Such as…? It sounds like the agenda of the ‘radical right’ in the USA, but if my intuition is correct, they’re going to get a shellacking in the forthcoming elections. — Wayfarer

True, this is more of a US phenomenon, but there are right-wing movements in Europe and other places, perhaps less overtly religion-based. Certainly, abortion is still an issue for the US, and a vocal minority for religionists in other places. Somehow abortion became attached to Evangelical and Catholic political policy in the US. This was not always the case until the 70s.

According to this stark first line in Politico:

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal. — The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth

I read years ago that sexual products and services including production and distribution of pornography generate many times the revenue of, say, sports broadcasting. I see not a lot of comment from those espousing ‘enlightenment values’ in that regard. When there’s discussion of the possible connection between pornography and sexual violence against women, there’s a lot of throat-clearing about the evils of censorship and a correct understanding of ‘consent’. — Wayfarer

The issues religious nationalism tries to solve is providing morality to the excesses of liberal/libertinism of an increasingly more culturally liberal space. Secular philosophies simply state that besides it being wrong to be directed in personal lives and decisions by the government, that the excesses aren't an issue because the economic well-being of having to work, and live everyday life will be a temper on excess. People who are preoccupied by the daily grind of producing, and the shiny stuff of consuming and maintaining a household will have built in buffers to keep them from going into any hedonistic excess. The rightwing political attempts to control people's behavior and to enact legislation that promotes their view of private matters are illiberal overreaches into other people's lives, and unnecessary as far as any goal of the need for tempering in the modern age. The economic daily living is enough to provide the tempering necessary, if any was even needed at all.

Against the backdrop of universe which is assumed to be devoid of reason and purpose. The religions and cosmic philosophies of times past at least provided a meaningful sense of the human place in the grand scheme, nowadays sublimated into Elon Musk’s utopian dreams of colonising Mars. (And I wonder how many will benefit from that adventure, even if it happens, which I doubt.) — Wayfarer

So I am interested in your response to my notion of minutia mongering. For the Enlightened cognati, it seems that one can focus on the minutia of difficult subject matter, as if by mining the minutia to the utmost complexity, you are going to "get at something", like the Philosopher's Stone, or TRUTH. But it doesn't. It is just an onion that by the end of it reveals simply that complexity exists in the universe, but not MEANING. Meaning is not going to obtained by engaging in the minutia... As if the topic is more complex, the more TRUE MEANING is actually being rendered. Look at some of the perennial topics on logic, math, and science on just this forum for example:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15353/what-can-we-say-about-logical-formulaspropositions/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15329/do-a-implies-b-and-a-implies-notb-contradict-each-other/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15354/semiotics-and-information-theory

And many years worth of the like...

Because of the vagaries of life, people may end up in need of faith and hope. The ability to keep going will then have to come from a spiritual source. What mere rationality can bring to the table, will at that point be exhausted already. In those circumstances, people who believe in religion, will be at an advantage. They will be able to find motivation beyond what seems rationally possible. — Tarskian

But what if religion is just seen as it is, a fantasy meme of the past, a part of ancient cultural community practice, but not necessary post-Enlightenment? I am not saying the secular options for meaning provide a better example either. Clearly, my answer is to embrace philosophical pessimism as a clear-viewed way of understanding life. Philosophical pessimism is the antidote, not the symptom.

Note, for this one, I did use ChatGPT to help flesh out some ideas. This was not a "one and done" prompt, but was continually being reshaped. So if the above sounds familiar in tone and idiosyncratic style, that's why.. However, I found it valuable to just go with it, as it basically lays out the ideas I wanted to convey.

This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. Do you agree that what you say here aligns with what I stated as being a 'moral' stance rather than what I stated as an 'ethical' stance? If not why? (Note: I used these terms fairly loosely so there is wiggle room). — I like sushi

As an aside, based on @AmadeusD's position, he doesn't want to do the following:
1) Impose antinatalism
2) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism

Number 1 is simply a given being that antinatalism is properly an ethic and not a political policy. One can make it into one perhaps, but then that is antinatalist policy, not antinatalist ethics, which for all intents and purposes is what people generally refer to when they say "antinatalism". Generally antinatalists do not advocate imposing/forcing others to follow antinatalism. This is similar to veganism.

Number 2 seems a non-sequitur or self-refuting. Simply don't debate it on a philosophy forum then if you don't want to "impugn" others' stances. If he meant that in public life he doesn't do this, that is one thing. Most antinatalists don't usually go around advocating for it, though there are some that do this. It is not incumbent to be a missionary for antinatalism. However, being on a philosophy forum, and defending the position, would in a minor way be "impugning" those who are objecting, if one engages with it. So I am not sure if this is sort of tu quoque fallacy Amadeus is unintentionally making on himself by even arguing anything related to AN, given 2.

