Why do you think there is any inconsistency between those quotes? — Bartricks

I guess I thought of divine command theory as objective morality rather than a subset of subjective morality. In this context, it appeared like you had changed your mind from morality being subjective, to it being objective.

I should explain why morality is subjective.
To say that something is objective is to say something about its mode of existence. More specifically, it is to say that it exists outside a mind's mental states. So, the 'objective physical world' denotes a place that exists outside anyone's mind.
By contrast, if something is subjective, then it exists inside a mind or minds- that is, it exists as mental states; states of a subject.
Morality is subjective because morality is made of prescriptions and values. But only minds can issue prescriptions or value anything. Thus morality exists as the prescriptions and values of a mind. And thus it is subjective. — Bartricks

How do you get from this (on another thread):

Morality 'is' subjective — Bartricks

That's why it is possible that morality doesn't exist. — Bartricks

To this (on this thread):

If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, you're welcome as then you'd also be committed to concluding that the Nazis did no wrong. — Bartricks

Apologies for the late reply. I agree that there is a difference between the moderate supporters of AN and those in the video, but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while. Sadly, there isn't much awareness about it.

I disagree with universal AN, but, as I have explained ad nauseam, I do believe that it can have value in making people realise the necessities to take suffering and procreation more soberly. I hope that you have a good day/night! — DA671

I do agree with your point that antinatalism opens a gateway to promortalism. This is arguably an argument against the spreading of antinatalist views, as opposed to antinatalism in and of itself. I think @schopenhauer1 is right that it is the absolute consequentialists that would have to go through the gateway, and as long as you have overriding principle/s such as sanctity of life and/or consent, you are not affected by the criticism.

Kudos for admitting this:

The clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. — DA671

@universeness play the ball and not the man.

I do accept the slippery slope point about antinatalist belief, however this does not answer the question of whether it is moral to build such a city. I know both schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Antinatalism would not be true to its own morals.. I guess technically, it is agnostic to being based on consequentialism, but that is why I would not entertain that kind of super consequentialist thinking. I don't see the ground of morality based on such views. If you are a political lefty/socialist, does Stalin represent your highest ideals? Surely not. THAT'S not what you envision. If you are a Christian, does the Crusades or David Koresh or some nutball terrorist represent your highest ideals? My guess is no. There are extremes to any positions/beliefs/outlooks/worldviews etc. — schopenhauer1

It seems to me that the strongest argument for AN is consequentialist (would you build a city that is reliant on the unbearable suffering of a small child) (There will be hundreds of millions of sacrificial lambs in what we are building). The consent argument, asymmetry argument, etc, don't have the same feel to me.

Interesting that you say "super consequentialist thinking". What proportion of your views (if any) are consequentialist? Do you think it's consistent for one to have a general consequentialist outlook while also having overriding principles (such as sanctity of life, consent etc)?

The Great Courses' Mind-Body Philosophy is great. They got Patrick Grim to do it. His "Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions," which has work from Chalmers, Dennett, Putnam, L.R. Baker, Hofstadter, and others could be a nice supplement.

The courses are significantly cheaper through Amazon/Audible than on the Great Courses site BTW. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks. I've been meaning to watch some more of Sean Carroll's Mindscape to get a handle on the subject.

What about if a city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Why destroy everyone in the city if you could save them, even if it takes a long long time to achieve it. It's like the Sodom and Gomorrah biblical fables. Those dimwitted angels and the dimwitted god that sent them caused the death of everyone in both cities, when all they had to do was appear, demonstrate their power, educate those who did not understand the folly of their ways and they could have improved the lives of everyone in both cities and perhaps their progeny would have been very nice people. — universeness

Well it wouldn't be destroying the city, it would be not building the city in the first place.

Even if you think it's okay to build the city, surely you can understand people thinking it shouldn't be built?

I watched about 6 mins of it then had enough. This is always the problem, extreme viewpoints like antinatalism, attracts some seriously disturbed individuals. These creatures are not like any of the people I have clashed with on this thread I assume but they should watch it and understand the cautionary message it suggests. Hopefully the American authorities are keeping tabs on them otherwise I am sure they will appear on CNN in the future having committed some heinous act that they attempt to justify using some variety of the relatively harmless antinatalist reasoning typed on this thread. — universeness

The woman in the video is arguing for efilism to dominate antinatalism and be the "last act standing". This is the difference between not building the city and destroying the city.

