Well unless I speak of the living, I cannot speak at all. For as you know, people do not exist have no moral rights - they don't exist!

Therefore, I am not "subtly changing" anything. All people, including newly born people, have a due of pain and joy - what % and how to quantify this, is quite impossible.

The only thing I actually have a problem with - besides the repetition of the subject matter - is that you think your judgment is fantastically superior to the vast majority of everybody. That's quite an extraordinary stance to take.

If there is one thing studying or being interested in philosophy should do to people, is to make them realize the greatest, most brilliant people in history were wrong in most of the things they believed, not only intellectually, but morally too.

That means that you, me and everybody else are likely to be wrong on many - if not most - things. Don't be that confident.

Well unless I speak of the living, I cannot speak at all. For as you know, people do not exist have no moral rights - they don't exist! — Manuel

I was simply saying, "Most people" doesn't mean much and I will keep repeating why as I did in my last post (cue slavery and other past conventions that "most people" were at least indifferent to).

That means that you, me and everybody else are likely to be wrong on many - if not most - things. Don't be that confident. — Manuel

So abolitionists should have just shut their yapper up because, they are too confident?

So abolitionists should have just shut their yapper up because, they are too confident? — schopenhauer1

It is laughable that you compare your moral whining to real, actual, legitimate human rights.

You give pessimism a bad name.

For a long time, most of humanity thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. It's lack of perspective. — schopenhauer1

It's lack of accuracy, in that case.

if you were to deign yourself to be a type of person who believes in certain principles, this too would fall under those principles (non-harm, autonomy, etc.). — schopenhauer1

No it doesn't. That's the point. Those two principles, in most people, apply to the living. They don't apply to the dead, they don't apply to rocks, and they don't apply to the yet-to-be.

You think they ought to. Everyone else disagrees.

What I'm asking you is why, if you think 10 million people can all be wrong, anyone will find it remotely persuasive that you happen to think this.

I liken it to vegetarianism. It may be right, but it takes a long time for people to catch on to things. Slavery was around and condoned as part of life for thousands of years before the last couple hundred years. Some conventions are easier to slough away than others. Clearly, slavery was an easier one to universally condemn (but even that took wars, legislation, and the like). — schopenhauer1

Again, I'm not confused about might not making right, I'm confused about why you think "I think so" is a persuasive argument where "10 million people think so" is not.

It is laughable that you compare your moral whining to real, actual, legitimate human rights.

You give pessimism a bad name. — Manuel

Circular argument dude. You ALREADY have the conventional notion that slavery is bad. That’s my freakn point.

Again, I'm not confused about might not making right, I'm confused about why you think "I think so" is a persuasive argument where "10 million people think so" is not. — Isaac

Because progress isn’t always apparent immediately nor maybe ever.

Because progress isn’t always apparent immediately nor maybe ever. — schopenhauer1

That doesn't answer the question. If 10 million people thinking something is the case is nonetheless unpersuasive, then why would you expect one person thinking it's the case to be persuasive... ever.

It's not about progress, it's about your argument. What do you imagine is persuasive about it, why would you just saying "I think X" persuade people of X when all of humanity ever clearly do not think X?

Slavery wasn't always the case, nor racism. Whole communities of people did not practice either and considered them an abomination. Arguments against them appealed to common beliefs.

Literally no one believes that yet-to-be-born imaginary people should have the same rights to autonomy as actual living people. So your argument doesn't appeal to any common belief, it just claims that the beliefs of all of humanity since the dawn of time, in that respect, are wrong. And are wrong solely because you think so. Nothing more.

It's only circular if you assume you are correct, i.e., that AN is the same as abolitionists fighting against slavery.

The problem is in your assumption. To think you belong in the same boat is quite astonishing.

At least abolitionists were helping living people- you reserve you moral righteousness for those who do not even exist!

I'll let you have the last word here - you obviously enjoy pontificating to those who don't even like children, about how much life sucks.

Enjoy.

It's only circular if you assume you are correct, i.e., that AN is the same as abolitionists fighting against slavery.

The problem is in your assumption. To think you belong in the same boat is quite astonishing. — Manuel

The point was that there is a parallel here in that at the time of the abolitionist in the 1700s, they were the MINORITY. It was an example of something that started in a MINORITY position (in fact the minority position throughout all of history until the 1800s), and now has become such the norm that we can now take it for granted that it is outrageous to compare anything to it! I know this is going "whoosh" keep doing the faux indignation.

At least abolitionists were helping living people- you reserve you moral righteousness for those who do not even exist!

I'll let you have the last word here - you obviously enjoy pontificating to those who don't even like children, about how much life sucks. — Manuel

Well, if you don't believe in future conditionals, counterfactuals or indefinite nouns, that's not my problem. Pontificating rather than procreating. Fine by me.

Slavery wasn't always the case, nor racism. Whole communities of people did not practice either and considered them an abomination. Arguments against them appealed to common beliefs. — Isaac

Same with Cathars, some monks, sages and such in history…

Arguments against them appealed to common beliefs. — Isaac

The Roman Empire, Greece, had tons of it. Middle Ages had surfs which are practically slaves.

Literally no one believes that yet-to-be-born imaginary people should have the same rights to autonomy as actual living people. So your argument doesn't appeal to any common belief, it just claims that the beliefs of all of humanity since the dawn of time, in that respect, are wrong. And are wrong solely because you think so. Nothing more. — Isaac

You should be able to memorize my counter arguments by now so I’m not going to reieat.

You should be able to memorize my counter arguments — schopenhauer1

There are no counter arguments.

All you've said is that you think the yet-to-be born ought benefit from exactly the same moral treatment as the already living (particularly in respect to personal autonomy).

You haven't provided any argument at all as to why we ought make that change.