Parents are aware of the harm that may befall their child, so it is intentional. — Tzeentch
They just assume on the child's behalf that the harm will outweigh the good. — Tzeentch
Having made the voluntary decision to create another human being whose well-being will depend entirely on them, the parent has incurred responsibilities and is no longer in a default situation. — Tzeentch
I asked about neither of those occasions. I asked about the occasion of you changing your mind. — Isaac
So if you didn't speak English you could just 'work out' what moral means using reason? — Isaac
So you intend to help. The conditions are thst it's possible to build a house. You change your mind and walk away. The conditions are now that it's impossible to build a house.
If you changing your mind didn't cause the conditions to change, what did? — Isaac
Not if it's voluntary. They just decide it doesn't. — Isaac
You're now claiming that responsibility is not voluntary, that some actions bring about a non-optional responsibility. Why? And why only some actions? — Isaac
It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality. — Tzeentch
No inaction is a word we use to describe neutral action opposite to the action in question. — Isaac
You're always performing some action really. You breathe, digest, look about... — Isaac
Plato decided what the word moral means? You didn't know how to use the word until you read Plato? People who haven't read Plato don't know what moral means? This just gets weirder and weirder. — Isaac
There’s the potential for harm to occur in every human interaction. Therefore is all harm caused intentional? — Pinprick
I think you have that backwards, but we make this same assumption all the time when we interact with each other. — Pinprick
Ok. Then is there really a default situation where no one is depending on us? For example, our parents may depend on us to have children so that they can become grandparents, which will improve their happiness/well-being. — Pinprick
If you're born and you don't like life, you can always kill yourself (not easy, but doable). — Agent Smith
I don't think it creates conditions. — Tzeentch
You seem to be deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I won't play that game. This obviously isn't about the English language. — Tzeentch
Morality is a set of principles that guide behavior — Tzeentch
The conditions didn't change until one had finally made up their mind and turned their intentions into physical actions. — Tzeentch
Why? Because we voluntarily created a situation in which we cause harm if we aren't to take said responsibility. — Tzeentch
Plato and other thinkers alerted me to the fact that my previous conception of morality was unexamined and muddy, not unlike yours. — Tzeentch
So what does? — Isaac
So do the rules of chess. So what distinguishes morality from any other set of principles which guide behaviour? — Isaac
By your non-interference (by doing something else instead of helping) you create the conditions in which it is impossible to build a house and all the harms which go along with that. — Isaac
But why is that immoral? Can't I just say that I've decided it isn't, using my rational logic? — Isaac
What is the goal of the examination? — Isaac
Physical actions. — Tzeentch
The rules of chess guide behavior for individuals playing chess. Morals guide behavior for individuals in life. — Tzeentch
I don't create conditions in matters that I am not involved in by not getting involved. I'm not a part of the conditions initially, and I don't become part of it when I choose not to get involved. — Tzeentch
It's immoral because we're creating harm by our voluntary action. Individuals do not like being harmed, and interactions with other individuals should be on terms acceptable to both sides (consensuality). — Tzeentch
Testing the validity of one's ideas, of course. — Tzeentch
In the scenario I described, whose physical actions caused the change in conditions from the state where a house could be built to the state where one could not? — Isaac
Traffic laws also guide behaviour for individuals in life. Is it a moral rule that we ought drive on the left? — Isaac
Then who does? You keep dodging the question. Who causes the change of circumstances in the situation I described, if not you? — Isaac
Why? — Isaac
What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. — Isaac
No one's. No change took place. The condition under which the house could not be built was in place all along, the builders simply didn't have the information to understand.
We never went from five to four builders, because a fifth person was not available. — Tzeentch
Does it pertain to living a good life? Does it pertain to not harming others? — Tzeentch
what about those deliberations in one's head that according to you cause conditions and harm? Isn't it about time you address that elephant? — Tzeentch
It seems people are a lot happier when they don't harm each other. — Tzeentch
What would inform us of the invalidity of a moral rule. — Isaac
Logical inconsistencies. — Tzeentch
So before you changed your mind, when you were planning to help build the house, you were unavailable? How so? — Isaac
Why would those two criteria determine something to be a moral rule, as opposed to any other rule? — Isaac
It's not remotely a problem for me. — Isaac
The problem are for those who think mental activity is magic. — Isaac
I thought I would be available and turn out not to be, then clearly I didn't know if I was available in the first place. — Tzeentch
Can you point to the harm done as a result of my deliberation? I think not. — Tzeentch
I'm deliberating, changing my mind several times. Am I now causing harm with every deliberation? — Tzeentch
Whether a condition is formed is decided when I express my conclusion to the builders. — Tzeentch
Where is the magical suffering that's caused by my deliberation? — Tzeentch
This is an erroneous representation of cause and effect, since doing nothing causes nothing. It has no physical effects nor does it create conditions. — Tzeentch
So you're not in control of your own decisions, you just 'find out' what they are when you get there? — Isaac
The suffering from the lack of a house. — Isaac
So before you say anything, were you available or not? — Isaac
If you want to argue against my position, quote me. — Isaac
What else would you conclude if you believe to be available but ultimately it turns out you're not? Only that you apparently didn't know whether you were available or not. — Tzeentch
Deliberating causes a lack of a house? Explain, please. — Tzeentch
So in your view, while I'm deliberating the possibility of a house flashes in and out of existence, and thereby causing harm? — Tzeentch
An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them. — Tzeentch
There's no way to tell. — Tzeentch
Just thought I'd do everyone a favor and delineate how all of this ties back to the subject of the thread. — Tzeentch
That you changed your mind? — Isaac
Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house. No house. Is there something about that account that puzzles you? — Isaac
You're unaware of the concept of passing time? Everything that happens, happens concurrently? — Isaac
I can't detect radiation either. — Isaac
Brilliant. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your work.
