If someone is born, that person is exposed to structural and contingent harms where there could have been no person born who would be exposed to structural and contingent harms. I am not sure why you would disagree with this. — schopenhauer1
But arguments for anti-natalism depend on this claim, which means that, because it is false, anti-natalism is false. — Thorongil
Pessimists think that being born itself is a harm — schopenhauer1
The act of birth has nothing inherently harmful (except the physiological pain involved I guess), but rather than "birth" I should say "life" or "existence" itself- not the birthing process. — schopenhauer1
No one ever emphasized "birth" as the wrong. — schopenhauer1
It feels like you're pulling my leg now. If they exist at the time of making lemonade, then they existed before one made lemonade. — Thorongil
The history of a lemon's existence is irrelevant at the time of lemonade-making. It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. All that matters is that it exists at the moment lemonade-making occurs. — darthbarracuda
do you think people can be harmed or benefited by dying? Do you think it might help someone to be euthanized if they are suffering terribly? Even if they don't exist after the fact? — darthbarracuda
I've made it clear that my definition of harm does not require there to be an actual person existing prior to the harm. It requires only a counterfactual hypothetical person, "if there had been". — darthbarracuda
:-} — Thorongil
As for the first question, that depends on context. I agree in principle with the death penalty, for example. So I do think people can benefit from the death of an individual convicted of a serious crime, those people being the criminal's potential victims, were he not punished. I also think that some wars can be justified, in which case the people on the just side of the war would benefit from the enemy being killed. As for harm, I think a suicide's death, for example, can harm the friends and loved ones of the person who took his or her life. Fatal accidents can do so as well. — Thorongil
And your definition of harm is incoherent for this reason. — Thorongil
??? — darthbarracuda
I meant specifically the person dying, not those around them. — darthbarracuda
Yeah...no. — darthbarracuda
On the other hand, death is clearly different from birth in that an individual does exist prior to its occurrence. In that sense, death cannot but be a harm to that individual, since it results in that individual's bodily extinction, at minimum. — Thorongil
Right but a person doesn't exist after they died so how can it harm them. — darthbarracuda
This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems. — darthbarracuda
This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems. — darthbarracuda
Consider again, for a moment, the reason for my emoji. I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century). — Thorongil
It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda
So why cannot birth harm a person? — darthbarracuda
Because there is no person to harm, prior to it, like there is in the case of death. — Thorongil
No, I didn't. Read that again. — darthbarracuda
I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century). — Thorongil
It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda
Yet the epicurean position is precisely that death cannot harm the person themselves because a person does not exist after they die. — darthbarracuda
It seems ad hoc to require someone exist before a harm for something to count as a harm but not require that they exist after a harm for something to count as a harm. — darthbarracuda
I did not contradict myself. I have been consistent. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda
You have made both of the following statements:
1. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade
2. Lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. — Thorongil
These are mutually incompatible statements. It's not possible for them both to be true at the same time. Only one option is true, which is the second. Therefore, you need to stop making the first claim. — Thorongil
No, I haven't, where are you getting this from? — darthbarracuda
It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda
Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda
Here you acknowledge that lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. The duration of their existence is irrelevant. Whether they existed a million years or a millionth of a second before making lemonade, they still exist before. — Thorongil
Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda
I said the duration doesn't matter because it doesn't matter at all whether or not lemons exist before lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda
Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda
Darth, I refuse to accept that you are this daft. The I just made to you was that, if you acknowledge ANY duration of a lemon's existence BEFORE making lemonade, then you have contradicting the following statement: — Thorongil
How does acknowledging a lemon's prior existence contradict my claim that the only thing that matters is that the lemon exists at the moment of lemonade-making? — darthbarracuda
Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda
Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda
Lemons do not need to exist beforehand in order to make lemonade. They need only exist at the time of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda
I don't know how else to account for your inability to comprehend a very simple issue. But oh well. — darthbarracuda
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.