Well I understand you don’t believe in god or religion, and you don’t seem to be an Aristotelian platonist about objectivity, so if I was you, I wouldn’t argue with me either (which was my point).

I don’t blame you for ending the conversation. It’s actually is an example of the point I was making.

Well, if you stick to such straw men then this conversation won't go anywhere — Tom Storm

I’m not arguing why I believe in God and objective truth. You are asking me to justify my beliefs to you as if I was using my beliefs to justify something about atheists.

I’m simply saying if I personally did NOT believe in objective truth, I wouldn’t see the point of philosophy, and if I didn’t believe in objective morality, I wouldn’t see the point of any morality.

The thread is about whether atheism is logical or not. Maybe there are no gods. Maybe atheists are right about that. I’m just saying what I think logically follows from an atheistic worldview - absolute truth and objective morality disappear as well, from what I can tell. This isn’t an original idea. Nietzsche called one of his books “beyond good and evil” and belittled those with a “will to truth” as lying to themselves, and said “God is dead” to make his point thoroughly.

even if you grant there might be gods you can't demonstrate which one is real or what god's moral system is. — Tom Storm

Ok, but that is a different issue. If we grant that there is objectivity and God serving as judge of moral objectivity, now it is worth struggling to find out what God means, what is truth. It is worth having this discussion.

I’m willing to keep searching and talking about it, because I believe there is an objective truth.

Which brings me back to my simple point. If I didn’t grant (by belief and my own reasons) that there was truth and objective morals, then I would see no reason to argue about it.

I’ll give you an example of where this is coming from.

There is a whole thread on here asking if there is a physical basis for an “object”.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15297/is-there-any-physical-basis-for-what-constitutes-a-thing-or-object

So philosophers can doubt the difference between an apple and a tree trunk is anything more than a mental construct. The world-in-itself is unknown to us, and the lines we draw around things are only lines in our minds.

This is a real epistemological and metaphysical issue. It’s a conclusion that is currently popular (been around since Socrates). It’s how we show that gender isn’t fixed for instance - we draw the lines we want to draw as there are no lines in an objective world we have access to (if such a world exists).

I live in the same world as those philosophers. I get the epistemological and metaphysical issues.

But I just think we have a lot more work to do to demonstrate the objective. I don’t therefore think there are no differences in a physical world apart from me. I believe those of us who think every “object” we take up is ONLY constructed by ourselves, are just wrong, because there is an objective reality with mind-independent distinctions in it.

The problem with “what is an object” doesn’t lead me to believe “there are no objects” it leads me to believe we have a lot more to investigate about the world and a lot more to clarify in our discussions about it.

The problem with “what is the real God, and what does it matter to me anyway” doesn’t lead me to believe “there are no gods” it leads me to believe we have a lot more to talk about.

This is because I believe there is an objective world or truth and morality.

I get thinking there is no truth. I get thinking there is no god. I don’t get philosophizing and developing ethics despite those facts. You can, but I wouldn’t.

Determinism says every present effect follows a prior cause / that’s the only mechanism of physical interaction among agents.

But Hume and Kant showed there is no cause and effect - they are just constructions that might have nothing to do with the world in itself.

So free will is defeated by a world utterly determined by the cause/effect mechanism, and the cause/defect mechanism is defeated by a critical understanding of how the mind inserts cause and effect for its own categorical purposes.

But how would the defeat of physical cause and effect by a mind so detached from the world it knew nothing in itself, set one free in the physical world?

Huge conundrum.

My mind is made up. I am completely free to accept that I am not as free as I thought I was. Recognizing one’s limitations sets one free.

Freedom is a possibility.

My mind is made up, until something changes it, for me to claim it as mine again.

The question is not why we understand each other, but how are systems of values and knowledge formed through interaction , and how do they change over the course of history, — Joshs

But what happens when you realize that everything we construct today will utterly change and be wiped away? What happens to the “objectivity” that is derived from the shifting sands?

It never was more than an illusion. Intersubjectivity only becomes objectivity by convention.

Look, I think there is an objective, mind independent physical world, that is intelligible to minds to varying degrees that can be logically tested, and that logic reflects the fact of objects being in the world. There is truth and wisdom to be gleaned FROM experience.

But I only think this because nothing else makes any sense at all. If I thought no-god and no-truth made sense, then no more objective mind independent reality and all intersubjectivity is a game played in the phenomenal world, as reality is always once step removed (if it exists at all).

It’s subjective any way you go. — Tom Storm

Then why speak? It’s all babble. No one will ever truly know anyone or anything if it’s all subjective any way you go. Nothing is left to share among people in discussion. Anything shared would be objective.

Speak to the waitress when you are ordering dinner; speak to your kids when you are telling them it is safe to cross the street; speak to your politician when you disagree with a new law about traffic signs.

But if anyone says “Laws are good.” Or “Community is important” or “there is a natural kind of person, and a built in morality of doing no harm” or any such universal concoction - tell them “blah, blah, blah.” Remember that’s subjective BS, as equally meaningful as “laws are bad” and “community is unimportant.” and any response thrown out among other subjects is your own attempt at wish fulfillment.

