This assumes that not creating the damage is either ethically good/neutral. If it's good to prevent damage whose prevention would not satisfy the interests of an actual person, then it is also bad to prevent happiness, regardles of whether or not someone exists to be deprived of it. If it is solely neutral, then I don't see how it can be justifiable to say that bestowing the good of happiness on another person's behalf is not ethical, especially considering the fact that there is no happiness and no satisfaction arising from "no collateral damage". — DA671
1. Starting the conditions for all happiness is necessarily (presuming that NOT starting the conditions for harms is necessary) good.
2. On behalf of someone else who cannot ask for the good.
3. The happiness is also not trivial.
4. The happiness is precious and ineffably valuable, and most people do seem to value their lives.
Happiness does matter, and I don't think that your replies change that cardinal consideration. I am not claiming that life is intrinsically valuable (just as I don't believe that life is inherently disvaluable). I only think that if it can be good to not create harms, it can also be good to create valuable experiences. Nevertheless, I don't believe that anyone should be pressurised or forced to endure a valueless existence. — DA671
It might be unavoidable that mankind brings on the chaos that destroys life on the planet, or that one human consciousness consumes all human consciousness, making what has happened to the aboriginal people of the world just part of the inevitable change of life. — Athena
Just part of the inevitable change of life? You mean the inevitable "progress" as part of a lifestyle that has done more harm to humanity than any other form has done and that even claims about itself that it is a lifeform lifted above other forms, as you write yourself. Now every form of life thinks it's the best, but imposing it by force is something completely different. Claiming that beating people in submission in favor of The Way, and that it's only natural this had to happen, that it had to be that way, is not any different from turning people into submission in the name of God. Again, this is no attack against science (I'm one myself!), only a defense of people who want to base living on a different story. — Raymond
Indeed! Actually the same kind of military regimes were enabled everywhere in bureaucracy, in the hospitals, in areas hit by pandemics, in factories and in schools. Michel Foucault write about it brilliantly. But actually, the German military, at least in WW2 was so ruthlessly efficient because they allowed field commanders leeway into how to reach objectives. That you describe is known as Taylorism, or Fordism, the mindless deskilled working on the production line. The current 'mobilization' of citizens is far less crude and more insidious than that. We are led to accepting the goals rather mindlessly, but the means. we are taught to think about them. It is much more efficient than thinking ahead in every eventuality. As actually German lawyers learned. Prussia was also one of the first countries with something like 'science of law'. What I mean is, also 'Prussian education' developed. We are no longer in the 19th century. — Tobias
If it were not for the technology we have developed fewer people would live to old age and that would be terrible because young people do not have the perspective that is gained with age. We would not be able to feed the world as well as we are doing. We have so much to be thankful for, and I think being thankful or throwing stones, is more about our attitude than anything else. — Athena
Happiness is intrinsically valuable and it is never unnecessary to not create it, unless it leads to greater loss of value, which I don't think it does. — DA671
1. If not starting happiness (an intrinsically undesirable experience) is necessary, then starting happiness (an intrinsically preferable experience) can also be good. — DA671
There is a state where nobody is happy, and nobody is saved from suffering. — DA671
. It's definitely good to do so on behalf of someone who cannot ask for the good themselves. — DA671
The happiness can also be deeply valuable and is experienced by many people; it is not insignificant. — DA671
5. It is quite precious and is cherished by many people. — DA671
I never claimed that life is perfect. However, it isn't an absolute hell without any hope either. — DA671
However, they also speak of sukkha (happiness) which can be found by minimising unnecessary desires, and I already agree with that idea. Chasing superficial pleasures often leads to harms. I'll return to the main topic now. There certainly is a need to survive, but I don't think that everybody constantly despises it. I, just like many other people, like the process of striving for a greater good, even though I admit that contentment is generally preferable. Again, I am not saying that there aren't hardships, because there clearly are. Nevertheless, I disagree with the idea that their existence always negates the value of the good parts of life. There is happiness, and there is immense resilience in many cases (I remember the genuine happiness in the eyes of the people who came from what many of us would call terrible conditions). It's often a twofold blessing. — DA671
When one adds the fact that happiness is being created from a state of no value, I think it would be misguided and unethical to claim that they don't have significance or deserve to be prevented. — DA671
One could also say that it makes sense to care about preventing harms when one exists, but not before it. But I am not taking such a view at this point of time, so I'll move on. — DA671
I don't think that this violates Kant's imperative. Nobody has an interest in not existing that would somehow be violated or disregarded by being created. In Kantian ethics, what might be more pertinent would be to ensure that one truly cares for the person and doesn't create them merely because they wish to have more working hands. However, I do think that one actually respects and exalts the dignity of a person by giving them the opportunity to experience goods they would be deeply grateful for and had no way to solicit prior to existing. On the other hand, I don't think that preventing all goods for the sake of a perspective that doesn't sufficiently focus on the goods would be an ethical intention/act.