Boss: "are you available for night shift on Thursday?"
You: "how could I possibly know, we'll just have to wait until Thursday and fond out, won't we?" — Isaac
That's just another way of saying you didn't know. — Tzeentch
Where is the causation in this story?
Condition A: No house.
> "Neurons fire"
Condition B: Still no house. — Tzeentch
not only are you entitled to decide for me whether I am potentially available, but I also need to decide now? — Tzeentch
You can detect radiation. — Tzeentch
For the sake of argument, I have a contract with my boss. I don't have a contract with the child that I will not have. — Tzeentch
Condition A: No house.
> "Neurons fire"
Condition B: Still no house. — Tzeentch
So how could prospective parents possibly change their minds about having children when such a decision is already made? — Isaac
Condition A: world is in a state such that a house can be built.
Neurons fire, cause some action other than building a house.
Condition B: world is in a state such that a house cannot be built. — Isaac
How? — Isaac
That changes whether you understand what 'available' means? — Isaac
The antinatalism-natalism problem will be settled for good once we can calculate the probability of a future child ending up down in the dumps or on cloud nine. You can't argue with math; if your future baby has a 90% chance of lifelong suffering, it would be insane, not to mention cruel, to have him/her and if the odds of happiness are 90%, it would be wrong to not have the child. — Agent Smith
I'm not sure if this solves it.
Should I push you out of an airplane if there's a 90% chance of you having a great experience, and a 10% chance of crashing into the Earth? — Tzeentch
And regardless of one's answer to that, what gives one the right to decide for another that they should jump out of an airplane in the first place?
I didn't say the decision is already made. I said that we don't know our final decision until we make it. — Tzeentch
It's never in a state that the house can be built. I fear you've conflated causation with potentiality.
Let me ask you this, are you responsible for all the harm "caused" by every possible action you could take, but didn't? — Tzeentch
With a geiger counter. — Tzeentch
I would not be harming the employer for not showing up to work, let alone be responsible for it! — Tzeentch
What's you knowing it got to do with causality? — Isaac
The conditions in which harm is going to happen (future tense - same as procreation) is that the house cannot be built. That is going to cause harm.
That condition, that state of affairs, came about when you decided not to help. — Isaac
It's nothing to do with causing the harm itself. — Isaac
So it necessarily involves potentiality. As does procreation. — Isaac
Your objection is about the potentiality of harm, not direct causality. — Isaac
So radiation was harmless before the invention of the Geiger counter? Shame we invented it really. — Isaac
No one even mentioned harm. You claimed you didn't know if you were available until the time of the actual event. This is clearly just a misuse of the word 'available'. If your boss asks you if you're available next Thursday you know perfectly well what he means. Apply that understanding to the question I asked. Don't dodge it by pretending available means something else. — Isaac
The mathematization of the issue with the requisite risk-benefit analysis needs work but rest assured once we have the exact figures, we can make decisions rationally, exactly what we should be doing, oui? — Agent Smith
Your argument is that a change in conditions takes place through my deliberation, when in fact it is unknown whether the conditions will change until I've made up my mind. — Tzeentch
That condition was already in place when there were only four builders and they were looking for a fifth. I was never a potential builder — Tzeentch
appointing random uninvolved people as potential builders — Tzeentch
Fine. You've conflated creating conditions with potentiality. — Tzeentch
your view is that it is possible to create conditions by not taking a certain action, and that by doing so you become responsible for harm. Is that not your position?
So are you responsible for all the conditions that is "created" by actions you did not take? — Tzeentch
Procreation is an act. Not acting is not an act. — Tzeentch
It's about both, really. Life has many harms inherent to it, and those can be said to be caused directly by the parents. — Tzeentch
Before the Geiger counter you could detect it when your hair and teeth started falling out, — Tzeentch
An outsider couldn't even detect the nature of the deliberations, let alone suffer harm from them. — Tzeentch
Strictly speaking I don't know if I'm available when my boss asks. — Tzeentch
my contract created a condition X, that my boss counts on my presence at the agreed upon time. — Tzeentch
What's them being unknown got to do with the argument about what they are. — Isaac
So what were you when you intended to help build the house, before you changed your mind? — Isaac
How is that the builder's 'appointing random uninvolved people'? — Isaac
What's the difference then? — Isaac
Non-interference is an action (it involves doing something else), and so has no problems affecting potentiality. — Isaac
No they can't. You keep reminding us that only direct causality counts. — Isaac
So following your example of what it means to 'detect', then an outsider could perfectly well detect the nature of the deliberations by their effect. — Isaac
Then why don't you say "I don't know" when he asks? — Isaac
A friend says "I'm moving house on Wednesday, are you available to help?", you seriously telling me that your normal reply to such a question would be "I don't know if I'm available, I suppose we'll have to wait until Wednesday to find out"? — Isaac
You're making assumptions about things that are unknown and attributing harm to conditions they supposedly create, that's why it's relevant. — Tzeentch
You were deliberating. — Tzeentch
Because from the very beginning my argument, the argument that you attacked, has been about a default situation. That means the person is initially uninvolved in any way. — Tzeentch
The creation of conditions is a physical, detectable thing. Potentialities are things that may or may not happen in the future. — Tzeentch
Am I now interacting with the house because I'm also walking while not-interfering with it?
I don't think so. — Tzeentch
Correlation =/= Causation. — Tzeentch
However, that's simply a way of human customs. It has nothing to do with logic — 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.