Comprehensively inapplicable.

Also, excellent input :ok:

I quote Khaled. He has said this on page 2 of the thread entitled "Does God Have Free Will". When Khaled refers to "it", Khaled means Bartricks. Quote can be found on this URL:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12026/does-god-have-free-will/p2

"↪GraveItty ↪SolarWind Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever happens to you here, you deserve it. It also believes that if you disagree with it its necessarily because you lack expertise, and goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. It also can't see the irony here:

When reality is at home?
— GraveItty

You can't answer a question with a question, can you?
— Bartricks

Engaging it is reserved for masochists. When you begin to get anywhere it will retreat to "dunning kruger" or "this is how it is present to my reason" but it will take you 70 posts to get to that point.

The only clever things that come out of its mouth are ad homs. Which I have to say are top notch.
— khaled"
This reflects my own opinion on Bartricks. I quoted Khaled because he says what I can't express succinctly and without using expletives.

Insights from various perspectives are always useful for men with limited understanding like myself. I am grateful to every person who has taken the time to converse with me and share their thoughts. :)

Hope you have a wonderful day!

Proceed as you wish... I am not here to stop you from engaging Bartricks. I respect your decision, whatever it may be.

Thanks, and likewise, have a nice day yourself.

P.s. All men have limited understanding.

I appreciate it.

We discussed these issues before, so I would prefer avoiding repeating ourselves.

Indeed. But the limitations are more severe for some than they are for others. For them, limited might be a euphemism for "severely lacking".

I certainly think that I understand far too little. Being here has helped!

:smile:

When Khaled refers to "it", Khaled means Bartricks. — god must be atheist

:rofl: No offense Bartricks.

We discussed these issues before, so I would prefer avoiding repeating ourselves. — DA671

You and I never had a discussion back to a month ago inclusive... and the issue I brought up I have mentioned for the first time within a month ago. At least I don't remember any discussion with you, and I did not spot any on your list of posts. Please point me to the time when you and I previously discussed these issues. If it's not you and I who had discussed these issues, then who is the "We" you're referring to? Without clear identification of antecedents, "we" means you and me, and it's not the case.

(This seems to be going in the same direction as any discussion with Bartricks... constant denial of opposition's points, with unclear referencing, vague claims, and extraordinary claims... the only difference is that Bartricks uses insults, whereas you are a nice person, DA671.)

Oh, I am so sorry—I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant was that I had a similar discussion with Bartricks before, so I wanted to say that I did not wish to engage in a discussion that was essentially a photocopy of the last one. I apologise for the ambiguity.

Thanks for explaining it... I was confused.

I see you are relatively new to the site, so I wish you good cheer and nice intellectual frolic here. It's a good, fertile ground for fresh thoughts and to develop insights, like you said. Sometimes tempers flare, but that apparently is as old a feature of philosophy as is the practice of debating itself.

On a side note: I am an antecedent-nazi. I can't abide with pronouns that are important to be identified for their antecedents, but are not. I don't always leash out, mostly not, but sometimes I do. I apologize for being perhaps too straightforward with demanding earlier whom you meant with "we", and I am very glad you understood my concern and satisfied my curiosity.

"Antecedent Nazi"—now that's a new idea :p

No problem. Glad we sorted this out. I'll continue to excavate the different threads here in order to continue my learning process. Thank you for your reply, and I hope that you have a nice day.

I think this is all encapsulated best in my argument from a previous thread:
There is a state of affairs where someone actually experiences the collateral damage of harm.
That is procreation.

There is a state of affairs where someone does not actually experiences the collateral damage of not feeling joy. To reformulate this, that is to say: No one actually experiences the collateral damage of not feeling joy.
That is non-procreation.

These are the facts of the case.

This is an asymmetry. If one does not want to cause someone else the collateral damage of harm, one would choose non-procreation.

It is moral not to cause unnecessary collateral damage for someone else, if one can prevent it.

It is not immoral to prevent joys for someone else, if no one was around to be deprived of it in the first place.

These are the outcomes of moral judgements regarding the morality of causing unnecessary harm.

If joy came about without collateral damage, there may be an ethical case, if one was purely a utilitarian. This is not the case with procreation, so it is a moot point.

If harm to a person came about through not experiencing joy, there may be an ethical case, if one was purely a utilitarian. This is not the case with non-procreation, so a moot point.