Cratylus, a follower of Heraclitus, was known to reply to arguments by wiggling his finger. He believed all was so subject to change, nothing could be fixed long enough to be objective or “truth” - with his finger he showed he understood what this meant for philosophy, for speaking.

In the end, I think the subjectivists, the no-truthers, those who drain all meaning and purpose and value, are just wrong. I totally get their position. I admit they may be right (although being right is an objective statement and the first crack in the position). I’m saying if I stood still on their position, talking about morality or metaphysics, or “good” or “justice” or “truth” would be like talking about “God” or “fairy elves” or “human progress” - just another no sum game.

All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity — Tom Storm

No one can point to objectivity through reason and science alone. Plato tried, Aristotle, Hegel, Descartes - they are all punching bags to us post modern sages.

If all there is are us people, after thousands of years of bickering over philosophy and mysticism, and science and religion, we have so little agreement. We get Kant where the objective thing in itself is unknowable, we get Nietzsche showing us objectivity is for the weak, we get post modernism where “there is no truth”, we get Wittgenstein where meaning is a game.

It is fairly popular to say “there is no absolute truth, there is only my truth.” Fine if someone wants to think they’ve said something by saying that, but I call that bullshit. If you think there is only “my truth” just admit there is no truth at all.

I’m saying that if I concluded there was no truth, which is hand-in-hand with there is no god, I wouldn’t be writing home about it trying to convince people how much I “knew” this to be correct (can’t say “true”). If I concluded there was no god, I wouldn’t be writing down the new Ten Commandments of morality for all to learn from.

No objective moral position to guide us - then who the hell cares what anyone thinks?

“Thou shalt only call someone by the pronoun they have chosen, even if that pronoun can change without any visible indication of what that pronoun is.” Lets try to collaborate on a compromise with that starting point.

Objectivity has been so deconstructed, gender itself is just another pile of bullshit we tell ourselves.

No objectivity is like a religious belief.

So is objectivity.

I’m saying that I happen to believe in God. And I happen to believe people DO know the truth. These are beliefs. I, like Aristotle for instance, think there can be a science of this objective world, that we can discover and share in discussion. Because of those beliefs, discussion with other people about what they think about morality and truth has value to me. I can learn something objectively true - gain wisdom.

Im not wasting my time spinning wheels talking about what is correct and what is not correct about truth and morality when, if I was an atheist post modern thinker, the end of every conversation is “well we’ll never know, all we can do is make up our best, and go on with our lives in our bubbles of bullshit.”

No theist can identify objective truth either. They can only point vaguely to some amorphous god idea (as nominally foundational to whatever they think is real) a deity no one understands in the same way or expects the same things from. — Tom Storm

Im saying there is an objective truth. Maybe no one has said it, but because of my faith it’s worth trying to say something objective, universal, absolute - true for God as it would be true for any consciousness. God or truth or objectivity becomes like a limit we can shoot for.

But when I was an atheist, it didn’t matter that I couldn’t find it, that it might be an illusion - all of it became just as much bullshit as the “god idea” or the “deity no one understands in the same way”. All of it.

And as an atheist, it made sense that it was all bullshit. Why make any ethics, full of holes and overly confident in almighty “reason” and the wonderful ability to judge value? Objective truth, the stuff of reality without appearance was gone, so what use is ever using those words again to defeat appearance (for only other appearances are left when truth is gone).

But the atheists who strive to build a new objectivity, a postmodern wisdom, a new language game, are just as full of shit as the theists seem to be to you.

Without objective reality, who can really tell the difference between BS and something not-BS? No one.

There’s a reason Nietzsche said “ god is dead” when he was saying truth is overvalued and mostly a lie, and metaphysics and absolutes are bullshit, and instinct is the only invisible force that matters; because saying god is dead sums up the rest of it. Nietzsche was consistent enough to remain skeptical of scientists who thought they knew the nature of truth just as much as theists did. Bullshit speaks in every tongue.

I’m not saying people don’t come up with some great attempts at truth and ethics without god in them; it’s just that they are attempts, and not successful or effective enough to make a dent in the swamp of BS that we always create along with it. For me, without God, why bother trying again when there is no truth, nothing real about morality, no god?

I haven’t heard an atheist truly recover a real, relevant case for objectivity and meaning and purpose to philosophy and metaphysics. Nietzsche said you build it on a tightrope at best and inevitably the facade falls down. I agree with that, if god was dead to me.

Again, you have failed — schopenhauer1

wearing out my patience…stop misconstruing and strawmanning it — schopenhauer1

You told me to read it carefully and read it again and parse it out with questions. I don’t suppose you meant me to do that with the above.

Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. […] That is say, no person exists to be violated prior to procreation. The violation only takes place once procreation occurs. — schopenhauer1

Ok, the violation occurs when procreation happens. But you didn’t say the rule that’s violated (and I’m not going to dare to assume anything). The violation of what rule specifically in your words for me to parse out?

But I got this rule is violated once procreation occurs.

prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place!) versus remediative harm (the harm is already taking place, now a set of actions is needed to remediate it!). — schopenhauer1

That sounds like a rule in there. The rule seems to be to “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary.” Then, once procreation happens and the rule has been violated, you move to a different rule where, if there is harm already done “a set of actions is needed to remediate it.”