I would not say that life is always a "gift"; it could certainly turn bad, which is why I support transhumanism and the RTD so that harms can be reduced. However, I think that the value of a gift comes from the overall good it provides, not from just potential harms.
i) The "no-strings" attached might be relevant if greater value/happiness was achievable without causing the harm caused by the negative aspects of the gift. However, it is evident that nonexistent beings don't exist in a state they have an interest in that would be affected by the "inferior" gift. In many instances, it could be a source of inimitable value that, despite its downsides, can still be quite meaningful.
ii) One doesn't have absolute certainty about anything. Everything does involve a certain degree of risks, such as giving a self-help book to someone that ends up making them miserable. Most people do genuinely seem to wish that the person they create would have a good life, and if the taking the risk can be bad, grabbing the opportunity for happiness can also be good. I think that an agenda to prevent all happiness cannot be considered ethical. Weaving the fabric of all happiness can be immensely good. I don't think that most people intend to create harms. If anything, the existence of numerous NGOs and people committed to social causes like charity does show that people do wish to reduce harm. Being happy doesn't have to come at the cost of harms, especially when it comes to different individuals (not to mention that one can also help others in small ways, such as by making a kind remark). For many people, the blessing outweighs the "burden" by a large margin, and intentionally forming that great joy cannot be unethical in any consistent ethical framework.
Overall, I believe that any time one is unnecessarily preventing significant happiness that nobody could ask for or appreciate prior to existing, they cannot claim that they have accomplished an ultimate good by preventing potential harms.
The truth of the matter can be overwhelming. And considering my math skills are third-grade level, I can now understand why he didn't want to explain more. — Athena
"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." (Germanerl Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress in Education for Democracy, August, 1939) — Athena
Our form of government is a republic. Only very small populations can have direct democracy and there was a time in Athens when every male citizen who came of age had to attend the governing meetings, so everyone understood the reasoning of the law and had an opportunity to change that reasoning, as a meeting of the gods debating until having a consensus. — Athena
I believe it is important we understand democracy as a culture not the form of government. Government is only one aspect of democracy. We retain the power of the people by electing representatives that is a republic. However, again when we are not transmitting that culture through education, we can not manifest democracy any more than a church will manifest Christianity if it puts the Bible in a back corner and teaches math and science instead of Bible stories. — Athena
Why do you think learning about the world is important? I am not saying it is not important but I am struggling with a question of identity and unity. To destroy our sense of identity and cultural agreements could have negative consequences. Wow, could this be a philosophical subject. I somewhat envy Native Americans who have strong tribal identities as this is so different from the "Lonely Crowd" in which most of us live. And that concern of the lonely crowd is the opposite of my concern in the paragraph above, that we lose individual power and the strong leaders we need. :roll: — Athena
I don't think what I have said is comprehensible but it is confused. I am afraid this confusion is behind the intense political and social conflict we have now. I think nations can be as in great need of psychoanalysis and individuals. The US is having an identity crisis. — Athena
Education for technology has always been education for slaves. Our technology has advanced but it is still for slaves and their society is run by policies they do not make. This mentality wants a Hitler or a Trump, who will make life good for them. They have archy confused with liberty and favor brute force over reason. No matter how technologically smart they may be, that is not equal to wisdom. Raymond seems to be arguing what is wrong with this. — Athena
am so glad you see the expansion of military order throughout the whole of society. You may have been taught to think about the means of achieving goals. But I don't think this comes with education in the US. There are factions that are trying to get us there and the US is on the brink of another civil war!
We are processing a complete change of consciousness and this is a very turbulent process! People are flipping out and gunning down everyone in sight. The storming of our Capitol Building was an organized action and I don't know how anyone can believe Trump did not intentionally inspire it. From what I have heard through television, Germany has made awesome progress and I speak of the US that has not made that progress and is in intense trouble right now. We are at the point where Hitler took over, not where Germany is today.
