I was only pointing out that you offered no new perspectives on life that people didn’t know of. — khaled

False. It's precisely because people don't see the perspective that ANs are proposing a new way to look at it. Perhaps it's familiar content, but different emotional appeal, etc.. There is a difference. And yes, just because an AN "thus" proposes it, doesn't mean it will be resonant. That doesn't necessarily make something moral or immoral. My theme here is that moral "sense" often grows over time or incorporates new things over time. It's like the Hegelian dialectic a bit.. It's nascent but through historical and other processes playing out and making its way known.

It says so right there. “I doubt anyone discovered any new limits or types of suffering they didn’t know about before”. And so it’s not a lack of perspective. — khaled

Same response.

On the other hand if you meant that there is some sort of objectivity to your view, that can’t be true because it’s an argument from extent. — khaled

I don't know where you get this idea about objectivity and extent. That itself is not objectively true, but maybe for khaled and for argumentation's sake. Extent just means that ethics has nuance, similar to law courts. So "free speech" isn't yelling "fire!" for no reason in a movie theater. It's speech.. Someone is saying it, but it is in a context. So tapping a lifeguard is technically "violating" the sleep of the lifeguard. You can say it is "controlling" the lifeguard for a split second of sleep. But is that meeting the threshold of "overly controlling pervasive parts of the lifeguard's very being and overlooking the lifeguard's negative experiences egregiously over a long period of time for an X cause"? I don't think tapping the lifeguard meets this. Certainly exposing people to the game/overcoming challenge game for a lifetime does.

So in fact, often an "extent" argument is really a "type" argument but with context or defining features which require context. So, "murder" is not "killing" for example, because of the context.

Right, my point being everyone has heard your phrasing before. That life is a mistake, or that it’s enforced slavery, etc. It’s not a new take. — khaled

And yet it still doesn't mean it's right. Slavery in US took a Civil War and a hundred years of Jim Crow to get to some sort of semblance of civil equality. Yet civil rights activitists were saying things for years. Falling on deaf ears..

I can imagine a small minority of Roman reformers railing against the cruelty of the Colosseum and yet that went on for hundreds of years and the practice of brutal games and torture for entertainment itself probably for thousands.

It's precisely because people don't see the perspective that ANs are proposing a new way to look at it. — schopenhauer1

Rather, it's because ANs think the people don't see the perspective. You have this constant idea that "if only people knew how bad it could get" that they would all think like you. It's just not true. Again, as I'm sure people who were once suicidal but got better and are now having kids could attest.

Most people know how bad it could get.

I don't know where you get this idea about objectivity and extent. — schopenhauer1

From the fact that a person can consistently hold that 30 years of slavery is better than eating a spider. Or vice versa. Without committing any fallacies.

But is that meeting the threshold of "overly controlling pervasive parts of the lifeguard's very being and overlooking the lifeguard's negative experiences egregiously over a long period of time for an X cause"? I don't think tapping the lifeguard meets this. — schopenhauer1

You don't think this sure. Others might think it does. I don't think that life meets this threshold but you do. And neither of us is being inconsistent. Or do you think one of us is being inconsistent?

Point is, you have no logical argument that shows activity X meets the threshold and activity Y doesn't. Unless the activities only differ in extent (example, eating a spider vs eating 10 spiders), they will always be sufficiently different to allow any combination (X meets the threshold and Y doesn't. Or vice versa, or both or neither meet it)

And yet it still doesn't mean it's right. — schopenhauer1

I think you mean: Doesn't make it wrong. Agreed. But it's up to you to prove that it's right. And as long as you use extent arguments, you can't do so with any objectivity.

I think we are just rehashing the same arguments in different ways. I think for this segment we have pretty much said our responses and answers. My main idea here is that people don't have to immediately have an epiphany for ANs to be right. This goes back to the idea of limits versus options. I don't think people realize the limitations though you say it is realized. I think limitations are lived out and options are touted. I don't know if that makes sense to you. What is lived and what is summarized can be different. I had similar sentiments here:

That I don't think is true. People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. I mean, a slave born in a relatively tolerant setting may think that slavery isn't that bad. A person who engages in certain psychological gymnastics might justify a lot of things. And surveys and interviews cannot be relied upon just because at a time of the interview someone says "such and such". Are people's assessments of themselves always accurate? Are personality tests completely accurate just because someone is answering questions about themselves? So then people don't have ideals of what they think they are? Of what they think the interviewer wants to see? Of what society wants? Of what they think is good vs. what they do? Etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

So Willy Wonka's "options" are Willy Wonka's limits of variations on work, homelessness, and if you really don't like it, suicide.

Delete..didn’t mean to quote there

I think limitations are lived out and options are touted. I don't know if that makes sense to you. — schopenhauer1

Not really.

What is lived and what is summarized can be different. — schopenhauer1

People really don't see what is not phrased in a way to allow them to open up their perspective. — schopenhauer1

Do you think there is an "objective way to phrase it"? And if there is how do you know it is yours?

Do you think there is an "objective way to phrase it"? And if there is how do you know it is yours? — khaled

There is no objective way to phrase it. Morality is mainly about emotional appeal. The logic can be consistent. The "soundness" of ethics is based on something akin to feelings such as empathy or sense of justice. If these feelings don't accord, then people don't see it as moral. Again, slavery, torture, might makes right, tribal warefare, etc. etc. etc.

You're in Japan.. Kamikaze was seen as the greatest honor. Was it moral? What once was seen as perfectly moral might be seen as excessively overlooking life.

There is no objective way to phrase it. Morality is mainly about emotional appeal. — schopenhauer1

That is to say there is no objective reasons someone should phrase it as you do. Now I’m confused. Sometimes you say

What once was seen as perfectly moral might be seen as excessively overlooking life. — schopenhauer1

Which sounds subjectivist to me. And other times you say “slavery was as wrong back then as it is now”.

