@Moliere I am going to get Being and Nothingness printed out this coming week hopefully. Not sure when I can have a serious read of it though because I am really enjoying tackling Hegel atm.

Sartre is cruel with himself and thereby cruel to others as well, because it's justified and consistent I suppose. — Moliere

He seems to say that others see as cruel he simply views as brutally honest. I like the optimism in his take on existentialism and think there was some quite negative attitudes to what was overall a positive outlook on the human condition.

If you have the time and the inclination I recommend reading this:

Existentialism and Humanism

Whether you agree with him or not I believe attempting to understand is useful - for taking the good and critiquing the bad.

In the Q & A, and elsewhere, there are points where I either do not fully understand what he is saying, or he is tripping over himself a bit. Need to look closer after the weekend when I have more time.

Going to be reading Sartre and Hegel in tandem. Trying to think of a good third to read alongside them. I think Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling would be a nice contrast.

it's just I think Sartre is starting on the metaphysics side rather than the epistemology side. — Moliere

They are the same side ;) I think you meant ontological rather than epistemic though?

I have some opinions about this that are not too relevant here. Either way, there is a problem entangled here (which is why I am annoyed with Heidegger tbh). That is a WHOLE other thread so let's not go there on this thread :)

Trying my best to limit the range of discussion in any thread I create from now on.

being-in-itself/being-for-itself — Moliere

It appears Sartre changed the manner in which he applied these terms over time. I have found definitions that state being-in-itself means with 'essence' and elsewhere without (depending on the type of being-in-itself). This is likely to do with what @JuanZu points at above in reference to the 'Other'?

You cannot self-deceive yourself that you are acting in good faith, because that implies that you know what it is to act in good faith. — JuanZu

Huh? That is precisely my point? I am confused by what you are trying to express here. The very fact that you can deceive yourself into thinking you are living authentically is precisely what I am talking about.

You can deceive yourself into thinking you can know. Therefore you can deceive yourself about your own 'good faith' (authenticity).

If Sartre merely meant authenticity as an unreachable absolute target to aim for, it still means we are able to deceive ourselves into thinking we are moving closer to this ideal or further away from it.

Do you see what I mean?

The paradox is actually different. It is that when we pretend to be determined by our circumstances, social roles, etc., we are already making use of our freedom precisely in order to pretend. As in the case of the waiter who pretends to be a simple waiter, but the very act of pretending makes it clear that he is not a simple waiter. — JuanZu

The 'pretending' here is something more complex. I will think on this and see how it applies to what I am getting at. Thanks :)

Heidegger's tradition of phenomenology maybe. Not Husserl's though, and that is why they parted ways (as well as other reasons of course).

Anyway, later ...

So to act in bad faith is to speak dishonesty. — JuanZu

Incorrect. It is self-deception. One cannot always be aware they are acting in 'bad faith'. This misunderstanding might highlight the problem ?

Someone can deceive themselves into thinking they are acting in good faith when they are not - as is commonly done by everyone. We can be 'oppressing' other individuals under the staunch belief that we are acting in good faith rather than 'bad faith'.

It makes perfect sense to be in prone to self-deception that results in believing we are living 'authentically' when we are not.

This is the paradox of the claim of dealing with 'bad faith'. If we cannot truly distinguish between what is or is not an act of 'bad faith' clearly this is highly problematic.

I disagree with this. The idea of human nature is a central one to my way of thinking about people. Based on reading philosophy, psychology, and cognitive science plus my own experience in life, I see that we are deeply human at a biological, genetic, and neurological level. I say that so you know why I am resistant to any denial of its existence. — T Clark

Those were Sartre's words btw. Forgot to tag.

Will explain later. Time to go to work now :)

It also strikes me as arrogant. We are who we are, but we are also what we are. Sartre's radical freedom feels like Nietzsche's ubermensch. You can take that with a grain of salt, since I have read very little of either man's work. — T Clark

He was undoubtedly influenced quite strongly by both N and H.

My question was more or less an EVEN IF approach to the whole issue of 'essence'.

Whether we agree or not we can still follow the reasoning and find the paradoxical problem of knowing how to distinguish between a victim of bad faith or someone in bad faith. Clearly to play the victim is bad faith. I am not sure he ever addresses this issue other than to say something along the lines of 'be true to yourself' - as echoes.

Nominalism is nominalism. You will have to be more specific with your question maybe?

