? I think we agree there as well. — khaled
It is simply the recognition that a state of affairs includes harm. So don’t bring it about. — khaled
you do really seem to treat harm as an objective fact as opposed to a human judgement. — Echarmion
Sure, it's part of a causal chain that includes harm at some point. — Echarmion
What about that not having B does not cause harm? I think we agree there as well.
— khaled
No, I don't agree, as I have explained. If harm is "doing something to someone they do not want to do", then the absence of harm is "doing something that is not going against anyone's will". The amount of people doesn't seem to matter here. — Echarmion
And concerning suffering, which you seem to use interchangeably with harm: if suffering is "something you don't want is done to you", then not suffering is "nothing you don't want is done to you" — Echarmion
Why though? I mean what's the point? Why would I conceive my relationship towards other people as primarily negative, in the sense that any interaction basically requires justification because of the potential of some future condition of harm? Who benefits? — Echarmion
The solution you're suggesting amounts to protecting freedom by preventing any freedom, which is obviously self-defeating. — Echarmion
And does this not entail some responsibility? It's not like you couldn't have predicted your child would be harmed, no you knew it would happen. And continued with the course of action that would lead to it anyways. Why? Normally we'd need some justification when doing something harmful to others. — khaled
So what's the point of saying that at all? — khaled
as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow. — schopenhauer1
Where exactly do you have a problem? — khaled
And based on that fact some justification should be required to do the thing that could lead to this negative subjective evaluation in the future. — khaled
And does this not entail some responsibility? It's not like you couldn't have predicted your child would be harmed, no you knew it would happen. And continued with the course of action that would lead to it anyways. Why? Normally we'd need some justification when doing something harmful to others. — khaled
What? If "Not having B does not cause harm" is false then "Not having B causes harm" is necessarily true. Who, exactly, is harmed due to someone not having a child? — khaled
I'm saying precisely that "Not having children" is "Not going against anyone's will". Do you agree? — khaled
But whatever is happening here, it is certainly preferable to causing harm knowingly. — khaled
Ok, assuming this is valid..... Who cares? You have not by saying this removed the need for justification when considering doing something that will result in harm. This is such a pointless critique, because whether or not it is valid doesn't even matter. Even if it is valid, it is not enough for having children to come out right. Because you haven't dealt with the main issue. Having children causes harm. We need some sort of justification to do this. The claim is that that justification is not present. Saying "But not having children is not alleviating harm from anyone" is not justification, and I agree with it. So what's the point of saying that at all? — khaled
Because you cannot predict what behaviors cause harm, it is a fact, once born you will cause unintentional harm. — schopenhauer1
However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)? — schopenhauer1
However, procreation is a situation where it is absolutely 100% known you can prevent future conditions for all other harm. This indeed is a case where it is perfectly known that all suffering can be prevented. — schopenhauer1
Why would some abstract cause like carrying out freedom be more important than affecting someone negatively? — schopenhauer1
Nazis had a slogan of "Work sets you free" for example. The notion that some positive duty abstract thing is more important than the negative duty for not creating someone else's conditions for negative experience/outcomes seems wrong.. — schopenhauer1
I can say because it uses people or that it violates their dignity once born because it puts some reason above the person's pain affects them.. but you will just keep asking for why that is wrong.. so I will just leave it at that. — schopenhauer1
You see, the parent would be preventing these conditions of freedom and thus it is justified, as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow. — schopenhauer1
This. He has yet to give an example where “maximizing freedom” trumps not causing harm either. Which makes me doubt if he actually believes this or is just using it as an exception in this one case arbitrarily. — khaled
Which would seem a further argument against your position, since it makes it even harder to justify ever taking any action. Why single out childbirth? — Echarmion
However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)?
— schopenhauer1
This is essentially asking "are you evil"? — Echarmion
However, procreation is a situation where it is absolutely 100% known you can prevent future conditions for all other harm. This indeed is a case where it is perfectly known that all suffering can be prevented.
