By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) than not doing so would. — Isaac
Yes. NU is as bizarre a ethic as any. Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? — Isaac
The thing is, you presuppose the individual to be a part of something. A circle, a group of people available to build a house, etc. — Tzeentch
when that opinion turns out to be false, the person who wasn't involved in the first place hasn't suddenly started to cause harm. — Tzeentch
However assuming one hasn't caused the people to freeze and isn't involved with them in some other way, it is neutral. One may very well choose to help out, however if one has reasons not to do so, non-interference is acceptable. — Tzeentch
No moral system that holds non-interference as unacceptable will make sense, because there are people proverbially drowning everywhere at every moment, and if non-interference is not acceptable, well you get where that is going. — Tzeentch
It seems apparent to me that not acting in a particular situation can be one of the causes of a state of affairs continuing in a certain way, since doing something could have stopped/changed the situation. Of course, there can be multiple sources and ignoring intentions and practical limitations whilst ascribing responsibility for something is not right, in my view. — DA671
Except, of course, if the child is of the wrong skin color/ethnicity/socioeconomic class, has a disability, is one too many.
You keep ignoring this. — baker
Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? — Isaac
It's about the quality of one's intention. — baker
Unless one has a very narrow (and ultimately counter-intuitive, in my opinion) definition of "causing" something (which is not the same as being held responsible for it), I do not think it makes sense to deny that one of the causes behind the man's drowning was that he was not helped. — DA671
I don't get to put someone in harms way because I'm bored nor put them in harms way because I think that they should like it (even if they don't). YOU should not be making those assumptions for others. — schopenhauer1
Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now. — Tzeentch
With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch
No, my analogy only requires that it is an option. By choosing not to be a part of something you are creating the conditions where that something has one fewer participants. If, by having one fewer participant, those conditions cause harm, then you are creating condition of harm. This is exactly the same situation you're claiming to be immoral with procreation. — Isaac
More goalpost shifting. With procreation you weren't talking about 'causing harm', you were talking about 'creating the conditions for harm'. — Isaac
As I said, weird premises in, weird conclusions out. — Isaac
Sitting and watching people die who you could easily save is sociopathic. — Isaac
Imagine every film, book, or play you've ever encountered. Where in any of them, does the hero sit an watch someone die because he can't be bothered to help? — Isaac
It's absolutely universal that such behaviour is considered immoral. — Isaac
Let’s say I plant a tree in a yard that will be owned by someone else 100 years from now. If that tree falls and causes property damage or some other harm, am I responsible for that? — Pinprick
You mean like neglect? — Pinprick
But responsibility isn't the primary subject here. It is morality, and intentionality is a large part of that. That factor is lacking in your example, but present in mine. — Tzeentch
Call it whatever you like. — Tzeentch
It is also lacking in virtually all cases of childbirth as well, right? Or do you think people intentionally have kids so that they can cause the conditions for that child to be harmed? — Pinprick
Allowing your child to starve to death by not intervening and providing food for it is neglect, which is also an example of non-intervention, which you claim is neutral, which I assume means amoral. — Pinprick
this presupposes the person in question was a participant in the first place. — Tzeentch
As far as I'm concerned, by non-interference one isn't creating any conditions that impact a given event. — Tzeentch
I'd argue that believing oneself to be the proper arbiter to judge who could easily save who is at least equally sociopathic. — Tzeentch
The idea that non-interference is immoral by default cannot be applied consistently. — Tzeentch
that belief is not universally held. — Tzeentch
Nope. Merely present. I'm talking about conditions (as you are in procreation - apples with apples). The 'conditions' under which it is not possible to build a house are that there are only four people present. Before anyone has even decided if they're 'available', four is too few. So you have created a condition (too few people even potentially available) where it is not possible to build a house and so people suffer harm. — Isaac
One doesn't, we rely on society as a whole to come to an agreement. — Isaac
Are you seriously having trouble understanding the notion of taking more than one factor into account? — Isaac
Give me s counter example then. A culture, or any person considered moral (or neutral) for standing by watching a person die who they could easily save. — Isaac
I was never available in the first place. So that condition was already in place - I did not create it. — Tzeentch
There are only four people available. — Tzeentch
I don't accept that answer. Societies have agreed on terribly immoral things in the past. — Tzeentch
Tell me about those factors, and I will tell you why it is still inconsistent. — Tzeentch
It's a fairly common phenomenon in certain countries for people not to help out in traffic accidents out of fear for being held accountable. — Tzeentch
Why, is your availability outside of your control? — Isaac
I'm referring to the condition where there are only four people potentially available. That condition leads to suffering because five people need to be potentially available as a minimum requirement. — Isaac
Right, so back to everyone doing as they please. No morality. — Isaac
I already have. The limits on mental and physical capacity, limuts on access to resources, reasonable other goals which occupy one's time... — Isaac
Right. Then they couldn't easily save them then, could they? They'd risk some psychological harm (fear of retribution). I specified "easily". — Isaac
It's a notion that doesn't exist to an uninvolved bystander. It's the person who has the desire to build a house that creates it. — Tzeentch
Perhaps so, but I don't agree that it is the uninvolved bystander that creates the condition, nor the suffering.
