So is quite understandable that many people, who suffer and are willing to die, don´t make suicide. — Antinatalist
Yeah I know. You didn't have kids. So you belong to "clever". I'm sure you have a research for that too. — dimosthenis9
You fail to understand simply logical things. I told you that these kind of researches can never be valid and you talk about witnesses and green cup shit. — dimosthenis9
You insist that having kids is wrong — dimosthenis9
You rape logic. — dimosthenis9
It imposes a lifetime here on someone else without their consent; it creates considerable undeserved suffering and does not promote deserved pleasure; and those who perform such acts typically have a whole range of morally bad motives for doing so. — Bartricks
Which is why it would be immoral to procreate even if they did consent, for the act will still make someone else do something significant without their consent: live a whole lifetime here. — Bartricks
But since you can never have an consent on that why we even talk about it? I can't understand really. — dimosthenis9
Are you sure that the "answer" from the "unborn" child would be "no"?? How can you know that? As to follow you down to that road, even if I don't want to. — dimosthenis9
I don't think that this example is similar to the case here. It's like you already assume that "stealing" (wrong) is the "having kid" case. — dimosthenis9
I really can't understand how you and schopenhauer measure harm and happiness and you decide that harm counts more. — dimosthenis9
So you lead the conclusion to your preference already. — dimosthenis9
Why then you don't consider as depriving happiness from an unborn kid a bad thing also? — dimosthenis9
In light of that person would not be harmed (which is good) and that person would not have happiness (neutral), that makes sense. However, once alive, there might be a case that after already being born, that preventing happiness, when one can for someone, with minimal cost to oneself, would seem to be some sort of morally worthy act. — schopenhauer1
We make decisions for other people, especially children, all the time without their approval. We take them to the doctor; make them take medicine; make them have operations; make them go to school; punish them for bad behavior.... — T Clark
So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things.He states that a foetus, or even a newly conceived egg cell, is a potential person, and therefore an abortion would be a crime against this potential human being. — Antinatalist
Clearly. So you think if it is impossible to get someone's consent to do x, then it's ok to do it? — Bartricks
Okay: so if Tim wants to rape Jane - so, he wants to have sex with her without her consent - then you think it is okay for him to do it? After all, it is impossible for Jane to consent to be raped, isn't it? If she consents, it is not rape. So, by your logic, as long as you want to rape someone, it is okay for you to rape as rape can't be consented to. — Bartricks
YTou can't consent to be deceived. Hence deception is default wrong. All I am doing is noticing that this applies to procreative acts. It really isn't hard to understand, so I don't understand why you don't understand it. — Bartricks
So imagine you don't know whether I want to take heroin or not. You're just not sure, though you do know that it is highly addictive. You just inject me with some. That's wrong, yes? Really wrong. And it's really wrong even if - as is likely - I then find myself enjoying it and get addicted. Yes? — Bartricks
Maybe they exist in some other realm, maybe they don't — Bartricks
If you weigh harming and helping in the same way, then you would think the person who doesn't donate is just as bad as the person who steals. — khaled
But I'm not an antinatalist.... You know, just because I don't agree with shope on everything doesn't mean I disagree with everything either.... — khaled
What If a kid has an excellent life, full of happiness and the only harm he faces is his death at the end! Would you count again in that cases, harm and happiness with the same way?? If you were an unborn kid and had the "option" what would you choose? I would choose "yes" I ensure you. — dimosthenis9
So is quite understandable that many people, who suffer and are willing to die, don´t make suicide.
— Antinatalist
These cases exist indeed. But many others prefer to go on living even if they suffer cause they still think life is better. Plus when one suffers still he has hope that things will get better and he will overcome it. His hope for happier days is much stronger even from the actual suffering. — dimosthenis9
There are even cases among the ones you mentioned,that people just find excuses to religion and grief of their loved ones cause at the very bottom they don't want to die at all! — dimosthenis9
↪Antinatalist My questions remains. How is this different from saying ‘Reasons not to cross a road’ ? — I like sushi
They are very weak points. I can think of better points. For example, people who have children generally suffer more stress and have less ‘happiness’. People who don’t have children though don’t have the elated highs of being a parent.
On balance if you really think having children is bad/wrong/not good, then I don’t understand why. — I like sushi
Or another way. Every living person is a potentially dead person so killing people is ok. — Cheshire
I see 0 justification for the double standard.
Also I think you meant “providing” happiness? — khaled
Looks like mother nature knows her stuff pretty well I must say. If people don't listen to what you have to say Schopenhauer1, they'll continue to multiply like rabbits, overpopulation then, malnourishment follows, women will stop menstruating, no children. Just what you recommend, no? Either that or people heed your warning and start using contraception, stop/control population growth, before we find out the hard way why we shouldn't have children. — TheMadFool
So he drops the qualifier 'potential' in order to present a bad argument. One can't do crimes against potential things. — Cheshire
This would’ve been a point in our last discussion but I got tired and deleted it. Yes, do please go back to those examples. Show me how you can derive that Willy wonka’s forced game is a non trivial imposition, without referring in any way to the victims opinions of their situation. I just don’t see how you “objectively” measure how bad an imposition is with no reference to the person being imposed upon. What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? A certain duration? A certain number of work hours? — khaled
Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone else is wrong? — schopenhauer1
Can we agree on what an imposition is? — schopenhauer1
Do we agree what non-trivial means? — schopenhauer1
Do we agree with what unnecessary means? — schopenhauer1
Do we agree that there is an extra duty of care when it comes to doing something on another person's behalf? — schopenhauer1
What? We don't consider the present is exactly the same as the projected future states? How do we pretend cardiac base tissue is a person, by other means?Strange logic. — Antinatalist
I'm asking you to define it. Without any reference to experiences or their reports. You claim this is possible. — khaled
I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. — schopenhauer1
So if a slave was fine with his conditions then we classify his enslavement as a non-trivial imposition? Wasn't this one of our main points of disagreement? — khaled
What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? — khaled
. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. — schopenhauer1
What’s the “set of features” that go into making an imposition non trivial? — khaled
All we have to agree on is there is a distinction between non-trivial and trivial harms. We don't even need to go much further than that. I'll allow the fact that this can be subjective, even. All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born. — schopenhauer1
I said it was definitional. — schopenhauer1
I am answering your question, but this requires you to answer my question: — schopenhauer1
All we have to agree on here is that there is a distinction, and that non-trivial harm exists for everyone born. — schopenhauer1
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.