And I am not sure about everything I have said, but I am trying to think through want you said and my more immediate information gathering that has been hammering away at the industrial model of education. I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena
I have so much thinking to do and I am thrilled by how you stimulate it. — Athena
it is more than sensible to create happiness on the behalf of another who couldn't ask for it. Once again, this is nothing except a logically consistent view, in my opinion. — DA671
There's nobody who is being "used" when they are created. Creating a valuable life doesn't have to directly harm another person, and as far the person themselves are concerned, I would argue that it is simply fallacious to use the term "use" (as if the person doesn't have an actual interest in happiness but has one in some alternative state of affairs) for a person who is being created. The "pet" claim about creating damage doesn't negate the value of creating happiness that the person themselves would likely value. Many people do find it to be in their interest for someone to bestow a greater good to them, and as I said before, if creating harms can be bad, creating happiness can also be good. — DA671
Not irrelevant because happiness matters once one exists, just as the harms do when one begins to exist. If the prevention of the latter is "relevant" for you even though it doesn't benefit an actual person (except for your own interests, perhaps), then the prevention of all good is quite relevant. — DA671
I don't think there's much point in arguing with the "God of non-procreation". The universe has no need for the absence of all life, and if there is no good that comes from the creation of happiness, there is also none that comes from the prevention of suffering. As for existing beings (and assuming non-creation is neutral), it can certainly be good to create meaningful (it does not lose value merely because you don't appreciate it, but I hope this can change), if it is bad to create the harms sans an actual loss for someone who does not even exist. — DA671
It does in many more ways than you realise ;)
As I have said countless times before, the harm might be unnecessary, but the happiness isn't (assuming that you believe that the prevention of harms is necessary). When you use words like "using", you are still implying that one is somehow being manipulated (potentially against their interests) in order to achieve one's "sinister" designs. However, bestowing the chance to experience happiness can certainly be good if one claims that creating damage is bad. There is no need for "use" because the case is analogous to acting on behalf of someone who cannot ask for a good themselves (of course, this assumes that one would consider the deliberate creation of negative lives to be an act of "using" them even though they don't exist). Your examples are poor and reflect a lack of understanding. One could certainly appreciate someone taking an act on their behalf that leads to a greater good. However, it would be pertinent to remember that making money isn't bad if it doesn't even exist in the first place, since the probability of generating income which is profitable can justify the act of creation, just as the losses might be bad. Giving additional work which doesn't make a person happier might not be good, but there isn't any state of ethereal bliss in the void that is being disturbed/worsened by the creation of a person. At least you could recognise that some people might indeed enjoy the work, and for them, it's a source of happiness. There could be a plethora of reaons, from dedication to one's family to genuine enjoyment in the process of typing (I do have a predilection towards it!). Unfortunately, our current work culture is not the best, which is why I do think that we should focus on resolving many of the issues we face at the moment before indulging in mindless procreation.
It just doesn't have any weight to me. "Preventing happiness for a pessimistic agenda" has no moral worth to anyone. It lacks any moral obligatory force to it. Simply put again, in on instance collateral damage, in the other not. To create collateral damage or not to create it. Think of the term "collateral" as it encapsulates the notion that one is meaning to create happiness, but by doing so, knowingly creates the collateral damage (the strings) that go with it.I don't think that happiness is less significant than suffering. One might not need to constantly interfere in the case of existing beings who are capable of living adequately meaningful lives as long as they avoid serious harms, but this doesn't apply to people who aren't in a state of affairs they have an interest in. Preventing all happiness for the sake of fulfilling a pessimistic agenda, all the while refusing to bestow a deep good just because one personally doesn't appreciate it seems to be a fundementally unethical position to hold.
Neither is the "gift" an ordinary one when it unleashes its potency, which can happen even in the face of seemingly insuperable odds. Obviously, there are tragic situations that one does need to mitigate (at which point it wouldn't be sensible to call it a "gift", and that's why I don't consider life to be a gift in all cases). When the gift is the source of all value that did not exist prior to its existence, and it's likely that many innocent beings would find it to be verily invaluable and precious despite the harms, I think it has immense worth that deserves to be preserved. For the last time, the happiness is also not "trivial".
I thought that intentions mattered in Kantian frameworks, which is why I had brought it up. However, it's fine if one doesn't care. The cardinal consideration is that powerful joys can exist if a person is created, and as long as that's true for countless sentient beings, it is good enough.