From my pov, nominalism is nothing other than the Cartesian doctrine that matter is extension. — Gregory

That is ONE way of using nominalism I guess?

The literal meaning of the term is how we name/nominate items of thought/experience as X. What use abstract concepts are, how universal terms work and how these terms relate to reality are all what nominalism focuses on.

A nominal perspective is a pretty interesting one to take when thinking about stuff.

This might help to better outline his distinction :)

In case anyone is confused by what he meant by no nature/essence:

"Furthermore, although it is impossible to find in each and every man a universal essence that can be called human nature, there is nevertheless a human universality of condition. It is not by chance that the thinkers of today are so much more ready to speak of the condition than of the nature of man. By his condition they understand, with more or less clarity, all the limitations which a priori define man’s fundamental situation in the universe."

Human beings have an essence, a nature. To ignore this is simply to be ruled by something that lies outside one's grasp of reality, to be determined by ignorance. Our actions do not spring from the aether uncaused, nor do we. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, what exactly did you mean here then if you know he never suggested we 'spring from the aether' as you put it?

Our actions do not spring from the aether uncaused, nor do we. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Note: I do not believe this is what Sartre was saying. I do not believe he denounces obvious physiological facts or differences (such as sex or the human body in general).

If you have read Sartre and can explain why in depth I would love to hear it.

An in depth analysis of your understanding of his argumentation against essentialist ideas in the manner he was talking about them would be great?

The question remains how/if the paradoxical position Sartre gives can be overcome? If not that then merely fortified in some way that is productive?

My mistake 20-21

Try this (page 20-21 in particular):

Existentialism and Humanism

Is it even relevant for people to know or say of others that they are in bad-faith? As you point out, it is an 'internal' concept. — Pantagruel

Yes, because if someone is accusing others of oppression they may be doing so in bad faith. This would basically mean that someone sees something they believe is 'oppressive' (which is not) because it suits their worldview to deceive themselves to avoid anguish and discomfort. Given that Sartre points out that the bad faith of people (systemic or otherwise) leads to oppression.

It is an internal concept that is created and propagated by the individual. It passes judgement but can certainly err.

No, not exactly, because Sartre is saying there is no true self (no 'essence'). We create ourselves.

Babies are not blank slates. — T Clark

We do not have to agree with his propositions to explore the contradictions. He is basically appealing to a form of self-determination (termed as Radical Freedom). He admits that people are born in certain circumstances and situations that make avoiding bad faith more or less as of a struggle.

I think the object is still being-for-itself. An object is already quite meaningful: even rocks are more meaningful than being-in-itself. The Being-in-itself/Being-for-itself distinction is the most basic dualism of Sartre's which is offered as a means for resolving various paradoxes, but like all basic distinctions in a philosophy, it's hard to define it explicitly. — Moliere

He famously stated that "existence precedes essence". As I understand this the very premise Sartre works from is that of atheism. The paperknife is an object created for a purpose, where the purpose is its 'essence'. Humans have no 'essence' because they were not created.

The term object can be attached to a being-for-itself in the realisation of an individual being among other individuals. He terms this as the 'Other'.

Because you said you had a belief, I asked you to explain it and then you said why should I.

If you cannot explain your belief, no problem. I will move on swiftly. Time for me to go and drink someone else's orange juice.

Bye.

I'm not going to be providing any papers, you didn't ask me to prove any specific claim so anything I give you will seem random and you cant convince people by throwing random papers at them — Ourora Aureis

I asked this: How are aesthetic and moral values the same? You made the claim. If you are not willing to argue your case then I am puzzled why you are here at all.

I was merely intrigued by what you meant. Sounds interesting.

First I have to state my belief that all values are equivalent, there is no difference between a moral or aesthetic value. From the dislike of murder to the love of orange juice, these concern the same type of preference known as a value. — Ourora Aureis

I am curious what backing there is to this belief.

You will need to back up your reasoning then.

there is no difference between a moral or aesthetic value. — Ourora Aureis

How so? Explain why people believe there is a difference. By all means site any papers relevant in the cognitive neurosciences I am fairly well versed in that particular area.

This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good. — AmadeusD

Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. You might be correct as a great many of people with a shallow understanding of the principles involved would encourage this quite strongly (people who watched a youtube video and decided it sounded about right). Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure).

This sounds very much like nonsense the way you put it.

