Oh yes, THAT natural philosophy :roll:. This is a non-sequitur. Besides the fact that you would then have to justify Aristotle's philosophy in regards to causation as somehow "THE" metaphysical view (less interested in that debate so don't worry), this just shows your disregard for the is/ought gap if you're somehow trying to justify these ideas in some overreaching way as it applies to ethics. I'm not going to try to fill in what I think you're implying, that's your job. Even so, after your whole explanation, my guess is that is/ought gap will be violated yet again as is your wont.

The rest is just too dull to address. — apokrisis

Ah yes, just dismiss. This is one way not to engage (dodge?) the issues I raise. You haven't even explained why it's "dull", so your comment falls flat and dull. My guess is because I do not mention your entropic yadayada philosophy and shoehorning of the notion of "balance" and "two complimentary sides" to create a basis for ethics. But I already addressed that in the last post. And I think what I brought up suffices as an objection to this non-foundation that you propose. You will call it "black-and-white" thinking, but that is misconstruing what normative ethics is. Ideals can be separated out from pragmatics. You don't ditch the ideals though. And that is the crux of the debate. Are ideals the basis for normative ethics? And from there, you are most likely going to go into a relativistic aspect to it. At the least, you can go with some Hegelian "revealing" of ideals which I would entertain. But to simply be a Sophistic relativist to the extent that you seem to be will reveal our main disagreements.

Even the Hegelian ideals would be "real", even if revealed in stages, to the extent that it reveals itself over time. Slavery was seen as tragic but perhaps, a part of life in the not-to-distant past. But various beliefs and events coalesced around the idea that freedom to not be enslaved is not just pragmatic, but the ideal. The same with many ideals we cherish. So, you can justify perhaps a systems approach, but it would odd to then ditch the ideals that come about from it, and either willfully or unintentionally replace the negotiation process (as revealed over historical time) itself with the ideals that come from them.

However, at the bottom of this might not even be Hegelian idealism, but simply idealism simpliciter. Equality and fairness and non-harm and autonomy can be said to be very ancient notions competing with other things. Negative ethics battles positive ethics in various ways. Your positive ethical impulse for X might violate someone else's negative impulse to be prevented from Y. But there are times when this conflict itself doesn't simply "balance out" in an equation.

And with all this being said, we are indeed sidetracked, as AN represents a uniquely different scenario than almost any other one that happens, as everything else that happens happens AFTER someone is already born. Thus they are in "mitigation ethics". Now, indeed the ideals have to be engaged in a sort of trading of greater for lesser harms. But uniquely, prior to birth, in consideration of future people, the ideal becomes much more stark as a "Yes" or "No". Do you cause unnecessary harm? There is no one alive already for that consideration to matter for. This changes the pragmatic aspect of the ethical consideration, and indeed does move it to a more digital ideal than the usual negotiations one must play between people's positive and negative ethics. Now, indeed we are in "preventative ethics". You can uniquely prevent ALL harm, with no collateral damage to an individual.. the one in question being so harmed. And here there will be more disagreement, as you will somehow consider positive projects more important than negative harm in these considerations. Thus the ideal rears its head again, "Do you use people to the extent that you can harm them when you don't have to because you want to see X positive project play out?". And of course your answer will be in the affirmative. But then, you this is where you play 'fast and loose' with ethics to allow for such things by ditching the ideal of non-harm for some positive project, which is not justified other than circular logic whereby the whole system justifies what is done to an individual by using the very system itself as a basis, which again, is circular logic.

Edit: I added a substantial amount to explain more and keep on track above.

Do you cause unnecessary harm? — schopenhauer1

This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake).

AN's "asymmetry argument" is based on a misconception of ethics ... which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on @schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid.

This question addresses the subject of moral concern: actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake). — 180 Proof

I think AN can only be understood as a social tactic to justify ineffectuality. One is a victim of life itself and so can't be held responsible for ... anything.

