You talk about meaning, I'm talking about good. — Isaac
What is 'good' is not fine being subjective because you sffdct me and I affect you, we share common resources, we share space, we collaborate to achieve stuff we couldn't achieve alone. We must come up with an agreement as to what constitutes the common good. — Isaac
Once we have such an agreement, the maintenance of it is all morality is. Anything else is pointless. You could say "you mustn't do X", " you must do Y", but why? Who sets these bizarre rules and why ought we obey them? — Isaac
If you don't want to build a better community, if you don't care for their welfare, then that's fine, you do you, but you've got no business with morality, the subject matter of which is the welfare of our community. Anything less is just a set of arbitrary rules for no purpose. — Isaac
So your concern for the autonomy of the as yet unborn is noble, important, but completely pointless unless in the service of the larger goal of community welfare. Otherwise, why? Why bother with autonomy? Why bother with rights? Why bother with dignity? What's the purpose? — Isaac
I don't see any contradiction here, or any objective for that matter. — Tzeentch
you are talking about cases where a person exists to already need to share resources, space, and "achieve stuff". Hence why I really try to emphasize the unnecessary nature of creating these things for another person to encounter (the very imposition in question). — schopenhauer1
it is something that will (or at least could) affect another person so squarely fits in morality. It is not exempt because it doesn't fit with other cases. The rule itself must make room for this decision as well. — schopenhauer1
Your assumption seems to be that people NEED to be born TO build a better community.. Well, hold on, who says? Why do you get to make that decision? — schopenhauer1
Because it affects people in significant ways to have to do X. — schopenhauer1
People do already exist with these needs. The current community. All of whom will suffer if there's no succeeding generation. — Isaac
See above. What is 'good' for a community cannot be a subjective decision because we all affect each other, so I have expectation of you and you of me on the grounds of our mutual need for each other. It is not only reasonable to expect others to adhere to the general consensus on what is good, it is completely necessary for a community to function. — Isaac
So? Why care about affecting others? — Isaac
community is not some amorphous entity either, but comprised of people with feelings, attitudes, ways of beings, and their own internal thoughts.. It is THAT which the ethics obtains to. — schopenhauer1
nor is there anywhere that it says that the projects must be carried forward simply because OTHERS have a notion it must (and so they get to impose it on other people). — schopenhauer1
Because people are not to be used, even if it is for a "greater cause of the community". — schopenhauer1
If I have a project that I like, I don't get to impose it on others because the project cannot move forward and then claim anything that doesn't further my project is not moral, therefore I can do X things to other people, whether it is good/whether they want it or not. I also don't get to create harmful situations for them because it furthers my project. Again, it's aggressive paternalism. It uses people. It assumes what YOU think is good is good (for them). — schopenhauer1
That, my friend, is the right question. — Dr. Lanning
People's own private objectives are not ethics, it's just subjective. If I want a big car it's not ethics to get me one. — Isaac
That's exactly what morality is, a general agreement among a community — Isaac
Absent of agreement it's just personal preferences, not ethics. — Isaac
Why not? More arbitrary rules. — Isaac
Then you've no ethics. If the community don't get to have any expectation of anyone they don't personally agree with then all you have is everyone just does whatever they want. that's not ethics. — Isaac
I'm with you in that it would be presumptuous of anyone to think for someone else given that people differ so much in all the relevant respects (the subjectivity of hedonism comes into play). To illustrate, I might be happy living on minimum wages, with no health insurance, in a one-room apartment while you maybe miserable in a 40-room mansion with a full complement of staff to run the place. — Agent Smith
However, for this very same reason, I can't defend antinatalism and nor can anyone justify natalism. To do either, we need objectivity (we are arguing, oui?) but that as we just discovered isn't there (vide previous paragraph). — Agent Smith
why go with the riskiest, most harm-creating one? — schopenhauer1
When subjectivity is involved, all bets are off!!! — Agent Smith
individual is the ethical locus — schopenhauer1
Right, but this doesn't refute the point, if the things are different for everyone, why go with the riskiest move? And then this also goes back to the asymmetry. WHO loses out on "no goods had"? Look back to my last post about the asymmetry. — schopenhauer1
"Natalism" needs to be justified? Since when?I can't defend antinatalism and nor can anyone justify natalism. — Agent Smith
To my reckoning, Benatar is guilty of an inconsistency - look at 3 & 4. In the case of 3, nonexistence diminishes the value of possible happiness (Not bad only), but in 4, the value of unhappiness remains unaffected by nonexistence (Good). Benatar is trying to eat his cake and have it too. — Agent Smith
Not bringing about 1 harms literally no one in its absence. — schopenhauer1
So, each person does exactly what they wish. Doing exactly what you want is not ethics, not by any definition at all.
The only alternative is that someone has the right of expectation that another will adhere to some behaviour even if they don't want to.
But then you can't avoid the question of who gets to set what that behaviour is.
You have three choices...
1. Everyone does whatever they want.
2. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. The community comes to a decision somehow as to what that behaviour is.
3. People are expected to behave in certain ways even if they don't want to. You, God, or some other arbitrary person, decide what that behaviour is. — Isaac
Clearly there are rules, the ones about not using people or violating their dignity by forcing upon them significant conditions. — schopenhauer1
So who gets to decide what the rules are? — Isaac
Someone IS deciding in one, and in the other, no one is making that assumption for another, literally. — schopenhauer1
Yes they are. They're making an assumption that all the b people who would benefit from the prospective person should suffer. — Isaac
Why is a person's dignity being violated something that must be based on some community standard? — schopenhauer1
Because the alternative is that everyone just does whatever they want. Again, if you prefer that system, that's your deal, but it just not what morality is. — Isaac
There seems something above and beyond community standards going on for things like when (or if) it is okay to harm an individual. Something that is irrespective of time and place of a community. — schopenhauer1
The point is we already disagree, you and I.
So we've only two choices. We arbitrate (come to a binding agreement), or you do as you see fit and I do as I see fit (we do as we please). — Isaac
Propose, make a case, don't impose. I also separate discussions of ethics from law. Government/law and ethics is not the same but may overlap with personal ethics. — 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.