It is a passive philosophy — schopenhauer1
No, I think you didn't understand what I meant here with specialization. Primitive cultures have specialization and are quite specialized: some are hunters (and they can have different roles in the hunt), some cook and take care of children, some even farm. That is basic specialization. It's really not about "a special kind of society", it's simply how human society differs from let's say a pack of animals. Specialization is one of the basic reasons why societies emerge as they are.Here you already start from the picture of a special kind of society. Not having material specializations, doesn't mean no culture. There are lots of cultures based on principles different from the ones entertained by enlightenment. Usually these cultures are called primitive. — Raymond
Also, the Enlightenment gave us also ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state. Why would those things be bad? — ssu
Ok, clear enough. But then, what Athens had was no democracy as we understand it. People loving outside the city walls were not citizens, women were not citizens, slaves were not citizens, foreigners were not citizens. Even Aristotle (and I mean Aristotle, not a footnotes in the history of philosophy!) could not vote in Athenian democracy. He was a foreigner, a 'metoik', excluded from many rights the full Athenian citizens had. — Tobias
I don't think so. Just look at the Muslim countries. They are still religious. No Muslim Nietzsche.After the di-forced divorce, all people on the globe were obliged to dance to the scientific imperative. — Raymond
Yet look at how many scientist have been religious. How many have tried to prove the existence of God? The idea that all scientist are or especially have been atheists is wrong.The scientific view of the ancient Greek was rediscovered by a small group of people who rightly didn't like the church imperatives and dethroned God. — Raymond
Only fools will try to argue that with science you can find a solution on what is morally right or morally wrong. Objective science just tells how things are (assuming you have the correct model or premisses). There's still place for religion and philosophy separate of science. And it isn't so unimportant as some atheist scientist might argue.In fact we find ourselves in the same situation as Galileo found himself back then, but the role of God replaced by Science. — Raymond
Ok, so your problem is with a certain cultural identity, an ideal form. It is not a form we have or a form that might have manifested itself fully at any one time, but a certain cultural ideal that you refer to as 'democracy'. I understand it and I am not criticizing it just seeing if we can get our terms straight and aligned. This cultural ideal is built around equality, but also around a set of cultural values. The heroes of old, maybe the battles of old fought by different liberation movements, the stories of old. One peculiar puzzle you face is that the stories of old also relegated the narratives of others to a seat of lesser importance. In the US for instance the stories of the native Americans or stores of people of color. Every American hero you names is a 'dead white man' in popular parlance. I am not the most woke on this forum, but sensitivity to this aspect of 'democracy' is needed. You present it as a rather unproblematic situation that existed in the USA of old, but like Athenian democracy it was made possible by the exclusion of a lot of 'others'. That kind of exclusion is not deemed acceptable anymore so we live in a different society, one cannot without committing grave injustice, revert to a situation of the past. — Tobias
Of course the question of identity is a philosophical subject, very much so. It featured and still features prominently in debates on political philosophy between the more liberal inclined thinkers and the so called 'communitarians'. You might really like the work of the communitarian thinker Alisdair Mcintyre. I think the phrase, 'the lonely crowd' is very well put. I think that is the situation we are in. — Tobias
but simply going back to the old ways will not do it. In any case, a lot of people would die were we to die if we did that. The question is what wisdom is when confronted with such a conundrum. The criticism is made possible by the mass mobilization for science we have undertaken in the past decades. — Tobias
This caught my eye and I'd like to make a short riff on it. My own math skills, not much more than yours, have led to a small epiphany. My own naive understanding had me believing that there was always a place to get to, that I could try to get to. That is, some end point or destination; in maths, for example, the solution to some problem. But, as with the Hubble deep space pictures, or thinking about Antarctica or the Canadian North, or of Mandelbrot sets, or of any of the limitless vistas of math, one realizes there is no real there to get to. It just keeps on going, dwarfing humanity to less than a dot. With that one combines the observations by Farley Mowat of the Inuit of Northern Canada, who spent their lives in trackless wastelands. They, he observed, were never really away from anything, because where they were everything was, their home being wherever they were. (Mowat's example being the comparison of what southerners mistakenly thought the Inuits' homes were, with what they actually were: carelessly built ramshackle huts built of findings v. the caribou skin garments they wore perfected over a few thousand years of development.) A whole entire different understanding of place (and time) and being. I suspect mathematicians and cosmologists, et al, are part Inuit and must be to remain sane. — tim wood
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.