look up the definition of the word “deserve”. I’m not your English teacher.

Torturers deserve to be tortured. Wrong to torture them though. — Bartricks

False. If they deserve to be tortured then it is not wrong to torture them. By definition.

Definition of deserve:

"do something or have or show qualities worthy of (a reaction which rewards or punishes as appropriate)."

What most people would say is "Torturers don't deserve to be tortured" and "Rapists don't deserve to be raped".

You should have payed attention in English class.

I understood and replied to it. You didn’t understand my reply.

You’re shifting goal posts in your answer. You’re changing what is “morally permissible” from “what our moral intuitions tell us” to “what God wants from us”.

and I am full of humor. — Bartricks

Well you got one thing right :lol:

If a view is true — Bartricks

Views aren't true. It's not that simple. Statements are true in light of certain premises. In light of different premises they can be false.

Again, tell me what the "true view" is regarding the best ice cream flavor. Why can't you simply produce one? You should be able to use reasoning alone to deduce the best ice cream flavor no?

That or there is not one true view in regards to every subject matter.

If a view is true, it is not also false. — Bartricks

Truth and falsity are determined by checking if the conclusion follows from the premises. People don’t always agree on the premises.

“True” is not an adjective that’s applied to views in vacuum.

If you think it is then tell me, what’s the “true view” in regards to the best ice cream flavor?

My view that God demonstrably exists, and my view that if God exists then everything that happens to us is deserved, are distinct views. — Bartricks

Both of which you espoused here. And the latter leads to everything being morally permissible. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s not a reductio ad absurdum to you I don’t know what is.

And I am not talking about whether they are true. I am talking about their compatibility! — Bartricks

On other threads you talk about whether or not they’re true. And on this one I try to show how many absurd scenarios your view leads to.

Can't quote as on mobile. — Bartricks

Yes you can.

Third paragraph - I don't know what you're talking about. — Bartricks

Everything that happens here is just -> Everything that you do is morally permitted.

Who cares if God’s intention for you is to rehabilitate. That doesn’t make refusing to rehabilitate by treating people justly (as criminals) wrong. Just against God’s ideal. Which is not the same thing as wrong.

You haven’t responded to this.

Like everything else you have said, I find that highly implausible. — Bartricks

You find it plausible that rape is just because the rape victim deserved it. So I don’t think what you find plausible or implausible says much.

Right, an intractable game of challenges forced onto someone and cannot be escaped easily. — schopenhauer1

Depending on the difficulty of said game, I will think it’s over or under the threshold.

I happen to think it’s often under the threshold. While you think it’s over the threshold.

We could agree to disagree, but you furthermore seem to want to establish some objectivity to your view. That it is a matter of fact that the game of life is over the threshold of acceptable impositions. That’s why I ask you to argue further to establish that.

Procreation meets the threshold, similar to the lifeguard example. — schopenhauer1

Why? On the basis that both are “for a lifetime”?

I would say there are some things that are ok to force onto people for a lifetime because of the suffering doing so alleviates. Like taxes.

So “for a lifetime” doesn’t seem to be enough to unilaterally say that too much dignity is being violated.

Anyways, I have to go now. Will be back later.

I... don’t understand.

Where there did you argue that having children meets the threshold of “too much dignity violation”?

Yes, it always meets the threshold. — schopenhauer1

Where do you get this? That’s the main point. You don’t have a real argument unless you can argue for this premise. It’s crucial.

ok.

maybe reasoned argument permits any number of views depending on the starting premises? And the premises themselves can be different leading to different views. So no, reason doesn’t lead to the one true view, as there will always be starting premises that can’t be reasoned for if you dig back long enough. — khaled

No mention of you anywhere (except here, hope you don’t mind, oh and there)

No that is true.. but that is after the threshold is met — schopenhauer1

Don’t you also say that having a child already meets the threshold in every case?

So the objection that this means that a bunch of things not occurring is "good" I guess would be yes for Benatar. — schopenhauer1

No because I would add “a bunch of good things not occurring is bad”. A no for Benatar.

I disagreed with a claim in the OP. As usual, people have to point out to you when they are against your view and where because you can’t seem to understand objections.

