Yes, but the argument is that if someone says it is worthwhile, negative X is ok to start on their behalf, even if it was unnecessary (didn't need to ameliorate a greater harm for that person). khaled says this for example. — schopenhauer1
wait, what is “it” here? — schopenhauer1
You are denying negatives exist now?? — schopenhauer1
Life. I thought you were characterizing life purely as negative. — khaled
Honestly I’d like to see other ANs debate here. — schopenhauer1
Not purely, negative X is all negative experiences. — schopenhauer1
Do you claim that this expectation is not well-founded? That it is not well-founded enough? That it is irrelevant? — Srap Tasmaner
but how would you even know if someone will think it's worth it? — Albero
you can make an educated guess — Albero
what do we do if they end up hating it? — Albero
@Albero you like to see others debate. Can you add anything? Are you willing to contribute past a couple posts on the matter?
This though is not nuanced and dynamic enough. Is life really a pinprick? — schopenhauer1
The question really becomes, at what point does it matter if people report it’s worthwhile that you are not doing something right by the allowing of the negatives? — schopenhauer1
And what if someone changes their minds at a particular time? — schopenhauer1
In other words, is it justified in all situations to base ethics on post facto reports? — schopenhauer1
Why should starting negatives (lifetime, inescapable) be good ever? — schopenhauer1
It’s not instrumental here, it’s starting bads for someone else in an absolute sense (unnecessary). Since we get the doubly good outcome, that no one loses out (either), it would seem to be weighted to prevent the negatives, no matter what. — schopenhauer1
No the point isn’t to say “getting pricked by a pin is fine so having kids is fine”. The point is to show that “someone could hate it” is not sufficient reason to make an imposition wrong. For that would make every imposition wrong. — khaled
At every point. I don’t believe there is a scenario where someone can find something worthwhile and it be wrong to impose on them. It’s fine to have a happy slave. — khaled
Yes. And if they change their mind that would also be a post facto report. — khaled
You think it’s good sometimes (being born in a utopia will last a lifetime and be inescapable) so let’s not question things we agree on. — khaled
Again insufficient. What you’re saying here is that it’s wrong to start harms especially when someone will miss out. Using just that qualification, having a surprise party would be wrong. Yes I am aware it is very different from life. The point is, the above standard is insufficient to tell right and wrong. You need to add more conditions. — khaled
Once you have a set of conditions that make the statement “Acts that *insert conditions here* are wrong” true such that it isolates only what you actually think is wrong then you’d have a consistent case. You’d still need to convince people why they should abide by those conditions, but so far I haven’t seen what that full set of conditions is. The only time I’ve seen it it was something like “a lifetime of negative experiences” which doesn’t seem to apply to life, you need to show that life actually falls under that category. — khaled
Well, it’s not really about who/what is being used, it’s about how you justify your actions.
But, if you insist, then whomever you’re trying to convince not to have children is being used to further your agenda. Your success in doing so creates the potential for harm. — Pinprick
I don't think I agree with it on everything, but I've always found pessimism in the philosophical sense to be an interesting tradition. Might I ask how you came to those conclusions? I don't want to psychoanalyze or troll, I'm just generally interested. You don't have to answer if it's too personal either. It's not like Schopenhauer is very popular, even for his own time — Albero
You’re willing to go to what most consider extreme measures to prevent harming a future person, even if it means harming a living person to do so. And that’s meant to be just a statement of fact. I’m not judging whether or not that’s morally permissible. — Pinprick
The contradiction I see is that in this instance you’re fine with causing harm because you see it as justified, necessary perhaps, but not willing to harm someone in order to bring about enlightenment (which is presumed to decrease/prevent suffering as well). — Pinprick
Why is it ok to harm one, but not the other? The outcome is the at least comparable. Admittedly the enlightened person will not be able to completely eliminate suffering, but then we’re splitting hairs on how much suffering needs to be prevented to make it ok to cause harm to prevent it. Either the ends justify the means, or they don’t, right? If you’re going to make exceptions, then you need to explain why the particular case of AN warrants that, when other, very similar as I see it, cases do not. — Pinprick
But if there's no person beforehand to need an imposition, is that even right to impose with all the baggage we know is it can entail? — schopenhauer1
I don't believe it's right to start negatives for someone else unnecessarily when the consequences are inescapable, it's lifelong, and there's not much other choice but to go with it or dire consequences. — schopenhauer1
But we don't because I didn't agree to your definition of utopia for reasons I stated in earlier posts. Utopia would simply not have negatives, but I also explained how it's almost impossible to conceptualize. It would be like being everything or nothing I guess. — schopenhauer1
But you admit that the analogy doesn't fit, so why would I agree that this somehow negates what I'm saying? — schopenhauer1
A lifetime of all negative experiences that you experience, is what I mean by that. Do you deny that negative experiences exist in life (unless something like a life that lasts a very short amount of time maybe)? — 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.