How about situational antinatalism? If you live in a third world country where poverty and misery is rampant, and you and your spouse have crippling heritable diseases to boot, then you shouldn't bring a child into the world who is likely to experience a hellish life.On the other hand, if you and your wife don't have significant heritable diseases, live in an upper class society, and money isn't a problem, then they should have kids because those kids are likely to live happy lives.

Not everything is so black and white.

I believe that moral statements can be emotive or cognitive, and it's all about speaker meaning. Some people say moral statements purely on emotions, others rely on moral principles.

Should all forms of hate speech be allowed, including the racist ones. — Wittgenstein

Depends. For example, on the philosophy forum, which is a privately owned forum, no. If a neo-nazi is in his own home, he can say whatever he wants, as long as it's not commands to hurt anyone.

Should hate speech which instigates violence be allowed ? — Wittgenstein

Again, it depends on the nature of the speech and where the speech is. Is the speaker commanding or hinting to anyone they should harm anyone? If it's not commands to hurt anyone and it's it's a private platform, then it's all up to the owner.

If we ban a certain type of offensive speeches and usually the arguments are oriented around feelings being hurt. We may also argue against criticizing a religion or an ideology. — Wittgenstein

Some feelings are okay to hurt.

Just my two cents.

What makes you do any particular activity throughout your daily life? — schopenhauer1

There's so many ways to answer this question. To be honest, I don't know the best way to answer it. I don't think you care about the atoms in my body or the nature of my central nervous system. Nor do I think you care about psychological theories about extrinsic and intrinsic motivation or operant conditioning. Even if you did want these complicated scientific explanations, I'm no help because I'm not a scientist.

I can only give you simple explanations to specific things I do. I scratch my mosquito bite because it's itchy. I eat because I'm hungry. I sleep because I'm tired. I write on the philosophy forum because I like to write and have people react to it. I spending a ridiculous amount of time writing this post because I'm very obsessive. I hesitate before I post this because I'm anxious and I'm not sure if this is helpful.

Ah, a response. Finally. I was beginning to think nobody would take me seriously, like I’m one of those odd invisible kids in school trying to get some attention. To be fair, asking about someone’s personality is a personal question (not sure if pun intended). It seems like most people here are too serious for discussions like these. “What’s your personality like?”. “Ain’t nobody got time for that!”

For me philosophy is something that’s out of reach for me cognitively. Why I spend so much time on this forum is a big mystery to me.

Isn't he saying that, although induction is unjustified and unjustifiable, we use it anyway because we have no choice? — Pattern-chaser

Hume says we use induction because we are compelled to use it by our very nature, and not because there is no other method.

When there's nothing better available, we use induction, Occam's Razor, and all manner of other rules of thumb (guesswork). Is there an alternative? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The problem with that is, according to Hume, there's no reason to think that induction, or any other rules of thumb, would be better, for example, than consulting a psychic, or any other attempt to predict the future.

No takers? I guess I was mistaken in thinking people would open up about their personality to online strangers. Oh, well.

I guess an alternative is to do nothing and wait for the uniformity of nature to cease.

An interesting tidbit: If you think about it, there's only one way for nature to be uniform, and an infinite ways it can vary.

Habit, custom. — bongo fury

You mean the habit of the mind to associate two or more things that are constantly conjoined, justifies our belief that they will be constantly conjoined in the future? Why? It's not obvious that our habits of association in the past are relevant to what will happen in the future. Am I missing some point?

Why not? Do you not advocate science, on the grounds of its success? — bongo fury

Because mine and Hume's personal beliefs about the efficacy of induction are not of any importance in this discussion. We're here to consider arguments not personal beliefs. The point is that Hume needs to provide justification for his use of induction irrespective of his or my personal beliefs about induction.

He doesn't put doubts on the process. Like I said, he only wants to recommend that you give up the futile search for a justification in deduction. — bongo fury

But what's left? You say habits and customs, but first I need you to explain exactly how they justify our use of induction.