There's no asymmetry (lack of procreation does not lead to a tangible benefit for a person either), but thanks for the valuable contribution. There is a state of affairs wherein one experiences happiness and another wherein nobody experiences relief/fulfillment from the absence of suffering. But when that can still be preferable to a life that would be mostly harmful, I don't think that it's logically consistent to claim that the absence of joys wouldn't be bad, irrespective of whether or not someone exists to be consciously derprived of it. Creating a person does not inherently cause damage for another individual, and as far as the harms a person themselves would experience are concerned, it would be crucial for one to remember that most people cherish their lives even in the face of harms. We do not seem to possess a valid justification for choosing a universal prevention of damage at the cost of preventing all beatific moments. Also, if absolute harm isn't required for some lives to be bad, absolute joy is also not necessary for a life to be sufficiently valuable. Preventing harms and creating joys both matter as far as procreation is concerned. Therefore, it's far from a moot point. But this has been discussed ad nauseam.

Have a nice day!

There's no asymmetry (lack of procreation does not lead to a tangible benefit for a person either) — DA671

I'm going to stop this here because THIS is where you keep tripping up on my argument.

The asymmetry is about states of affairs. It is the case that no X is happening, is what I am saying.

1. It is the case that no one experiences collateral damage in no procreation.
2. It is the case that on one experiences joy in no procreation.

If one does not believe in causing unnecessary collateral damage for someone else, then one would not procreate.

The rebuttal chimes in (in unison): But joy! But joy!

Then the fact is again: No person actually exists to be deprived of the collateral damage of no joy.

That is an asymmetry buddy. Deal with it. I am not reading the rest until your error in reasoning here is addressed.

Yup, there's little point in continuing when there's an obstinate refusal to be consistent.

I don't think that the lack of harms (or happiness) necessarily means much when someone does not exist, but I granted that for the sake of the discussion.

1. It is also the case that nobody experiences benefits in no procreation.

2. Exactly.

The same response predictably pops up: but nobody is deprived!

Yet, this is an irrelevant objection. It's obvious that people who don't exist aren't derprived, but that lack of deprivation does not lead to an actual good for someone, which isn't the case with existing people who can live happier lives if happiness isn't taken away from them. Furthermore, the lack of harms can be good for an existing person who has an interest in avoiding it, but considering that their prevention satisfies nobody's desires in the void, the absence of harms cannot be good for them either, since nobody is relieved/happy from their absence. Therefore, if the lack of happiness isn't bad, then the lack of harms cannot be universally preferable either as far as potential beings are concerned.

There is no asymmetry, and unless people renounce their arbitrary double standards, this is (mostly) an exercise in futility. Our biases can often trip us up, but we must learn to deal with the truth. Unfortunately, some people will never address the flaws in their ideas that are driven by unchallenged assumptions that ignore one side of the coin.

Have a great day, my friend.

Yup, there's little point in continuing when there's an obstinate refusal to be consistent. — DA671

Rubbish statement because it ain't true :wink:.

I don't think that the lack of harms (or happiness) necessarily means much when someone does not exist, but I granted that for the sake of the discussion. — DA671

But you didn't. That is most your argument (no one exists to be deprived of the benefit of the non-harms). And you didn't pay attention to the states of affairs themselves, just how you would like it to sound so you can rattle off your point.

As you state, right, here:

1. It is also the case that nobody experiences benefits in no procreation. — DA671

Yet, this is an irrelevant objection. It's obvious that people who don't exist aren't derprived, but that lack of deprivation does not lead to an actual good for someone, — DA671

You are being as arsehole dude I can't help this congenital problem.

It's about states of affairs. That's all. In one case you create collateral harm. In the other you are not. It is not about "good for someone", it is about YOU the fuckn perpetrator acting on behalf of someone.

The question is put on the PARENT. Do YOU (the parent) want to create collateral damage or not? That's the fuckn question.

I'm putting a lot of emotive words in here (like fuckn) because I NEED you to get my point and this may be the only way to get through cause calmly repeating isn't working.

It isn't, but it's fine if you wish to believe that ;)

I did because I agreed that it can be good to not create a harmful state of affairs. Lack of understanding can lead to erroneous conclusions. One state of affairs was about a harm and joy and one was about neither. The claim was made that it's important to prevent the harms but it was fine to prevent the goods. The argument given in favour of this was the claim that nobody is deprived of happiness when they don't exist. When I pointed out that nobody in the void has the capacity to experience happiness to be deprived of it (which is why the lack of deprivation doesn't seem to have any value), it was decided that this should be ignored whilst still repeating the claims about lack of damage being good (even though there aren't any souls in the void who are relieved/saved from the damage, since there's nobody who experiences this good).

I apologise if I made you feel like that.