I do accept the slippery slope point about antinatalist belief, however this does not answer the question of whether it is moral to build such a city. I know both @schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying.

If Barticks is a socialist who supports UBI then I would call him a brother in that sense. I would still argue with him until the universe ends that his support of antinatalism is misguided.
I have probably argued with more socialist brothers on many many issues that I have argued with capitalists or theists. Socialists/humanists must argue with each other as they care about getting things correct. Capitalists just care about themselves and those they care about. They all agree on one main policy. 'Lets make as much money as we can out of the majority by any means possible!' and theists just scapegoat their god and take no responsibility for anything. — universeness

Comrade @Bartricks indeed.

Yes you can expect to get more sense from the socialist, so it's actually worth arguing. My lefty politics are what I'm passionate about, but I do sympathise with anti-natalism.

Interesting question.

As humans we want for our love to be returned. I imagine that it would completely ruin the relationship.

The city scenario you gave and the ratio you gave of sufferers to inhabitants would be two situations I would be compelled to fight against and alleviate. — universeness

Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place?

Some antinatalists are our socialist brothers. @Bartricks is in support of a Universal Basic Income.

I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. I am not sure if my opinion would become a numbers game with a cut-off point if reliable evidence was presented that the ratio of happy lives against horrible lives was 1:1000000 or such like then the ground beneath my position might well quake severely. — universeness

This doesn't feel right to me.

What about if a city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery.

Even further to finding this acceptable, your position suggests that even if there were more suffering children than inhabitants of the city, you could find that acceptable too?

Yes, and what about eastern ideas? They're good. — Bartricks

Are they? How does anyone know anything?

I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange. — universeness

See, I said recent discussion, but I'm well late to the party.

Jordan Peterson gets so much respect that I thought I was missing something, and pushed myself to watch more of his stuff. Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness.

Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book. — Enrique

Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations?

There's as much evidence that all of this is real, as there is that it is an illusion.

Ah so it's not just me! It was like I was reading a book in another language :lol:

I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so?

Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch.



Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it.

I like the idea of no force threatened against peaceful people, but it doesn't feel right in this context.

Tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths v making the rich pay a little bit more.

Obviously those in poverty aren't being helped by other means. Do you have any suggestions?

I agree with you that government is worse than the rich. However, don't you accept that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people dying from poverty? Don't you think a small increase in taxes for the likes of Zuckerberg, Koch, and Musk, would fix this? Don't you think this is the right thing to do?

Bernie Sanders... I'm not American though.

Pre-Corbyn I used to vote Labour unpassionately so that things could be slightly better. Corbyn gave me hope that things could be significantly better.

You talk about Boris's determination in withstanding the storm, but it is nothing compared to what Corbyn went through. Almost half a decade of his own MPs shouting him down from the benches behind him, shouting him down in the party's meetings (saying they were trying to "break him as a man", launched legal challenges etc to stop him being on the ballot in the leadership challenge that they launched against him, going on the media trashing him, and all the "left wing" newspapers such as the Guardian and the Mirror attacking him and asking for him to resign. And he fought through all of this until the public overwhelmingly rejected him.

I honestly don't believe there are any credible theories in existence explaining phenomenon of consciousness. The science is completely in the dark in this area as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong). — enqramot

The trouble is, how do you prove the subject has experiences? I think it likely we will never be able to do a test to tell us what consciousness is.

I am inclined to think that consciousness is a natural result of complexity. If that's the case, an exact emulation may have to be conscious too. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I heard this theory, but I must admit it doesn't really make any sense to me, tbh. I just can't see how increasing complexity can lead to anything other than just more complexity. — enqramot

It is hard to believe, but this theory must be judged in comparison to the other theories of consciousness.

What theories of consciousness are more plausible?

I am inclined to think that consciousness is a natural result of complexity. If that's the case, an exact emulation may have to be conscious too.

Immigration has got to be the biggest issue for working class Brits.

However, even if Labour takes a stand against immigration, losing much of their left wing vote, the Tories would just increase their stand. It's an issue that will always be to Labour's detriment?

Hopefully some of your optimism rubs off on me :grimace:

Someone was telling me the other day that things would improve, as we have only had the internet for a few decades, and as more of the population have it, the more they will see how bad things are for a lot of people and vote for change. My response was that practically everyone in Britain already has access to the internet, they know what's going on, and they blame those in poverty for poor life choices.