Yes, it does. Just not a guarantee. — bongo fury

You mean lend probable support? You would then have to assign probabilities to events. How do you do that without assuming that the past will be like the future?

And that is the only kind of justification which Hume is seeking to deny to induction. — bongo fury

My reading of Hume gives me the impression that he denies that there's any kind of justification of induction. What kind of justification do you have in mind that he would approve of?

but you can't say he is inconsistent. Quite the opposite. He is probably reaching these claims through the exercise of precisely those habits of mind that he ends up claiming to be efficacious (though fallible) for such a purpose. — bongo fury

Hume may believe that induction is efficacious, however that doesn't excuse him from coughing up justification in order to persuade others. Put it this way, how is he supposed to convince me of his inductive conclusion is accurate when he puts serious doubts on the very process of induction?

Nope! He approves of it. — bongo fury

He approves of it in the sense that when he stops philosophizing he forgets all his skeptical doubts and goes on with his day. It doesn't mean that he thinks that there is any rational reason why induction will continue to work.

Nope! Not arbitrary, depends on experience. — bongo fury

I specifically mentioned his words, "custom", and "habit". To me it makes it seem like Hume is implying that our inductions are quite arbitrary. You say, "depends on experience" but for Hume there is no warrant for extrapolating beyond what we observe and remember. If you say that he does warrant such things, I'm dying to know what his warrant is.

I would say he draws the generalization from particular instances that people habitually draw generalizations from particular instances. He's just pointing out how we usually call that process, "custom" or "habit". That doesn't mean we can't agree with his observation that this seems to be what people do in general. — leo

I think Hume's point was to show the arbitrariness in our propensity to draw generalization. The words "habit" and "custom" are his words. Why does he use those words? What is he trying to convey?

It seems like there's no justification for his conclusion that we all have that propensity. I see no reason to agree with him.

but he does say that this principle is just a name we use for the propensity we have to draw inferences from particular instances, he doesn't say this principle is the cause of that propensity. — leo

Granted, but doesn't Hume have his reason why he calls the propensity a "habit" when he could have just stuck with the word "propensity"?

But even if he were inconsistent on that point and really used induction to conclude that Custom is a universal principle, that wouldn't show that there is no problem of induction, — leo

I think there two propositions here regarding induction:

1. The use of induction cannot be justified. (Logical claim.)

2. Our use of induction is based on something arbitrary such as a habit, or a custom. (Empirical claim.)

I do agree that first proposition is really a problem. However I don't see how the second one can really be demonstrated.

Are psychiatrists implicitly direct realists? They diagnose only certain people with psychosis because they hear or see things that aren't there. If we never perceive the world but only our own sensations, we never see anything that's really there, making us all psychotic.

I think it might be better to say that the diagnosis presumes it, rather than proves it. — Coben

It probably is better and more accurate.

I agree that the WAP alone doesn't help us understand the fine tuning of the universe. However, if we add something to the WAP, it does make sense of the fine tuning problem. For instance we take into consideration the multiverse with the WAP, I believe it can explain away any fine tuning.

A side note: I personally don't believe in the multiverse theory. I believe that the universe naturally fine tunes itself into a stable condition, and stable conditions (big surprise) happen to support life. (But hey, what do I know.)

Is this intuition coherent? What is the nature of this me? — Inyenzi

I believe that it is coherent. The future you is the past and present you. You are the same person from when you were born to when you die. There isn't any instance where you lose consciousness and another "you" takes over.

Firstly, what do you mean by "will" and consequently "free will"? — BrianW

I don't think I can really produce a hard and fast definition, but I'll try anyways.

By "will" I mean the power in you to do things. By "free will" I mean you have the power to do things and you have a choice on whether or not you do certain actions.