Unless maybe reasoned argument permits any number of views depending on the starting premises? That’s how reasoning works in case you didn’t know. It applies rules to premises. And the premises themselves can be different leading to different views. So no, reason doesn’t lead to the one true view, as there will always be starting premises that can’t be reasoned for if you dig back long enough. — khaled

Nobody’s disagreed about their compatibility, theoretically. Everyone is disagreed whether either of them being true. Especially with the way you derived your “God”.

You don't need a teaching qualification to teach at a university. — Bartricks

God forbid you actually teach at a university? April fools is over you know.

And everyone is disagreeing with a view that has all acts be morally permissible, even if they’re not what God expects of you. You haven’t answered that objection.

The big name philosophers who fell out of vaginas located in western countries do not agree in their conclusions about the nature of reality. — Bartricks

There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view — Bartricks

Right so here we go again.

You give weight to the thoughts of big name philosophers on account on them being good reasoners. For the same reason you give weight to expertise in the field as it is indicative of good reasoning. At the same time you must agree that most of them are wrong since there is only one true view (laughably, you probably think yours qualifies here).

Again, consistency is not your forte is it.

Unless maybe reasoned argument permits any number of views depending on the starting premises? That’s how reasoning works in case you didn’t know. It applies rules to premises. And the premises themselves can be different leading to different views. So no, reason doesn’t lead to the one true view, as there will always be starting premises that can’t be reasoned for if you dig back long enough.

But I explained earlier that it isn't binary but a matter of degrees meeting a threshold. — schopenhauer1

But you argue for a binary position. Having kids is wrong. Period.

The violation happens only after the threshold is met. — schopenhauer1

And you haven’t shown that the threshold is met in the case of birth. If that’s your intuition that’s fine, but it’s not a common one.

The point is, "absence of good" is only bad when there is actually a person affected by this. Not so with the absence of suffering — schopenhauer1

Absence of suffering is also only good when there is a person actually affected by this. Idk where you’re getting otherwise.

The absence of pain that could have occurred, is always good. The absence of pleasure for someone who does not exist but could, is neutral. — schopenhauer1

This comes from conflating the state with the personal opinion of someone.

If we’re comparing states, the absence of a good state is bad and the absence of a bad state is good.

If we’re comparing “how would someone feel”. The absence of a bad state and a good state are neutral in this case (since there is no one to feel anything)

You get an asymmetry when you mix them up. You can get the opposite asymmetry by mixing them up the opposite way.

So some conclusions might be:
A universe devoid of people with pain is just a "good" state of affairs.
A universe devoid of people with pleasure is just a "neutral" state of affairs. — schopenhauer1

Even if we accept these (which I still don’t), it doesn’t help his argument. You can’t get AN from this.

Thus nudging the lifeguard to wake up is not to the degree of violating dignity or unnecessary suffering prevention that forcing the lifeguard into a lifetime of teaching lifeguarding lessons would be doing. — schopenhauer1

Sure. But then you’d have to argue that having children IS of that degree. And you haven’t done so yet.

Even if we were to "know" the greatest good would come from this, the dignity threshold has been violated — schopenhauer1

You need to show this.

Certainly, there is a balanced calculus that has to be made regarding how much unnecessary suffering and dignity violation is happening. — schopenhauer1

You need to show that the calculus would conclude that “having children is bad enough an imposition to get wrong”. To simply assume it is question begging.

Violating unnecessary suffering prevention: Yes
Violating dignity using people for aggregate: Yes
Violating dignity, forcing a game on them: Yes — schopenhauer1

If you could save person A from untold suffering for 30 years by forcing person B to play League of Legends for 4 hours with toxic teammates that make him want to tear his hair out, would you do it?

I would at least find that permissible. Even though it meets the 3 criteria above. So it’s not like having all 3 guarantees that “violating dignity” wins out.

that’s why he adds that most people have bad lives and have optimism biases and all that stuff to make the arguments stronger. — Albero

Yea I never bought this one either. I don't see what sense it makes insisting that people are suffering when they keep assuring you they're not. If they're fine with it, why is it wrong to do?