In the US we have primaries within the party. Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton. — Jackson

I've heard the word delegates used. The delegates vote on behalf of the ordinary members of the party?

What does "presented to the electorate" mean? — Jackson

That they are an option for the country to vote on.

I don't know a lot about American politics. Bernie may have been rejected as the candidate by a vote of his party.

The rail strike going on in England right now is a bright-spot, and the union leader Mick Lynch has been absolutely murdering the corporate media who have been trying to play 'gotcyha' games with him all day. — Streetlight

Yeah. Really hoping that his zeal might win back some of the support from the working class lost to the Tories from Labour's recent wet-blanket routine. — Isaac

I think the government and red-wall Tories would dread a General Election with Mick as leader of the opposition, but with the largely centrist Labour MPs as the gatekeeps, I don't have much hope for anything like that. Labour seem to think you can only win from the centre, and so offer no policies and sit on the fence on everything. Tony Blair is their prime example with his landslide wins after 18 years of Tory rule, and before 12 years of Tory rule (and counting).

Yes an order of events without a time associated with it.

Such as the infinite series of big bangs proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. One bang gives rise to the next, but outside of time.

• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
• processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation) — jorndoe

You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it.

I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I guess sentient is implicit...? — jorndoe

Yes, I think god/s in any meaningful sense would have to be sentient. Otherwise we are just talking about the universe.

(barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking) — jorndoe

How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation?

If you're trying to turn this pool into average % that's a clear bias because the result will be positive regardless of how many people vote for 0% — SpaceDweller

Yes, the poll is just to see how people assign probability.

All but a couple of respondents have a solid belief as to the existence/non-existence of god/s.



Gotcha. I'm not sure how professional pollsters deal with those that would prefer a particular option being more/less likely to respond to the survey.

Results suggest the opposite? :grimace:

That seems about right to me.

When considering philosophical arguments for and against god it may nudge us a further 10% or so, one way or the other?

That's not what you said in your previous post. — L'éléphant

the extent to which something is likely to be true or false etc. — Down The Rabbit Hole

the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Almost word for word. What are you picking a fight for?

probability (noun) · probabilities (plural noun)
the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case.

Sorry, but I think such speculations are ridiculous. — jgill

Surely there could be arguments for and against god/s that adjust the likelihood we should put on their existence?

First try to understand what a probability is. — L'éléphant

Probability is the extent to which something is likely to be true or false etc. We can do a rough calculation of this.

Define god/s. — 180 Proof

I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe.

Vegan food is nice; try vegan Donner kebab. — Varde

Oumph donner kebab is my favourite here in the UK :yum: . Vivera do nice kebabs too.

Empathy works by putting yourself in the others place. Since it’s near impossible to put oneself as how a chicken might feel, we can only use vague imaginative attempts. So seeing what certain animals go through before they are killed can lead one to empathize that the methods of treatment are harmful and thus wrong. — schopenhauer1

Makes sense not to increase demand for bringing sentient beings into a life of suffering, doesn't it?

Also the legality of a gun is relatively irrelevant. For example: I am currently at work and here it is 1 am. Gun stores are closed, so legally purchasing a gun is not currently possible, from a store. I could still likely get one in a few hours, legally, by looking online for a private sale. Legally they would take my license number down and I would sign a bill of sale for the gun and away I go with my gun. Chances are, at this time of day, an eyebrow or two might be raised, however I could probably explain that away as being a shift worker and this is the best time for me to buy anything, gun or otherwise. However, If I elect to go illegal, I could likely find something in under 2 hours, complete with a reasonable amount of ammunition. They would not ask for my license, or name, and I would not ask for theirs. It would be a cash exchange and relatively untraceable. All things considered, the illegal transaction is slightly more annoying as I have no local contacts for illegal weapons, but otherwise, nothing very exciting. Much like buying anything else; you like it, you buy it, if not, see what else is available, or walk away. The point is, if you want something; guns, drugs, whatever, you usually don't have to look very hard for it. Just have money and start looking, it will come to you. — Book273

I think this goes to what @Bitter Crank was saying, that there are so many guns in the USA now that even if they were outlawed there would be no real effect in the near future. Compared to the UK where almost nobody can get hold of a gun.