Sorry, Agu, but cannibalism can be a natural desire — Heister Eggcart

Have a read of what Aristotle, Epicurus, and other philosophers have meant by "natural desire". For example.

You'll have to convince me of this assurance because at present you're failing to do so. — Heister Eggcart

Why do you think sex with the tramp is the same as sex with your wife?

Humankind is but a collection of particular human beings, not some amorphous blob. Furthermore, what is your criteria for those who must procreate? Who are they, and why do they have to procreate? — Heister Eggcart

I don't have a criteria as such, as it is something that each individual should decide for themselves. However, typically those who can afford children, who want children, and who can provide and protect them should have children.

Such as? If it's merely to prolong humankind as a race on Earth, why is that important and sufficient justification? — Heister Eggcart

Well yes prolonging humankind on Earth seems to be what God intended, until the end times at least. Since this started from a discussion of the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", this is what I shall answer.

And why is that? — Heister Eggcart

Because I think suffering can sometimes be rewarding in itself. It is through suffering that you really love someone or something, not otherwise. If you love someone or something, you kind of want to suffer for them you know? Otherwise you don't really love them. What would love be without suffering? An impossibility.

There are three parts to this. The suffering, the act of doing what brings about the suffering, and the "reward" once the act is suffered through. For instance, I play the play drums, so if I go to practice the drums there is, 1. the specific practicing of the drums, 2. the suffering that goes along with that (muscle fatigue, sweat, finger blisters, etc.), and 3. the end product of me being better at playing the drums (only attainable through practice.) Merely because I've become a better drummer post-practicing doesn't remove the prior state of suffering. — Heister Eggcart

Okay yes! So here is my point I believe: you becoming better at playing the drums isn't above and beyond the suffering - the suffering IS your becoming better at drums. It's the same for example with me working out. I don't take the suffering as any different from my becoming stronger. The two are connected like two sides of the same coin are. You seem to function in a different paradigm, where suffering and reward are disconnected, and you undertake the one to obtain the other. But I say that suffering and reward are one and the same.

If this is the case, then how exactly is procreation a natural desire if it isn't inherent in everyone? — Heister Eggcart

Well to be a natural desire doesn't mean that it is present in absolutely everyone. Exceptions and variety exist in nature. To be a natural desire implies that this is something that arises as part of the essence of the specific organism, and it would be reflected in a majority of the population of that organism.

Well yes prolonging humankind on Earth seems to be what God intended, until the end times at least. — Agustino

"But I am aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would do this, only in 'charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned'; much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened." - St. Augustine

Have a read of what Aristotle, Epicurus, and other philosophers have meant by "natural desire". For example. — Agustino

I'm familiar with some of these classical definitions, but...

"examples of natural and necessary desires include the desires for food, shelter, and the like. Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate (they are 'hard-wired' into human beings naturally), and bring great pleasure when satisfied. Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited: that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the desire is satisfied. Epicurus says that one should try to fulfill these desires."

the part, "they are necessary for life" is where'd I counter and agree to an extent, but argue that a natural desire, let's say procreation for example here, is not necessary for love. Life? Sure, at the fundamental level. But love? I don't think so.

Why do you think sex with the tramp is the same as sex with your wife? — Agustino

The sex is the same, but not the love, which would be (and is) different. Consider me killing someone out of self defense with a small firearm opposed to me killing someone in murder with a small firearm. In both cases I'm using a firearm to kill someone, but why I'm doing the killing and to whom is what matters. In that example, sex is the firearm, the thing doing the killing. Love would be me acting in self-defense, while my murdering someone would be more akin to shagging a prostitute.

I don't have a criteria as such, as it is something that each individual should decide for themselves. — Agustino

Each individual, except the child for whom the decision is being made without consent.

However, typically those who can afford children, who want children, and who can provide and protect them should have children.

These aren't good enough reasons to have a child. At the very least adopt a child if these three reasons are what "most" people desire.

