We've talked about both direct causation and the creation of conditions. — Tzeentch
All knowledge is an assumption about the unknown. You don't know that a potential child will come to harm. You assume. — Isaac
So there's no such thing as available? No one is ever available? — Isaac
What? Why is being uninvolved the default, and what's that got to do with the situation I asked you about? — Isaac
So harm to children is a potentiality then, not a condition. OK — Isaac
Who said anything about interacting? — Isaac
You can change what is probable without interaction. If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac
So radiation was harmless before we understood the causality, when we had merely correlation? — Isaac
The meaning of words is not determined by logic. We don't logically work out what the word 'available' means. — Isaac
If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? — Isaac
My argument doesn't rest on whether or not I know. — Tzeentch
the builders have incorrectly assumed I was going to help them in the first place, and thereby caused their own harm. — Tzeentch
Because in order to understand a principle (non-interference is neutral) we must regard it in an uncomplicated setting. If we can agree that non-interference is neutral in an uncomplicated setting we can see if there are settings in which it is no longer neutral.
Pretty obvious. — Tzeentch
Procreation is a physical, detectable thing. — Tzeentch
Some interaction must take place for me to become responsible for the harm that befalls someone else, no? — Tzeentch
Your chance of winning with roulette was the exactly the same before and after. — Tzeentch
you'll have to go through some process to prove you can equate the two. — Tzeentch
Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house. — Tzeentch
If I have a child, it is possible that child will go through life completely unharmed, yes? — Isaac
Sure. — Tzeentch
Then why raise the fact that we don't know? — 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
Why the builders? — Isaac
Ah, so non-interference is neutral because it helps your argument if it is. Got it. — Isaac
So. we're talking about the harm you claim results, not the act. — Isaac
You're seriously, on a public forum, going to claim that your chances of winning at roulette are the same if your don't put a bet on as they are if you do? — Isaac
If I don't bet on roulette, it is now less probable that I will win. — Isaac
Then I guess you've gotten yourself in a bit of a pickle, because it was you who assumed I was available to build you a house. — Tzeentch
What? — Isaac
Right. So I haven't definitely caused harm by having the child. I've merely increased the probability of harm befalling someone. — Isaac
Because it is the builders desire to build a house, and I am an uninvolved bystander, obviously. — Tzeentch
Nonsense. It's neutral because it causes no harm, as I have argued. — Tzeentch
non-interference - not an act. — Tzeentch
The idea that the chances of winning at roulette change depending on whether you play is the absurd one. They're exactly the same before and after. — Tzeentch
What a foolish thing to do. — Tzeentch
Let's say we know the exact figures. 9:1 in favor of pushing someone out of the plane. Surely it is not up to the pusher to decide that they like those odds on someone else's behalf, or do you disagree? Would it be fine to push someone in such a situation, and one would carry no blame when they go splat? — Tzeentch
The math may speak for itself but antinatalists are not oblige to listen while they are (fallaciously) moralizing on a moot point. Good luck with that, Señor Quixote. — 180 Proof
Nope – just as satellite images and red-shifting sunsets do not help flat-earthers discern that the Earth is not flat — 180 Proof
The long and short of it is that it isn't always wrong to make other people's decisions for them; however, when we're allowed to do so has to be worked out carefully. Mistakes are gonna be costly. — Agent Smith
You are now, you weren't before, you wanted to build a house too, and were involved. — Isaac
Back to this crap again. Non-inteference is an act, that's why you came up with the phrase in the first place, as opposed to 'not acting' which you were previously using. — Isaac
So if I place a bet on roulette, my chances of winning £100 are, say, 1 in 32.
You're seriously attempting to argue that if I don't even place a bet, I have a 1 in 32 chance of winning £100? — Isaac
So we're agreed then that procreation merely increases the probability of harm? — Isaac
The dangers/harms a child will face in their life cannot be predicted to such a degree at all. We may have some indications, but nothing resembling certainty. — Tzeentch
If I have at any point made it clear to the builders I was intending to build a house with them, then it's a different story. In a sense I have now taken upon myself a responsibility, because I've voluntarily created a situation in which people come to rely on my actions for their well-being. — Tzeentch
one may still be doing other things that have nothing to do with the thing one is not involved in. — Tzeentch
You argued that you could change what is probable without interacting. — Tzeentch
Making major decisions for someone else while being ignorant to what one is setting in motion also seems like a foolish thing to do, which is precisely the basis on which I argue procreation is immoral. — Tzeentch
If you intended, then you are involved just as much as the other builders. — Isaac
So, an act then. — Isaac
Yep. I intend to put a bet on, what are the chances of me winning? — Isaac
So no decision to not interfere then (no changing one's mind), seeing as that's a major decision which affects someone else? — Isaac
We don't need to be certain, a high likelihood of a happy/sad life (9 to 1 odds for example) should be good enough to make a decision as to whether to have a child/not. This, as you would've already realized, involves a heavy dose of mathematics. A mathematician like jgill might be able to give us a rough sketch of what kinda info is required and how they're related mathematically. — Agent Smith
Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. Generally people have a chance to move, associate differently, etc. The assumption about building the house is that someone else needs to help build that house because someone wants it. That by itself is not a moral obligation. That just leads to slippery slope thinking whereby technically everyone at all times needs to be busy helping others out. — schopenhauer1
Rather, the background de facto understanding is life presents various choices and limitations limited to the physical and cultural realities of this existence. These things are well known because we live, experience, and learn about them everyday. Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. Along with these particular range of choices that existence offers (and of course more limited by place and time of where and when the person is born), but the harms of existence are also fairly well known, and the assumption that THESE sets of harms are okay for others to endure. And of course, the unforeseen harms that no one is sure of will befall people in the future. All of this is assumptions one makes on others behalf. Unlike other decisions where the person can just move out, associate with different people, get out of a contract, the actual set of choices and conditions themselves cannot be chosen or agreed upon. — schopenhauer1
Is it ever okay to force recruit people into your projects? I think never. — schopenhauer1
As I said, there's nothing more I can say. If you don't understand basic probability we can't talk about probable events (such as future harms). — Isaac
Your objection has been noted, schop1, and it's still moot because (1) "inexistent others" is incoherent & (2) most human primates will never voluntarily fight c2 million years of hardwiring to stop procreating. :point: .Yet the big leap is assuming that THESE sets of choices offered in THIS existence is something OTHERS should endure. That is the stance I am objecting to. — schopenhauer1
So one should avoid all actions which have a non-zero probability of harm? Do you realise what that entails? — Isaac
One should definitely avoid actions that:
1). Cannot be performed consensually. — Tzeentch
2). And are also irreversible. — Tzeentch
3). And can also inflict great harm. — Tzeentch
4). And one can also not oversee the consequences of. — Tzeentch
And when the person we pushed out of the proverbial plane goes splat on the ground, what are we to make of that?
Excuse ourselves because we thought the odds were good? Didn't we just kill someone? — Tzeentch
Exactly so, however it has been Isaac's argument that one is thereby creating conditions for harm, and is thus immoral. (The way this ties back into the original topic is that he is arguing that not having children creates conditions for harm). — 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.