Nitpicking on the actual agent that caused the harm on localized life events is only useful if you intend to do something about the causal agent. In the case of inherent harms in life like old age, sickness, loneliness, boredom, and anxiety/sadness about death which can at best be mitigated, coped with, or postponed, I don't think much can be done to "address those issues in a sensible manner". The point is, there's little use in decoupling the mere fact of existing with causal agents causing each particular localized harms. — OglopTo
Except it's not. No one can exist before they exist, so you can't force the non-existent to exist. This is a logical refutation of your argument, showing that it depends on a contradiction and impossibility — Thorongil
I was not just intending to talk about procreation and antinatalism i was asking how you can defend the notion of consent at all when our parents chose for us to come to exist — Andrew4Handel
I think the only responsibilities people have is towards the children they created. if you have a child whilst in a broken marriage or poverty that is your responsibility and an unjustifiable burden on the child. — Andrew4Handel
If the social services know that there are a couple who intend to create a child and they are alcoholics and drug users with criminal records, do you have a problem with them voicing a concern for any future child the couple may have? — Andrew4Handel
Are you claiming we should only be concerned about someone when they start to exist and that we should not try to prevent any people existing even if we know they will live in poverty or inherit a severe disability etc? — Andrew4Handel
You can try and prevent suffering quite coherently before someone is born. — Andrew4Handel
I find it absurd if you think the man who has claimed he wants to rape and cannibalise a child and has a cage to imprison them etc in his basement, should not be imprisoned. — Andrew4Handel
Then find that absurd. I couldn't be more against criminalizing ANY speech, expressed desires, etc. — Terrapin Station
As someone else said the issue with consent and birth is that consent isn't possible so that we can never arrive here through consent.You can't claim someone consented to be born, consented to be a girl, consented to get cancer and so on. — Andrew4Handel
But because he had an actual cage and chains in his basement it wasn't just a desire and speech — Andrew4Handel
And a hate speech can incite violence. — Andrew4Handel
People can get longer sentences than a murderer for hiring a killer. — Andrew4Handel
But again I don't think you can just wait for a crime to happen before acting. — Andrew4Handel
And by the way, on my view, nothing has intrinsic value period. Value is always simply how an individual feels about the thing in question — Terrapin Station
So basically you now throw away all the arguments you have said in this thread, for example whether the person exists and has opinions prior to the harm being caused matters, — BlueBanana
how about that feeling about the thing in question? — BlueBanana
What? I'm not really following you. What argument (or comment) specifically are you referring to? I didn't actually say anything about "mattering," so I'm not sure what you have in mind there. — Terrapin Station
I have no idea what you're asking there. — Terrapin Station
Well basically every argument of yours other than feelings, but especially the a-b-c-d list that was on page 3 if I remember correctly. What I don't just get is how to fit both emotivism and other arguments into same opinion on morals. — BlueBanana
doesn't the feeling about that thing that defines the value have intrinsic value? — BlueBanana
You can't claim someone consented to be born, consented to be a girl, consented to get cancer and so on. — Andrew4Handel
In my view you can't say that someone didn't consent to be born, etc. either. — Terrapin Station
It's not illegal to have a cage and chains, etc. (or at least it shoudln't be) — Terrapin Station
why on earth would you be talking about consent — Sapientia
You know that most humans created will have desires that can be thwarted — Andrew4Handel
You are clearly imposing your own desires on someone by choosing to create them. — Andrew4Handel
In my view you can't say that someone didn't consent to be born, etc. either. Not consenting to something is an action in my view. It's not the default. — Terrapin Station
If parents took seriously what they are doing to a child then they would have to plan to have a child much more seriously. — Andrew4Handel
You seem to have misunderstood again. That wasn't what I was talking about. I've moved on from that. I specifically referred to the if-then in your original comment, by which I meant the following:
Firstly, you don't know that. If people are souls, and souls exist prior to birth, then it is possible they do consent to being born. — John
I was saying that I matched your "lightweight/superficial/ill-considered/trivial" if-then above with a "lightweight/superficial/ill considered/trivial" if-then of my own. — Sapientia
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.