What, by the way, is the critical point you want to find in this discussion? — Bitter Crank

The crucial point that I want to find is about the nature of free will and when it can be taken away. We already know that a person does not have free will when he is forced to do something. If a heroin addict cannot choose not to use once he has everything already prepared, then there's something that can take away your free will besides force. We've made a discovery! On the other hand, if we believe that the heroin addict does have a choice, in the situation mentioned, we might conclude that free will can only be taken away by force.

Since there are heroin, cocaine, alcohol, and cigarette addicts who have quit using their preferred drug on their own, based on their decision made while addicted, we can reasonably suppose that addicts have free will (in as much as any human being has free will). — Bitter Crank

Of course there are addicts who broke free from their addiction where there was choice involved. My question wasn't about heroin addicts generally, it was specific to the case I mentioned. My question about free will is regarding the instance where the heroin addict already has the heroin in his hand, with a strong desire to use, and he's dope sick to boot. Can the heroin addict choose not to use, at that moment?

I also need to go to sleep. But first I need someone to tell me a story. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5618/tell-us-a-story/p1

He was obviously drinking the blood of the young. What else do you do after you hit the bong. — Merkwurdichliebe

A vampire with the munchies, got it. He's excused.

Zombies never sleep, like vampires they just hide from the sun. — Sir2u

Make sure to shoot him in the head then.

I wonder what @S was doing up at 4:20 in the morning. He should be in jail.

I hope @S isn't losing any sleep over your remarks about him. Poor old @S needs his sleep.

Son, some things just can't be taught. — S

Are you saying that you can't teach me the ways of the dis? :cry:

The name I have come up with is Sapientinism. — S

Does it teach you the ways of dissing?

They are very regimented about their slumber out in old England town — Merkwurdichliebe

Really? What time do they go to sleep?

I think @S is sleeping. It's 4:20 in the morning in England.

Speaking of which, READ is my favourite colour. — S

I already knew that because you love the sight of blood.

What's it called? Sapientism?

What if I don't want wallow in your prostate with you? — Janus

Next he'll ask you to write a book with him: The Journey to the Center of Uranus.

I've been suffering from writer's block. — S

Well, should it?

Greatest thread ever. I win. — S

Two sentences. Baby steps! :clap:

I agree. When someone is hurting, you want to help them alleviate the pain, not add to it.

Or to put this another way, why blackmail someone out of suicide. Has that ever worked out in the past? I'm not quite sure, doubtful... — Wallows

It worked for my friend.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281999

I'm not sure if that's what you meant, though.

My dad used to guilt trip me. He used to tell me to think of all the people I would hurt by committing suicide. I guess he'll try anything to keep his son alive. Whether it works, or not, isn't a different story.

The question is should we as a society grant people the freedom to do whatever they want to with their own body as long as it doesn't physically harm anybody else. — Purple Pond

That was the context of the quote on suicide not being a harmless act. My point wasn't to guilt trip anybody. My point was to state a fact, that although suicide my not physically harm others, it may harm others emotionally.

Does someone want to die? So be it. — Wallows

I don't agree in every case. What about the case where someone wants to die when they're in severe pain, however in the future they will be grateful that they're still alive when the pain goes away?

No point in guilt-tripping a troubled mind already. — Wallows

If it prevents someone from committing suicide, why not?

They have reasons. I guess that your reason is not worthy of you acting on it, a good thing, as you are still here buddy. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Nah, I'm just too lazy.

Perhaps wanting to loose your cherry is what is keeping you going. ;-)
I had to throw that in there. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm a guy. :rofl:

I suppose it also plays a part in beliefs in religion and the afterlife. — Waya

That reminds me of what someone. A former friend of mine once told me that the reason he doesn't commit suicide is because he's afraid of going to hell.

For a field that is best known for highlighting the distinction between empirical and analytic or rationalist schools of thought, then is there some third alternative? — redan

I'm not sure what this has to do with the rest of your post.

I guess the third alternative is Kantianism where Kant attempted to bridge the gap between the two schools of thought.