Well yes prolonging humankind on Earth seems to be what God intended, until the end times at least. Since this started from a discussion of the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply", this is what I shall answer. — Agustino

Seems to be? Shouldn't you be a bit more assured in your understanding of God's will?

Because I think suffering can sometimes be rewarding in itself. It is through suffering that you really love someone or something, not otherwise. If you love someone or something, you kind of want to suffer for them you know? Otherwise you don't really love them. What would love be without suffering? An impossibility. — Agustino

Maybe, but it doesn't follow that suffering must be propagated in order for love to be fulfilled.

Okay yes! So here is my point I believe: you becoming better at playing the drums isn't above and beyond the suffering - the suffering IS your becoming better at drums. It's the same for example with me working out. I don't take the suffering as any different from my becoming stronger. The two are connected like two sides of the same coin are. You seem to function in a different paradigm, where suffering and reward are disconnected, and you undertake the one to obtain the other. But I say that suffering and reward are one and the same. — Agustino

I don't think you quite understand what I was getting at.

Well to be a natural desire doesn't mean that it is present in absolutely everyone. — Agustino

True, but I'm saying that a natural desire still exists in the natural world, even if not everyone possesses it.

Interesting, I did not know of this quote. Thanks for sharing that. However, Augustine also says:

"For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame"

So it seems to be that he considered it preferable to not have children, and yet having children was seen as blameless. I quite agree with that position, but I find it disputable whether if everyone really stopped procreating it would help fill the City of God more speedily.

So it seems to be that he considered it preferable to not have children, and yet having children was seen as blameless. — Agustino

Yes, this is basically my position now too.

There will be, for instance, snakes. — Bitter Crank

I'm guessing that human beings have caused far more suffering from snakes than vice versa. And when it comes to suffering, snakes never cross my mind amidst being stretched on the rack, burned alive, waiting on traffic lights, and having to socialize on occasion.

For some people, snakes are interesting. I can't say that a snake has ever caused me suffering.

when it comes to suffering, snakes never cross my mind — Marchesk

"Snakes" was a cultural quote that missed the target.

In the libretto of Candide, music by Leonard Bernstein, Pangloss is explaining why this is the best of all possible worlds. The students are raising objections, like "What about snakes?"

MAXIMILLIAN:
Objection!
What about snakes?

PANGLOSS:
Snakes!
'Twas snake that tempted mother Eve
Because of snake we now believe
That though depraved
We can be saved
From hellfire and damnation
(Because of snake's temptation!)

If snake had not seduced our lot
And primed us for salvation
Jehova could not pardon all
The sins that we call cardinal
Involving bed and bottle!

Now on to Aristotle. — Prince & Bernstein

I see, so Satan helped create the best possible world. Always wondered why God let that snake into the garden. Now we know. It was necessary to maximize goodness.

I'm familiar with some of these classical definitions, but...

"examples of natural and necessary desires include the desires for food, shelter, and the like. Epicurus thinks that these desires are easy to satisfy, difficult to eliminate (they are 'hard-wired' into human beings naturally), and bring great pleasure when satisfied. Furthermore, they are necessary for life, and they are naturally limited: that is, if one is hungry, it only takes a limited amount of food to fill the stomach, after which the desire is satisfied. Epicurus says that one should try to fulfill these desires."

the part, "they are necessary for life" is where'd I counter and agree to an extent, but argue that a natural desire, let's say procreation for example here, is not necessary for love. Life? Sure, at the fundamental level. But love? I don't think so. — Heister Eggcart

Epicurus has a tripartite distinction. Natural and necessary desires, natural and unnecessary desires (the desire to have sex for example), and unnatural (or artificial) and unnecessary desires.

I would say procreation is in the natural and unnecessary desires, in that it's not necessary for your own survival (but it is for the survival of the species).

Something like cannibalism would count as an unnatural and unnecessary desire for Epicurus.