Which is it? Are there objective moral laws we can find? And if so what makes you think “having children is wrong” is one? If not, is the whole point of this thread nothing more than an emotional appeal?

Which sounds subjectivist to me. And other times you say “slavery was as wrong back then as it is now”.

Which is it? Are there objective moral laws we can find? And if so what makes you think “having children is wrong” is one? If not, is the whole point of this thread nothing more than an emotional appeal? — khaled

My main argument is this:

My theme here is that moral "sense" often grows over time or incorporates new things over time. It's like the Hegelian dialectic a bit.. It's nascent but through historical and other processes playing out and making its way known. — schopenhauer1

That is to say, it is wrong, but we don't "realize it" until some contingent time in our historical development. It becomes wrong, almost in hindsight, after events play out. It is the capacity for our emotional awareness (some may call this "moral sense") to grow to incorporate more instances of fairness, justice, moral empathy, and sympathy.

And all ethical frameworks are appealing to some emotional alignment in some way in my estimation of it. So this ethical framework appealing to someone's emotions would be no different. Does it eventually accord with people's emotion of some sort.. whether it is a sense of fairness or justice or empathy or along those lines. Otherwise, ethics would simply be an algorithm arbitrarily chosen. Something is chosen for a reason and that reason almost always seems to go back to someone's feeling about it. Often those feelings are reinforced because the culture has taken on the moral sentiment.

If we were to formalize the moral sentiment, it would be to not harm unnecessarily and to not overlook someone's dignity. I have defined and discussed ad nauseum on this. We are talking more meta-ethics though at this point though, so out of the realm of normative. The moral sentiment is where the normative is grounded in. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and can be anything. Pick any X action, and if there is no moral sentiment, it is simply like any other action. But moral sentiment itself is not fixed, but rather gets refined and perhaps even "better" over time to some degree as history plays out. It might not even be better by being necessarily "innovative" as much as more understood in detail, or more people who adhere to it. The ideas are nascent in feelings of empathy and justice though.

That is to say, it is wrong, but we don't "realize it" until some contingent time in our historical development. — schopenhauer1

How did you know it was wrong? That's exactly what I'm asking. What makes you think this is one of those things that are wrong but we simply don't realize it yet? Why can it not just be: It's not wrong?

it would be to not harm unnecessarily and to not overlook someone's dignity — schopenhauer1

Rather, not to cause too much unnecessary harm and not to overlook someone's dignity too much. It remains to be proven that birth fits the bill there in any objective sense.

The moral sentiment is where the normative is grounded in. Otherwise, it is arbitrary and can be anything. — schopenhauer1

I take it then you're some sort of objectivist but not a realist. There are right and wrong things, and they're constant. But what's right and wrong is determined purely by our sentiment, it's not a "fact of the world" the same way the gravitational laws are for example. If we were all masochists, then harming others would be good.

It might not even be better by being necessarily "innovative" as much as more understood in detail — schopenhauer1

Again, agreed. I don't think people have fundamentally different moral compasses. What they disagree on is the facts of the world. Ask a Nazi and an SJW whether or not mass murder is justified. They'll both look at you horrified and say "Of course not!". Then you ask the Nazi how he justifies the holocaust. He replies "Murder? It's not murder, those aren't even human!" Bit of a graphic example.

My point is that this is one such disagreement. It is a disagreement about facts of the world. We both agree that a certain amount of imposition is too much. Except you, want to convince everyone that birth does objectively fit the bill of too much imposition. How can you do that with any objectivity?

My point is that this is one such disagreement. It is a disagreement about facts of the world. We both agree that a certain amount of imposition is too much. Except you, want to convince everyone that birth does objectively fit the bill of too much imposition. How can you do that with any objectivity? — khaled

I never claimed there was any "objectivity". You seem to ignore that. The case is made and people either find it compelling or not. I don't even know if it is a disagreement about facts of the world. It's a disagreement about a conclusion based on those facts. For example, the limitations of work/poverty/free ride/suicide along with the countless unforeseen contingent (but often known of) harms that impinge upon us are facts of the world. The conclusion is where one's perspective comes in. The AN says this is too much imposition and tries to convey this, usually through appealing to people's usual sense of justice or empathy, but as applied to these situations.

I actually do disagree with you that people have thought about it in the perspective of an AN. Rather, they may know the facts, but have not seen it as the imposition that it is. Now, if that is still not compelling after they are made aware of this perspective, so be it. I don't think just by understanding a perspective, everyone is thus convinced. Again, I have said this too. I don't think any ethical claim can magically do that for each person. It can slowly, over time, become more accepted by some, and then become part of a cultural norm, but I see AN akin to veganism in this regard. It is known, it is tolerated (or sometimes violently opposed) as a fringe perspective at this moment in time.

@schopenhauer1

Do you disagree with bringing animals into the game? How about for food?

Separate but related issues. Humans, have self-reflection and greater awareness of actions, thoughts, and can use language. Moral awareness and capacity is had in humans. As far as humans bringing in animals for food, that can be a separate topic. I can understand certain claims for consistency of veganism and antinatalism, as they are often rooted in the same moral sentiments.

Humans, have self-reflection and greater awareness of actions, thoughts, and can use language. — schopenhauer1

You know the problem with using those attributes as justification for poorer treatment though?

I can understand certain claims for consistency of veganism and antinatalism, as they are often rooted in the same moral sentiments. — schopenhauer1

I think veganism is a stepping stone to antinatalism. Might be more effective than trying to convince people to take the leap to antinatalism.

Is veganism not something you are able to accept yourself?