I think you said before AN has nothing to do with remediative actions. Which makes sense since AN is a pre-procreation moral guidance.

in a given context of a society means having to move about in public spaces- in the situatedness of a social sphere. This means, inevitably you will cause unintentional harm. — schopenhauer1

This seems to be about a wider moral position, and has stepped outside of a narrow focus on AN. The above all talks about how to treat other currently living people. In this context, and if I got the rule right, the rule being: “prevent harm when possible, especially when unnecessary”, in the wider context of other living people we still must try to prevent harm, especially when unnecessary, but there can be harmed caused that is “unintentional harm.” And any step we take is towards remediation, not prevention first.

[Could negligent behavior blur the line between preventative and remediative acts? Is there a duty to try to prevent negligence, and while some acts are purely unintentional, others are wanton and grossly negligent sorts that we all have a duty to prevent? This is a tangent - forget the question.]

Positive ethics DOES matter in the sphere of existing to some extent, as long as it doesn't unnecessarily violate others. Remember the bridge argument? The fishermen want to catch the biggest fish of their life. It's blocking YOUR right to go to your car. Whatever pleasure they get from fishing and the collateral damage of causing your harm, it was unnecessary to "recruit" you into their project. This is different than being one car of many in traffic "recruiting" you into traffic. With the road situation, it is tacitly accepted that this is part of how roads worked. However, if a car wanted to stop traffic so they can look out the side of the road at some attraction, that is now falling into unnecessary "recruiting" territory. — schopenhauer1

I sum this up as making the point that what is wrong about procreation is that we are recruiting a future person into a life of suffering, and failing to prevent obviously unnecessary suffering.

I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability — schopenhauer1

I think you are making me do all the work and judging by your abilities you could do it way better, and tighter. You just don’t want to waste your time on a bad faith opponent - well you’re judging me harshly. I’m doing my best too.

I think people can be great parents, and are good people, but that procreation is still wrong. — schopenhauer1

I get it’s a tough moral choice to make. That was in The Revealers too.

The ethic is to not unnecessarily create more people that suffer, and to force people into a world based on one's own estimation of how much suffering is good (especially since the amount and kind of suffering for another is unknown as just a fact of the matter). It's then the inclination that must be re-educated, not the ethic. — schopenhauer1

You said “especially since the amount of suffering is unknown.” That adds an interesting element. “Amount of suffering” as a concept, plus this amount being “unknown.”

I don’t think the amount of suffering matters, and I don’t think the fact of suffering is unknown. We know every time we procreate we are recruiting someone into suffering. Period. Right?

As far as the re-education, I agree it would be in the face of inclinations and old habits. But I’m still trying to parse out the content of the education. That is a 2.0 discussion about inclinations and where they come from and why someone might resist AN. I’m just sticking to what AN is.

You even said yourself after talking about people who aren’t inclined to have kids, about religion and family as urging kids, as existential need for purpose.. “…Though of course, there are also plenty of horrible parents as well, but all of this is besides the point.”

So I don’t think I need to parse that part out yet to focus on what AN is.

I’m not intending to mischaracterize anything you are trying to explain, so if I do, that wasn’t my intent, so don’t accuse me of bad faith anymore, please. (If something is wrong, clarify it for me. Nothing wrong with wiping the blackboard clean and laying out a tight argument from the top again.)

Then you said this:

It is more than just suffering. If it was just suffering, I would consider myself a hedonic utilitarian or some such. It is rather about not using people by force recruiting them into projects that will harm them. Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, — schopenhauer1

So it is more about not forcing someone to be born at all, regardless of any suffering; it is about how “recruiting them into projects” is wrong. The fact that it is a project “that will harm them” makes it all the worse, but “it is more than just suffering. […] It is rather about not using people by force.”

This is why you don’t like my arguments about the amount of suffering. Suffering in life is a part of what is wrong about procreation, but it is the involuntary recruitment that might be the real heart of the rule that is violated.

So I had the rule as (trying to quote you) “ prevent the harm if possible, especially if it is unnecessary to let the harm happen in the first place.” But there is a second rule or complication to the rule (again that I hope you will clarify) something like (as tight as I can make to build less room for misinterpretation): “do not impose harm, especially when it can be avoided.”

So this confuses “prevent” with “not impose”. But I am seeing AN as more saying “do not impose” in order to get the involuntary recruitment aspect into it.

But that undermines all of the time spent parsing out “prevent” from “remediate”. That wasn’t really the issue. And that issue was related to the suffering, where first you must prevent suffering, but then once procreation happens and you are with the currently living you are following a rule relating to remediating suffering. But we also said that the suffering isn’t the heart of the issue.

So I think all of the arguments over prevent versus remediate and suffering and amounts of suffering, were off the mark (or at least my objections and rebuttals to those aspects of the arguments were off the mark). Because that wasn’t the real heart of the problem. That’s why it can be ok to cause some suffering in living people, because they can consent to that suffering.

The mark for AN has to do with the lack of consent to live at all.

It is wrong to force a being into existence when no such being could give its consent, therefore one should not procreate.

Is this right?

