I was showing the lack of freedom in the unborn. As I have already acknowledged, the unborn are being forced into existence, but in the alternative the unborn are being forced not to exist. In the former, the unborn would end up with more freedom overall. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Certainly, if it is done with the purpose of having fun! But we don't know that. We actually don't know under what circumstances (decisions, conditions, etc.) birth takes place,Can't procreating another person into the world, be considered this? — schopenhauer1
There is no person to force. — NOS4A2
Looking at it, there is no act in conception, pregnancy and birth that should have required our consent, whereas in your evil demon scenario there is. — NOS4A2
Your genetic material travelled, fertilized, and formed by its own efforts. You threw yourself in the game. — NOS4A2
The only way a parent might stop the efforts of your genetic material is to intervene, or otherwise “force” it to stop without any consideration of the consent of those involved, no? — NOS4A2
Anyways, it makes sense to me that “moral actions that affect [a person] make no difference as long as the person doesn't exist at time X” simply because there is no person to affect with the moral action. — NOS4A2
t becomes difficult to follow when these thought experiments always treat nothings as somethings, potential people as people, possible scenarios as extant ones. Would your evil villain be guilty of forcing someone into a game if there was no man to nab from the couch? if there was no one to force? Conversely, are the parents guilty of not seeking consent when there is no one to seek consent from? I don’t see how they can. — NOS4A2
Well yes it is immoral to birth your baby into a lava pit. — NOS4A2
I was showing the lack of freedom in the unborn. As I have already acknowledged, the unborn are being forced into existence, but in the alternative the unborn are being forced not to exist. In the former, the unborn would end up with more freedom overall. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't think this is looking at it accurately. The alternative is NOT being forced to not exist, as in that scenario there is no "one" to not exist. In fact, there is no one "missing out" on the game by not existing. This goes back to that asymmetry. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with "missed game" to anyone who doesn't exist. What "force" or "bad" is happening to anyone? What is a factual state of affairs, is no person will be forced, and that is where the issue lies. — schopenhauer1
And an example demonstrating violating the rights of the not yet existent is planting a bomb that will kill a future generation (that hasn't been born yet), but their right to life (when they have been born) etc will have been violated? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Right, there is a way that preventing the planting of a bomb that would hurt a future person(s) is "good", even if there was no person alive to be aware that there was a prevention of this terrible thing that could have affected them. — schopenhauer1
Right, there is a way that preventing the planting of a bomb that would hurt a future person(s) is "good", even if there was no person alive to be aware that there was a prevention of this terrible thing that could have affected them.
Preventing the planting of a bomb is good. But you’d be saving no one if those potential victims were never born. — NOS4A2
What do you think? What is it that seems to be unjust here that I am not quite verbalizing other than "paternalistic unnecessary harm".. Is there something else that can describe this unnecessary creation of the obstacle course for another, and deeming it "good" because YOU want to see this take place for another person? It starts to become a political decision. You want to see an agenda enacted of game playing.. This isn't innocently defending yourself by saying, "Oh well, we need to provide obstacles to prevent even greater obstacles".. This is creating all obstacles in the first place. — schopenhauer1
Well, that would be a fair point considering the fact that initially they did not have to nor want to enter this game of obstacles and unnecessary challenges. But would it particularly matter later? Now, the paternalistic political assumption that people need to overcome obstacles for no other reason than to see it happen is quite an interesting perspective. And I must say that those assumptions are albeit futile but they have been built into the core of our society.
But that begs a question that needs to be addressed before further discussion, what are the arbitrary rules of the society and who gets to decide just and unjust?
I might consider Socrates to be a wise man with much to contribute but the people of Athens disagreed and considered his intellectual tidbits to be unjust and venomous. What precisely is justified in the world? The world is a purely subjective with multiple contradictory perspectives and that is something that needs to be taken into account in this discussion. — TheSoundConspirator
I'm stuck with one argument - that the lives of suffering (even 3% of the population is hundreds of millions) are not a reasonable sacrifice for everything else life has to offer. I guess this argument is just part of your collection? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I think, that's an interesting comparison. However in our lives the frame, network, or game is made by us, once we take into consideration the external conditionals are delimiting our own social frame development. Besides the frame or called by you game, seems to be developing by its own itself. We seems to be just cells and nobody has a real grip or influence over it. The "bugg" drives the things by its own. — Santiago
The things are also done by the group, that is framing our perception and capacity to take desicions. We are actually getting like a fungus. That is thinking by its own. The cells aren't taking the led by their own beyond their perception of their immediate surrounding and necessities, but the fungus is leading the group by its own besides it doesn't have brain. — Santiago
It (SNAFU) means that the situation is bad, but that this is a normal state of affairs. — Wikipedia
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.