Hasn't it? I don't think NATO has attacked Russia at any point. — ssu

Who actually fires the first bullet has only symbolic value. When a party makes it clear it wants to destroy the other, it's irrelevant who actually started shooting.

Well yes the only thing Christians despise more than themselves are people who do not despise themselves. — Streetlight

No, I've never met a Christian who would actually despise himself or herself. On the contrary, they are enormously self-confident, self-assured, consider themselves superior to everyone else.

Holism, Mental and Semantic
https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.html

I mean have you ever met people with more self-contempt than Christians in general? They literally made a religion out of it. — Streetlight

Does this look like self-contempt to you?
It doesn't to me.

They overturned it because they are a bunch of Christofascists who hate women. — Streetlight

But Christian women go along with it.

There was a feature on the news where a Republican politician said the overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a big victory for life (or words to that effect). He and the other men there were smiling, while the one woman who was also there, did not.

A good Christian woman must make herself sexually available to her boyfriend or husband at all times, whenever he wants. She must only get pregnant when he wants to have children, otherwise, she must "take care" of the unwanted pregnancy. Such are the unspoken rules of engagement in Christian culture.

Christian women have so far relied on the secular society for contraceptives and abortions, so as to be able to live the Christian lifestyle (or at least, keep up the appearance of it). But what are they going to do now?

Procreation. I have about 10 billion examples.

As I said earlier. If your moral system concludes that almost every human being ever is morally wrong and that the entire human race cannot morally continue to exist, it is far more likely that your moral system is wrong than it is the entire human race for the last 400,000 years is wrong. It takes a monumental, messianic ego to assume you're right in the face of every other human being ever. Hence why your case is so fascinating. — Isaac

Make that potentially about 20 billion examples.

You're ignoring that sexuality and procreation have been by far the most regulated social activities in human society throughout history.

If procreation would truly be "just fine" and as moral as you suggest, then people wouldn't widely practice contraception, abortion, infanticide, wouldn't regulate the status of unwed mothers and their children, there would be no eugenics, no notion of incest, no sex education. Instead, people would just go forth, be fruitful, and multiply, at whatever age, socioeconomic status, with or without consent.

You underestimate how complex human procreation is, and also underestimate how complex people's views of procreation are (contianing mutually exclusive premises).

It takes a monumental, messianic ego to assume you're right in the face of every other human being ever.

Oh, come on, that's not empirically true.

Secondly, it's not the OP's argument that is strange. The OP is actually simply taking a few premises that are non-controversial in our society and follows them through to their logical conclusions.
The problem isn't with the OP, it's with the Western point of view.

But other people do the same kind of thing. Epistemologically, it's not even clear it's possible to do something else.
— baker

It's fairly straightforward... — Isaac

People are typically epistemic autoritarians. From the lowest plebeian to a philosopher with several advanced degrees, epistemic authoritarianism: "Things are the way I see them, and everyone who thinks differently is wrong, bad, evil, mentally deranged, or lying."

Although the "the way I see it" element is questionable. People generally don't seem to think they are looking at things from their perspective, their viewpoint, but are, instead, "seeing things as they really are".

The OP might be a bit more in-your-face, but he's no different than most posters here when it comes to being dead sure of one's position.

Western culture is "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"??
— baker

It's up to you to tell me what on earth you mean by 'western culture' or why it's relevant to anything I have argued. — Bartricks

It's relevant because your argument is deductively valid only in a specific context, ie. that of Western culture (where people don't believe in (serial) reincarnation or rebirth).

But philosophy is the practice of using reason to find out what's true, yes?

That's an ongoing debate.

And then there's just making stuff up or believing something because there's a tradition of believing it. That's not philosophy. It is what it is.

You're part of the tradition that believes there is no (serial) reincarnation or rebirth.
You say you're the one using reason. The Asians say they're the ones using reason.
Hm.

Now, I assume that when someone starts talking about 'other traditions of thought' or 'other cultural traditions' what they mean is "but what about those who do not use reason to figure out what's true and instead just make stuff up or insist that certain views are true because that's just what people believe in this or that neck of the woods". Well, my answer is those folk are not doing philosophy. It's like giving me your recipe for banana cake. It's not relevant to anything I have argued.

If you're so sure of yourself, then why start this thread?

The implicit one, "People are born innocent".
— baker

That wasn't an implicit premise. It was explicit.

No, you didn't formulate it like that.

Do you dispute it? On what basis?

On the basis that it's culturally specific.

And create a million others
— baker

Scientists have certainly been involved in biological and chemical warfare but it would be rather dumb to create a virus that can kill as many of your own people as it will the enemy, unless you have a cure. I think what you are suggesting belongs more to unlikely conspiracy theories than reality. Also, people should be a little more accurate in their use of quantities. There is an old 'jokey' response; "for the millionth time! Stop exaggerating!." — universeness

Keep to the text.

Did science not eradicate the harm of smallpox to use a simple example.
— universeness

And create a million others. — baker

"The harm" is the center of your phrase, and to this one I replied. As in, "Science created a million other harms." For example, all the polution we're facing nowadays is the result of science.

They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight.
— baker
Well, you are engaging in a great deal of generalisation in such typing. I am capable of such myself but I think it's important to recognise when you are using such a big cumbersome brush to try to paint details.

Again, keep to the text:

Of course, given that many people have relatively low aspirations in life, the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is unintelligible to them. They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight. — baker

The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life.

I believe however that women must be masters of their own body. The state cannot FORCE a women to maintain a pregnancy.

