I don't need therapy to reason like you do. I need a head injury. — Bartricks

it has now become a technical term in philosophy since Harry Frankfurt published a book on the subject — Bartricks

You have not shown how my case is "bullshit" — Bartricks

You have simply ignored it or failed to recognize it. But oh well. — Bartricks

You don't know what 'begging the question' means, clearly. — Bartricks

Look, I have already explained why 'X is just' does not mean "X is permitted" or "X is wrong" or "X is right". I have given examples illustrating this. This is pointless, like I say. — Bartricks

The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X.
— Bartricks

Correct. But had you undergone the reflections, and discovered that X is a just state of affairs, then yes it does entail it. The only situation it doesn’t is when you intend to do something wrong, but it ends up bringing about a just state of affairs. — khaled

You'd think "well, if everything that happens here is deserved, then I can do what I want".

But that's clearly not the case. I - we - have moral obligations to behave in some ways and not others, even though it is not possible for us to treat others in ways they do not deserve.

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

Your expertise? — Bartricks

It is consistent with everything that happens here being just, that some acts are right and others wrong. — Bartricks

The fact that doing X would bring about a just state of affairs, does not entail that it is right to do X. — Bartricks

Let that be my problem. I'm an extremely fast typist. — Bartricks

Yes, everything that happens here is just. But that doesn't imply that all is permitted. — Bartricks

then the standard arguments for antinatalism now apply — Bartricks

I am still waiting. — Sir2u

You said it's the same thing. — Manuel

I think that while in principle you could stimulate the brain to do this, we know way too little about the brain. — Manuel

I never got an answer. What's your ontology? — Manuel

What about those who believe that God exists; that none of us have been created; that this world is a prison, and that everyone who comes here deserves to come here (and have arrived at this belief responsibly)? Let's first be clear how many people satisfy that set of criteria. Me. I think that's it. Just me. — Bartricks

You do not have to have any view about life's purpose for that to be wicked. — Bartricks

No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just — Bartricks

So what? — Bartricks

Antinatalism is not an absolutist position — Bartricks

A convicted murderer who undertakes to kill other convicted murderers is not fit to be released back into the community. — Bartricks

You'd eventually describe everything we do in neurophysiological language. — Manuel

When we speak of mind, we are simply stressing the mental aspects of physical reality. — Manuel

If you think that by studying the brain, we will understand not only seeing trees, which includes all of what I mentioned — Manuel

Again with my example: I did wrong to Jeremy, yes? But Jeremy deserved what he got. — Bartricks

decide not to be presumptuous and set themselves up as a vigilante but instead decide humbly to take their licks — Bartricks

Why wouldn't he? No harm is done. They, by procreating, make themselves deserving of another lifetime in the prison. Good - that's what they deserve - and further accommodation is provided for other criminals (two birds, one stone). — Bartricks

So, as far as they are concerned, they made an ignorant innocent person join them in a world they knew was full of dangers. Wicked. — Bartricks

For God, being omnipotent, does not need anyone else's help providing accommodation — Bartricks

It is to set oneself up as a vigilante. — Bartricks

But it also stands to reason that God would not have allowed innocent creatures to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. — Bartricks

if you try and procreate you are actively trying to bring an innocent person into the prison to join you — Bartricks

What is wrong with you people? — Bartricks

To continue improving the fate of those who remain after your death through projects that take longer than one generation to complete. — Isaac

you actually just debate the topic and not make this a meta-argument about the topic. — schopenhauer1

No you two specifically do the same thing — schopenhauer1

ANd like i said, you at least argue the fuckn case rather than making speeches about the me arguing the case in the first place. — schopenhauer1

But I've NEVER went to another thread just to say that they shouldn't write their thread, — schopenhauer1

That you were looking for my premise (dignity, etc.) an explanation of that, not the conclusion. — schopenhauer1

Why don't you just ignore my threads if you think the argument not worth your time? — schopenhauer1

I see a whole bunch of threads on here. I even see a professional philosopher, David Pearce. You can argue you heart's content at other people and things. — schopenhauer1

Anyways, you are wrong here because khaled is looking for a conclusion with a premise. — schopenhauer1

you are not recognizing in my argument the distinction between starting a life (and challenges and problems that a person would face), and helping people out who are already dealing with the challenges — schopenhauer1

But by using people to such a degree, you are indeed overlooking that person's dignity as a PERSON. — schopenhauer1

There is something wrong with this. — schopenhauer1

where before you did not when it was just to wake him up to save the drowning child. — schopenhauer1

To not wake the lifeguard would be to overlook the dignity of the drowning person. — schopenhauer1

