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
That's another point.. What if what most people want IS NOT GOOD, but they are not aware of this? — schopenhauer1
I find it fascinating that both X (Christ) and XXX (porn) turn us on! — TheMadFool
Don't reinvent the wheel, just realign it. — Anthony J. D'Angelo
But then, if you start convincing people that you are correct, then many of them will feel bad - for having children, that their parents were immoral. So, then you have made living people feel bad, for the non-benefit of currently non-existing creatures...well, some of them. Which seems even worse than...
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. — Bylaw
This is moral realism, though. Might makes right. The downtrodden will not like it.
"The existing natural state is that people have children. Because it is the existing natural state, it's ok." — baker
Surely the default should be that the existing natural state is OK until such time as... — Isaac
I don't think it's fair to err on the side of those in a neutral state as opposed to those in unbearable agony. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't know if I said something to the effect of "I just reckon" — Down The Rabbit Hole
I would say... — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't see any evidence to believe humans will go extinct by the year 2100 by which 3 billion people are projected to be brought into existence, and if even 1% of those are a life of suffering, that's 30 million. — Down The Rabbit Hole
at what percentage does the minority get discounted? — schopenhauer1
A color to a house and a human life you would think this rule would get more stringent, don't you think? — schopenhauer1
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 unborn are in a neutral state (they experience neither good or bad), on the other hand there are millions that would live in unbearable agony. I don't think it's fair to err on the side of those in a neutral state as opposed to those in unbearable agony. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Not sure how you got that from what I said. I'm comparing only actual living people and predictable effects on future living people. The current well-being of the as-yet-to-be-born doesn't factor in. — Isaac
I don't see any evidence to believe humans will go extinct by the year 2100 by which 3 billion people are projected to be brought into existence, and if even 1% of those are a life of suffering, that's 30 million. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Well then you don't see where I'm going. If antinatalism over this period is only partially sucessful, you'll have fewer people (and less incentive) to carry out necessary projects to reduce the suffering of that 1%, such that it might be 2 or 10% that are now suffering. They'll continue to suffer all the while the antinatalist project fails to be 100% successful, yet the more sucessful it is, the greater the percentage of those who remain will suffer. — Isaac
Just to be clear, I'm just getting a picture of your consequentialism here, not arguing a position I hold. I think it's mindnumbingly idiotic to set as one's goal the elimination of suffering even if there's no one left to benefit from it... I'd as soon have you committed as argue the case, but since the former isn't an option... — Isaac
The whole point of that example is that no one suffers due to lack of surprise party. It’s a surprise. They weren’t expecting it. You can’t suffer due to not having something you weren’t expecting.
Are you currently suffering due to me not gifting you 10000 dollars? No. Because you don’t expect 10000 dollars from me. But would you be happy if I gifted you 10000 dollars? Probably. — khaled
They aren’t the same obviously but I think most people would rather lose a million dollars of their lifetime earnings than to have someone make it so that they have never been born at all. I don’t why this fact shouldn’t also be considered here. — TheHedoMinimalist
Most people want to tell the truth (not lie), respect private property (not steal) and life (not kill). In other words, most people want to be good.
It reminds me of the red herring fallacy. A hound's sense of smell (our pleasure center - our wants) is a great asset to hunters (us) - sniffing out rabbits (good) but the same keen nose can also be misled by a rotting herring carcass (bad). Put differently, a hound's nose is as attracted to rabbits as it is to putrefied red herrings. That's the nub of the most people defense conundrum - most people want good but also, unfortunately, bad.