It seems to me the builders are themselves creating the conditions that cause suffering. — Tzeentch
This idea of 'availability' is subjective. I could reasonably assume half my town to be "available" to do things for me. — Tzeentch
And they don't thereby create the conditions for my house not being built — Tzeentch
And who is to be the arbiter of this? — Tzeentch
People do as they please regardless. The question is whether reasoned morality is a part of that which pleases them. — Tzeentch
I don't agree that what is "easy" should in the context of morality be determined by a third party.
It is precisely what is under contention. — Tzeentch
whatever reason they presents is sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent. — Tzeentch
So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability. — Isaac
No you couldn't. Half the town would clearly be occupied with a ton of other reasonable tasks. — Isaac
Parents to not create the conditions for harm to befall their children, those perpetrating the harm do. — Isaac
The community reaches an agreement by various means. — Isaac
So we all for as we please then? — Isaac
So why does this not apply to procreation? — Isaac
Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging them?
You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good. — Isaac
Availability is something that exists in the mind of some other individual. — Tzeentch
They're sitting on their lawn, reading books, watching tv. — Tzeentch
Parents create the condition of life, and life invariably also includes harm. — Tzeentch
the evidence to the contrary is so vast that I would indeed be confused if this is what you're arguing. — Tzeentch
In the absence of objective truth we have two options: leave the individual to judge themselves (individualism) or let the community dictate (collectivism).
I lean heavily towards individualism.
But we are going wildly off-topic here. — Tzeentch
Because procreation is an act, and not non-interference. — Tzeentch
I'm not judging anyone. I'm presenting moral principles and the logic that supports it. — Tzeentch
Striking the right balance between pernicious optimism and unbridled pessimism is quite important! — DA671
Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control? — Isaac
All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening around them). Rest and relaxation are demonstrably necessary. — Isaac
You created the condition where too few people were available to build the house. — Isaac
What evidence would that be? — Isaac
The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, — Isaac
Why does non-interference escape judgement? — Isaac
I'm not judging anyone. — Tzeentch
So declaring something immoral is not a judgement? On what planet? — Isaac
I'm not in control over the ideas in other individuals' heads for which I may or may not be available. — Tzeentch
Those activities aren't reasonable at all. — Tzeentch
I did not create that condition. I've already given you multiple examples as to why that would be absurd — Tzeentch
Remember when a few comments back I asked you why you felt people were entitled to another's action?
You denied that you were. I wouldn't be so sure of that. — Tzeentch
I don't need to list the countless atrocities committed throughout history by collectives that were unable to discern right from wrong. — Tzeentch
The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, — Isaac
Explain. — Tzeentch
Because one cannot be judged for something one isn't involved in.
