I as referring to the general AN positions not your personal ones.
What I said outlined a couple of the main points AN puts forwards. I said no more than that. — I like sushi
I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position. — I like sushi
You can provide links for them if you wish. I have read, and listened, extensively to the AN position. — I like sushi
My position is that it is VERY useful to look at for anyone considering having children - but not because I believe it will, or should, stop them. — I like sushi
I pointed to the issue of non-identity (about which there are many positions) and about asymmetry (about which there is more to say too in terms of its implications). Pointing out to those asking that looking at one without considering the other is kind of futile. — I like sushi
But again, this is my argument, not all of AN. So don't misconstrue that even though I am continuing the debate. — schopenhauer1
Nonidentity is neither for nor against (it is not specific to AN either). It is the question of whether, or how, ethics can be applied to people who do not as yet exist. — I like sushi
The main positions are:
- We have no right to bring life into existence (nonidentity issue involved here in part).
- No harm is better than no pleasure. — I like sushi
I responded to people asking about the AN position is in general. I did that. What your personal position is is your business to explain. — I like sushi
People were responding to my last comments generally, then you swooped in there like you owned the place.. Please. — schopenhauer1
Because you were wrong. I will not interact with you any more. My post was directed at the others who failed to understand the AN position. I tried to guide them towards a better understanding that is all.
Bye — I like sushi
misguided points for misguided notions. — schopenhauer1
Due to Original Position, even if Earth was transformed into a Utopia, a hypothetical almost "alien world" where suffering is so rare and unheard of it now requires true and intense effort to create (versus the current dynamic where suffering seems to be the default and likely outcome without large [and for some non-accomplishable] levels of planning, effort, and perhaps luck), procreation is still responsible because a person did not choose to be born, and inevitably will face some restriction as a result, such restriction amounting to enslavement (ie. follow the moral laws, be a good neighbor, feed oneself, manage stress in a socially-acceptable way lest one be punished by physical incarceration, etc, etc. that one never "asked" or was even involved in being placed in). Something like that? — Outlander
Yes. So, as you just pointed out, life has a limited set of choices. We tend to look at life as the degrees of freedom of choice, rather than the degrees of limitations. — schopenhauer1
So, at the end of the day, it requires respect of life to allow one to be in a position to create, let's say a bomb, to end all intelligent life, on Earth? Since life will exist otherwise. And the AN argument is, this is pure suffering. — Outlander
Where do we go from here? What about possibility of life on other planets? Should life be respected long enough to ensure our entire universe is destroyed or rather "made incapable" of supporting life in perpetuity? We're not at that state, currently. So surely, the irony or at least unacknowledged (at least at present) reality which requires such a truth to become actualized is ignored?
That is to say, life (the true AN equates with suffering?) will still exist until more life is created that allows greater potential to prevent itself? Do you understand this is what you're saying? — Outlander
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.