Suffering matters here, but it is the particular nature of preventing suffering absolutely in the case of procreation that makes it exceptionally different than already-existing scenarios, where we are simply remediating suffering (doing the best with what we have, trading greater with lesser harms, negotiating our interests, etc.). — schopenhauer1

It is right. It sounds right to me. I still don’t think I’m mischaracterizing anything you are saying.

And I also still think it can all be summed up in a tighter argument where every word counts better than I’ve done here. I’m not sure if the best formulation of the rule involved ( “prevent harm” or “not imposing harm”).

There are holes that I can’t seem to fill, and that I’m afraid to fill for fear of “strawmanning”!!

There is an apparent vacillation on the place of the future non-existing baby that is both prevented from existing (as a future possible baby), and in which suffering is prevented from existing. I know that the baby never exists when the rule is followed and no violation occurs. But the rule itself seems to invoke the existence of a baby that cannot give its consent, to whom life is being imposed involuntarily; there’s a tension there that you (not me) introduce into the text. The existence of the baby seems to matter (actual) and not matter (potential) to the world this ethic describes.

And I still see a hole in the value of suffering to the AN argument. Something needs further clarity here. Does AN hold its ground regardless of any suffering or not?

But I’ve gone too far astray from the text.

Before you respond to all of the things I got wrong, can you at least admit how far I DO seem to understand it? Most of this whole post was me trying to restate you without causing any cringing.

It occurred to me that as soon as it is proven to me that I do NOT have free will, that I will still have to give my consent to never ask the question again.

Seems to me we either must have free will, or we will never be able to KNOW we do not have free will without a lingering acquiescence to that fact, and so a lingering agency.

But I don’t like the idea of a “will” as an organ like a “liver” or faculty of the mind even. We “are willing” and out of those acts we construct what we will to construct. There is an agent, but it is in the act of doing something that we simultaneously are doing something that we are willing to to do. You can’t really separate the specific act from the willing act when you are acting on your “free will”.

Not really a formed idea yet, but me I’m willing to keep considering.

Consent is the better word. Take all the determined forces around us completely out of our control that wash us down the speeding river into the violent ocean, and just give your consent (or not) to the same ride that was going to happen anyway. That’s where the will is born.

And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality — AmadeusD

The individual stories aren’t relevant individually, but in order for the aggregate to display more or less suffering, you can’t gather individual stories about wood-working - you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels.

f the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success. — AmadeusD

This sounds more pragmatic or utilitarian. Which may be the best spin on AN. If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out.

I’m just saying if we humans think our ethics and morals are so important that we must live by them and uphold them above our own instincts and choose not to procreate for the sake of being moral and “good”, then we are defeating the seat of ethics in the world along with the lives that could have otherwise recognized and lived ethically; “because it is wrong to inflict suffering” is an ethic, and if this ethic is the reason we act, and our actions are to never procreate, then we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place.

You said free-thinking. So you meant free thinking as a result of deterministic neural activity. Got it.

secular humanists have long plugged away at building ethical frameworks quite consistently and effectively, — Tom Storm

Where? When? Who? Effectively?

No two philosophers can agree on anything, let alone build off of it together.

I’m not an expert on living the atheist life, but I didn’t always believe in God. And it was liberating. But also seemed incapable of addressing the bigger questions that didn’t go away. If I stayed atheist, I wouldn’t have come back to seeking answers, and more to the point, wouldn’t be talking about it with anyone else.

That’s the illogical part to me. If three people agree there is no god, there is no objective truth, there is no access to reality as it must be for all, then they should also agree that they have no idea whether each of them mean or agreed on the same thing - collaboration in philosophy and ethics becomes pointless.

if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless.
— Fire Ologist

I'm unsure it would. Its just far less high-stakes, i think. — AmadeusD

That makes sense. So, an atheist can have an interest in talking philosophy, truth and ethics, but in the end, as soon as they hit that pointless wall, the atheist can deftly switch to sports, the weather on upcoming vacation, and needing new shoes - higher stakes conversations. I get that.

Free thinking, free living. — 180 Proof

Lots of evidence there is no such thing as free will. The biggest proponents of free will are people who believe in good and evil objectively and a free agent who gets to choose among them, like a Christian does.

In order to flourish more than languish. — 180 Proof

If there are no rules, we can’t languish in the anxiety of breaking the rules. Why invent rules that can be broken and put yourself in a box of broken people. (Find a lot of people in there - maybe the music is good.)

Ethics is like a clear roadmap for how to walk to your best life, then we take a look and see that we are in a boat with no sail. Totally delusional along with the God that doesn’t exist.

Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.
Perhaps to a child ... — 180 Proof

Fairly adolescent response. The premise here is there is no god, no objective truth, and this will all be over soon enough. So let’s see what we can agree on and use it to help inform choices that might go against our instincts. And I’ve met a lot of annoyed atheists stuck in pointless (to them) conversations. I get that. They were “adults” too.

correcting falsehoods. — 180 Proof

You sound like the God of Abraham. Or Socrates. Or Descartes. Or the ministry of truth.

All humans can do (whether theist or not) is develop a system and hold a conversation in collaboration with the community to work out what we think is reasonable in the space of morality. — Tom Storm

I agree that is what we do.

But if I thought that was all we could do, I would see it as futile. I see in every age, the same outcomes of all of our politics, all of our civil codes, all of our aspirations for a better world - we get murder, lies, rallying cries for war, etc.

