No I write something like “this isn’t convincing” as in “it’s not justified” or “it’s fallacious”. It’s not about convincing me specifically. There is a reason AN arguments convince very few (including me once) — khaled
never unanimously agreed on something being wrong/right and it turned out right/wrong. Having children falls here as well. — khaled
Just a long way of asking whether the average of the moment by moment evaluation should trump the overall evaluation. And why you think it should. — khaled
Not everything is "cut the other guys throat".. not all the time for me at least. — schopenhauer1
I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. — schopenhauer1
Sometimes people don't want to be convinced. You must admit that too. — schopenhauer1
I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it. — schopenhauer1
I think the nuance not in there is that the achieved goal is always in that equation — schopenhauer1
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"?
If not, then antinatalism is much more strongly defended.
If so BECAUSE you hate antinatalism, simply prejudicial thinking.
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?
I'd also like to note that the sphere of politics (majority rule) can be (and perhaps should be) separated from normative ethical principles — schopenhauer1
You claimed that there could be some moral wrong which most people think at the time is right, you cited slavery and suppression of women as examples. Khaled pointed out that vast swaths of people did not think these were right at the time so it isn't an example of the 'most people' argument you're making. Instead of saying "Yes, you're right, that line of argument doesn't work does it", you just ignored his point entirely and replied with
I just think a wrong can take place without "most people" knowing it.
— schopenhauer1
An unsupported re-assertion of the point you made. That's not a discussion. Just saying the same thing over and again without taking any notice of the arguments the other side are making. — Isaac
Sure. But I doubt professional philosophers have much of that bias. Why is it that even out of the people that don’t have kids ANs are still a minority? Why is it that even among professionals who shouldn’t suffer from these biases, AN is still a minority. — khaled
Give an example then. Or has this never happened? Note that beforehand it was “without anyone knowing it”. — khaled
Wat? Please elaborate. — khaled
It's not possible to refute this argument. It's an inductive argument and depending on a percentage value roundabout 90% that corresponds to "most", the argument is cogent! — TheMadFool
True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal). — schopenhauer1
The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point. — schopenhauer1
The point still stands that "Most people" can say whatever they want and that doesn't change the nature of the exploitation or injustice taking place (or other X negative descriptor). — schopenhauer1
Let's say a society has a simple rule. "Do not paint your house a colour that the others in your street generally don't like". That rule could be an absolute one, not subject to democratic usurpation, but immutable for all time. It doesn't have any bearing on the fact that, in order to carry it out, one must discover which colours 'others in your street generally don't like'. Not only can this stage be carried out by majority averaging, but arguably it must be, else it would be prone to bias. One must check, by majority average, what colours are acceptable in order to carry out the timeless and absolute rule to only use such colours on one's house. — Isaac
One is whether the majority view dictates what is right.
Two is whether what is right can be determined by a majority view. — Isaac
True, I guess this argument has turned into two:
1) Does a majority of people mean it is permissible to do something that a minority views as wrong? Hence, "Should/is ethics be democratic"? (Notice I didn't say politics or law which is related, but not the same as ethical guidelines..For example, it might be "wrong" to eat animals or refuse to move away from oil, but perhaps shouldn't be illegal).
The other topic that is being currently discussed:
2) Can a majority of people be wrong about their view, and thus should not be a consideration for evaluating ethical claims?"
So for example, let's say Nazis won the war, and killed off their enemies.. Does a majority of Nazis who are the only ones left to evaluate right and wrong, mean they are right? Of course not. This is an extreme example of course, but to show the point. — schopenhauer1
The argument is that it is OK to impose on someone something they'll probably like (absolute moral, no voting involved). To enact this absolute moral one needs to know whether your target is likely to like what you intend to do to them. This is where majorities and averages come in, it's about having done one's due diligence in checking before taking an action (are they likely to be OK with this?). — Isaac
One way we could make some sense of all this is as follows: Say, most Nazi's want all Brits dead. If you're a Nazi, the likelihood is high that you too might want all Brits dead. This is the argument that I formalized. Want.