I argue that not getting involved is acceptable by default. — Tzeentch
of course you fence with notions of reasonableness - fair enough, but if you get to apply your notions of reasonableness then everyone does. — Tzeentch
It's a judgement, not of a person, but of an action and/or the arguments that support it. — Tzeentch
You either decide you're available to help with the housebuilding or that you're not. — Isaac
Then you've misunderstood the meaning of the word reasonable. How many people in your language community have you heard use the word unreasonable to describe fifteen minutes of relaxation time? — Isaac
Five people are needed to build a house. You create the situation where there are only four by walking away. You created the situation in which it is now impossible to build a house from one where it was possible. — Isaac
And your community doesn't think they were wrong? — Isaac
You don't think individuals should be left to their own devices to act as they see fit (such as procreation). — Isaac
You don't argue that their reasons for action should be assumed to be good. — Isaac
If you can judge someone's action to be immoral, why can I not judge your inaction to be immoral? — Isaac
inaction or action can both have consequences — Isaac
They're not 'my' notions of reasonableness. I haven't just plucked them out o thin air. I've been living with other humans using the word 'reasonable' for nearly 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what 'reasonable' means that's considerably more than just me making it up. — Isaac
So it's OK for me to be immoral? — Isaac
What was proposed before was that my availability was already decided, and that to dissent was to create conditions and harm. — Tzeentch
Reasonableness isn't decided by majority decision, as we've already established. — Tzeentch
There were never going to be five people available to build the house. — Tzeentch
that there are and were only four people available all along. — Tzeentch
Some do, some don't. — Tzeentch
Me having ideas about morality does not mean I believe individuals shouldn't be free to make their own choices — Tzeentch
I don't see what that has to do with individualism, nor what part of our discussion this is relevant to. — Tzeentch
Non-interference can be immoral, however it is not so by default. — Tzeentch
Inaction does not have consequences. To argue such would be a typically human but erroneous way of representing causality. The drowning man doesn't drown because I did not help him, but because he could not swim and somehow ended up in the water.
The apple doesn't fall on the ground because I wasn't there to catch it.
etc. — Tzeentch
I imagine that someone in the Middle-East who is about to stone a woman to death for adultery would come with a similar argumentation. — Tzeentch
It would be more accurate to say I would not ask you to conform to my ideas of morality. — Tzeentch
you admit that, in deciding, you create the conditions for harm. — Isaac
Then by what? How did you learn how to use the word 'reasonable'? — Isaac
So you were born unwilling to help? — Isaac
So it's not possible to change your mind? — Isaac
I didn't ask about some I asked about your community. When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? — Isaac
I have reasons for having children. Do you assume they are good reasons? — Isaac
Agreed. Took an inordinate length of time to get there. — Isaac
So...how do you judge when non-interference is immoral? — Isaac
Why does inaction not have consequences? — Isaac
I imagine they might, but I'm not talking to someone in the middle east. I'm talking to you. — Isaac
Then why are you telling me them? — Isaac
Before the builders ask my help the condition is that there are four people available. After I have made it clear I wish not to get involved, there are four people available. — Tzeentch
Reasonableness isn't a part of my argument. — Tzeentch
reasonableness as you are using it is very subjective and in my view unusable. — Tzeentch
In my "community" ideas vary wildly about what is moral, and many of those ideas I would consider clearly the opposite. — Tzeentch
So it's not possible to change your mind? — Isaac
Sure I can. — Tzeentch
If you scroll back through this discussion you'll see the intentions of the parents are not what's being questioned. — Tzeentch
When one has voluntarily taken upon themselves the responsibility to care for the person in need.
For example, a parent cannot let their child starve, because the parent voluntarily created a situation in which the child depends on them to fulfill their life needs. — Tzeentch
Because things that do not exist in reality do not have consequences. — Tzeentch
Well if you're interested in my approach to morality, you're in luck because I've already been sharing it with you over the last few pages. — Tzeentch
The reason I post on this forum is to test my ideas. — Tzeentch
What about before you change your mind and decide not to help (having previously planned to)? — Isaac
Then why are you disputing what is reasonable? — Isaac
I'm just saying that some behaviour is reasonable and some behaviour is not. — Isaac
When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? No. So those behaviours are not moral. It's not what the word means. — Isaac
Are you seriously going to claim you changing your mind doesn't bring about a change in conditions? — Isaac
You said both intentions and consequences matter. — Isaac
If it's voluntary then a parent might choose to have a child but not take on the responsibility of caring for them. — Isaac
Inaction exists. Otherwise what are we talking about. — Isaac
How did you learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac
When the builders come to ask the conditions are that four people are available.
When I make my intentions known that condition hasn't changed. — Tzeentch
opinions vary greatly on what is reasonable and what isn't. — Tzeentch
why I should value your opinion over someone else's. I need reasoning and logic. — Tzeentch
I determine it on the basis of reason and moral principles. — Tzeentch
In the context of our example it sure seems that way. Remember you have also claimed that changing the conditions causes harm, so now you're implying that by internally changing your mind, you're causing harm. Seems absurd to me. — Tzeentch
They voluntarily bring about the conditions in which a child will rely on them for survival. — Tzeentch
That's when it becomes the parent's responsibility. — Tzeentch
It does not. It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality. — Tzeentch
How did you learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac
By reading Plato I suppose. — Tzeentch
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.