The choice to have children is a big responsibility. So let's reframe that as a fundamental ground of victimhood. The original sin of society and its large collection of consequent responsibilities. All that must follow from being born.

:up:

actually living, present persons, n o t possible, future persons (which is AN's category mistake). — 180 Proof

Dude, your point is not valid. Buck up buttercup. Future people can be considered. It’s just how things work. If a future person could exist, they could suffer.

which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as o — 180 Proof

:lol: clearly triggered. If you see trolling, look in the mirror. All your posts are drive by troll posts. I’ve never seen you make an attempt at civil dialogue. Toxic AF :mask: :death:!

keep avoiding my arguments for a straw man argument no one made.

It’s here if you need it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/928608

Favorite philosophical insight: Life presents itself chiefly as an opportunity. :wink:

To prevent life =/= to prevent suffering just as to destroy the village =/= to save the village. Your ANist cowardice and hypocrisy are pathetic, schop, but it's not yet too late to redeem yourself à la Mainländer. :smirk:

- :up:

My sense is similar, namely that anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady rather than a first-order thesis. It seems to stand on the circumstantial situation of the proponent rather than on its own intellectual legs, and my guess is that anyone who holds it on purely intellectual grounds could be dissuaded in time. It's hard to understand it any other way when the arguments are not sufficient to justify the conclusion, nor the tenacity with which the conclusion is held.

My sense is similar, namely that anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady rather than a first-order thesis. It seems to stand on the circumstantial situation of the proponent rather than on its own intellectual legs, and my guess is that anyone who holds it on purely intellectual grounds could be dissuaded in time. It's hard to understand it any other way when the arguments are not sufficient to justify the conclusion, nor the tenacity with which the conclusion is held. — Leontiskos

I think this would be one man's assertion without intellectual "legs" to refute it. You say that AN isn't intellectual but a symptom of a diseased mind or whatnot, but then anyone can believe anything they want. I provide my justification. Where's yours?

which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid. — 180 Proof

You have proved yourself incapable of reading a simple response. AS always, proving you're not a serious person. It gets easier and easier. Maybe if you stopped behaving in a way that squarely fits th definition of trolling, you'd say something sensible.

anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady — Leontiskos

Why not just admit you don't get it? That's what all of what you've put forward in this thread amounts to. As those who hold the view attest, consistently.

my guess is that anyone who holds it on purely intellectual grounds could be dissuaded in time. — Leontiskos

@schopenhauer1 would seem proof this ain't so. :grin:

You have proved yourself incapable of reading a simple response. AS always, proving you're not a serious person. It gets easier and easier. Maybe if you stopped behaving in a way that squarely fits th definition of trolling, you'd say something sensible. — AmadeusD

You say this kind of thing so much that it has no bite. You can't seem to decide whether to love everyone or hate everyone. And all your accusations seem better fitted to describing your own behaviour.

Why not just chill and enjoy the friction of lively debate? Let the quality of your arguments be your testament. It is not as if anyone can win or lose in an internet forum where no one is really invested in the outcomes or any independent party keeping score.

Where's yours? — schopenhauer1

Presumably where I left them, and whatever other threads you were then drawing anti-natalism into.

Why not just chill and enjoy the friction of lively debate? — apokrisis

I do.

And all your accusations seem better fitted to describing your own behaviour. — apokrisis

We often turn to shoot the messenger, don't we :)

It is not as if anyone can win or lose in an internet forum where no one is really invested in the outcomes or any independent party keeping score. — apokrisis

For sure. Which is why I woulkd ask again: Given you're (by your own admission) not understanding, or caring about what this thread is about - how come you're here laying out post after post of stuff that doesn't seem properly on topic? Surely it would make more sense to spend your time elsewhere on this forum?

ou can't seem to decide whether to love everyone or hate everyone — apokrisis

Neither. I don't know any of you. As a general disposition, Love is far closer to the mark though. I certainly enjoy my time here, and most interactions I have.

schopenhauer1 would seem proof this ain't so. :grin: — apokrisis

Yes, but it should go without saying that schopenhauer1 is the exception to that claim. :grin:

I enjoyed your recent posts, beginning on page 32. I suspect schopenhauer1 regrets pulling you into the thread.