However, why do most Nazis want all Brits dead? This question can't be answered with a vote i.e. democractically as you put it on pain of committing the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Truth. — TheMadFool
And if they are not? Is this averaging then correct? The implication isn't just one thing (like a surprise party).. You are playing averages with a whole life. Commit suicide and go away or some other callous BS is the only ameliorating response to the minority. — schopenhauer1
what if what the majority is "ok" with is still not good? This covers what we discussed already. A majority of people can be wrong (country full of Nazis example). — schopenhauer1
There's no moral element to the question "are they likely to be OK with this?". The same would apply to you painting my house green. Whether I'm likely to be OK with that depends largely on whether I like green. I'm neither right nor wrong about liking green, but the fact of the matter is crucial to whether you're morally OK to paint my house green without asking first. — Isaac
I am not familiarized with the subjects of "natalism" and "antinatalism". But what you say makes sense to me. Otherwise, I think we can conclude that there are cases where the principle of "most people" is or can be justified and other in which it isn't or can't. And certainly, we have to exclude the case of "always being justifiable and/or wise or ethical"! — Alkis Piskas
However, 5. Most people think life is good doesn't support the statement 4. Life is good unless you subscribe to the wisdom of the crowd (I'm not entirely sure if it's even relevant. You decide) and barring this curiosity, we have to justify 4. Life is good by resorting to an argument that proves that 4. Life is good.
I believe it is this latter part of the process (***) you're talking about. — TheMadFool
But besides that, as explained to Isaac, the extent of the majority doesn't mean much about the rightness or wrongness — schopenhauer1
A country of Nazi-followers that let's say won the war and defeated their enemies aren't "right" because they perceive as so and they are the only ones left to perceive and evaluate such things — schopenhauer1
I really shouldn't give any example, because it was meant to show that perception of the wrong isn't really the determining factor of the right or wrong. — schopenhauer1
Not so with other activities where other hopes are clearly being achieved with the explicit entry and participation in mind (winning, friends, achievement of some kind, etc.). Once this becomes a negative, one can opt out. — schopenhauer1
The happy worker is still exploited. Yet this is worse because, the happy worker can quit if he sees his exploitation, a human must embrace the forced situation, lest suicide. — schopenhauer1
Is it permissible to do something on someone else's behalf because one has a notion that "most people" would "want this"? — schopenhauer1
Indeed. Can "most people" be mistaken about how good something is? I brought up the idea of an exploited worker who cheerfully overlooks being exploited. He doesn't perceive the exploitation, but he is exploited. I also brought up notions of having generally negative experiences but then saying, "Life is good" or "Glad to be born" if asked the question. There is more than just what people want you to hear going on. Psychological mechanisms can distort ones ability to evaluate something (not wanting to get oneself depressed, always looking on the bright side, Pollyannaism, adapting to lowered ideals, etc). Certainly culturally ingrained ideas can do this as well (superstition, don't look a "gift horse" in the mouth, religion, not looking negative to others, etc.). All this worry and coping and dealing with, and then suck it up because that's life.. but "that's life" is not inevitable!! — schopenhauer1
What could 'life is Good' possibly mean without people to think it? How could anything just have the property of being 'good' absent of the minds in which that judgement resides? — Isaac
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
The proposition "life is good" needs an argument, not a vote. — TheMadFool
If I were given the choice of starting another human race on a separate planet, but also knew that the next 500 years would play out similar to the last 500 on Earth, I would pass. — Marchesk
At any rate, we're here now so we try to make the best of it. — Marchesk
But apparently the proposition "The proposition "life is good" needs an argument" doesn't and can simply be asserted without one. — Isaac
But they wouldn’t be the only ones left to perceive such things. Even most Germans didn’t think what was going on was right. The people who thought the Nazis were right, weren’t even all the nazis. It was never the case that Nazism ever approached a majority in any population (except the population of nazis). So, an example please? — khaled
You’re making a claim you can’t give an example for. Fine. At least give an argument as to why you think “the wrong” exists outside of the “perception of the wrong”
And besides, if you propose that the perception of what’s right or wrong isn’t a determining factor in finding what’s right or wrong then that cuts both ways. Your perception that having kids is wrong isn’t a determining factor to whether or not it is. How is anyone supposed to argue for anything being right or wrong then?
I think you got too busy trying to get around the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that AN makes no sense that you ended up making it impossible for any ethical position to be correct. First you dismiss majority vote as being indicative of what’s right. Then you dismiss expert opinion. And now you even dismiss subjective evaluations.
There is nothing left. You’ve made the right thing to do unknowable. You’re the one that’s made it “all subjective” — khaled
So exploitation isn't a part of it because 'most people' don't like to be exploited. The question is only whether using that which 'most people' like is a sufficient justification for taking action on someone else's behalf. — Isaac
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.