What AN ultimately does is question the project of life itself, and this is scary itself. But it's not much more than Buddhism, just taken to a practical level. — schopenhauer1
It's difficult to keep this discussion distinct from the antinatalism discussions elsewhere. I'm trying to avoid critiquing arguments in favor of antinatalism, and focus on why it's unpersuasive. Maybe this post makes it clearer how closely connected I think our experience of moral life is to what we find persuasive in moral discussion. — Srap Tasmaner
Again: Define "suffering". — baker
The general AN position is against 'suffering' which we all understand (no need to redefine the word). — I like sushi
Either way it's nice to see people thinking about stuff like this even if some of it makes almost no sense to me and what I say makes almost no sense to them
; in fact, they see the whole point of life in them. — baker
I find it plausible that we experience our own instinct for self-preservation largely as an attitude that life is fundamentally a good thing. There are of course extreme experiences when we just want it to stop, — Srap Tasmaner
sometimes the antinatalist claim will align with the purported victim's own feelings or attitudes, and sometimes it won't. — Srap Tasmaner
Another option is that the wrong is something like exposure to risk of suffering; in that case, the risk is persistent from the beginning of your life until its end, and you are wronged in this sense every moment you are alive, whether you are suffering at the moment or not. — Srap Tasmaner
What's the point of all this? Twofold. On the one hand, insofar as I incline to any theory of morality, it's based in the moral sentiments, but I don't want to make too much of that, because I don't have much of a theory. On the other hand, most successful moral arguments succeed precisely by arousing the moral sentiments. It's no good telling someone that they should think something is wrong that they don't; you change their view by showing it to them in such a way that they feel it is wrong. (And obviously there's just as little point in telling people how they should feel.) I think this is what you are attempting with your favorite analogy lately, the "forced game": you want to elicit from your audience a feeling that placing someone in such a situation is wrong. — Srap Tasmaner
I have some background in Early Buddhism, so it's easy to for me to think about suffering, but I can now better appreciate people who don't have such a background and how they approach the problem of suffering. — baker
Still goes back to the happy slave in an unjust situation. — schopenhauer1
It would seem in no other case would people's moral sentiment simply say, "Cause unnecessary suffering for someone else" — schopenhauer1
If I punch you now, and you get enlightenment from it later, that would be crass utilitarian thinking.. Another way to think about it, is I shouldn't punch people, whatever their later feeling on it is. It is wrong to cause suffering, period — schopenhauer1
Can moral sentiments be misleading if they lead to bad conclusions? — schopenhauer1
Happy slave. — schopenhauer1
I shouldn't punch people, whatever their later feeling on it is. It is wrong to cause suffering, period — schopenhauer1
You claim that the happiness of the person in the position doesn't have much to do with the justice or injustice of imposing that position. So, what's your definition of an unjust position, without reference to what the person in the position thinks of their position? Is it unjust above a certain number of work hours a week? A certain difficulty of work? What's your standard? — khaled
It is not applying justice in an unbiased way. It is not just to cause X negative experience onto someone else UNLESS it is the time honored practice of Y. Do you see how that could be biased? Every other kind of harm is always justified when the person is born, so it's after the fact (schooling, vaccines, punishment for violating something, etc.). Not so in this case. It would seem in no other case would people's moral sentiment simply say, "Cause unnecessary suffering for someone else".. But it gets clouded in this case because, because, becuase, why? — schopenhauer1
What does "unnecessary" mean here? What is "necessary harm"? I thought an example of "necessary harm" is when it prevents an even larger harm on the person in question (what's what I remember your definition was), but you contradict that here: — khaled
We must follow the rules. Can you make your own rules? Can you have designed it from the first place nd then played it, tweak it, reverse it? Of course not. Then it's not just.. — schopenhauer1
1) Can't create your own rule for the game..
2) We can judge the game (unlike say an animal that kind of just lives out the game).. Our layer of rationalization/language etc. allows judgement etc. — schopenhauer1
Every other kind of harm is always justified when the person is born, so it's after the fact (schooling, vaccines, punishment for violating something, etc.). Not so in this case. — schopenhauer1
in no other case would people's moral sentiment simply say, "Cause unnecessary suffering for someone else" — schopenhauer1
Every other kind of harm is always justified when the person is born, so it's after the fact (schooling, vaccines, punishment for violating something, etc.). Not so in this case. — schopenhauer1
Right, but I am talking more about the idea that anything is justified if somehow your feelings about it lead to a positive experience (whether you know it or not). — schopenhauer1
So, what's your definition of an unjust position, without reference to what the person in the position thinks of their position? Is it unjust above a certain number of work hours a week? A certain difficulty of work? What's your standard? — khaled
What about cases where you know that they'll appreciate the imposition later down the line? — khaled
; in fact, they see the whole point of life in them.