This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive. — AmadeusD

I'd give a slight rebuttal to this that it depends if you are a utilitarian or a deontologist about it. A utilitarian would say that it is about the outcome of suffering that needs to be prevented (negative utilitarianism), the deontologist would say it is the principle of not causing harm.

THIS is what the OP is about. There are things you that belong to opinion and things that are certain, putting aside the aporia that questions can heap upon a statement like this can bring up. What if ethics were grounded in the same apodicticity found in logic? Then opinion would yield to certainty.

Religion makes this claim about ethics when it talks about God. Here, we eliminate such fictions, and abide by only what is in the world and the presence of what is before inquiry. An apriori analysis of ethics shows, I argue, and fortunately for us all, that the redemptive and consummatory features of religion actually issue from existence itself with the apodicticity equal to that of logic. That is, one cannot even imagine the bad being good and the good being bad, taken as pure expressions: the meta-good and the meta-bad. — Constance

I don't know what you are getting at here. You are discussing redemption, and then this looks to be about the notion of "inherent good and bad" or so it seems.

I have a feeling this is parallel to something I have tried to mention before on the subject of AN.

Often what is ethical is used synonymously with what is moral. With AN we are really talking about a 'moral' view (individual conscience) whereas as an 'ethical' view (general rule for society) it is something quite different.

The lack of common distinction with these terms causes discussions about AN to become fractious. This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society). — I like sushi

How did you derive this from position and action? Am I not understanding the common usage of those words?

You have entirely missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe? — AmadeusD

I really don't know what you're getting at here about action and position in regards to the non-identity issue.

I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer. — AmadeusD

I feel my post you quoted from sufficiently goes over reasons why the non-identity issue is a red herring. It's an abuse of language to reason that future conditionals are not in moral considerations. Also I gave some restatements of the Benatarian asymmetry that can change it to "states of affairs" language. The state of affairs of suffering can obtain (BAD), or it does not (good or at least NOT BAD). Obviously select the NOT BAD over BAD.

Does adoption/taking guardianship over children abandoned by their genitors prolong suffering according to AN? Is it the fault of those that adopted him, who've abetted & aided in introducing him to a potentially painful existence within society? Or the fault of those who brought him into this world, the mother who gave birth to him, the father who inseminated?

Or an asexual who adopts a kid, though never brought the child into existence through procreation. Yet, similarly, the child will expect to experience immense suffering within his societal upbringing, is this the fault of the biological parents who are completely absent in this regard? — gadzooks

So you are introducing a bunch of strawman scenarios into the AN argument, as it looks like you are not understanding the domain of antinatalism. Antinatalism is purely about the decision to procreate a person. In the current world we live in, this is by the usual biological methods, though with fertilization technology I guess it can involve several participants. But the question for antinatalism is strictly "Is it okay to procreate someone who will be harmed/suffer once they are born?". The antinatalist answer is an emphatic "NO!".

The same ethic that wants to prevent future suffering of a person might also be at work in various other ethical applications, but that wouldn't be the domain of antinatalism- this includes the upbringing of a child once already born.

There may be several possible normative ethical foundations for a person's particular version of antinatalism. For example, mine might include the idea that procreation violates negative ethics (the non-harm/autonomy principles), and even if there is a positive project you might want from it (meaning in your life, heritage, legacy, etc.), that positive project doesn't override another person's negative right not to be harmed unnecessarily.

Why are we so in far up the realm of abstraction in these language talks. Language is something that comes from biological processes, no? We are evolutionarily primed for language, everything from vocal chord formation, to brain development. So things to include in this debate:

1) Why do humans have a SPECIFIC period (the Critical Period), in which a primary language is acquired at an extremely rapid pace? This indicates an internal structural brain period during development for which language is specifically acquired. If you want to link this to your debate about rule-following, it is indeed an "a priori" process going on whereby words are PICKED UP in various ways.

2) The words that are PICKED UP during the critical period aren't picked up in a clean linear fashion. There is some pruning (learning) going on whereby words are overused or used inappropriately and later corrected by looking at how the rules are used by adult users of the language.

So there is a sort of "internal rule-following" followed by an external correction process, both happening during that critical period and younger age development, it appears. This is why primary and secondary languages are very different from each other in terms of learning, or so most models seem to indicate.

Perhaps this whole debate is misguided because you need empirical/observational evidence to construct a theory of how "use" creates "shared meaning" or "intersubjective agreement", or whatever you want to call the accordance with an understanding of a utterance or sign. For example, cognitive psychologists and anthropologists' works would be a good place to start.

Trying to distill prophecy from philosophers of the early/mid 20th century to get your answers isn't going to get you any closer :wink:. Fuck, mine as well be my divine opinion on the matter. Well, I just did give it, so there you go. Take it and go forth and preach brotha! But you best do it in the name of Schop1 and not Witt1!

