There you go again. No one is imposing on someone. There is no someone. — Isaac

Does conscription make soldiers into soldiers? — Isaac

It forces something to happen to someone and what is forced is significant, etc. etc.. That's all that matters in this argument.

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?

Does it force something to happen to soldiers? is conscription a force which imposes on soldiers? — Isaac

This is as bullshit a sophistry as I've seen in a while...This goes up there with medieval apologetics...
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. Ironically, both inescapable (in theory) except through punishment in one and death in the other.

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

Yep. agree with all that. Conscription forces civilians to be soldiers. Procreation forces gametes to be people.

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? (you said your ethics were not consequentialist)

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? The gametes are set into motion to be a person.. At the time the person becomes a person THAT is the imposition.. As you said, doesn't matter if it is instantaneous or 9 months..

I mean this goes back to the lava baby yet again.. We agree that bringing a baby into a lava pit is bad..

Antinatalists say the lava pit is the necessary conditions of the world. Don't create that for others unnecessarily if it is not purely utopian, but rather requires burdens of known and unknown kinds/degrees. But you see that is now getting to the argument at hand, which I have been trying to do instead of whether arguing whether something that is caused to be is "forced". It certainly is, even if prior to the "person born" is a non-person.. Because at some point X a person IS born, and THAT is the thing we are discussing. It's simply displacement of time and we have discussed this a while ago.

Creating the soldier..takes time.. Creating the human takes time.. The process by which when that person becomes a soldier/human THAT is when there is something we are discussing.. Well, not even I should say, because it is also the attempt to get them there in that state of affairs and whether that attempt should be done to get them there.. But yeah.

Why does this matter? — 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.

At the time the person becomes a person THAT is the imposition — schopenhauer1

No, there's no imposition at that time, the imposition was before. There's consequences at that time.

Antinatalists say the lava pit is the necessary conditions of the world. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that sounds about right. The world is just one giant bubbling lava pit - and you don't see how that assessment is just your own mental neuroses? No one else thinks the world is just a bubbling lava pit

at some point X a person IS born, and THAT is the thing we are discussing. — schopenhauer1

Then we are discussing consequences. Not impositions. I impose my will on a gamete. The consequence is a person (with all the suffering and joy that entails)

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

This is more sophistry around the word consequences. Consequentialism, basically looks at how good or bad the consequences are of an action. Deontology would simply focus on the rightness or wrongness of the action. You are making a category error, misplacing the action with how ethical consequentialism bases its theory on the goodness or badness of that action..

The action is imposing on someone. Consequentialists.. especially of the utilitarian variety.. will essentially reduce to a kind of moral statistics. Deontology (in my characterization at least) is more binary. It is or is not good to do.

Here's an example of deontology:
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...

That's more deontology.. Even though it is based on actions taking place (how you are using "consequences" here".

Here's an example of consequentialism (of utilitarian variety):
IF X amount of benefit is created from the process of procreation (and usually for the greatest amount of Y agents), then procreation may be good. In this, the consequence that is important is the amount of benefits created.

The action is imposing on someone. — schopenhauer1

No the action is imposing on a non-person. You said so here...

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

Procreation imposes burdens on gametes. You admitted as much here...

The forcing from not-person to person is the force. — schopenhauer1

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.

What is the difference between imposing on someone and forcing a consequent someone to undergo consequences?

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. @schopenhauer1 said his ethics doesn't judge consequences, so we're left with the imposition on its own, absent of consequences, being morally bad. Since the imposition is on a mindless cell, I'm struggling to see how it has any moral component to it at all.

If we allow a judgement of consequences, then it all makes sense. The consequence of birthing a baby into a lava pit. The consequence of making a gamete into a person. The consequence of turning a civilian into a soldier, the consequence of pulling the trigger...

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.

I think what 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.

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:

It seems to me imposing on someone and forcing someone to undergo consequences is the same thing. — Tzeentch

Yep. I'd agree.

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

Right. But what's immoral about imposing on a gamete?

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

One takes what one can get.

But what's immoral about imposing on a gamete? — Isaac

For one, the intention to force a human being to live.

For one, the intention to force a human being to live. — Tzeentch

A human being is already alive by definition, how can I intend to force one to be?

That's what a future parent intends - to create a new living being.

That's what a future parent intends - to create a new living being. — Tzeentch

You didn't say 'create a human being' you said 'force a human being'. Two completely different verbs.

Creating brings something into existence.

Forcing imposes your will on something already in existence.

They are two totally different actions.

The intention of the parent is to force another being to exist. There.

The intention of the parent is to force another being to exist. — Tzeentch

What other being?

The child they wish to have.

But the child they wish to have doesn't exist, so how can they force it to be anything?

Not relevant to the question at hand, we are now talking about the parent's intention.

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

So I've seen you still have a misunderstanding of what consequentialism means and deontology. Deontology can be ABOUT actions ("consequences").. All actions in the world play out as consequences.. That's just cause and effect. Rather, deontology does not put "good/bad" values on the consequences (what plays out), but whether the action (consequences) are right or wrong IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And thus I will repeat.. A deontologist would say something like.. "It is always WRONG to burden people unnecessarily (and what that means)".. It doesn't matter how many "benefits" are calculated as a result.

Consequentialists would add up all the benefits and aggregate it and determine based on this kind of calculus whether it has been beneficial.. And you can have act and rule consequentialism, etc. but that's the gist of it.

Not relevant to the question at hand, we are now talking about the parent's intention. — Tzeentch

Their intention to what? I thought we were talking about their intention to force a gamete to become a person. Now you're saying they intend to force a child in some way. What child? The child they're going to have? What do they intend to force on this child?

I understand quite well enough. I agree that...

A deontologist would say something like.. "It is always WRONG to burden people unnecessarily (and what that means)" — schopenhauer1

Who are prospective parents burdening unnecessarily with the necessary conditions of existence?

The gamete already has that requirement, so does the embryo, so does the child. Nothing has been burdened by the parents. The whole point of necessary conditions of existence is that they're necessary, not something I have in my power to bestow or remove.

What do they intend to force on this child? — Isaac

Existence. That's the parents' intention - to force a child to exist. In other, less harsh words - to create a new child.

Boy this is getting tiresome pointing out the obvious, isn't it? Ha

He has a problem with the idea that the term "imposing" can include turning X into Y state of affairs. That is to say..at T1.. they set in motion would would become a person at TX, and it is TX that is the event at which the imposition took place.

Causing someone to be in conditions Y, is the event we are discussing. Should you cause someone to be in those conditions Y? The parent forced their will to create this person with conditions Y. There is no sophistry that can work around it.

Existence. That's the parents' intention - to force a child to exist. — Tzeentch

Do you force a soldier to become a soldier? No.

You can't force a child to exist. They already exist.

I suppose technically you could intend to force a child to exists in the same way as I could indent to pick up a mountain, or fly to the moon, but I don't see the moral relevance and certainly such lunacy is not common.

That's the parents' intention - to create a new child. — Tzeentch

... certainly such lunacy is not common. — Isaac

Are we done here? I think we're done here.

You know this stuff in in print above don't you?

Everyone can read what you actually wrote and what I actually responded to.

Rewriting history doesn't tend to work less than an hour after the event when what happened is in print. Try a little while later.