— baker
That has nothing to do with AN.. — schopenhauer1
And the resemblance to Buddhism is the life is suffering aspect. Agreed about the solution to the problem.
The AN does not usually need karma, reincarnation or similar ideas,
unless some kind of metaphor (which just makes it a Western version something similar to cause/effect/contingency). Buddhism, like Pessimism sees the system suffering of desire.. Schopenhauer had some great parallels he mentions in The World as Will and Representation. You should read passages from Book 4. The 8 fold path and such is interesting, but no such prescription except wholesale asceticism, compassion, and aesthetic contemplation is offered by Schop and I believe he thought that only certain character-types will be able to endure the path of asceticism.
What do you mean 'some background'. You were brought up as a buddhist? How does that make it easier to think about suffering? — I like sushi
Not a very good standard considering this is also the case in the utopia and you find it ok to impose life there. — khaled
in no other case would people's moral sentiment simply say, "Cause unnecessary suffering for someone else" — schopenhauer1
What is "unnecessary suffering" as opposed to "necessary suffering"? — khaled
What is an "unjust position" as opposed to a "just position"? — khaled
Separates the "laws for imposing" into two categories. "Laws of imposing after you're born" and "laws of imposing before you're born". This completely destroys your project. You are trying to show that people's "laws of imposing" would preclude birth if applied rigorously. By separating it into two categories you open the door for someone to say: "Every other kind of harm needs justification when the person is born. Not so in this case. Since the person is not born, no justification is needed to do something that could harm them, so yes I am justified in genetically modifyin ma kid to be blind!" With exactly as much validity as your claim above. — khaled
Unnecessary is not ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms, but simply causing harm to someone for no reason other than you want to see an outcome take place. — schopenhauer1
If I punch you now, and you get enlightenment from it later — schopenhauer1
Prior to birth you can prevent harm, period. Once birth happens, you have to immediately start ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms — schopenhauer1
Unjust = not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. — schopenhauer1
In this case, making someone else play a game they had no hand in creating, cannot escape from without dire consequences, etc. — schopenhauer1
All I have to show is THIS world is sufficiently unfair to make others play.. — schopenhauer1
Let's first make this criteria.. What to you makes a utopia.. Then we can move from there. If you don't answer that question, I am not going to move forward. — schopenhauer1
In this case, making someone else play a game they had no hand in creating, cannot escape from without dire consequences, etc.
-You
So doing this is not morally right and fair? But this also applies to having children in a utopia, which you said you're fine with. So which is it? — khaled
That would be ameliorating greater harm with lesser harm clearly, so is this wrong or not? — khaled
Also, importantly, is this "greater harm" you're ameliorating just a general measure of utility, or must you ameliorate greater harm from the person in question with lesser harm? So would it be wrong to punch someone so that someone else gains enlightenment? Because depending on your answer this:
Prior to birth you can prevent harm, period. Once birth happens, you have to immediately start ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms
— schopenhauer1
May or may not follow. If you think it's fine to harm someone to ameliorate greater harm from someone else, you can argue that having children is already ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms. — khaled
So doing this is not morally right and fair? But this also applies to having children in a utopia, which you said you're fine with. So which is it? — khaled
Agreed, but I don't see where you did so. All you do is cite specific features of life, that are also present in a utopia, or in other impositions you think are fine. — khaled
HA, nice switch. First off, I don't see how it's significant what I think counts as a utopia and what doesn't, I'm pretty sure what you mean to ask is: "What to you makes it ok to impose". Answer: "It's fine to impose something on someone when it is very likely they will find it worthwhile (among other cases that are irrelevant here)". You don't like this standard, clearly. And you try to convince me that it's bad somehow. — khaled
I don't use my standard when arguing with you, I try to get you to spell out a standard that doesn't lead to ridiculous consequences. So far, every time you've said "Life is X, and X is wrong", X is in common with utopias, or gifts, or other things you consider moral to impose, meaning X isn't a good standard for you. You did this in the last comment too: — khaled
The reason I said that was that anyone can justify anything in the name of X. Crass utilitarianism isn't a good reason. — schopenhauer1
Right, you cannot use someone unnecessarily (see my definition). — schopenhauer1
Again, please define to me what is utopia. — schopenhauer1
You can never know if someone will find something worthwhile, or change their minds down the line, or simply have on balance not a great life. You just don't know. — schopenhauer1
Rather, it is unjust to impose anything unnecessarily that involves forms of unwanted, effort, annoyance, suffering, and things that you would not do otherwise if you were to create your own universe. — schopenhauer1
But that's just the thing, you pick analogies which aren't life or in this case work. — schopenhauer1
If someone gave me a gift that lasted a large chunk of life or a whole lifetime, I couldn't get out of it, and it causes severe dislike, annoyance, and negative experience in general.. I wouldn't call that much of a gift — schopenhauer1
"You can harm people when it alleviates more harm" is a perfect example of crass utilitarianism.... But no, crass utilitarianism is bad because....reasons. — khaled
I'll take this as a "no" you can't harm someone to ameliorate greater harm form someone else. Now you have problems with the sleeping lifeguard again. You can't wake up the sleeping lifeguard to save a drowning person by this formulation. So again, a terrible standard for you that contradicts your beliefs. — khaled
A world where at the snap of your fingers (or a similarly easy activity if you're disabled) any suffering will go away. Also there is no euthanasia option, you cannot leave the game, and refusal to snap your fingers will subject you to suffering exactly as it would IRL.