Hell, this high school video has more informed content than some of this debate between interpretations of philosophical heavyweights :lol:

Find illegal votes because he was concerned about illegal activity, like a president ought to be. Democrats objected to Trump’s election first by trying to impose “faithless electors”, and also by claiming Trump was working for the Kremlin. Their constituents took over entire cities, and burned many to the ground, including laying siege to the whitehouse. All of this of course passes your norm test, I’m sure, but if course I never saw you raise any objection. — NOS4A2

The man said OUTRIGHT before the election that if he loses it will be because of fraud. He literally said what he was going to do before anything happened, and then DID IT. He did everything out in the open. He pulled one over on you with his neat trick ;).

So when he asked for the votes, it wasn't just that he was voicing "concern" over (in that case, boo-hoo, and so what), it was the nature of his request to overturn the election results. When the wording is "find him some votes- 11,700), he is a man in search of a desperate ploy to get as much as needed to win and subvert the system. I can't imagine even Nixon would do something that blatant!

The "faithless electors" thing is a non-issue being that it was not supported or carried out by Democratic leadership in 2016, if that's what you are talking about. There was also no coordination with attempting to not recognize the legitimate electors for fake ones. And with this case there's more a few moving parts with the conspiracy to defraud the public from a position of power in the federal government.

As far as election collusion with Russia, not only was Trump asking Russia to help him publically, but even the Muller Report pointed out people in his campaign like Paul Manafort directly having ties with Russia, even if the supposed "Steele Dossier" was incorrect. That is to say, why was he even dealing with the Russians at all in this campaign, being that, you know, Russia is not on friendly terms with the US, and it is a CLEAR conflict of interest in sharing things like internal polling data to people associated with the Kremlin.

As for the violence regarding the BLM situation, I am actually against any violence that rioters were doing in the name of the cause, especially when the cause itself is regarding violence. I am with MLK's non-violence strategy regarding this. Clear destruction of property doesn't help anyone's cause. However, all that being said, it is a false equivalency to to say that the BLM movement was subverting the democratic process, rather than various protest groups protesting a social cause.

Right, because organizing fake slates of electors, organizing (but with just enough plausible deniability!) violent mobs at the capitol to pressure the VP to “do the right thing” and making an openly blatant call to Georgia’s SoS to find him votes and overturn the election results have nothing to do with Trump. Nothing to see at all, right?

laments the loss of decorum in politics, and Trump, through his magic words, is making it all happen. No greater example of magical thinking has been published. — NOS4A2

Yeah Trumps rhetoric is normal shit a leader should be saying :ok:.

If nothing else, his association in trying to find any way to thwart election results and peaceful transfer of power should give you pause. But I know, I know, I’m just parroting the clearly biased left wing media, even though as you look into it more and more, even though he literally needed immunity from the Supreme Court to give him an out :lol:. What a joke.

I hope you're not talking about me, schop.

But to respond seriously to your remark: Imagine paying people for that. Propaganda lesson #1 is to get people emotionally invested to such an extent that they will parrot bullshit willingly. — Tzeentch

Interesting you took offense...
Are you the expert then? Is this admission ;)?

I guess I'm asking, what are you talking about? My comments to @NOS4A2? The irony of the meta-narrative here...

The old narrative of not being (at least openly!) narcissistic, non-empathetic, authoritarian, xenophobic, etc. and holding some decorum...

The new framework that has been "normalized" under Trump (@NOS4A2's odd brand of propaganda).

The CON- that the old narrative is "parroting bullshit" willingly, because "as we all should know now" the Trump new framework is just the way it is now, and ironically asking for the old framework is extremely regressive, because it asks for politicians to have civility and normalized leadership styles for a world leader (one that doesn't act like a carnival barking petty-dictator/cult leader).

I swear there are paid social media people here in "The Lounge" discussions on behalf of who knows what interest groups.

I see nothing wrong with a firebrand, and in fact prefer them. And the argument there are or were no firebrands in American politics is simply false. — NOS4A2

Firebrand? What do you mean by that? You can have politicians with enthusiasm with out being race-baiters, promote conspiracies and misinformation if elections don't go your way (thus destroying the very platform of government itself), and violent rhetoric (bloodbath if you don't win..). Yeah there's being a fiery, inspiring speaker, and there's being a juvenile hack that barks out loud the (previously) less pronounced alt-right echo chambers.

But your complaints about name-calling and smearing is betrayed when you seem quite comfortable with the smearing and name-calling yourself, and in Trumpian fashion no less. So what’s really the problem? Something else must be bothering you. — NOS4A2

Yeah the major difference is I AM NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE. :lol:. Yeah, if I was running for office, I wouldn't be speaking in public speeches like a casual debater from a relatively obscure internet forum.

