It matters intently because you lost the argument about simply causing people to be. Causing people to be has no moral problem. They'll probably be happy enough and its for the good of the already living community. — Isaac
You want to say that some unjust, immoral 'forcing' has taken place against someone's will. But no such forcing has taken place. The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac
Causing people to be is the moral problem if it leads to X, Y, Z negatives.. That is the argument at hand — schopenhauer1
Causing it to be is the "force" I am talking about.. There is no strict use of force.. but it usually means in these cases, "imposing your will". — schopenhauer1
it has no merit to the claim that causing someone to be (forcing, making a life start that entails suffering, it DOESN"T matter the phrasing), is the point at hand. — schopenhauer1
The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac
the point is not whether or not the good outweighs the bad, at least not with this particular argument, but rather that the good has to outweigh the bad in the first place. And not only that, but the bad has to constantly be outweighed, that it's a fact of life that we have to fight for life. Should we bring people into being, forcing them to fight that fight? — Jerry
By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded — Tzeentch
You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into. — Tzeentch
That wasn't LIVING! That was just.... "Not Dying"! There's a difference. — Eep (The Croods)
That's the point. The thing we impose our will on is a gamete. It doesn't care. — Isaac
You are now trying to refute that a parent causes a gamete to become a human by the steps related to procreation. — schopenhauer1
The gamete doesn't just "become" a human. — schopenhauer1
Get to the argument at hand.. Should parents procreate a person with X conditions? — schopenhauer1
Oh, and if you mention "FORCE" or anything else that you think can't be used... Then just replace it with caused to occur — schopenhauer1
So your argument that it is unjust to 'force' someone into the game of life can be completely ignored then. since "It is unjust to have caused to occur a person in the game of life" is not true. — Isaac
You caused to occur someone to exist who didn’t previously. — schopenhauer1
You equivocate this act of causing with not affecting someone because at some point that person didn’t exist because they were not fully formed, but then they did and so your points are moot. — schopenhauer1
I also think there's no moral problem with that because we're talking about consequences (things that you cause, effects you have on the future) and as far as consequences are concerned, having children reduces suffering more than it creates it.
You then turn to unjust impositions to try and wriggle out of that obvious assessment. — Isaac
You then start to claim that it's not fair to impose on someone without their consent. Not effects. Not causes. Impositions without consent..
I then point out that no unjust imposition without consent has taken place because that which was imposed on is a gamete and doesn't care. — Isaac
How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation? — baker
If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), ... — baker
And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences? — baker
My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently. — Tzeentch
I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.
I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.
you don't get to impose on someone because you are sad otherwise. — schopenhauer1
At time "Z" (we'll" say), when a person "exists" (however you define person).. THAT is the entity that has NOW (time 1 started) been affected, thus.. How? By BEING in existence. Affected thus. — schopenhauer1
But how come you're different than those people? — baker
You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you? — baker
Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation? — baker
Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized. — Tzeentch
I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.
Come on. We're talking about matters of life and death. Guessing isn't good enough.
— baker
It's all we've got. What's your alternative?
I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly. I prefer the guess. — Isaac
I either guess which course of action/inaction will cause least suffering or I just act randomly.
Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences). — baker
- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.
- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.
- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.
- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified. — 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.