Let's go with that one. — khaled
But this is a terrible argument. Because it would make surprise parties wrong (you never know, they might absolutely hate them) but they're not wrong, according to you. — khaled
You keep coming up with standards for why birth is wrong that also lead to things you think are right being wrong, and it's getting very tiring pointing them out. It would be very helpful if before you post another standard you ask yourself "Can this lead to a contradiction in my beliefs". You'll find it basically always does. Because you're just cycling between 5 or so standards, all of which contradict your beliefs. — khaled
Literally every imposition fits this description to different extents. And you think some impositions are fine. Again, terrible standard. Sigh.... — khaled
"Your analogies to life are not life itself", excuse me what? I assume you mean that my analogies aren't like life in any way. Prove that. Don't just state it. If any analogous imposition I come up with to life , automatically becomes not analogous when you realize you think it's ok to impose, then you're begging the question. — khaled
Agreed. Problem is, most people would tell you that life is mostly good with the dislike, annoyance, and negative experiences being the side effect. In other words, life is not like that. You think it is, but have provided no reasoning or evidence for why it is. — khaled
One case no suffering has to take place. — schopenhauer1
not an explanation of what makes it a utopia — schopenhauer1
This game is more like I describe. YOU have to address that at least. — schopenhauer1
"It's fine to impose something on someone when it is very likely they will find it worthwhile (among other cases that are irrelevant here)" — khaled
No dude, because unless that gift is a literally a lifetime of a set of negative experiences that you cannot get rid of without dire consequences, your analogies are nothing. — schopenhauer1
You can't try to win this argument by simply saying phrases like "prove it" when it is very clear they are so far off from each other and never even met my definitions. — schopenhauer1
I don't have to prove to you obvious things about the human condition. — schopenhauer1
Life "is mostly good".. what does that even mean? — schopenhauer1
is a literally a lifetime of a set of negative experiences — schopenhauer1
But also, what standard gift ever has these kind of negative side effects? — schopenhauer1
a lifetime worth of X negative things otherwise dire consequences happen. — schopenhauer1
And the resemblance to Buddhism is the life is suffering aspect. Agreed about the solution to the problem. The AN does not usually need karma, reincarnation or similar ideas, unless some kind of metaphor (which just makes it a Western version something similar to cause/effect/contingency). Buddhism, like Pessimism sees the system suffering of desire.. Schopenhauer had some great parallels he mentions in The World as Will and Representation. You should read passages from Book 4. The 8 fold path and such is interesting, but no such prescription except wholesale asceticism, compassion, and aesthetic contemplation is offered by Schop and I believe he thought that only certain character-types will be able to endure the path of asceticism. — schopenhauer1
Nihilists and buddhists have a lot in common. — I like sushi
It comes down to whether or not harming someone to alleviate harm from someone else is ethical which you still haven't answered. You could easily argue that having children is necessary harm depending on how you actually answer the question.... — khaled
I think it's perfectly fine to bring in people to the game you describe and I already stated my standard clearly:
"It's fine to impose something on someone when it is very likely they will find it worthwhile (among other cases that are irrelevant here)" — khaled
Oh, so "life is mostly good" is very abstract and difficult to understand but:
is a literally a lifetime of a set of negative experiences
— schopenhauer1
Is immediately obvious and clear. — khaled
You cite A as the property that make an imposition bad, and A is present in having kids, so having kids is bad. I reply with a situation where A is the case, but you think the imposition is not bad. You respond by "that situation is not like life at all, life also has B!" (after realizing that "life isn't A enough!" is going nowhere and takes away objectivity from your position) So I respond with a situation where B and A are the case yet you think it's fine. You respond by "that situation is not like life at all, life also has C!" and so on. But when we examine the whole set of properties that make an imposition bad for you, they are actually pretty reasonable. — khaled
So why this clinical, bit by bit approach, where you pretend that one or two variables are the end all be all of what makes an imposition wrong? Why not just spill out the whole list? Well, because it sounds ridiculous! The whole list basically reads: "It's wrong to impose a lifetime of hellish suffering on someone" which is perfectly reasonable of course. Everyone agrees with that, but they don't think life is such hellish suffering, that's ridiculous. You realize that trying to convince them that life is hellish suffering doesn't work, so instead you try to pretend to follow some simplistic moral standard such as "Actions that are A and B are wrong". So when I show that you don't actually follow that simplistic standard, you have to revert back to the full set which is:
a lifetime worth of X negative things otherwise dire consequences happen.