My guess is you are yearning for the placating platitudes, euphemisms, and bromides that tend to lull the public to sleep. — NOS4A2

It's called decorum and there was a reason these norms came about. It allows for shared space of differences without leading to inflammatory rhetoric that gets increased until it tears the system itself apart.

It serves to disguise a politician’s actual thoughts and intentions behind an opaque cloud of political play-acting, so that they may get away with murder or convince you to war. — NOS4A2

If you are saying there should be more transparency for decision making in executive actions and legislative policy (as well as financial aspects of interest groups and campaigns), then I am totally in agreement. But do not make the false equivalency that this kind of systemic transparency is the same as carnival barker/inflammatory rhetoric. Also, just because Trump OPENLY tries to break or subvert the system (asking for votes, promoting pressure for Pence to throw the votes out, etc.), doesn't make the corruption any better! His one trick is to do the quiet part out loud and shock the people into daring to stop him. Luckily, they did and are trying to.. except for the immunity given to the office of President so that he can get away with whatever he wants.

It’s the kind of rhetoric that makes Orwell turn in his grave, and the daily Two Minutes Hate we see at little shows like that one make it all the more egregious. — NOS4A2

You mean like Orwellian ideas like "If I lose, then the election was corrupt" or kissing up to dictators as an international relations strategy? You mean the pithy slogans like "Lock her up!", and "Trump Derangement Syndrome"? This is all laughable rhetorical strategies that work for a segment of the population that has been primed from the 80s/90s by other carnival barkers like Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, and almost all of Fox News apparatus.

Politicians use critical rhetoric against their opponents all the time, and rightfully so. — NOS4A2

Yeah, Trump's rhetoric is just "normal" political rhetoric. No difference in content or style whatsoever from other US politicians running in the last 60 years or so :roll:.

Personally I see nothing wrong with it, especially when it's defensive in nature — NOS4A2

But it's not, do I have to do one of those montages of all of his "rallys"?

as it was against most of the comments she mentions, painted as they were in identity politics. — NOS4A2

Yeah, what it was "identifying" was Trump's use of identity politics ;).

Of course if one wants bromides, platitudes, and euphemisms he can find another politician. — NOS4A2

Or how about just a politician and not a crazy juvenile-sounding name-calling reality show host/failed real estate celebrity using xenophobic/bigotted language to whip up his base?

Journalism is meant to inform us, not to repeat an opponents criticism or otherwise engage in the politics of a guest's opponents. — NOS4A2

In this case, it's informing us of Trump's rhetoric and why some might take offense to it, understandably. Of course he can get away with anything, right? As long as he pivots and says "I love (put identity group here)". As long as he does that anything he says before that is okie dokie, is that right?

What she did was campaign for the opposition, using their own talking points, in an effort to smear her guest. — NOS4A2

Trump's whole existence is about smearing. Obama wasn't born a US citizen, if you remember? Now Kamala is not half black? WTF? Trump is above identity politics. Sure is.

he journalist in the middle was far more graceful in both insult and substance, both subduing Trump and asking him questions he seemingly could not answer, and making him look rather silly in the process. — NOS4A2

Well, that shouldn't be hard, he is a silly, unserious person. Frankly, any journalist should be able to make him look silly.

But because of the organization's failures we, as listeners, were robbed of any fruitful info because of it. At least we got the show, though. — NOS4A2

Again, any other politician, probably a fair point. He acts like a belligerent asshole, who is reckless with his rhetoric, he should be treated like one.

The rude journo, recycling DNC talking points, was roundly handled and came off looking like a sour apparatchik. — NOS4A2

I'm sorry, but in a normal candidate, this might make sense, but Trump spews nasty rhetoric every day of his public life, when someone calls him out on it, he shouldn't act as if he doesn't deserve to be called out. Ridiculous. I would have supported you if it was your average politician, but then again, the amount of vitriol read back to that person would not be the same in the first place, so wouldn't even be an issue.

What he appears not to understand (and I welcome being disabused) is that the wretchedness of our existence is inherently redemptive! That is the "logic" if you will, of suffering requires apriori, redemption. — Constance

You are quite right that I will disabuse you here :). That is to say, within Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, especially Book 4, he discusses at length how one can seek redemption from suffering. For him, it was the life of the ascetic (akin to Buddhist hermitic monk) who denies his will-to-live. There is a soteriology, even if only the "saintly" can achieve, in Schopenhauer. It is intriguing, yet I don't buy it, so your accusations of Schop's non-existent soteriology is extremely off base, though it is more properly aimed at me ;). @Wayfarer and I have had many posts back-and-forth where we debate Schopenhauer's soteriology. That is to say, he embraces it (even if he probably has suggested improvements), where I see it as a metaphysical pipedream. That is to say, I admire Schop's unflinching analysis of the nature of striving, and the inherent suffering of dissatisfaction, but his solution (which is extremely REDEMPTIVE), I don't buy, unfortunately for us all.