But still, this doesn't change the fact that an "asymmetry of states" (even if we accept it) has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's right to have kids. So idk why he spent so much of his book talking about it.

then that would indeed be violating the other rule about dignity as you are looking at outcomes other than the person the decision is being made for. — Albero

Yup. It depends on how much the harm that is being inflicted is and how much good is done by inflicting it. I doubt anyone here tends the absolutist position of never imposing on someone unjustly even if it will alleviate suffering elsewhere.

Say for example, if you could save person A from untold suffering for 30 years by giving a completely innocent person B a hearty slap, I'm pretty sure most people would find the slap at least permissible. Even though it is an unjust imposition.

My point then is that having children falls in this category of actions. It depends on how big you think the imposition is and how much you think not doing it can potentially cost. So you can't get hard AN out of a simple desire to alleviate suffering. And no one here thinks that "dignity preservation" is the end all be all either, so you can't get hard AN out of that alone (since there are exceptions where it should be violated).

My only argument against @schopenhauer1 is that his argument is not logical though he makes it seem so. He accepts that the whole preservation of dignity thing is and should be violated sometimes. As such, he can't really argue that having children is unilaterally wrong without begging the question (assuming that having children is already one of the instances where dignity violation is not acceptable). He could try to argue for that separately so as no longer to beg the question by taking a misanthropic angle, and trying to show that in most or all cases, having a child is a heavy enough burden, and doesn't alleviate enough to be considered acceptable. But he doesn't do that. So as it stands I think his argument begs the question at worst, or is insufficient at best.

perhaps another issue might be that the asymmetry seems (at least to me) to extend to infinity. As I’m sitting here typing, I can list off a million potential harmful situations that aren’t happening, and saying “it’s a good thing I’m not being murdered, raped, or my house is currently on fire.” — Albero

And I can list a million things that aren't happing that I would like to happen. "It's a bad thing that I'm not a millionaire, not tall enough, not strong enough", etc. So..... What?

Even if we accept an "asymmetry of states" where bad things not happening is good but good things not happening is not bad, what does that lead to exactly?

It's not about act, it's simply the state of affairs of not being harmed/in pain/suffering/negative, etc. — schopenhauer1

In that case it should be:

Don't have a child:
No suffering- neutral, No pleasure- neutral — khaled

By what standard is a state of affairs where someone is not suffering worse than one where there is someone suffering, but at the same time a state of affairs where someone is not having pleasure is just as good as one where someone is having pleasure.

If we're just talking about states of affairs, obviously being in pleasure is better than not. In that case it should be:

Don't have a child:
No suffering- good, No pleasure- bad — khaled

I don't see a way of getting an asymmetry here. If we're talking about states, they're symmetrical. If we're talking about acts, they're neutral.

It's not a strong "do this!" simply a common "don't do this!". — schopenhauer1

Sure, but that doesn't make "not doing this" good. I think there is a difference between what is moral and what is good. Sometimes something is moral but not good, as in it is a minimum requirement. "Not killing people" is definitely moral, but not enough to be called good. You're not virtuous simply because you haven't killed anyone.

I have to agree with you. — Antinatalist

Oh. Wasn't expecting that. Most ANs I've met swear by the asymmetry as if it was some holy scripture.

But if you mean having a child and not having a child are both neutral acts, then I have to disagree. — Antinatalist

I'd say it's situational.

Note that this:

Have a child:
Risk of suffering- bad, risk of pleasure- good

Don't have a child:
Prevention of suffering- neutral, prevention of pleasure- neutral — khaled

Only applies when you only consider the child as part of the "system". When you instead look at suffering inflicted overall it doesn't become so clear cut. Not having a child has consequences too. If the child was going to be a positive influence, you can't simply say that not having a child is purely preventative, it could also be harmful. The people the child would have helped would now be worse off.

If your child wasn't going to be a positive influence you're probably just a bad parent and shouldn't be having kids (not a personal attack, just a general statement). That's my position at least.

These individuals are therefore, in both good and bad, responsible for the emergence of a certain person. — Antinatalist

I don't think anyone's disagreeing there (obviously parents are responsible for having their kids, who else is?). What Benkei (and I) disagree with is the asymmetry. I used to be AN and even when I was I thought the asymmetry is a load of BS.