In one case, one creates benefits, in the other they don't. I would have loved to point out that there's nobody on whose "behalf" one is unethically acting when they are created, since nobody's interests are being violated. But this has already become too repetitive. Partaking in an act of genuine beneficence might be unethical for some, but in the absence of any logical reason in support of this argument, I find no good reason to accept their position.

The question is also whether the parent is fine with eliminating the possibility of all joy and never creating any ineffably meaningful experience. Having a comprehensive approach can be useful.

There is no "point" for me to "get" here, I am afraid. :P

The argument given in favour of this was the claim that nobody is deprived of happiness when they don't exist. When I pointed out that nobody in the void has the capacity to experience happiness to be deprived of it (which is why the lack of deprivation doesn't seem to have any value), it was decided that this should be ignored whilst still repeating the claims about lack of damage being good (even though there aren't any souls in the void who are relieved/saved from the damage, since there's nobody who experiences this good). — DA671

UGGHHGGHG

I am very frustrated that you are not getting this. See, I would be okay, if you understood my point and then we disagreed from here, but you keep missing it!

Please look at what I am saying. That's all I can say. You are misrepresenting my argument, making a strawman, and then arguing against that.

I haven't straw manned you (as far as I am aware). I think you're the one who keeps prevaricating in order to attempt to defend the indefensible.

1. Creating a person leads to "collateral damage" for the person.

2. Creating a person lead to benefits for an individual.

You claim that (2) doesn't matter because nobody is deprived of the benefit (which assumes that the lack of a good matters only when one is deprived of). I argue for a consistent view by pointing out that the lack of damage does not provide relief to an actual person either. Therefore, if the absence of happiness isn't bad because nobody is in a harmful state, it's also not good because nobody is in a preferable state of affairs they had an interest in preserving.

I haven't straw manned you. I think you're the one who keeps prevaricating in order to attempt to defend the indefensible. — DA671

You would say that, being that you keep MISSING THE FUCKN POINT!

I have to go over this in piecemeal I guess and spoon feed this...
Okay,

FIRST and very important!!
We are talking about the actions or non-actions of the parent, and the ethical problem procreation. Presumably that means the parent making this decision. Correct!!??

You're the one who keeps missing the point.

I like forks more.

Yes, the parent should rationally decide whether or not it's a good idea to ignore one side of reality ;)

Yeah whatever.. So we are on the same page so far..
It is a problem regarding the PARENT's decision.

Good, good... ok, we made it to the first step.

Now, keeping in mind that, this is about the parent.......

We can see outcomes of the parent decisions in regarding to harms and joys...
1. It is the case that no one experiences collateral damage in no procreation.
2. It is the case that no one experiences joy in no procreation.

We are agreed on this?

To be fair.. I should have stated
1. It is the case that no one experiences collateral damager of harm in no procreation
2. It is the case that no one experiences the collateral damage of no joy in no procreation.

I have a feeling that arbitrary double standards will start popping up soon.

1. For existing people, the lack of creation could certainly cause harm. As for those who are yet to exist (interestingly, we have now moved to the beings from the parents in this case), it's true that they don't experience any damage/benefit.

2. Yes.

Harm is a damage, so the clarification isn't that necessary.

Having no joy is a harm. It's true that nobody experiences that when they don't exist.

Some of the conclusions here could lead to odd conversations. Not so much "Congratulations on your pregnancy" as "Since you couldn't ask the poor mite whether it wanted to be born what gave you the right to inflict life on it?"

Thankfully, that conversation wouldn't be any more necessary than "glad you could create this amazing life that I couldn't have asked for enjoying before I existed." :P

Um, okay. Don't think your objections mean much here. These are the states of affairs. The parent's are making a decision based on them.. If you need me to connect that for you, just did.

Okay, good so far....

Here is the moral claim: It is unethical/bad/misguided (depends on how you view ethical decisions), to create unnecessary collateral damage for someone else.

Here is where we can start debating a bit because this is the normative claim about the states of affairs.

The parent is causing unnecessary harm. Unnecessary harm is harm that did not need to be created. If for example there was a person who already existing and needed you to cause a minor harm to prevent a greater harm, one can make a case that this may be necessary harm. However, this is never the case in procreation.

You are going to jump in and say: "But joy!" "But joy!"

This is where we really need to focus the argument. Is creating unnecessary collateral damage for someone else ever ethical?

If we agree that this is about the parents.. It is about creating collateral damage versus not creating collateral damage.

Look back at the states of affairs. In one case, the parent WILL be creating collateral damage. That is the qualification for the ethical matter. Someone WILL be affected with collateral damage.