Democracy and capitalism were once the greatest hopes we crafted as collaborations for the community, and today, many think they are evil and doomed to corruption.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves.

Unless there is a measuring stick that is real that we are collaborating to find and emulate.

I’m not saying if I was atheist I would be an anarchistic, hedonistic sociopath, but I’m saying I wouldn’t bother to try to explain why not or tell some else they were wrong about whatever they did.

To me, it’s because we collaborate at all about anything that we experience the possibility of God. God is in the collaboration. So you take God out of it, the collaboration falls with it.

And there are a lot of cooky Catholics - AND, for all I know Peter Singer is a saint. I’m not judging him (or the nun and priest) - I’m just saying if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless.

Yes it's about suffering. Duh. But it's not suffering "tout court" in this case. It's about what surrounds it. The context. In this case the context that occurs when deciding to procreate. — schopenhauer1

Suffering itself is a physical, mental lived experience.

The context around suffering, to me, would be the body and its environment, or the psychology - both interacting between the suffering subject.

The deciding to procreate doesn’t make sense to me as the context surrounding the suffering. You need to be more precise.

Do you mean some suffering is neutral, not good or bad, but other suffering, like future suffering cause by procreating is good or bad, and in the CAE of AN, bad?

Don’t follow needing to think of the context of suffering to understand the arguments.

Link to a post where you think I’m not responding to you. The clear “here is the AN argument and here is why it is the most logical ethic” post or posts.

I don’t see why you think the things I’m saying are not relevant or in bad faith. Spell it out or give up.

I keep rephrasing what I think you are saying to show you clearly what I think you are saying, and then I post my objections.

I’m playing as fair as I can despite your accusations.

You just respond to my objections by calling me names.

How about laying out your argument, or linking to something you already said the for Nth time.

I’ll try it again anyway.

Is this AN??:

1. Living entails suffering.
2. Causing someone else to suffer (without their consent?) is bad (immoral, unethical), and preventing suffering or future suffering is good.
3. Procreation brings about new life, and the suffering entailed in that new life.
Therefore, procreation is a violation of the ethical rule stated in 2, procreation causes unconsented future suffering, and AN is the more ethical stance.

Is that AN? I am not sure whether consent is needed in the ethical rule of 2.

And instead of jabbing at wherever I have it wrong, show me where it is wrong, incomplete, unclear, but leave in the parts where it is right or clear (if any) so this can be a discussion that builds on prior assertions we’ve made. Lay it out so that I say “Wow, I did sound like I was in bad faith. I did have it all wrong.” Or really the point of any conversation, show me so I say “Schop was right, AN makes sense.”

Work in the asymmetry. I’m sure I would screw that up if I tried. Maybe it’s not essential to sure up the argument.

Work in the fact that specific future people do not matter to take the AN ethical stance towards them (as you said to correct me), but that the dignity of future people is the point of AN (as you said to correct me). And maybe address the issue of these two seeming (to me) to be incompatible.

Honest question - if I knew in my heart of hearts that the idea of a god, and the practice of a religion, were completely fabricated, wish fulfillment delusions, I would run from philosophy and ethics discussions.

I’m not saying anyone is wiser than anyone else, or anyone is or is not good - I’m saying if I knew there is no god, who cares what anyone else thinks about anything that is not testable in a lab, why ever discuss ethics if there is no measuring stick we all have to follow?

I’m not saying you can’t discuss ethics as a hobby, or because it’s just fun to look at all the people struggling with their fabrications called “the good” and “virtue” or “objective value” or “natural law” - but if none of these held any weight, why take any of it seriously?

Many atheists, like Peter Singer for instance, develop whole ethical systems and rules and judgments on other people’s behavior. I would just be reminded of Nietzsche’s opening lines to “On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense”: “After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, the clever animals had to die… There have been eternities when [the human intellect] did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened.”

No God, no hope for anything more than nature drawing its breath. Why be ethical at all? Seems philosophy and ethics would be annoying and tiresome.

So maybe atheism is not only rational, but accurate, but if it is so, aren’t ethics and truth irrational? And by extension, all discussions about these fabrications wastes of breath?

How do you explain people who value being "child-free"? — schopenhauer1

There is no need to. We are are discussing the logic of ending procreation to make the world more ethical and prevent future suffering.

There is a law that murder is wrong. The fact that I am never inclined to murder and likely never will be makes it easy for me to follow that law. That’s a different conversation than whether “murder is wrong” is a good law, is something universal everyone should follow, and something we should teach all to understand. Even if we logically showed “murder is good” I still wouldn’t murder.

The question is only is AN sound ethics?

I can only present the argument faithfully and to the best of my ability and they can do whatever they want. They can handle snakes, pray to their god, say their holy Hosannas, spout out nonsense, red herring non-sequitors on an internet forum — schopenhauer1

I am trying to use logic only. I never raised any of these non-sequitors. You did, which makes it a non-sequitor to the conversation I’m having.

I only point this out to show you how much I’m trying to avoid bad faith. I’m sticking to the text and bringing up logical issues with it and new premises (like suffering is of less import and less valuable than the life of the one who suffers). I’m not resorting to anything else but my observations and wits - no insulting references to religious practices.