The idea that "not having children" is a good act is absurd. It is at best neutral. If you want it to come out as "good" you run into a lot of problems. For example: "Not shooting people" is now also a good act by the same reasoning. Therefore someone who owns a gun and chooses not to shoot someone can justifiably walk up to you and say "Why observe what a paragon of virtue I am! Can you see how many people I haven't shot!". And the more guns they own and choose not to use, the better they are.

This seems absurd. Choosing to not harm someone is not in itself a good act. It should go:

Have a child:
Risk of suffering- bad, risk of pleasure- good

Don't have a child:
Prevention of suffering- neutral, prevention of pleasure- neutral

not

Don't have a child:
Prevention of suffering - good, prevention of pleasure - neutral

That's the asymmetry.

Who cares? It's real enough.

I have argued in this thread that you are speaking garbage. My argument was:

Note it’s not a question of “whether” you’re speaking garbage, for that is so obviously the case, it’s a question of “how” one can speak so much garbage seriously. So no it’s not question begging. Look up the definition bud! — khaled

Which is clearly not question begging by your standards.

Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be — Bartricks

I'm not sure why people can't disagree without being disagreeable. — schopenhauer1

I think people mostly think the other side is the one being disagreeable. People generally don't seem themselves as instigators. In an insult-off, it is common that both sides think the other started it. What counts as "disagreeable" is different for each person. You never know what someone will take offence to. It's like minesweeper.

With some exceptions of course. Some people are just plain disagreeable cunts. Most aren't.

Then there are the saints that continue to keep calm even when they perceive the other side is being disagreeable (regardless of whether they intend to). Those are even rarer.

Oh so it’s question begging when I say exactly what you say?

Why? Note, the issue is not 'whether' this is so, for it so clearly is. The question is 'why' it should be — Bartricks

Interesting.

Idk how you never tire of trolling. It was funny at first but it’s getting old now.

Well, that's question begging. — Bartricks

What’s the question being begged? Whether or not you’re speaking garbage? Note it’s not a question of “whether” you’re speaking garbage, for that is so obviously the case, it’s a question of “how” one can speak so much garbage seriously. So no it’s not question begging. Look up the definition bud!

No a troll is someone who speaks nonsense. Like yourself.

You think, no doubt, that this is not a philosophy forum, but an 'express yourself' forum - a kind of therapy session where you come to be heard, not have your views assessed. But when a nasty philosopher comes along and subjects your views to scrutiny, or presents his own and then defends them to the hilt, you get all upset because he's not validating you or something. — Bartricks

The projection is unreal.

You’re always the first one to get mad. What does that say about you? I never get mad talking to you. Just bewildered at how someone can be so sure while speaking so much garbage. Even when shown to be wrong your self assurance never wavers. It would honestly be commendable. If you learned anything.

I like the topic of the OP, but don't think you really said anything meaningful about it. I'm fairly new to philosophy but I just read your OP as something lacking but was genuinely curious to hear your objections to individual subjectivism, if for no other reason than perhaps finding potentially motivation for myself to interact here more often and more deeply. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

You might not want to start with Bartricks then. He’s the site troll. Don’t believe me? Talk with him for a while. But he definitely will not help your motivation to interact here.

In any case, this is a psychological not a philosophical question. As I don’t know much about the field I can’t comment, except with my own experience.

Is someone who believes in false beliefs guilty of the sin of bad-faith, that is of believing something which he knows at some level to be not worthy of belief? — Pantagruel

Ask them. Though they’re unlikely to answer truthfully. But from my experience talking with people like this, it seems that they do really believe what they say. There is no level at which they think it’s false.

I don’t think it’s possible to hold an attitude of “wanting to believe” for very long. I think people in general and especially on this forum underestimate man’s intolerance of contradictions. I don’t think anyone can believe something for long if they know that at some level it is false.

I’d say it’s more difficult to hold a contradictory position than a legitimate one. Qanons, Flat earthers and Bartricks truly believe what they say. Much to everyone’s dismay and bewilderment.