— schopenhauer1
is wrong to impose. That's what you see life as. Life is purely just negative experience after negative experience with the sweet release of death being the only cure. A "Sexually transmitted terminal disease" and no more as the memes would have it. But when I try to ask you what evidence you have for thinking this, you cannot provide.
So your problem is, when you cite a standard it either:
1- Contradicts your other beliefs by not being sufficiently specific in scope and resulting in things you think are right coming out wrong
2- Is unlike life and so doesn't actually say anything about childbirth.
Of course, you think it's like life, but you don't want to say this, because you know it sounds ridiculous to everyone else. So instead you prefer to have (1) be the case rather than reveal that really, the only reason you're AN, is because you find life: "a lifetime worth of X negative things otherwise dire consequences happen". Yours isn't a rational argument, it's purely emotional, as the claim that life is like this is completely unsubstantiated and there is mountains of evidence against it, yet you believe it. I find it hard to believe that comes from rational consideration. — khaled
It's because antinatalism operates out of such bad faith about existence that it isn't and cannot be persuasive.
On the other hand, Buddhism operates on the premise that despite all the misery, the universe does offer a viable path out of suffering. So Buddhism operates out of good faith. — baker
There is no X that suffers anything.
There is a Y that suffers something.
That does NOT mean Y gets to now have an X that will suffer something to alleviate Y suffering something. — schopenhauer1
Why does worthwhile trump negative experiences? — schopenhauer1
Who gives you a right to start another persons condition for a set of negative experiences? — schopenhauer1
Yes actually, I can list a litany of negative experiences. — schopenhauer1
But again, I was looking for clarity of the statement, (is it a list of things, an attitude, a report) and if it's a report, what is it reporting on? — schopenhauer1
So yeah this is precisely your problem. Analogies of everything that comprises a set to only one aspect of the set doesn't work, except as a parlor trick. — schopenhauer1
So your problem is, when you cite a standard it either:
1- Contradicts your other beliefs by not being sufficiently specific in scope and resulting in things you think are right coming out wrong
2- Is unlike life and so doesn't actually say anything about childbirth. — khaled
Why do I even need evidence at all? What is going on here? — schopenhauer1
Something else is going on in the human condition that doesn't just allow for, "I mostly like life". — schopenhauer1
Ok. But does Z get to cause X to alleviate Y if Y>X? That's what I'm asking (for the third time). — khaled
That's what it means by definition... You ever heard someone say "It was worthwhile and fulfilling, but I wish I never did it"? Worthwhile literally means that the negative experiences were worth it.
Definition according to google: worth the time, money, or effort spent; of value or importance. — khaled
A report. On whether or not the project was worth it despite the pain. Or on whether or not it is mostly comprised of negative or positive experiences. Depends on who you're talking to. — khaled
But it doesn't comprise only one aspect, it comprises most at the same time. But when we look at all of them combined it spells something like "Do not cause hellish suffering for a lifetime on someone else" which is perfectly reasonable, now you need to show that life will likely be hellish suffering for this or that child. — khaled
"This starts another persons condition for a set of negative experiences" is insufficient, and so to get you to show your ridiculous position by requiring you to use the whole list. — khaled
And I can list a litany of positive or worthwhile ones. — khaled
"Life is all of the above at the same time, and that's wrong to impose" I'll disagree with the second half (utopia example), it's hard to disagree with the first. — khaled
"Life is comprised of a lifetime of hellish suffering with no escape and we're all doomed, and those are always wrong to impose" I'll disagree with the first half, it's hard to disagree with the second. — khaled
Because you are trying to convince others that disagree with your judgement that their judgement is wrong and your is correct. You need evidence to do so. Your judgement is that life is mostly comprised of negative experiences, and that those experiences are not worth it and so do not justify existing. Basically everyone disagrees with one or both parts. You think they're wrong and want to convince them of that. You need evidence. — khaled
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.