Also, to not be ignored is Schopenhauer's "redemption-through-compassion". That is to say, asceticism is for the truly saintly, whereas access to compassion is available to more people, even though, this too is hard for many character-types to attain. Schopenhauer had a lowly view of the average human in terms of their ability to transcend the suffering. He thought only certain character-types as saintly enough to bypass our usual self-interest mode. And indeed, empirically, it is a classic case of "How do we know if we really do anything out of good will and not just tell ourselves this?" For those who truly have the capacity for selfless compassion/altruism/empathy, he thinks temporarily (not more permanently like the enlightened ascetic sage though), they can "deny the Will".

I mean does natalism even feel it must rally around some charismatic leader? Does it even have to explain itself to the general public? — apokrisis

And again, how is antinatalism "rallying around some charismatic leader"? And if you are misconstruing me referencing an author as the "cult leader", then don't reference anyone ever again in a philosophical debate :lol:. Ridiculous.

Also, the fact that people UNTHINKINGLY do something is EXACTLY what philosophical thinking is contrary to. What kind of thinking is this? I know you don't really believe that (unquestioning traditional norms MUST be the right attitude). And if you say it is, I am sure I can find cases where you DON'T believe it, providing an inconsistency (and simple bias) in your thinking.

So you agree that you are ignoring the OP as given and simply seizing yet another opportunity to burden me with your personal hobby horse project? I must suffer as you have suffered with this pointless philosophy of committing suicide but only by proxy. Negating life so as to remove that chore from the next generation in advance. Somehow that thought becomes a solace. — apokrisis

So now you are red herring the point again by evading the fact that you accused me of believing AN should be IMPOSING itself POLITICALLY. That is false, and you have not admitted to the false assumption/accusation. So do you admit that this notion of yours is at least false now?

As far as being an irrelevant point to the OP, actually, it addresses it pretty pointedly, as even you admitted that (limited) AN is one part of a solution to the problem. But in any case, the broader issue with your "case" is that it lacks an axiological underpinning, confusing descriptive and ethical, and pretending AS IF they can be the same thing. You cannot square that circle. Values are a thing. Axiological considerations (aesthetics, ethics, values, etc.) cannot just be described away. They are at the least subjectively "real" to the individual. So, in this way, I am laying out ethical foundations, whilst you are whittling away in the descriptive elements that cannot cross that divide.

ALSO, and perhaps even most important, there is an EXISTENTIAL aspect to discussing "the end of human civilization". It isn't JUST about resources, but what humans are supposed to get out of life (if that question itself belies a certain pro-natalist attitude that deserves to be questioned itself!). So yeah this does have to do with your OP, but it doesn't necessarily ASSUME the same goals, values, etc. that belie your unstated values.

So a cult? But passive-aggressive? — apokrisis

Funny you say this because Ligotti in his book called pro-natalists as part of the "Cult of the Grinning Martyrs". So, this name-calling can go both ways. Also, I know you are probably trying to be cheeky, but why would you misconstrue a reasoned ethic with a cult, whereby people blindly believe unreasoned ideas and charismatic cult leaders? At least be apt with your derisions.

How could it be a strawman when my OP is about ethical precepts that can scale as political organisation? — apokrisis

The straw man was that you implied that antinatalists are trying to (politically) impose policies on people, rather than providing reasoned arguments that you can either find compelling or not.

Another way of talking about the competition-cooperation dynamic. Except you prefer to see constraints as imposed burdens in this cruel life we are forced to live, etc. — apokrisis

This is yet more sidelining the ethical issue into some vague descriptive one. The ethical dilemma is clear, the answer may not be, but it's an ethical axiological one, not a descriptive one.

In the meantime, celebrate a world where you get to make your personal choice on procreation. At least until - in the US – the Supreme Court gets around to dealing with anomalies like you. — apokrisis

Antinatalism doesn't look so weird now, eh? ANs the next politically persecuted class?? The childfree will be lumped in, so it won't really be AN as much as the "childless"...But is this the new trend? Some nations are trying the carrot approach, are we going to the stick now?

I've stated in previous posts that AN is indeed a political statement to some extent. You are voting "YES" on existence being okay to start for someone else. Even if people (aren't enlightened yet) to be full-fledged ANs, they are at least seeing the material conditions of the present and future to be such that it wouldn't be worth bringing more people into it. It's AN-adjacent, even if not full-AN.

