Lastly, I think that the millions and the grand can swap places in a subtle way depending upon the individual. Therein, I believe, lies the end of absolutist pro-lifeism/universal AN.
Have a great day, friend! — DA671
I've explained why it is a form of subjectivism. I've also explained why it is often thought to be a form of objectivism (objectivism and externalism are often conflated). And now you are just ignoring what I've said.
If you think DCT is a form of objectivism then you are not using that term as I do. Indeed, I think you would be unable to provide a clear definition of the term. But that's semantics. You accused me of inconsistency. I took the trouble to explain to you something I had already explained in one of the quotes from me. And now you are simply ignoring what I have said.
Fine. — Bartricks
Because it makes us feel good. It's the pleasure of a clear conscience: "I didn't cause harm to anyone." For some people, it's one of the highest pleasures there is.
— baker
Do you think people would still feel that pleasure on a planet empty of all human life bar them? Would they look around a fell good that they're causing no harm? — Isaac
Personally, I doubt that, and what little information can be gleaned from isolation studies does not yield any evidence of contentment at having caused no harm.
Most studies in human psychology are done on college students — baker
psychology studies tend to assume that all people are essentially the same; that nurture, acculturation are only skin deep. And that there is only one normal way for humans to respond to a certain external stimulus. — baker
So, it's a big black mark against procreative acts that they create a great injustice.
— Bartricks
This is bare assertion. — Isaac
Every single harm an innocent person suffers is an injustice. How many harms do you think that is? Oh, it's all of them. That's quite a lot, isn't it? — Bartricks
There's no question that the injustice is huge. An innocent person gets nothing remotely approaching what they deserve. — Bartricks
Now, if an act is going to create a big injustice, Isaac, do you think that a) is likely to generate moral reason not to perform it, or b) is morally unimportant and can reasonably be expected to generate no moral reason not to perform it?
It's a, isn't it? — Bartricks
There are lots of cases where an act creates an injustice and it is nevertheless overall morally justified. But in all of those cases what's doing the work of making the act overall morally justified are positive moral features, such as that the act will prevent an even greater injustice. That's not true of procreation. — Bartricks
All you can do is keep pointing out that $5m is good. Yes, other things being equal it is. And it is good insofar as it lessens the losses you would otherwise have made. But in the larger context of a business in which you borrowed 10m to generate it, it's rubbish - the business is a bad one. — Bartricks
The moral debt that is incurred by starting it is one that it is not going to repay. — Bartricks
To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.
An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.
Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.
So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life.
This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.
It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.
Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life. — Bartricks
Extreme pain (Torture) is worse than Death (Murder)!
However, the penalty for torture is less severe than the penalty for murder.
WTF? — Agent Smith
It is sufficient to be innocent that one has not done anything freely. And that's the case with a newly created person. The newly created person has not done anything freely. — Bartricks
You think innocent people do deserve to come to harm? — Bartricks
To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks
Nothing you are saying makes a blind bit of sense. — Bartricks
I have said numerous times what I mean by innocence. And it's nothing remotely similar to the claims you are attributing to me. It's surreal. — Bartricks
it is sufficient to be innocent not to have freely done anything wrong — Bartricks
Do I mean sufficient or necessary? Well, I used the word sufficient, didn't I. So what do you think? If someone says 'sufficient' do they mean 'sufficient' or 'necessary'?
It is sufficient to be innocent not to have freely done anything wrong. — Bartricks
What is it to have or not have freely done anything wrong (what is done anything referring to)? When do we cross that threshold? What is the threshold? Is there a threshold? Who determines who has or doesn’t have autonomy? What determines right from wrong? — Cartesian trigger-puppets
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.