I’m not belittling the AN person - I’m attacking the logic behind the conclusion that in order to be ethical, we should not procreate.

If AN is an issue of personal faith, like other “holy hosannas and spouting out other nonsense, then I wouldn’t be arguing the way I am. But it’s a logical, ethical stance. One that doesn’t seem sound to me.

It's NOT about the dignity of the PARENTS. Rather, it's about the dignity of the (future) child. — schopenhauer1

When I was arguing that we can’t be ethical towards a future person who does not exist, you went on and on about how it was not about the child. You said it was about the parent who was not inflicting suffering and preventing suffering and the non-presence of the child as recipient of the ethical behavior was irrelevant.

Now when I argue that (because there is no child) the human dignity AN ethics is trying to preserve has to exist in the living person who acts ethically (by preventing suffering and not procreating) you say it’s about the dignity of the future child.

I could level accusations of bad faith around too, but I’m just trying to point out the logical inconsistencies and am open to reasonable opposing views.

For instance, instead of thinking I know how the never going to Chicago scenario is so different than the never having children scenario, why don’t you lay it out? I think they are similar.

And instead of thinking I am fully aware of what I’m saying and acting in bad faith, show me how what I’m saying is not reasonable. Don’t just say it’s bad, show me.

I don’t think you are acting in bad faith towards me - I think you are being illogical and I’m trying as many ways as I can to show you why it’s illogical. I could be wrong about what AN really is, or I could be wrong about how my arguments are unsound or invalid in themselves. But you haven’t shown me otherwise. And instead like calling me a bad faith straw man builder. Over and over.

Are you really going to leave this conversation without showing me MORE CLEARLY how I am wrong?

Schop,
I’m not trying to be uncharitable. I’ve told you that anyone who wants to prevent suffering has their heart in the right place.

Answer me one question, is the fact that life is suffering a key premise to your argument or not?

Or better is the fact that some degree of suffering is entailed in every life a key premise to your argument or not?

Frankly don’t know why this is antagonizing. I’m trying to debate the logic of AN. It’s all so clear to you that you think I’m acting in bad faith because I’m not just following along the path that follows from the premise “life is suffering” but “ethics are good for people” and “preventing suffering is good ethics” so “never procreating is living ethically.”

To me it seems you are saying “there is enough suffering in every life that it is not debatable to evaluate that suffering as anything other than bad, harmful, fruitless, and unethical to inflict on another to any degree.

I’m trying to debate that. You think that’s bad faith for some reason.

It's not my job to try to convince every Harry, Dick, and Jane of their intransigent, unsound beliefs. — schopenhauer1

It’s not my job to demonstrate that the suffering that exists in life is only animating factor of ethics. That’s your job as an AN proponent. By simply avoiding the issue you sound like a flat-earther.

The earth isn’t flat. I can argue that, point.
Life is waaay more than suffering. I argued that. You don’t respond.
Preventing suffering is NOT the highest good of ethics. I argued that, you failed to respond.

If you are frustrated with me, I think it’s because you cherish suffering too much.

Life is suffering is your strawman.

The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining facto — I like sushi

It’s THE defining factor. Take out that life is suffering, you take out that procreation causes life which causes suffering, AND you take out the ethical ideal that it is wrong to inflict suffering and good to prevent suffering.

Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses.

what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place. — I like sushi

What right do I have to make someone else late for work by driving too slow? What right do I have to cause a car accident? None. So if preventing suffering in some possible scenario is the highest ethical ideal, then I shouldn’t leave the house.

You didn’t answer the question.

I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if merely having the baby sets up the conditions where I didn’t prevent suffering, so does leaving the house and involving anyone else in my actions.

can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position — I like sushi

By favorably you mean see the logic, because AN is all gloom and doom about all of life and what is the best thing to do about it - doesn’t do any of us any favors. But If this world was a living hell, I and all I could see around me was great suffering, and I knew my child would have it as bad or worse, with no hope for anything worth all the pain and suffering, then maybe.

You didn’t answer my scenario about leaving the house being likely to cause additional suffering in the world. How am I any less immoral by having a baby or leaving the house? If I leave, I am likely to cause some suffering to some potential person, just like if I take steps to procreate I am likely to cause some suffering, therefore yo prevent suffering and be an ethical person, I shouldn’t leave the house or procreate.

measures' the valuation between 'pain' and 'no pain' as a meaningful point — I like sushi

So if life only had a little bit of suffering in it, for everyone, the AN argument would fail? That’s not what Schop is saying. And it opens the whole AN argument up to attacks regarding the value of suffering.

Which to me shows its weakness.

If I leave my house tomorrow and go driving, I’ll accidentally cut someone off, or miss a green light and cause someone to be late for work, or maybe hit someone, so in order to prevent suffering, shouldn’t I never leave my house? Isn’t that the same logic being applied to procreation?

I think there are many more fundamentalists — I like sushi

No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there?