Here is an example of a respectful discussion in the real world between an antinatalist and pro-natalist:

So what does that change? My systems story says there are global constraints and local degrees of freedom. Choice exists for the individual on all things. All that changes is the degree of constraint. — apokrisis

Interestingly enough, one of the main reasons I am a "pessimist" (a bit different but underlies a lot of some antinatalist thinking), is that humans have such degrees of freedom. As Wittgenstein might phrase it, our degrees of freedom might be part of our very "form of life". But, it's another question of whether it's a good one. The Existentialists are philosophers who delve deeper into this question of freedom, and its burdens. What do we mean here by burdens? Well, how I see it, it is burdens in comparison with other animals (albeit from the perspective of this animal, the one with a certain kind of self-awareness where this can be recognized). That is to say, other forms of life (like dogs, bats, monkeys, etc. etc.) have a form of life whereby this secondary or tertiary form of self-awareness (and its entailed "degrees of freedom") are not a part of it. However, humans must deal with the burdens of counterfactual thinking, that they could always make a different choice (better, worse, or just different). Now, I know your style pretty well by now, and you will start discussing why nature has formed us this way in some therodynamic (symmetry-breaking, triadic semiosis, biosemiosis) way. But that is missing my point of the "What it's like" being an ACTUAL form of life that deals with this way of moving through the world (self-aware, with a high degree of freedom). It is not like the rest of animals in nature, and it is not necessarily GOOD (because of the burdens of these freedoms and ones choices).

Having children isn’t compulsory. Your parents and friends may have views. Financial circumstances may impinge. As may fears for the future. As a decision it is complex because it does add real meaning to most lives but is also your biggest single life commitment.

This would be a reason why antinatalism seems wrong in trying to impose some global ought on the basis of a very false premise about the universality of human suffering. — apokrisis

So you proposed a bit of a strawman here. Antinatalism is not a political policy but an ethical one. Most ANs don't advocate for "imposing" not having children anymore than (JD Vance aside?) politicans would be proposing we must have children (to count politically at least). That is to say, there is no "imposing" (politically) going on here, simply an ethical theory by which one can adhere to or not. This can be akin to veganism, let's say. Now,

As far as being a "very false premise of human suffering", I obviously disagree. @Banno for example, asked you to make ethical arguments rather than what appears to be descriptive ones, which usually differ in ways he has explained being one is about nature's workings, and one is our intentional stance. So, if we take that as a starting point, whereby ethics is a subcategory of an axiology (a worldview regarding what is valuable in the world), suffering seems to be a good place to start for a basis of ethics. It can also be said that humans being creatures that can suffer, can be said to have some value and some intrinsic dignity whereby it is best not to cause unnecessary harm to them (as they should not do to you). This can be the basis of a sort of deontological ethics, a "negative ethic" of not being harmed (when it is wasn't necessary to do this). Anyways, that is the beginning of my foundation of ethics. This goes into answering the question of the bridge I outlined earlier as well. That is to say, the fishermen blocking you to get to your car is an example of a positive project (fishing) getting in the way of your negative right. Similarly, parents wanting some sort of meaning (the positive project) is overriding the negative ethic of not causing unnecessary harm to someone. Thus positive projects (human civilization, fishing, your wanting more meaning in your life) shouldn't be the REASON for harming (*unnecessarily) other people.

*Unnecessarily here means not causing harm to another unless it was mitigating a greater harm to that person, like a child already born and some harm is needed to ensure their future safety, like forced education or vaccines.

Making a personal decision based on clear information about the collective future is quite a different thing. — apokrisis

Sure, but obviously this is in the same spirit as not wanting an individual to suffer, as it's an aggregated version whereby you do not want future human(s) to suffer more than is necessary. It just doesn't go far enough into what is acceptable as far as causing suffering is concerned.

I don’t see how you link

All ethical matter hinge on this essential presence: the caring about things and the ouches and yums of their actuality of experience. — Constance

With religion.


You’d have to actually include something pertaining to religion to complete that linkage. Ethics is not religion. Ethics tied to a deity or cosmic supernatural principle is, for example. But I would argue that ethics tied to the supernatural entity isn’t religion per se, but the relation of the supernatural to the world, and ethics is usually entailed in that with religious worldviews.

Prospective parents are turning off that tap as the future can look pretty dire. Another reason to give folk a political roadmap they can believe in. Not simply tell them your kids are screwed and so are you, so just die now please. No point hanging on for the bitter end. — apokrisis

But for dramatic effect, you are of course conflating "individual death" and "species death". So, to use your ubiquitous analogy, the "global constraint" might be species death, but the local-specific cases of each individual will live just fine (without kids).