What I meant to point out with this, is that some desires are natural, in that they are innate to the human organism - others are not, like cannibalism and the examples you often give.

In that example, sex is the firearm, the thing doing the killing. Love would be me acting in self-defense, while my murdering someone would be more akin to shagging a prostitute. — Heister Eggcart

Okay I think your analogy fails because killing, in and of itself, is wrong, even if in some circumstances it is acceptable (such as in self-defence). However, procreation in and of itself isn't wrong, even though in some circumstances it can be wrong.

Each individual, except the child for whom the decision is being made without consent. — Heister Eggcart

There is no child for whom the decision is made without consent. The child simply doesn't exist, so the question of consent is illogical.

These aren't good enough reasons to have a child. At the very least adopt a child if these three reasons are what "most" people desire. — Heister Eggcart

Maybe, but there seems to be the desire to have your own child too. Maybe people should have on child of their own and also adopt?

Seems to be? Shouldn't you be a bit more assured in your understanding of God's will? — Heister Eggcart

Yes, and no I don't think I should be. The origins and ends of existence are mysterious.

Maybe, but it doesn't follow that suffering must be propagated in order for love to be fulfilled. — Heister Eggcart

Why not?

What I meant to point out with this, is that some desires are natural, in that they are innate to the human organism - others are not, like cannibalism and the examples you often give — Agustino

But why is it necessary for the human race to continue if on an individual level you admit that it isn't necessary to procreate?

Okay I think your analogy fails because killing, in and of itself, is wrong, even if in some circumstances it is acceptable (such as in self-defence). However, procreation in and of itself isn't wrong, even though in some circumstances it can be wrong. — Agustino

Okay, but why do you drive a distinction between procreation and murder?

There is no child for whom the decision is made without consent. The child simply doesn't exist, so the question of consent is illogical. — Agustino

I'm not so sure. Maybe I should stick my dick in that other thread, though it has looked a giant can of worms...

Maybe, but there seems to be the desire to have your own child too. Maybe people should have on child of their own and also adopt? — Agustino

Yes, because people are selfish. Surely this comes as no surprise to you?

Yes, and no I don't think I should be. The origins and ends of existence are mysterious. — Agustino

Seeing as your actions have consequences, and in the case of procreation, will have an extremely important consequence (the having of a child) on you and the world, I might find it disgusting to think anyone leaves a decision like procreating up to "mystery."

Why not? — Agustino

Living in the world for me is an act of self defense against the world. There is enough suffering to go around for love to always be applied without the need to make matters worse by creating more suffering just so that I can love that too. To look to cause suffering, either in yourself or in others is sadism, and is the complete antithesis to love.

But why is it necessary for the human race to continue if on an individual level you admit that it isn't necessary to procreate? — Heister Eggcart

It isn't necessary to procreate in the sense that Epicurus used the term, namely that if you don't procreate, your own personal survival will not be affected (Epicurus himself had no children, he was an atheistic ascetic, much like you :P ). As for why is it necessary for the human race to continue, I don't think it's necessary, but I do think we should continue.

Okay, but why do you drive a distinction between procreation and murder? — Heister Eggcart

Because one of those actions is evil in and of themselves in-so-far as it harms another being, while another isn't evil in and of itself, since it harms no one.

Another example - murder is prohibited in the 10 Commandments, procreation isn't. The two are not comparable, it would be an EXTREME exaggeration to say that to procreate is as bad as to murder.

I'm not so sure. Maybe I should stick my dick in that other thread, though it has looked a giant can of worms... — Heister Eggcart

What other thread? :P

Yes, because people are selfish. Surely this comes as no surprise to you? — Heister Eggcart

It's not just selfishness that is at play. Love your neighbour as yourself implies that you should love yourself to begin with, which is different than selfishness, which entails benefiting yourself and the expense of others.