— schopenhauer1
Yeah, at the price of total destruction of everything else that has any value whatsoever. A weird trade to make. — Echarmion
And of course the slogan was cynical. It was nothing but a cruel joke. — Echarmion
I can say because it uses people or that it violates their dignity once born because it puts some reason above the person's pain affects them.. but you will just keep asking for why that is wrong.. so I will just leave it at that.
— schopenhauer1
Out dignity is our dignity as subjects, as ends in and of themselves, not subject to nature of outside forces. So it's subjecting ourselves to some seemingly objective measure of suffering that is against our dignity. — Echarmion
You see, the parent would be preventing these conditions of freedom and thus it is justified, as freedom (of choice?) needs to exist for some reason in the first place and is more important than the negative duty to not cause unnecessary harm somehow.
— schopenhauer1
There is no "justification", as there is no need to "justify" an action that is according to a maxim can be universalised. So long as people remain ends in themselves, rather than being subjugated to an outside force or another will, there is nothing that needs justifying. — Echarmion
This weird kind of logic would mean you're responsible if the person whose life you save ends up a serial killer. — Echarmion
Not to mention that causal chains are indefinite, so whatever you do, you're basically guaranteed to cause something horrible eventually. — Echarmion
So you necessarily need to add caveats like there needs to be a certain probability, which are ultimately arbitrary. — Echarmion
But if you agree that not existing isn't the same as not suffering, how can you then be certain that it's nevertheless preferable to suffering? — Echarmion
Certainly most people wouldn't say that they'd rather not exist than exist and suffer. So where do you take this idea from? — Echarmion
If someone kills their partner in a one-time emotional meltdown, do we still punish them? — Echarmion
Are we allowed to cause people emotional pain by rejecting their love, regardless of our reasoning? We are, but this also cannot be justified as prevention of harm, — Echarmion
Do we allow people to ride motorcycles for fun? We do. But clearly this creates the conditions for harm. — Echarmion
This part:
And based on that fact some justification should be required to do the thing that could lead to this negative subjective evaluation in the future.
— khaled
It strikes me as completely absurd. — Echarmion
However, would you willingly try to cause unnecessary harm (assuming you knew what you were doing was indeed harmful rather than something else like "just punishment" or corrective action)?
— schopenhauer1
This is essentially asking "are you evil"? — Echarmion
Call it what you will. In my book that's called "breaking". Because until caveats are introduced your system is insufficient. — khaled
But I haven't seen a combination of factors that actually succeeds in doing this that don't break elsewhere. — khaled
I only say the "but you wouldn't..." when critiquing the premises you present me. So you say something like "Denying pleasure is wrong" and I reply with "But you wouldn't just give me 100 bucks if I asked you even though that would be denying pleasure". — khaled
But you add 3 different caveats every time I give a point at which they don't work. Like a hydra, you cut one head off and 3 more pop out. At this point you have like 15 different completely unrelated factors that go into what makes something right and neither of us can be bothered to clean them up. — khaled
And when the network is indecisive what do we do? — khaled
We try to find the most important factors. — khaled
Maybe a few pithy maxims IS all it comes down to for a certain individual. And the other factors in the network are just never prevalent enough to overcome those few important maxims. It's not that they're being ignored it's that they're insufficient to change anything. — khaled
A point at which frustrating their desire to ride a motorcycle arbitrarily can be predicted to cause as much harm as actually riding the motorcycle. Until that point, yes it is wrong to ride the motorcycle. That point is around where they get a license — khaled
So how is it that in conceiving a child (who, by your own notion of ethics will spend a good deal of their time reducing harm), I can somehow be certain that the net effect would not be to actually reduce harm? — Isaac
but it only takes one accidental birth and you could argue that your own child could then justifiably reduce the net harms in the world — Isaac
Continuing to have children (who work to reduce harm) is the only way to ensure the net harm in the world is reduced short of actual 100% immediate genocide. — Isaac