For a while, until middleclass antinatalism started to kick in, we were going not just exponential but super-exponential. — apokrisis

Interesting how that works. But on a technical note, "antinatalism" as you are using it is not quite how it is used in the philosophical literature in the last 20 years or so. For the most part, "antinatalism" has been associated with prevention of suffering as the primary ethical reason for not procreating. Simply not having kids because of a lifestyle choice, it's too expensive, etc. would simply be considered living out a "childfree" lifestyle. It's a bit spottier when it comes to "antinatalism" and environmental reasons. That is because potentially, people would say it is permissible to have children again when a certain population level has been deemed acceptable again. In that case, you may say it is "limited" or "contingent" antinatalism. However, I think this also does a disservice to the actual term-proper. Rather, I would look at that kind of philosophy as the other way around- as limited natalism instead. That is to say, they believe people can at some point have children, but the bar to meet this is contingent on whether environmental conditions are met.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't have thought so - his Mad Max Model B involves "bug-out survivalist with guns", and no home garden will feed a family. Indigenous ethics appear to depend on a level of cooperation absent from Model B. But the point I would contend is not just that the only options are Model A or Model B, but that a better response to your question of "what would be an ethical stance" is not various ethical theories so much as whole ways of living. This by way of bringing us back to ethics as about what we should do, not what is the case. — Banno

I could be way off, so @apokrisis can correct me on his own notions, but it seems like apokrisis mentioned this kind of "indigenous" model (though he didn't use that term) as once in play, but that it would no longer matter as it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle as far as the runaway entropy we've unleashed since the Industrial Revolution. So I think he acknowledges this would have been the way to go, but now the best we can do is maintain since reversing is out of the question (in his notion). So, your theory would be simply performative, but not really working towards fixing anything.

One does not have to look far to find ethical stances quite divergent from those suggested in the OP. Indigenous ethics for example might involve circular time, self-control, self-reliance, courage, kinship and friendship, empathy, a holistic sense of oneness and interdependence, reverence for land and Country and a responsibility for others. The actions implicit in such a view are very different to those in either of options A or B in the OP. Yet such an approach might be quite conducive towards long-term stability.

Which might serve to show how ethical stances are embedded in what is loosely called a "form of life". — Banno

Isn't this sort of @apokrisis Model B steady state notion? I guess it's a more explicitly green version of this? Seems to be a variation nonetheless.

If the bridge is public, then the fishermen blocking your way is inconsistent with the purpose of the bridge, and they ought let you cross. — Banno

Let's say the context is this one.. You said the answer would then be:

If the bridge is public, then the fishermen blocking your way is inconsistent with the purpose of the bridge, and they ought let you cross. — Banno

So, leaving legality out of this, what would be the answer to the utilitarian that says that the fishermen will get more satisfaction, so have such a moral right, even if it's against common understanding of "public space/commons"? Let's say no one else is affected that day except I, the misfortunate park-goer caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, it seems.

The deontologist would likely point to inherent dignity or rights that is being violated by not letting me pass to my car, despite their pursuing their happiness of fishing.

An ethical egoist might argue that actions are morally right if they promote one's self-interest. The fisherman and I would invoke this, so it would be a continued standoff until someone budges or forces the situation.

A communitarian might emphasize values of the community. However, this too leads to possible stalemates.

A virtue theorist might say that either of our character's are flawed to a degree- perhaps mine cowardice or there's unaccommodatingness.

Mind you, this is not about necessarily goals but values. You can always say, "What is my goal? How do I get there", but then we are stepping away from morality. If my goal is to cross the bridge, I can do any number of things, including using physical force, calling some park service authority, etc. But the issue is what ought to happen, so we cannot misconstrue that point to simply provide a neat hypothetical imperative (If you want to cross the bridge, just push the bastards out of the way!).

So physics is our map of reality at its broadest possible level. It is a map of the most cosmic scale constraints that frame our minute to minute existence. One might want to fly off the top of the building, but that free choice is a little constrained if we haven't yet evolved wings. Or at least have a jet pack attached to our backs and it is fully fuelled up for our little adventure. — apokrisis

Yes, there is a difference between a physical account and an intentional one. I'd explain this in terms of direction of fit - a physical account is produced by making our words fit the world, while an intentional account supposes that we can change the world to fit our "fears, wants, desires, and values". — Banno

I guess what I'm getting at then is, what would be a justification for an ethical decision? If we said something like, "We are entropic beings with global constraints and local degrees of freedom", that would be some sort of category error, no?

So, looping back to the OP, what would be an ethical stance and what would be its justification towards resource management? What should we do?

Yes. We have the capacity to make things other than they are. So we must ask how things ought be. That question is not answered by physics. — Banno

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/921725

Doing a bit of green tinkering and a lot of hand wringing. Ineffectually looking at those anglers with slightly imploring, yet also insisting eyes. As there’s more of them than you. But maybe if you waved your gun… — apokrisis

That's one way to handle it. But this way you speak of reminds me of problem with this thermodynamic way of looking at the world in the mind/body problem as well. That is to say, the morality is equivalent to the terrain. The physics surrounding it, the map. You are stuck in mapland. I need to navigate the actual terrain though. In mapland, guns and getting killed are hypotheticals because you are just entropic energy flowing in various ways. In terrainland I have fears, wants, desires, and values.

