Why does one do anything? Does there have to be an achievable goal? Don't psychologize it please, unless you are leading somewhere?..And talking about it accomplishes what? — baker
Antinatalists (at least the variety one usually encounters in secular Western settings) don't go far enough in their criticism of procreation. It is existence itself they should be criticial of, not merely procreation. — baker
Why does one do anything? — schopenhauer1
Does there have to be an achievable goal?
Yes. All other action is irrational/maladaptive. — baker
And as far as it having a purpose, it is the definition of something of an ethics that can be applied, so your assessment is wrong. — schopenhauer1
I'm still trying to articulate this more clearly, but I'd like to ask you, can you define what it is that makes not imposing harms from scratch (for someone else) more ethically relevant than not causing benefits from scratch (for someone else)? — schopenhauer1
Why is it that if someone already existed and I forced them to play my game of limitations and harms with some good, THAT would be roundly rejected, but if I created someone from scratch (let's say snapped my fingers) THAT is considered fine and dandy? — schopenhauer1
What you're after is objective morality, absolute authority. — baker
it would come with too many problems. It would imply a duty to meddle in other people's affairs, — Tzeentch
For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews. — baker
As I wrote in the post you only half-quoted:Why was that maladaptive? Why were they mistaken? — baker
So if you still have to ask, baker ... :brow:Short-term efficacy – scapegoating, genocide – at the expense of long-term sustainability (i.e. forming habits / institutions for 'othering' even their own because (some believe) "that is a way to end their suffering"). — 180 Proof
For example, once certain people decided that the way to end their suffering was to kill all the Jews.
— baker
Why was that maladaptive? Why were they mistaken?
— baker
As I wrote in the post you only half-quoted:
Short-term efficacy – scapegoating, genocide – at the expense of long-term sustainability (i.e. forming habits / institutions for 'othering' even their own because (some believe) "that is a way to end their suffering").
— 180 Proof
So if you still have to ask, baker ... — 180 Proof
Anti-"antinatalism" does not entail pro-natalism. The "moral" arguments in favor of "antinatalism" proffered thus far have been neither valid nor persuasive.
— 180 Proof
An argument can only be persuasive to someone, to a person. It cannot be objectively, suprapersonally persuasive.
Maybe so, but I neither claim nor implied it could be
The person being born was not forced to live. they cannot have been because they didn't exist until after that event. — Isaac
If I recall, that's your argument. Your the one who wants to avoid all responsibility for anything you didn't directly cause. — Isaac
Talking about imposing the necessary conditions of existence is absolute nonsense on stilts. One cannot impose that which is a necessary condition. — Isaac
It is imposing the state of affairs that entails that necessary condition. — schopenhauer1
An action led to a person existing. That person existing has entailed necessary conditions. — schopenhauer1
One imposed it on a embryo, and there's no moral issue with imposing something on an embryo without its consent. So your counter fails. — Isaac
A wait time between the initial action and the outcome (a person) somehow makes the imposition null? How? Why does it have to be the exact immediate affect of conception and not the result 9 months later? — schopenhauer1
The wait time is irrelevant. It could be instantaneous. If I instantaneously make someone a soldier. Did I make a civilian into a soldier, or did I make a soldier into a soldier? — Isaac
It is that there was a state of affairs thus that you made a soldier. — schopenhauer1
Doesn't matter. You caused a soldier to be. — schopenhauer1
Doesn't matter. You caused a soldier to be. — 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.