It’s mathematical. Assuming you don’t assume your child will cure cancer or do any such amazing feat. Which is just as unreasonable to assume as it is to assume they will do some large harmful feat like become a criminal. — khaled
How so? Again, check my reply to pinrick. It is very difficult to say that having a child will reduce net harm. — khaled
it is just as unreasonable to assume that they will work to reduce harm as it is to assume that they will work to increase it. Which is why I don’t consider the child’s effect on others. Too many unknowns to accurately predict in any way. — khaled
This makes no sense at all. If I've just explained how circumstances and caveats are essential to understanding morality, it's nonsense to maintain that their presence can be described as 'breaking' it. — Isaac
Your maxim has caveats too. Is it 'broken'? — Isaac
To say factor A needs to be taken into consideration in case X but it's not so relevant in case Y is not a 'critique'. — Isaac
That's what actually happens, and it happens in your brain, schop's brain, my brain regardless of whatever pubescent philosophy you want to claim you follow. — Isaac
If fifteen factors to consider is really too complicated for you then I can see exactly how you've ended up with the arguments you have - it explains a lot. — Isaac
For example "Do not deny pleasure" results in you being obligated to give me 100 bucks if I ever ask. So you amend it by adding caveat X. "Do not deny pleasure unless X" may or may not break elsewhere. Add as many caveats and maxims as you want. Point is to arrive at a system that is surgical enough to make MGE wrong, birth ok, and not break elsewhere. I haven't seen anyone do that so far. — khaled
No because with the caveats it produces no inconsistencies. — khaled
But to say that you have no way to distinguish between X and Y is a critique. So you have to introduce some factor B that is present in X and not in Y, that together with A makes X wrong and Y ok or what have you. — khaled
in my brain it always seems to come down to a few important factors that make almost all else irrelevant. — khaled
Again, just because it is computationally expensive does not mean the answer has to be complicated. — khaled
It is computationally expensive to determine which action results in the least harm as well. — khaled
It's 15 unrelated factors with no indication about which can be applied when and why that is too complicated. — khaled
at that point you're just doing intuitive morality, with no real system. — khaled
It is only necessary that your child is above average for it to be the case that their net action is to reduce harm. — Isaac
Previously when uncertainty was raised as a critique, you rallied to "we can be sure of the overall picture". Why are you now avoiding that? — Isaac
We can be sure - from the general life satisfaction measured in every survey on the matter - that people's general harm-reduction activity must be substantial, certainly net positive. — Isaac
If any of life's trivial burdens counts as a harm, then just smiling at someone to make then feel better counts as reducing that harm. — Isaac
When have I said otherwise? Did you actually read my reply to pinrick? — khaled
Because we can't be sure of the overall picture of the child's impact on others. — khaled
Though we have enough data to conclude that in all likelihood a child will have a net positive life, we do not have enough data to conclude that in all likelihood he will not be an asshat. — khaled
How does a survey about how happy people are lead to the conclusion that my child will not be an asshole? Assholes can be happy. This is a non-sequitur. It does not follow from a general satisfaction measure that people's general harm-reduction activity is net positive. — khaled
Of course you haven't, if three caveats in you throw your hands up and say "oh it's all too complicated for me". — Isaac
Neither does mine. — Isaac
. And when I do you complain about the multiplication of factors. — Isaac
It basically does. It's a fairly strict rule of evolution. — Isaac
No, it doesn't. Unless you are an exception to every other brain studied. — Isaac
Possibly, but why are all those other brain regions involved? — Isaac
You can't get outside of it and make it want something else. Where would you get the motivation to do so from? — Isaac
Most people are satisfied with their lives. So overall people's harm-reduction activities must be sufficient to render an overall satisfaction. — Isaac
Are most people happier alone? No. So it follows from this fact alone that most people's happiness is generated by others. — Isaac
This is because you can't really argue that I have harmed someone by not having a child even if my child would have helped them. — 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.