Dignity here is something akin to recognizing people's suffering and wanting to help or prevent it if possible, but realizing that the conditions of life can't prevent it all for those already born. — schopenhauer1

Again, putting people into enslavement is not the answer to helping the enslaved, but abolishing the enslavement — schopenhauer1

I never bought into your totalizing method where this isn't a consideration, only the totalizing outcome of harm or good or whatever utilitarian thing you are claiming. — schopenhauer1

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course).
2.) If the procreator-sympathizers are right, SOMEONE suffers. — schopenhauer1

Once placed in the position, then it would be not recognizing people's dignity by ignoring their humanity. — schopenhauer1

The indignity happens when putting people into the condition in the first place. — schopenhauer1

I'm leaning towards the enforcement of negative conditions on others being always unjust. — Tzeentch

I'd like to be persuaded otherwise, but it seems any attempt at justifying such behaviors goes down a slippery slope that leads to a justification for any and all behavior — Tzeentch

The lifeguard and anyone else already existing is ALREADY in the inescapable game. It's too late to prevent their being forced into being in negative situations IN THE FIRST PLACE. — schopenhauer1

Do you recognize different states of affairs and thus principles apply differently? — schopenhauer1

1.) If MY computation is right, no ONE suffers (cause no one is born, of course). — schopenhauer1

if indeterminism is true events still have causes. — Bartricks

It isn't a difficult point to grasp and it is obviously true. — Bartricks

If a bedridden paralyzed patient who can't move any muscle in his body intends to donate to charity, but since he can't move he doesn't, has he done something moral? Similarly if he decides to kill someone, but since he can't move he doesn't, has he done something immoral? — khaled

And all actions have a mental element for actions are the exclusive preserve of agents, and agents are minds and an action is caused by certain kinds of mental event. — Bartricks

Why on earth would I be responsible for what my mind does if its activities are indeterministic? — Bartricks

False. Indeterministic causation is still causation. When an event is undetermined, it is not uncaused. It was caused, just indeterministically. — Bartricks

Literally no idea what your point is. On what grounds do you reject premise 1? Present a deductively valid argument that has the negation of 1 as a conclusion. — Bartricks

I just explained the point to my plate of fish fingers and I think one of them got it. — Bartricks

kill Sarah your intention does not need to have resulted in Sarah's death, it is sufficient that you formed it. Obviously. — Bartricks

Not a great friend of Consistency are you? — Bartricks

This is a derailing move as whether epiphenomenalism is plausible or not is demonstrably irrelevant to the free will question. — Bartricks

It applies to more than actions, and some mental activities are actions and is essential to all actions. So, you know, well done. — Bartricks

1. If my mind is the product of external events that I had no hand in, then I am not morally responsible for anything about my mind or anything it is caused to do. (If A, then B) — Bartricks

Remember: I agree with Strawson over 1. I agree that to be morally responsible, your decisions must not trace to external causes — Bartricks

I am morally responsible for my decisions regardless of whether they are effective in the world. — Bartricks

What in blue blazes are you on about? — Bartricks

Because whether I am morally responsible or not for my intentions and decisions and other mental activities has nothing to do with whether they are causally effective in the world. — Bartricks

then I am not morally responsible for being the mind that I am and so consequently I would not be morally responsible for any of my mental activity. — Bartricks

So, just to be clear, your view is that if I attempt to kill Sarah, I am not morally responsible for forming that intention if it does not result in Sarah's death? — Bartricks

it is being claimed that material events cause mental events, but mental events can't cause material events. That's perverse. If there are material events, then we have good evidence that they cause mental events and vice versa. I just intended to raise my arm and it raised. There. — Bartricks

Oh, and physical stuff does not appear to be self-determining. When a physical thing does something we look for a cause of its doing it. — Bartricks

For instance, if I form the intention to do X and try to do X, and X occurs but entirely coincidentally and not as a product of my trying to do X, I remain fully morally responsible for trying to do X. Yes? — Bartricks

If so, then I think that bizarre and unmotivated thesis — Bartricks

What do you understand epiphenomenalism to be? — Bartricks

there is broad agreement on the basic concept, despite disagreement reigning over exactly what it takes for our wills to answer to that concept. — Bartricks

I think free will in a dualistic framework is under doubt for example. As it requires “minds” causing physical changes. Yet we have extremely strong evidence that the only thing that can cause physical changes is physical stuff. That’s what the laws of conservation mean. — khaled

The reason of literally billions of people tells them that their wills are free and that they are responsible for the decisions they make. That is staggeringly good evidence. — Bartricks

I wouldn't get into a conversation with such a person. — Bartricks

That is, the reason of most people represents it to be true. — Bartricks