I am guessing it is not nonsense though just badly expressed. Maybe explaining how your view does or doesn't cross over into solipsism? That might help others to understand.

Also, consider the very problem of measuring 'suffering' against 'pleasure' even if you did not buy into the whole asymmetry argument.

In terms of nonidentity I have already shown how we can have care and concerns for future generations, so this is involved in the argumentation too.

That is it. If you understand this you understand the AN position and the problems it poses (regardless of its 'rightness' or 'wrongness').

Take out Suffering, and the whole AN argument collapses. — Fire Ologist

So does life. There is no life without suffering so you would effectively be achieving nothing by making a claim that suffering is absent.

The 'suffering' is part of the argument involved with the presumed Right to bring life into the world going unquestioned. It is a very subtle part of the AN position but nevertheless essential to it - just like the Right to have an abortion for some women.

There is the claim to a Right to act in a certain manner (create/negate) potential life, and the issue of 'suffering' too (which is inevitable for any living creature).

To repeat, you have absolutely no need to agree with the AN argument only to understand the inner workings of it. The issue of nonidentity might not be much of an issue for you either, but it is for many. You just have to accept this and say "okay, but no thanks," and take what you can away from the discussion.

Just like someone believing in a god you have to listen to them, throw in some questions and then see if you can make some kind of sense of it all as best you can. Ultimately there is no conclusive answer as we cannot measure such things as yet.

There is a point in my mind where having an abortion is the right way to go and in my mind there is also the point where AN is the way to go. I have a far less murky picture of former than the latter.

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. — Fire Ologist

Nothing to do with AN.

I can have a baby and “do my best” not to cause any harm to that baby. So if meeely 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. — Fire Ologist

I answered by saying if 'suffering' was not an issue there is still the issue of questioning the intrinsic right of of having a child (the nonidentity problem).

Do not get me wrong I understand the kind of comparison you are making, but it is not an AN position to argue about things such as the right to punch someone in the face, be late for an appointment or such items surrounding the usual ethical concerns of existing humans. It is about looking at the ethical issues surrounding the reasons, and 'human rights' involved in procreation.

The 'suffering' part is A factor not THE defining factor of the AN position. This is why I have stated multiple times that both need to be considered when viewing the AN position.

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. — Fire Ologist

I believe such a person would do their best not to cause more harm either by leaving or not leaving their house. Once we exist it cannot be undone.

Again, the point of focus would be the nonidentity and what right you have to bring someone into the world in the first place.

You may as well ask something like why not wipe out the entire human race over night BUT that is not what AN is saying. They are concerned with the Rights of potential people and our justification for viewing having children as a human right in and of itself (without considering the rights of a human that never asked to exist in the first place).

Being born into an idealistic world still begs the question of why we do it and whether we really should. I imagine everyone has a number of reasons for having children and an even greater number of people never even really think about it at all.

A stochastic experience is needed to possess an iota of valuation. The coin is the two-sided thing you are battling with here. Values and principles are quite likely two-sides of the same coin?

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? — Fire Ologist

This is precisely the kind of problem looked at in the issue of nonidentity. I do not know of any good argument as to when an abortion should or should not happen - but that is a separate but interesting comparison to consider when untangling the differences in such positions.

I am not going to put words in their mouth only give an honest reply to your point.

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. — Fire Ologist

It would still not address the issue of nonidentity and your 'Right' to bring someone into the world who may or may not suffer to some larger or smaller degree.

This is because the valuation attached to existence put forward by the AN is that of 'asymmetry'. The absence of 'suffering' is GOOD while the absence of 'pleasure' is NOT BAD (rather than GOOD). It is a basic aggregation aligned with the unpredictability of how a human's life will be. This is why an AN may say 'Why gamble?' because to them it is a little like this scenario:

1) You do not care about money AT ALL.
2) You are given money and then have to gamble with it.
3) Two possible outcomes:

A) You GAIN more money.
OR
B) You LOSE the money.

All you then have to do is replace MONEY with 'Pain' and then 'Pleasure' to see how there is an imbalance. Not having either to begin with is more satisfactory than gambling.

If you could guarantee that every lived life would be basically full of 'pleasure' to an optimal level for everyone then I cannot see how an AN could argue against such a scenario. If there is LITERALLY no scenario they or you can present that is for procreation then they are stuck.