EVEN if you deemed "goods" deprived as bad (which we can argue about whether that's even an ethical matter or supererogatory behavior), it is the state of affairs that NO ONE will be deprived, and thus even IF this was an ethical issue (of depriving someone of joy), the ethical element is moot, since there is no one's interests that are deprived.

What YOU would have to answer for is whether humans are ever indebted to non-existent future beings to ensure "they" experience joy.

I am not sure about the relevance of your point. I never averred that the parents or the states of affairs aren't pertinent. But it's true that the decision is about a person. Moving on.

In isolation, the damage is obviously unethical. However, when the act can lead to greater happiness for a person, it can be justifiable to do so. I also don't think that one is acting for "someone else" when nobody exists at the time of the act, but I shall ignore that for the sake of the argument.

The harm might be unnecessary, but the happiness isn't. If it's necessary to prevent harms even though preventing them doesn't lead to a good for someone in an alternative state of affairs (in the form of fulfillment or relief), I think that it's also problematic to never create any joy.

If it leads to greater happiness, it is ethical, in my view. It's definitely about the ethical act committed by the parents of creating a good.

Benefits are also ethically relevant, particularly when one is not in an already satisfied state of affairs that they would be mostly happy with as long as serious harms are avoided.

In one case, there won't be any positive. In the other state of affairs, there would a joyous experience for an actual person.

It is indeed bad because it's absence does lead to harm for an actual person (such as the lack of health leading to suffering). One could claim that some goods are supererogatory as far as existing people are concerned because they don't need constant interference for living fairly happy lives as long as they can avoid serious harms. But this isn't applicable to those who don't exist.

If the lack of happiness isn't bad because nobody is deprived of it, then neither is the lack of damage good, since the absence of the negatives does not provide someone with relief/fulfillment resulting from a satisfaction of their interests.

If we are indebted to "them, prevent damages for "them" even though "they" did not express any interest in it and neither does the prevention ever lead to an actually better state of affairs for a person by giving them some sort of benefit/relief, then we definitely have to take the joys into account.

In the end, you consider the damage to be unnecessary (which I also do, but in isolation of other factors) but the creation of joys not necessary. But I disagree with that because my intuitions tell me that they are quite relevant.

Anyway, this has been repeated multiple times. I hope that you have a wonderful day!

Is creating unnecessary collateral damage for someone else ever ethical? — schopenhauer1

Unnecessary to whom? Death is necessary to life. Harm is necessary to life. Life is necessary to life.

In isolation, the damage is obviously unethical. However, when the act can lead to greater happiness for a person, it can be justifiable to do so. I also don't think that one is acting for "someone else" when nobody exists at the time of the act, but I shall ignore that for the sake of the argument. — DA671

Sure, if someone spits out a kid in the mouth of a volcano, and makes the decision that this is okay..it's not making a decision on "behalf" of anything :roll:. Just spit it out into the volcano, right? This whole non-identity thing in relation to procreation is a different debate so moving on...

If it's necessary to prevent harms even though preventing them doesn't lead to a good for someone in an alternative state of affairs (in the form of fulfillment or relief), I think that it's also problematic to never create any joy. — DA671

WTF?? You JUST did it again!! We JUST spent all this time going over how this is about the fuckn parent's decision. And now you are reverting to you shitty strawman about "not good for an actual person"... It's about the PARENT NOT CREATING SUFFERING!!!!! DOES THAT COMPUTE??!!

I just slowed this down for you so you can see this is about states of affairs. In one case harm, in the other not. It's nothing to do with the "relief" of the non-existent child!!

If it leads to greater happiness, it is ethical, in my view. It's definitely about the ethical act committed by the parents of creating a good. — DA671

Right, so same question. Is it ever ethical to create unnecessary collateral damage? No. It would be unethical.

Benefits are also ethically relevant, particularly when one is not in an already satisfied state of affairs that they would be mostly happy with as long as serious harms are avoided. — DA671

Okay, so you are finally just putting your normative claim there. Everything is based on utility for you. I am claiming deontology that creating unnecessary collateral damage is always bad.

Here's an example..
If I made an obstacle course and said that you MUST go through the obstacles or you simply die of starvation.. Am I right to make you go through the obstacle course? No.

What happens if I said, hey, I have some tools and skills that I can provide for you to make the obstacle course a little easier.. Is that justified? No. Even though it was better to provide those, it was never good to create for that person in the first place.

Unnecessary to whom? Death is necessary to life. Harm is necessary to life. Life is necessary to life. — unenlightened

Unnecessary to create it in the first place. You are either creating collateral damage for someone else or you are not. I am saying the moral choice is to not create collateral damage for someone when you didn't need to create it in the first place.