If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? — schopenhauer1
If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1
My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Here is my question as it relates to ethics:
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1
If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1
My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong. — Down The Rabbit Hole
What's this got to do with natalism? It's very rare that a person has an entirely 'bad' life, and it's certainly not in any way necessary for the well-being of 'the masses'. I don't see how you're connecting the two at all. New people need to be born to sustain the well-being of the masses, they don't need to have a 'bad life'. In fact it's overall worse for the masses if they do as we're broadly speaking an empathetic species. — Isaac
These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too. — Down The Rabbit Hole
These people with net bad lives and those with lives of unbearable suffering, exist as a consequence of natalism. In short, If people stop breeding, the lives of suffering eventually stop too. — Down The Rabbit Hole
But you said that no individual should suffer for the good of the masses. So why should those people who will suffer during the course of this 'eventually' do so just to alleviate the potential suffering of these unfortunate future people who would otherwise have miserable lives? — Isaac
I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I think any suffering resulting from not breeding will pale in comparison to the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist. — Down The Rabbit Hole
What makes you think that? You'd need numbers on the amount of suffering, the longevity of the human race, the extent to which antinatalism will be successful - all seems like quite a lot of guesswork on which to advocate the extinction of humanity, no? — Isaac
I operate from the data I am aware of — Down The Rabbit Hole
wasn't sure of the gross increase in suffering you had in mind. Presumably, sadness of not being able to have children, less young people to look after the older generation? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't think the extent to which anitinatalism will be successful is relevant to my position that procreation is a net bad. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1
This is moral realism, though. Might makes right. The downtrodden will not like it.Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK /.../ — Isaac
I don't know how the aforesaid suffering from antinatlaism could outweigh the millions of lives of unbearable suffering that would otherwise exist e.g. babies, children, and adults with horrific illnesses wishing it would all end, people tortured begging to be killed, and we are due another world war. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Well, that's what I was asking really. Why the assumption that it won't? Once the human race is extinct you can't undo that and you're advocating that position on the basis of "it seems to me, and no one's shown me otherwise". Just seems either monumentally reckless or sociopathic. Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as someone comes up with an absolutely watertight set of figures proving the net gain in suffering is greater if we continue. Given it's a one time switch you can't undo "I just reckon" seems an astonishingly inadequate level of certainty on which to go ahead.
Imagine you're a God. You wipe out the human race to prevent net suffering. One of the other gods comes along with the figures proving that net suffering was actually increased by your actions, distraught over the loss he asks "why did you do it?", you reply "I just had a bit of a think about it and 'reckoned' what the figures might be". Would any normal person be satisfied with that? — Isaac
The less successful it is the longer the human race is around for despite your policy, the more net suffering from those who remain. Given that the human race will end anyway at some point, a long drawn out decline by antinatalism only yields a net drop in suffering if it successfully ends the human race enough years before it was going to end anyway. — Isaac
That doesn’t follow. It doesn’t have to be the only relevant consideration. Your search for a single simple statement that sums up all of morality is half the reason you end up with AN I think. — khaled
It does seem that ones sense of what is ethical or not is dictated by the society and culture in which you are raised and situated. Most societies frown upon murder, torture, incest and theft but not all and universal ethics does seem (in practice anyway) a difficult if not unachievable goal. — prothero
Though, I’ll grant you that the overall goodness of being born is more controversial than the goodness of receiving a million dollars. But, if the vast majority of people are happy about the fact that they are born then why wouldn’t it make sense to take that risk of an occasional child being unhappy about existence? — TheHedoMinimalist
I think it’s kinda strange to argue that we are never justified taking risks on other’s behalf because we actually take risks on other’s behalf quite often. For example, my retirement fund is being managed by some professional investors that I don’t know and they certainly don’t ask me permission for every investment decision that they make. Nonetheless, I trust that they probably know what they are doing and I don’t think it’s wrong for them to make decisions with other people’s money. Though, you should be allowed to object to their decisions and try to undo their decisions if you have the time and will to study and analyze them. — TheHedoMinimalist
That data is something which needs to be derived from averaging a population, otherwise we're just guessing. — Isaac
Jokes aside, that's why the moral rule that has the most appeal is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others do unto you. Ethics isn't about what most people would want but about what you want. The underlying assumption though, ironically, is that other people are like you and Bob's your uncle!
Yet, it isn't that simple. It's not just about what most people want. We all know that! ( :wink: :wink: :wink: ) - the list of most popular and fastest growing websites will vouch for what I'm hinting at. — TheMadFool
I don't believe that the ends justify the means, but we are expected to be practical and pragmatic in a medical emergency. — Kevin Levites
Again, this is the same problem with the Golden Rule, not everyone wants done to them what you would want done to you or its inverse (not done to them what you would not want done). — schopenhauer1
So, would you say that it would be more wise for me to tell the billionaire in my hypothetical that I can’t speak on your behalf and risk you not receiving a million dollars because of that? — TheHedoMinimalist
I'm not sure I'm trying to do that. In our back-and-forths, due to you wanting me to provide a one-size-fits-all heuristic as a basis for my AN, I do end up doing that I think (see previous discussions). — schopenhauer1
If so because you legitimately believe acts can be done to someone or on their behalf because "most people" think its okay with disregard for those who don't think so, is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1
One can even argue, giving a present to someone is also doing this — schopenhauer1
surprise party, or whatever example you want to use. — schopenhauer1
So you are saying the complexities and known harms of life are the same as giving someone a million dollars? — schopenhauer1
If most people want something that has almost 0.000000001 possibility of harm and something that has demonstrable forms of known and unknown harms, you think this is analogous? — schopenhauer1
Also, once born, its TOO LATE. — schopenhauer1
SINCE THAT PERSON DOESN'T EXIST YET TO NEED THIS TRADE OFF”. Thus it is an absolutely unnecessary cause of harm to that person. — schopenhauer1
My instinct is that not even one person should have a bad life as a cost of the masses having a good life. It follows that natalism is wrong.
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.