On the flip side can you imagine certain extreme scenarios where you would look more favorably on the AN position?

Of course not. It is up to you to bother with the argument or not and live as you wish to live.

The AN argument has weight to it. The utilitarian positions have weight to them too, So what? It is our pleasure to attend to them or not.

No one does over any reasonable extension of time. The point is to understand that someone else 'measures' the valuation between 'pain' and 'no pain' as a meaningful point in this kind of argument (which it is).

In the sociopolitical sphere I think a decent part of this idea stemmed from a staunch opposition to 'Pro Lifers'. I think there are many more fundamentalists at the Pro end of the spectrum though! :D

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.” — Fire Ologist

Yes, but they are entitled to their opinions and it makes sense to listen to their arguments for what they are not you think they are.

It is not really all that complicated you just have to break it down and understand that they have particular views on responsibility to future beings. You may not hold these views but you can consider them as if you did to some degree and come to a reasonable understanding of them.

As something of a comparison let us assume we all agree that polluting rivers is a bad thing. If some factory manager dumped toxins into the river (il)legally knowing the potential effect on the offspring of people who happen to drink this water we would regard this as a pretty terrible thing. The AN extends this further, but at least you can begin to understand why we want to STOP the factory manager from doing what they did, yet we would not decide to BAN the construction of all factories that could potentially pollute the river.

Understanding the general direction of the argument does not mean you need to adhere to it nor agree with it. You can still follow the path and see what is of use.

People who talk about AN from a radical position are obviously radicals, and radicals tend not to listen. I do not really waste my time on them as they do a good enough job of pushing others away from themselves to the point I see no point in engaging directly.

NOTE: To anyone jumping down my throat saying I am misrepresenting AN. No, sorry. This is not what I am doing. I am, and have, broken it down to the CORE elements that those not familiar with AN need to understand. I have no intention of exhibiting every possibility because they ALL come down to no 'suffering' being good where no 'pleasure' is not bad (asymmetry argument and the surrounding issues of utilitarianism/consequentialism and metaphysical values) and nonidentity (surrounding items like individual rights, responsibility and in particular whether or not we can say we have a 'Right' to procreate regarding potential beings combined with inevitability of 'suffering').

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. — Fire Ologist

The AN position is not this. Some idiots may think they have an unshakable argument, but in truth it is just one of many arguments and has valid points to consider.

If anyone here is such an Extreme AN (to the point where they would enforce this by law) then they are not really understanding the point regular ANs make.

I summed up the main points someone trying to understand the AN position need to understand. The AN position is perfectly reasonable and does raise some intriguing questions about personal responsibility and how we measure the value of life (which is clearly quite a subjective matter!).

Not necessarily.

See Nozick's thought experiment involving The Experience Machine.

It was created as an argument against hedonism but does reveal enough to show the importance of experiencing reality (with its suffering) over pleasurable experiences that are disconnected from reality.

Well, no. It is not that complicated at all.

The nuances of specific situations make such decisions difficult to measure against each other for obvious reasons, but the underlying principle is pretty straight forward.

This is why I was puzzled how anyone can 'change their mind' about this. It is like saying I have changed my mind about hedonism being about pursuing pleasure. It is doesn't matter. That is true, so your opposing opinion on the matter is irrelevant - there is no 'mind changing' only agree or disagreement with the principle.

The point of the Principle is to weigh the good against the bad in outcome AND the burden of proof to lie on those wanting to carry out the act, correct?

Which still leaves me asking what this thread is about? Consequentialism is necessarily entangled with utilitarianism, they do not exist in a separate voids.

The Principle of Double Effect is utilitarian. What is there is agree or disagree about other than the overall balance of outcome (which is precisely what the PoDE is describing)?

Nietzsche's moral philosophy is that there is no morality (in the traditional sense) but, rather, we create our own values and subject ourselves to our own created moral law. — Bob Ross

He was correct as far as I can see. As for "happiness" ... I cannot recall him focusing on that at all (other than in a dismissive light I imagine?).

100%

It is one of the most backwards things I have ever read. I think he is confusing Existential Ethics with Nietzsche maybe?

@Bob Ross The general existential view of of ethics is based on creating your own virtues in light of an absurd existence. You seem to be conflating this with one or two cherry-picked points made by Nietzsche maybe?

Confusion is all I got from reading the OP. I only managed to get a few paragraphs in before giving up.