It forces something to happen to someone and what is forced is significant, etc. etc.. That's all that matters in this argument. — schopenhauer1
Does it force something to happen to soldiers? is conscription a force which imposes on soldiers? — Isaac
Do you believe that a person can be caused to exist in the world just like the soldier is caused? I'm sure you would say yes.. THAT is the imposition.. The forcing of the civilian to soldier is the force. The forcing from not-person to person is the force. — schopenhauer1
So we're on the same page. Great. Now what's wrong with forcing a gamete (a mindless-cell) to do/be anything apart from the consequences? — Isaac
Why does this matter? — schopenhauer1
At the time the person becomes a person THAT is the imposition — schopenhauer1
Antinatalists say the lava pit is the necessary conditions of the world. — schopenhauer1
at some point X a person IS born, and THAT is the thing we are discussing. — schopenhauer1
Because you said your ethics were not consequentialist. So I'm asking what the moral issue is with forcing my will on a mindless gamete , if not the consequences. — Isaac
The action is imposing on someone. — schopenhauer1
The forcing from not-person to person is the force. — schopenhauer1
It is never good to impose significant burdens on others when it is unnecessary to do so (not ameliorating a greater with lesser harm)... Procreation imposes burdens.. It is thus never good to do so... — schopenhauer1
The forcing from not-person to person is the force. — schopenhauer1
What is the difference between imposing on someone and forcing a consequent someone to undergo consequences? — Tzeentch
One is about impositions, the other about consequences. — Isaac
It seems to me imposing on someone and forcing someone to undergo consequences is the same thing. — Tzeentch
I think what ↪schopenhauer1
argues is that impositions are immoral based on the intention to impose, thereby the intention is all that is needed, and it doesn't depend on the consequences. — Tzeentch
I see people are back to arguing the equivalent of "water causes itself to be wet". Whatever floats your boat I guess. Carry on. :yawn: — Benkei
That's what a future parent intends - to create a new living being. — Tzeentch
So either you're arguing from a deontological position that we ought not impose our will on mindless cells, or you're arguing that the consequences of doing so on the consequent person are to be avoided for some reason. — Isaac
Not relevant to the question at hand, we are now talking about the parent's intention. — Tzeentch
A deontologist would say something like.. "It is always WRONG to burden people unnecessarily (and what that means)" — schopenhauer1
Existence. That's the parents' intention - to force a child to exist. — 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.