Unless AN’s define procreation as bringing a baby to viability. In such case, another sub rule under the AN ethic is that “if you are newly found pregnant, you should always get an abortion, or you will fail to prevent suffering.” See, I answered it for the AN enthusiast. More abortions to save world from all those mothers and fathers who don’t seem to care about all of the suffering they failed to prevent.

this idea stemmed from a staunch opposition to 'Pro Lifers — I like sushi

Interesting. Maybe. But says nothing about whether it’s a good idea and a sound moral position to take.

let us assume — I like sushi

No. That life is suffering, and no more needs to be said about this life we are each forced to live? No, I don’t assume that.

It’s a small minority position in philosophy, an already small subset. — schopenhauer1

I can’t believe it’s even a small subset, because it’s illogical to me to promote an ethic that defeats the existence of all ethical subjects.

I’m just talking to you. I’m not trying to save the world. I know nature will never give AN much traction. Maybe it’s not a good thought, despite the goodness of trying not to cause harm. AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings.

the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering — schopenhauer1

So any degree of suffering is bad. I get that about your argument.

common notions of deontology about the dignity of people, and how they aren't to be used or "messed with". For example, non-harm, and autonomy seem to be pretty essential to the dignity of a person — schopenhauer1

Not preventing suffering via procreation, will lead to the violation of this ethic (non-harm, autonomy). Procreation leads to harm/suffering. — schopenhauer1

I get it.

Dignity is preserved in the person who prevents suffering by not procreating.

I get it.

You dont get that I’m still not persuaded by the logic.

If I go to Chicago, there’s a chance I cause somebody in Chicago to suffer. So if I never go to Chicago I have prevented all of that possible, likely (because life is so full of suffering) suffering. Therefore, I should never go to Chicago.

These aren’t strawmen. These are individual lives living out their free moral choices, using logic and judgement. In the judgement of AN, all human procreation is worth ending balanced against all human suffering.

The main argument is not about "How much suffering" per se. That can be a dimension, but only after the core — schopenhauer1

Suffering is close to the core of the argument. Very close. The AN person is not preventing happiness, or boredom, they are preventing suffering, and suffering caused by one person to another person is the thing that goes against human. Suffering is really bad, bad enough to prompt moral laws and new choices. According to the AN position.

It’s not convincing to keep saying discussions about the suffering prong of the argument are strawman arguments.

you should not force recruit people who will be harmed — schopenhauer1

So what if you come from a long line of procreators, all of your parents and grandparents were all procreators (weird how that works) and all you want to do is spread a little love and joy and hope for a better future around like your mother did….. Don’t you think you will cause fresh new suffering to make this person doubt procreation? You are saying “it’s for your own good, despite all the people on your family tree who love and admire, for your own ethical good you should not cause suffering, so you should not procreate.” The rule itself as a thought causes suffering too, to someone who had long plans of a family and grandkids one day. It’s nice that no one is talking about actually forcing people not to procreate, but that’s not the point; even asking (most) people to reconsider any more procreation, is going to cause suffering. How do you answer that without being paternalistic, and without:

YOU deem the game necessary for someone else to play based on your personal estimation. — schopenhauer1

The game in your estimation is never causing suffering. But you never entertain thoughts of suffering being not just tolerable, but able to be made part of our dignity.

Not causing suffering isn’t strong enough of a moral code versus the chance at bringing about a human good through that suffering.

Suffering matters greatly to your argument and you take it for granted that everyone should know this suffering, and that no one could dignify this suffering, and instead call it a strawman.

to the point where they would enforce this by law — I like sushi

Call me an idiot but I thought we were talking about ethics, a moral law.

If all the people who were thinking about procreating asked “what ought I do? What’s the right thing to do? Should I procreate?” The AN believer would say to everyone “You shouldn’t procreate because that would cause suffering.”

No one is talking about “enforcement” of some criminal statute or something. Missed my point.

Why is your experience the tell-all for humanity? — AmadeusD

It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life.

I’m not fashioning any new law based on my experience of suffering or happiness, or my judgement of how other people should rationally balance the scales of suffering and joy in their experience, in their lives.

AN is fashioning a new law. AN says to me “because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” AN is the tell all.

I’m just saying to Mr. AN enthusiast, “procreate if you want or don’t procreate if you don’t want, but telling all of us, including me, not to procreate based on the fact that all life, including mine, is on balance over full of suffering, doesn’t make sense to me at all.” My kids love life too much. One’s a nurse (surrounded by suffering), one is a welder (gets burned everyday), and one is a struggling artist (who needs a job). They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them.

Its aggregation that matters — AmadeusD

There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first.

most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive. — AmadeusD

Two things: 1. I think most people overlook the positives and would errantly come out with mostly negatives. So I personally think most people would be wrong about their own lives too - if they said their lives were over full of pointless overwhelming suffering. But 2. What does it matter what anyone else thinks about anyone else’s lives but their own? I can’t tell you what pink looks like to you, or what hot feels like to you, and I can’t tell you how much you should be suffering or how much you should think you are suffering, or what you are feeling when you suffer painful feelings. So unless we all of our own wills each agree that “life is basically suffering” none of us should be basing a law on this premise. Who is anyone to tell me or anyone else but themselves, how much they suffer - that is not possible.

What happens here is that, even if objectively speaking “life is mostly suffering”, we can only test that by asking each person, and the vast majority of people will say (as you said above), on balance, life is worth all of the suffering. Suffering, like the qualia of any experience, can’t be determined or imposed from without, and the value of that suffering in developing laws like AN, should not be imposed either.