There is enough suffering to go around for love to always be applied without the need to make matters worse by creating more suffering just so that I can love that too. To look to cause suffering, either in yourself or in others is sadism, and is the complete antithesis to love. — Heister Eggcart

I agree with this, but I don't agree that this has anything to do with procreation, because, as I've said, someone cannot be harmed by birth. They can be harmed only by what comes after.

Ya I agree

As for why is it necessary for the human race to continue, I don't think it's necessary, but I do think we should continue. — Agustino

Hey, fuck you, I disagree!

Because one of those actions is evil in and of themselves in-so-far as it harms another being, while another isn't evil in and of itself, since it harms no one. — Agustino

A child being born facilitates their being harmed, though, as much you'd like to play a semantic trick on me.

Another example - murder is prohibited in the 10 Commandments, procreation isn't. The two are not comparable, it would be an EXTREME exaggeration to say that to procreate is as bad as to murder. — Agustino

Exaggerations can be true, though.

What other thread? — Agustino

The other one that's exactly like this, but for some reason we have two threads now! >:o

It's not just selfishness that is at play. Love your neighbour as yourself implies that you should love yourself to begin with, which is different than selfishness, which entails benefiting yourself and the expense of others. — Agustino

Fuck no, bro. "Benefiting" yourself at the expense of others, whilst realizing that you are doing so, sounds pretty fucked up to me.

I agree with this, but I don't agree that this has anything to do with procreation, because, as I've said, someone cannot be harmed by birth. They can be harmed only by what comes after. — Agustino

Which can only be facilitated by their being born! I agree birth in itself is not wrong, but procreation, the decision to bring a life into a world of suffering, is wrong, especially if you admit that the child will suffer later.

Hey, fuck you, I disagree! — Heister Eggcart

No sexy time, sorry.

A child being born facilitates their being harmed, though, as much you'd like to play a semantic trick on me. — Heister Eggcart

It is not a semantic trick at all. Giving birth to a child cannot be wrong since the child is not harmed. Something wrong would be doing something that actually harms the child in life.

Exaggerations can be true, though. — Heister Eggcart

Almost by definition they can't, since an exaggeration is something that goes above and beyond what is the case.

The other one that's exactly like this, but for some reason we have two threads now! >:o — Heister Eggcart

:-O Which one lol?

Fuck no, bro. "Benefiting" yourself at the expense of others, whilst realizing that you are doing so, sounds pretty fucked up to me. — Heister Eggcart

Yes I agree with you. But I meant to say there is a positive type of self-love which is NOT selfishness - not benefiting yourself at the expense of others.

I agree birth in itself is not wrong, but procreation, the decision to bring a life into a world of suffering, is wrong, especially if you admit that the child will suffer later. — Heister Eggcart

As far as I know, wrong is when you directly cause harm to someone. Giving birth to someone isn't directly causing them harm, for the simple reason that they don't exist prior to birth.

It is not a semantic trick at all. Giving birth to a child cannot be wrong since the child is not harmed. Something wrong would be doing something that actually harms the child in life. — Agustino

The child being harmed in life is not an issue were they not to exist. Yet, people still choose to procreate.

Almost by definition they can't, since an exaggeration is something that goes above and beyond what is the case. — Agustino

Exaggeration doesn't remove the truth totally, though.

Which one lol? — Agustino

"People can't consent to being born." It has 170 replies. Big fuckin clusterfuck of a fuck.

Yes I agree with you. But I meant to say there is a positive type of self-love which is NOT selfishness - not benefiting yourself at the expense of others. — Agustino

Isn't that just respect? "To will the good of another" can't include you, can it?

As far as I know, wrong is when you directly cause harm to someone. Giving birth to someone isn't directly causing them harm, for the simple reason that they don't exist prior to birth. — Agustino

You're directly causing the child to exist, which means that you are the facilitator for their suffering, whether you're cognizant (is this really how this is spelled?) of that or not.