Surely it would make more sense to spend your time elsewhere on this forum? — AmadeusD

Schop keeps requesting my presence. No matter how many years it’s been. It seems to energise him judging by the caps lock shouting.

(And this thread wasn’t even about antinatalism.)

I suspect schopenhauer1 regrets pulling you into the thread. — Leontiskos

He loves it. It feels like old times. :grin:

To prevent life =/= to prevent suffering — 180 Proof

I'm not an antinatalist, but x has to exist before it can suffer.

Okay. So what's your point?

Okay. So what's your point? — 180 Proof

That you made a mistake

If the only evil is suffering, as some might feel, then antinatalism is a perfectly coherent position. For me, there are other evils than suffering, so I am not an antinatalist on those grounds. (For me there may be an ecological argument for antinatalism.) To show @schopenhauer1 incoherent you would need to demonstrate that he thinks that there are sometimes worse evils than suffering. Is that right?

As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.

If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks. — wonderer1

Well assuming that autism is an essential feature of 'who you are', it might be possible that autism is not a cause of suffering in an afterlife, eternal or not. Not sure why you think it is necessarily bad, unless you think that the 'future life' will be very similar to this life (as I said before, I think that an eternal 'earthly life 2.0' would be bad for everyone, not only for some people)

I suppose the after life for an autistic person would be a world in which perfect steam engines ran exactly to time according to a really clear timetable and everyone said exactly what they meant and meant exactly what they said.

I suppose the after life for an autistic person would be a world in which perfect steam engines ran exactly to time according to a really clear timetable and everyone said exactly what they meant and meant exactly what they said. — bert1

I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up:

Such as?

I don't actually think it's a stereotype any more than saying all human beings like food, or something. I don't know any autistic person who who doesn't get frustrated with unreliability, unpredictability, and unclear or dishonest communication. And a heck of a lot really do like steam trains.

Such as what?

Schop keeps requesting my presence. No matter how many years it’s been. It seems to energise him judging by the caps lock shouting. — apokrisis

I see... Again, fair enough lol. No idea about your history

I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up: — wonderer1

I thought it was really funny. I'd recommend he keep making jokes.

I think Tom Storm's simple response "No" is all that is needed here. Why blind oneself to the obvious?

Well assuming that autism is an essential feature of 'who you are', it might be possible that autism is not a cause of suffering in an afterlife, eternal or not. — boundless

I'm not much inclined to use the word "essential" because of the amount of baggage that tends to come with it.

"Autism" is an apt word for describing an aspect of my particular biological nature. Evidence suggests that (from a certain perspective) it looks something like:


Given I've read relatively few posts from you, I don't suppose that image means much to you. However someone who has put some thought into how information processing occurs in neural networks, might recognize that image as pointing towards some substantial differences in thought for the possessors of those different brains.

"An Anthropologist on Mars" describes Sacks' meeting with Temple Grandin, an autistic woman who is a world-renowned designer of humane livestock facilities and a professor at Colorado State University. The title of this essay comes from a phrase Grandin uses to describe how she often feels in social interactions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Anthropologist_on_Mars

Now I'm certainly 'less autistic' than Temple Grandin. I can pass as normal enough, and have even had to deal with skepticism towards the idea that I'm ASD on the part of people who know me well. Still, I know what Grandin means, although the social effects have been less profound for me than for her.

Anyway, I know I'm getting longwinded. I feel that since I'm on the autism spectrum and can speak out about it, I should do so in the hopes of greater understanding for people less or unable to talk about it.

Getting back to speculating about an afterlife...

Are we imagining a situation where social interaction between people plays a prominent role? If so, what reason would there be to not expect autistic people in this afterlife to experience a painful sense of being an outsider? How do you imagine things being different?