To prevent the suffering of X, X must first exist. You claim to prevent the suffering of X, but X does not exist. So whose suffering are you preventing? — NOS4A2
Why do you suppose I am suggesting we change our system? — schopenhauer1
All I see here is wild and vague abstraction, philosopher talk, with no relevance to our sex lives, and how we choose to raise a family.
unjust
— schopenhauer1
Another ridiculously abstract philosphical concept... — Wheatley
Then I suppose I question the point of this entire discussion, to simply point out life is unfair? I can accept that proposition. — Derrick Huestis
In what world does, "Do not have kids" count as philosophically abstract? Pretty concrete to me. — schopenhauer1
Is this a moral imperative?."Do not have kids" — schopenhauer1
This is simply an oversimplification of the human condition.person cannot escape the work-game without dire consequences (death, starvation, etc.). — schopenhauer1
So basically you actively have a vasectomy or are otherwise willfully abstinent. That's cool. Just don't try to come at me with your legal papers and ribbons to mandate the same. — Outlander
It's kind of of ironic almost. By not ensuring your most deeply held belief is prolonged beyond the span of your own life by facing your fear or perhaps crossing into your taboo, you ensure and seal the fate that it will never happen. I wish I had the time to write a novel, this is as good as it gets. Pure gold. — Outlander
Now all you have to do is pass a law forbidding the public from having children. Good luck!To prevent injustice taking place, yes. — schopenhauer1
Now all you have to do is pass a law forbidding the public from having kids. Good luck! — Wheatley
It is your moral stance which does not affect me at all.Simply a moral stance not a political policy. — schopenhauer1
It is a complex issue. — Wheatley
That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life.cannot be opted out without dire consequences (death, starvation, free-riding, dying in the wilderness, homelessness etc.). — schopenhauer1
That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life. — Wheatley
An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade: — 180 Proof
^^^See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread. — schopenhauer1
I rather not.
^^^ — Wheatley
It's good enough for me. :cool:So just borrow another poster's response? Weak.. — schopenhauer1
It's good enough for me. :cool: — Wheatley
Good. — Wheatley
Yes, life is "unfair".. I would say "unjust". — schopenhauer1
I don't doubt that you have valuable things to say.A lot of things get overlooked when you do that. — schopenhauer1
What's funny about this is there is a strong Judeo-Christian connotation to your stance, and as such I'm inclined to agree but in a way you would most likely dislike. The story in Genesis is Adam and Eve had all the food they could possibly desire, but because they chose sin (injustice), they condemned mankind to hard labor. And here we are today, arguing about why we aren't still in the garden of Eden and how unjust (sinful) the world is. So there you go, I agree with you. — Derrick Huestis
I think there are a lot of metaphors in Genesis, if one allows it to be read that way. — schopenhauer1
What if a baby was guaranteed to be born into a lava pit and you can convince the parent not to do that? You would, correct? The thing is you are not seeing life as properly that volcano. — schopenhauer1
That's part of life. I accept the suffering that comes with life.
— Wheatley
See my points about happy slave earlier in the thread. — schopenhauer1
But if he is happy the whole argument breaks apart because antinatalism presumes the unhappy misery of your offsprings. You accomplished nothing with your "happy slave".An oxymoronic fiction like e.g. "noble savage", "p-zombie", "rational actor", "utility maximizer" which I call the "Old Plantation fallacy" (or White Man's Burden fallacy). Specious nonsense, schop1. :shade:
— 180 Proof
So in my case, not to be taken literally. Rather, it is to illustrate a situation where an individual is happy despite being put in an unjust situation. — schopenhauer1
But if he is happy the whole argument breaks apart because antinatalism presumes the unhappy misery of your offsprings. You accomplished nothing with your "happy slave". — Wheatley
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.