That's what happens when you're too efficient. Evolution, instead of developing a separate morality sensor simply used the old pleasure center (the one used for sexual desires, etc.). — TheMadFool
Well, no one suffers not living. — schopenhauer1
I don't have any argument against giving someone money or a gift, even if they weren't expecting it. I just don't agree with giving someone a burden and then justifying it by giving them a gift. — schopenhauer1
Yes I was explaining this to another poster. What if "most people" want something that isn't good for them? You just automatically give them this? What if work, maintenance, and even entertainment are actually quite harmful to that person when compared to never existing? — schopenhauer1
The point is, when any gift is not relieving suffering, by your system it automatically becomes wrong to give, since it can always be harmful. — khaled
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1
is ethics then simply based on the current preferences of a particular group? Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1
It seemed like you were saying, in this particular case we shouldn't act on what would probably reduce suffering unless we have a "watertight" case, due to the irreversibility of extinction. — Down The Rabbit Hole
it's not reasonable to treat extinction as higher stakes than tens of millions with lives of suffering. And stakes being equal, we should use the balance of probability to guide our behaviour. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Reduction of the population is necessary to free enough land and resources to ensure quality of life, and deal with the 9 million deaths per year from pollution (16% of all deaths). — Down The Rabbit Hole
Well I appreciate your patience :lol: — Down The Rabbit Hole
Permissible by whom?
— baker
Permissible as one's own ethical guideline. — schopenhauer1
As usual you've grabbed a barely connected sentence out of context just to use a a springboard for some general whinging. Not even worth a reply really, I'll just quote the rest of the post you decided to ignore — Isaac
My point was, it's not reasonable to treat extinction as higher stakes than tens of millions with lives of suffering. And stakes being equal, we should use the balance of probability to guide our behaviour. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Firstly, why is it not reasonable? Many people think the extinction of the human race is a big deal, and that suffering can be reduced to levels which make it worthwhile by social and political action. Do their values not count? — Isaac
Secondly, the balance of probabilities isn't sufficient. It's more likely that we'll invent the space elevator if we continue having children, so on the balance of probabilities we should support natalism... But hang on, do we care about building a space elevator? Balance of probabilities isn't enough. An unlikely outcome which we value very highly is worth more than a likely one which we value less. Most people seem to think it a good idea to strive for the unlikely, but highly valued, future society in which everyone is grateful to be, rather than the very likely but disvalued one where no one is suffering at all, but no one exists either. — Isaac
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've shown any inconsistencies in my position. We just have different ethical foundations. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Are ethics voted in by majority rule? — schopenhauer1
Are we measuring whether someone makes a statement at a point in time that “All burdens that happened, currently exist, and will exist are fine and dandy.” or Are we measuring the amount of actual burden one is given once one is given the dual“gift” of both burdens and non-suffering circumstances? — schopenhauer1
Certainly, most surprise parties and gifts don’t reach anywhere near the imposition, enduring duration, and frequency of burden as this gift. — schopenhauer1
I bring in exhibit a) Pollyannaism b) lowering expectations, and c) adaptation to less ideal circumstances... Just because these are correcting mechanisms, does that mean employing them is good just because they are needed to get by? — schopenhauer1
If someone thought something harmful was actually good for them — schopenhauer1
What are you, five years old, a handmaid, or a slave to need to ask for permission for what to have as your ethical guideline? — baker
Where does this leave antinatalism? Our actions have a significant effect on the lives of future persons not yet born. The ethical concern about global warming is primarily about the environment that will probably exist for future persons not yet born. We ought to be concerned about the circumstances of life for both the born and unborn. We can also be ethically concerned about the ethics of bringing people into a world where the environmental conditions will be very bad.
A diminishing birth rate may represent economic barriers to supporting children adequately. It may also represent a loss of confidence in the future, such that people feel it would be unethical to bring another child into the world. — Bitter Crank
I think easy access to euthanasia drugs provides a pretty good solution for those who wish that they had never been born. — TheHedoMinimalist
It’s only wrong when the imposition becomes too much, correct? There are situations where “most people would want this” is enough to justify a certain action, you just don’t think birth is one of them because it’s “too much” of an imposition. — khaled
Do you think that because someone says they like something at a point in time, it is good to encourage what they like? — schopenhauer1
For example, addicts of narcotics or opioids. They want drugs. Does that mean that it is right to just give them drugs because they want it? This is a different question than if it should be allowed as a law, just as an individual to another individual. — schopenhauer1
*sigh*Don't be a dickhead. — schopenhauer1
*sigh*We follow our own ethical guidelines all the time. I didn't say it has to be enforced by an outside entity. You can argue that no one follows ethical guidelines, only what is in their self-interest at the time, but you have not presented that. All ad hom, no philosophy. Come back when you want to offer something.
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.