The harms to existing beings is also a good point worth thinking about. — DA671
Just to clarify: I am an antinatalist (also, pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion, pro-vasectomy/tubal ligation) because the world and society I was born into and have lived in for almost 58 years is ravaged by gratuitious suffering force multiplied by endemic stupidity; so for the last 30+ years I've deliberately avoided chucking anymore fresh meat into the moral circus of these times. I'm not "pronatalist" at all. In fact, one doesn't have to be; there's no argument needed to procreate and perpetuate the species – that's what extant species do by biological default.Pronatalists are of the opinion that ... — Agent Smith
would you say that there is a risk that we can start thinking about the community or the collective as this distinct being of sorts whilst disregarding the needs of the individuals, which could be deleterious for the community itself (eventually)? — DA671
procreation can be a source of unfathomable value for many (and I haven't even mentioned the indirect value it could have due to the fact that it could lead to the creation of people who would help their communities and would contribute towards the common good). — DA671
That's only if one is focusing more on the risks and is ignoring the opportunities that could also exist. — DA671
My preferred solution to the unknown consequences problem is to consider ethics about virtue, not consequence. Virtue only requires that we do our best. — Isaac
I think a just intention alone does not suffice, though it is a prerequisite for a moral action.
Similarly, a good outcome alone is not enough either.
One needs both. — Tzeentch
ignorance is not virtuous — Tzeentch
One cannot have both, so you've made moral action impossible. — Isaac
Ignorance, of the sort you describe here, is neither virtuous non non-virtuous. It's as relevant to virtue as having a nose. We are all ignorant in the manner you describe and cannot be any other. As such the state is irrelevant to virtue. One cannot make into a virtue that which is unobtainable. — Isaac
One cannot have both, so you've made moral action impossible. — Isaac
Why not? — Tzeentch
If intentions were good but the outcome was bad, then there must have been ignorance at play. In my view that does not justify the action or make it moral as per virtue ethics. — Tzeentch
Because that would involve omniscience and none of us are. — Isaac
Well then you're not using the word 'moral' correctly. The degree of prior knowledge you're describing is not the kind of action we use the word 'moral' to describe. You're describing a different type of action. let's call it a 'y-moral' action. — Isaac
You're saying for one's intention to match the outcome it requires omniscience? — Tzeentch
If one intends to do great good but does only great harm, they clearly cannot be said to be moral. — Tzeentch
But let's take this away from semantics. What ought we do? We cannot predict the future with great accuracy, our inaction could cause as much harm as our action, so what ought we do? — Isaac
(B) find another (less incoherent) argument to "justify" their position or (C) concede that the idea is wholly subjective and be consistent enough to (i) refrain from procreating and/or (ii) kill themselves asap. — 180 Proof
Or something else—hopefully better. — DA671
The single-minded emphasis on harms and implicit contempt for the positive does not seem right to me. — DA671
That is why I used the word "risks"! Therein lies the balance. — DA671
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.