I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention... — Aquinas, ST II-II.64.7: Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?

The principle of double effect points to where intention exists. In one single act, having multiple effects, intention can lie in all, or only one, or some of those effects. Intention draws a direct line from a precise agent to his/her specifically intended effects, and that line may not exist in all of the effects that exist.

I have changed my mind — Bob Ross

That is impressive in itself - intellectual honesty on display. Cudos to you, brother Bob.

And the dialogue between you and Leontiskos has been very instructive.

I agree that the PDE is instructive of good morality when making certain decisions. But I also think one needs to be rigorous when essentially justifying bad effects. It’s a real tightrope with real pitfalls.

I like the pilot problem (to crash where less people are or not) or the car crash problem (4 or 2 must die) better than the trolley problem to think through the PDE.

For the trolley fiasco, I still think it is ridiculous to suspend the rest of the context and hand the lever or the seat over to someone on the trolley and ask them what is the right thing to do.

My inclination is that, without some context the choice of tracks cannot be made morally - neither is the right move. You need context, like for instance, the trolley driver passsd out, you happen to already know how to drive a trolley so you take control, which basically puts you in the same seat as the car driver and the pilot. NOW you see 5 people on one track and 1 on the other and can be asked - what would you do? That’s enough to ask a question like this. Because without the context, you have to decide to take any control and responsibility for any outcome by becoming a trolley driver. You have to instantly become a trolley driver and choose who dies all at once. That’s dumb. Like being pushed out of an airplane with 5 other people and four parachutes, with no prior experience and being told it’s all up to you who lives and you have to be one of the people who lives. Just ridiculous, and if that situation actually arose I would never blame any of the falling people for any outcome. Too surreal to inform a question of morality.

If I was magically placed near the helm of an out of control trolley and saw all of these people on the tracks, the moral decision is to yell “who is driving this trolley - what is supposed to be done - what do you want me to do!” And with no answer, besides a moral dilemma (you get to decide by pulling that lever or not), why would anyone have a duty to make any decision on that trolley? The trolley problem is too unrealistic and so presents an unfair question. It’s like a trick question where the answer should be “I wouldn’t do either, which although it has the effect of not pulling the lever is not my intended outcome.”

So maybe the PDE sneaks in as a justification for choosing not to participate in the trolley problem. You aren’t morally responsible for choosing to let 5 people die or choosing to kill 1 person, you are morally responsible for choosing not to take on a duty to make any decision given those facts, and the bad effect of 5 people dying is not intended by you. The right thing to do is say “I reject this demand which up until I was asked belonged specifically to the trolley driver and what the hell is with all of the people on the tracks - is that normal for trolley drivers??” The outcome is bad effects either way, but none are the intention of your decision to reject that there is any sense at all to asking you to jump up and grab the lever and decide any next steps.

So I don’t pull the lever not because it commits an act of killing one, and I don’t think pulling the lever is justified by PDE either. But the act of rejecting such a crazy scenario that results in 5 people dying, may be justified by the PDE.

I don’t know. I may never take a trolley ride. Because if I do, it seems I might have a duty first to learn the controls and levers, and learn how to manage foot traffic on the tracks in case of emergency - because I like being moral.

Good conversation.

Curious if I’m still way off in either of your estimations.

reality not in general a balance of logos and flux — apokrisis

Flux contains the paradoxes. The Logos is not within it, the Logos is about the paradoxes flux brings.

balancing of stability and plasticity? — apokrisis

Yes he got it. Nothing was dropped out of the vocabulary. The river and the not-river both are, or neither are.

Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. — AmadeusD

But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant. The argument is made FOR lives to come (or for NO lives to come more precisely), but the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument.

If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol) — AmadeusD

Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land. I don't know why we would speak so generally about billions of lives in such simplistic terms, especially to support a logic that ends procreation as if it was just some other behavior.

Look, I agree that suffering is everywhere that there is a living conscious being. I disagree the suffering is all of the time for every living being. And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering, for the vast majority of living beings. So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future. I know there are those who have been tortured for years. I know for many, anxiety and depression are worse than physical pain - mental illness may be the deepest and sharpest of all suffering there is (and it can be accompanied by physical pain and physical sickness).

But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it. It's not LaLa land to take your suffering medicine like a badge of honor and greet each new day, each new birth, as something better, again, and again and again.

Just using your words.

“build a social system that is on average fair and just?”
— apokrisis

Three things: fair/just, unfair/unjust, and on average.

Without any one of these, all three drop out. That’s what average is built of, and what the extremes build.

The resolution is not a new unity that dissolves the others. Its paradox, that is the impossible that is actual.

Heraclitus’ Logos did not resolve the paradoxes; it simply related them to each other. Identity, truth, the one/many, motion/stillness - these paradoxes relate to each other as spoken in a Logos. The logos can’t resolve the paradoxes (nor would he seek to resolve them.) “It rests with change” mean what it means without redefining “rest” or “change” - the opposites remain. The rest comes after change AND the change comes after rest (unchanging stillness). If we resolve this, we lose both and have said nothing, provided nothing for the Logos to speak of.

Yeah, nah. — apokrisis

Too extreme?