Are you suggesting you resolved millennia of theistic disputes and figured out who or what "God" is? — baker

Yes. And using entirely obvious premise so with simple logic too he claims. Check his thread about the “proof” of God. Though I wouldn’t bother. It’s garbage.

Depends on the pill. Does it make it so that you can’t die? If so I’d rather die. If all it does is prevent aging I’d probably take it though. I could always tap out when I want to. Doesn’t seem to have any downsides.

Pro-PIll: If life is more enjoyable when you're not afraid of when it might end - then take the pill, and rid yourself of that fear. Once you've taken the pill, you are in full control of the moment of your death. You're free of the fear of grim reaper death birds suddenly swooping. Now you can enjoy life in peace. — csalisbury

You’d still be afraid of all the same things I’d think. Robbers, thugs, drunk drivers, etc. The pill doesn’t stop those.

What about if, as a cost of taking the pill, you could also no longer post on TPF ever again — Pantagruel

Sounds like a sales pitch to me!

If anything talking with Bartricks has massively boosted my self control. I still can't help but respond to him sometimes, but my tolerance for self assured idiocy has gone up massively. Problem is he seems to just keep one upping himself and I can't help but respond sometimes. It's almost like he's adapting the difficulty.

If he is a troll he deserves an Oscar. If he isn't I'm deeply concerned. Here is someone that thinks rape victims deserved it.

So, that wasn't doing philosophy by consensus. That was noting that a consensus was evidence for something, namely how powerful and widely felt a given intuition is. And those widely shared powerful intuitions were then in turn powerful evidence that a given premise in my case was true. — Bartricks

Oh I see. So it wasn’t “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s true”. It was “Most philosophers agree to it therefore it’s a widely felt intuition, therefore it’s true”.

Stop trolling.

a claim to morality is grounded only when the person handled is precisely not in a position to help herself and as long as she remains in this position. — spirit-salamander

An interesting angle but I can think of scenarios where someone who can’t help themselves do something wants you to do it, and yet the ought is not binding. If you work as a teacher’s assistant and a classmate asks you to steal the exam answers and share them is that a binding ought? The classmate can’t accomplish this task so it seems to fit the bill. There are countless other scenarios.

When we do not help someone in need, we do not solely prove to be non-meritorious but we commit an evil — spirit-salamander

The problem is when the person in question needs you to commit an evil.

There is no way of knowing whether one person's conscious experience of the wavelength 750nm is the same as anyone else's. — RussellA

Yea there is. We can look at a particular part of the body and ask “Is this involved in the experience of color”. We can do experiments to determine whether it is or not. Take toe size. If toe size had anything to do with the experience you get when a 750 nm wavelength enters your eye, then you’d expect that a person with a swollen toe would report seeing different colors than usual. That isn’t the case so it’s not a significant variable.

Repeat this process, then eventually you will positively be able to answer whether or not someone’s conscious experience of 750 nm is the same as anyone else’s. If they have identical significant variables, they’re the same. Or at least, we’d be justified in believing they’re the same.

Virtually all of them disagree with the conclusion. As you said: Divine command theory is widely rejected. If all the expert reasoners reach a different conclusion from you that is excellent reason to think you made an error somewhere. That’s the most likely and rational conclusion.

And you haven’t argued for your position in the op for anyone to find an interesting argument. You said:

And for reasons that I will leave for later discussion, that mind will be the mind of God. — Bartricks

They're ignorant of the argument I have presented — Bartricks

You have expertise in the field despite never having your argument looked at by another expert? How in the world did that happen?

And you really think if they looked at your argument they’d agree? What evidence do you have to support that belief? So far the handful of experts of the forum who have looked at it have disagreed so it’s not clear why you think experts at large would agree.

And if it counts for something, all the non experts have disagreed too. That’s very statistically unlikely. Especially given that even theists, idealists and dualists on here disagree with you. So it’s not like people have some emotional motive behind disagreeing. People of every school disagree. You’d think one of them might agree by chance but nope. The only thing that brings about that effect is total nonsense.

Instead of wasting your time on supposed dunning Krugerites like us why not simply ask one of your colleagues to look at your argument? Should be a piece of cake for a renowned expert.