Underlying this line of thinking is a determinism already set out "globally" (as you might frame it), even if we can't predict the local variations that lead there. The underlying principle is "entropic heat death", and we are just staving it off on various short or shorter timescales. That is the gist at least, I am getting from apokrisis.

However, is this not descriptive and not prescriptive? For example, a deontologist might believe as a rule that it might be wrong to harm someone unnecessarily, for example. Would you agree that this is an ethical principle worth holding? If not, why not?

I can't see how this is grounded in global determinism, even if it arises from it. There are ethics I am interested in for example. How are ethical dilemmas to be solved and why?

Here's an example I am interested in for example. How would you answer it?

Let's say that several men were fishing off a bridge. That bridge led to the parking lot where my car is so I can leave the park. The men are blocking the bridge, too enraptured with fishing off the side to catch the biggest fish of their life. They don't pay attention to you that you would like to pass to get to your car. They say, "Sorry mate, you gotta wait, fish this big don't just come here all the time".

I frame this dilemma as such:
They have a positive project, (fishing). You have a negative right (not to be blocked to get back to your car to leave the park). I would say in a completely just scenario, someone's positive projects should not interfere with someone's negative rights. In other words, in a fair world, negative rights always have a priority over positive projects when those two things come into conflict. This would be contrary perhaps to a strictly act utilitarian view whereby the most satisfaction brings the most moral outcome. In that line of thinking, the fishermen would have priority because they might have the most satisfaction of catching the fish, even if it is supposedly my "right" to not be blocked access to leave the park.

So here we have a clear (even if very minor) ethical scenario, and a certain heuristic to answer it. I guess, this might be the question here. Not what is happening, but what ought to happen.

If I read this correctly, is asking you to explain what the ethical course would be knowing that our resources might be constrained by a certain impending year.

I am guessing you are laying out Scenario A and B as a choice. Is there one you think is the correct path, and why? If you choose one, what is the reasoning?

But as moral philosophy, we would soon have the anti-natalists hammering on the door. — apokrisis

Entering the chat...

Yes, one positive outcome of antinatalism is preventing resource strain.

The Essence of religion is a god or gods that tests its victims/players, and if his players fail they will be cursed with disease, disaster, and death and punished even in an afterworld for some of them. We can see this as far back as Enkidu and Odysseus. If it’s not a deity that’s causing torment to its victims/players it’s an impersonal force like karma or Tao.


In other words, the essence of religion is a tormenter getting off on testing his creations and punishing them for their “misdeeds”. Gnosticism in that sense, if not taken seriously, would have been a proper satire.
:smirk: @Wayfarer

Because of its various failures, too: colonialism, racism, and the atom bomb come to mind. The ideas about appropriation of land and the need to civlize the lesser races are part of the Enlightenment as much as the romantic vision of the Human Being. It has good and bad, like everything. — Moliere

I find the dichotomy interesting because "colonialism, racism" and the science for the "atomic bomb" were terms invented by (people of the) Enlightenment (or derived from Enlightenment thinking) in order to (self) critique their own practices.

That is to say, yes you had pseudo-science social darwinism, for example, leading to racist theories, but the very mechanisms to call this into question and the idea that theories are wrong and not just "tradition" or "the way of things" or simply "because power and our people want it", is itself from the Enlightenment. You cannot displace the wrongs of the Enlightenment from the self-criticism that is part-and-parcel of its ethos. For all intents and purposes it is literally the basis for "modernity" in that self-critique is built into the framework.

A tribal society conquering another one and destroying the village and taking wives doesn't generally have the language of social self-critique. Even the Aztecs, with all its mathematical and engineering feats and other amazing features, didn't necessarily have the self-critique of the Enlightenment thinking. Greece and Rome had nascent satire and cynical commentary, but it wasn't yet part of the ethos of the political and social fabric to have massive self-critique in a way whereby the political body itself was questioning its dialectic of conquering other tribes, and taking over massive regions, often wiping out cultures or force assimilating them.

??? — 180 Proof

Yeah?

Yeah, and then you draw an unwarranted conclusion about "the world itself" as if the living are its victims. Stop shifting goal posts and admit you've been caught poorly reasoning again (e.g. category mistake of "world as perpetrator of unfairness ad injustice"). — 180 Proof

So... you like Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race, correct? Do you think that title means a "literal" conspiracy? And if you don't, why would you think how I am talking isn't also metaphorically describing the situation?