Women cannot even be the masters of the noun for them!
The state should FORCE people to use the noun "woman" correctly, correctly distinguishing between the singular and the plural form.
It adds insult to injury not to use the noun "woman" correctly in a discussion of a topic that is of great importance to women.

think you should not bring children into this overpopulated world unless you can tick a large list of requirements first.

I think my list is longer than yours.

The rational reply would be deterrence, to have the capability of defending your country from an attack from this threat. And then continue to be at peace, because your deterrence keeps that someone from attacking you.

I guess the country with largest nuclear arsenal in the World can pretty much do that. — ssu

You seem to think it isn't trying to do that?

It certainly hasn't worked until February this year. Make no mistake, I have no doubt that the West will win this. Hatred and contempt are stronger than justice, stronger than goodwill.

Absolutely -- waiting-for-death is not a suitable approach for people who are not old yet -- whatever one thinks of as "old" for themselves. My approach isn't "resignation from the game" altogether, because I, of course, don't know how long I may live yet. I still "engage". — Bitter Crank

Of course you still engage, but you can do it with a lightness (for the lack of a better word) that people who are still in the rat race can't.

Do you give credence to the concept of soul? — ucarr

No.

Do you discover what's extant by determining what cannot be eliminated?

In some cases, yes. Selfhood is one such example.

Did science not eradicate the harm of smallpox to use a simple example. — universeness

And create a million others.

No, it's precisely because I know I can't be that kind of parent that I don't feel qualified to have children
— baker
If you feel you fall short in these aspects yourself does that mean everyone does?

I think that the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is stronger than the one usually presented by antinatalists (about various prospective harms awaiting prospective people).

Of course, given that many people have relatively low aspirations in life, the argument from the prospective parent's lack of existential qualification is unintelligible to them. They'll simply dismiss a young person with existential concerns as mentally ill, rather than question their own scope of existential insight.

If not then do you think it's justified that antinatalists would prevent the birth of people such as Albert Einstein as well as people like Ted Bundy?

But they're not actually preventing anyone. Antinatalists are a small, powerless bunch. It's the normal people who believe that procreation is "just fine" and who abort a half of all pregnancies that are actually preventing others, literally.

Do you associate the antinatalist viewpoint with any measure of human cowardice?

Not in the existential sense, but in the worldly sense, yes.

There's nothing to teach. — Harry Hindu

It's not like we're at a philosophy discussion forum, Deepak.

What is the rational reply to someone hating and despising you (for decades) and preparing to attack you with military force?

Do you align yourself with any position on the political spectrum ranging from radical to ultra conservative? — ucarr

No.

Of what does the self consist?

That's what I've been asking you, since you're the one who brought it up.

I'm saying what the self can't possibly be. A triangle cannot be a circle. Identity is something which, by definition, has to be stable, permanent, or it isn't identity.

I'm questioning your equating your personal intuitions with universal ones. Not the use of intuitions tout court. To claim something is immoral, you need to show that others too have the intuition you have (or that they ought to have it). You've done neither.

There is a very significant difference between recognising that all we have to go on are things 'seeming to us to be the case' and assuming, as you do here, that simply by virtue of something's seeming to you to be the case it is, in fact, the case. — Isaac

The argument presented in the OP assumes moral intuition, hence ad populum arguments are all there is. Otherwise we just have the ridiculously messianic claim that whatever@Bartricks feels is moral, is, in fact, moral.

(which is, incidentally, where this thread will end up as Bartricks's threads always do - with the delusional claim that whatever he happens to feel is the case is, in fact, the case) — Isaac

But other people do the same kind of thing. Epistemologically, it's not even clear it's possible to do something else. An argument can be sound only in a particular context, given particular axioms, but not outside of that; whereby the choice of context is not a given, not universal.


Then, like you said elsewhere:

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more?
— baker

Yeah, possibly. I prefer more aesthetic grounds, but I don't know that there's much to choose between decision-making methods. Ones I like are - coherence (with other narratives), aesthetic value (usually inspired by childhood stories, to be honest), a preference for simplicity, a favouring of what I think are more 'natural' approaches... But those are just ways that seem to suit me, I couldn't raise an argument in favour of any of them, except I suppose coherence does make one's life easier to navigate, but then again many people seem to live with extremely clashing beliefs and come to no harm by it so... — Isaac

Children deserve a good life, free from harms but no-one is under any obligation to give it them so procreation is fine. — Isaac

This is Pharisaic. It follows logically, but it goes against the spirit of love for children.

On what ground can you justify arguing otherwise? — creativesoul

The Theory of Evolution, survival of the fittest. It's all the rage, we're all supposed to believe it, yet somehow, be very selective about thinking it through to its logical conclusions.

You didn't explicitly answer my question.

"Are you God?"

Pffft. Fucking morons around here.

Oh, the love is just oozing.

Okay. We all know people can change, however, you view self as tilting towards stability & permanence. — ucarr

The things that change about a person are not the self. The skin is not the self, the muscles, the skeleton, the body fat are not the self, the name is not the self, the clothes are not the self, the ideas the person entertains are not the self, the money the person posesses is not the self, etc. etc.

Is it correct to characterize you as being conservative?

The people who consider themselves conservatives typically do not consider me conservative.

What are you on about? The 'west' is not a worldview, it's just the practice of using reason to find out what's true, as opposed to making shit up or believing something because one's ancestors believed it. — Bartricks

Western culture is "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"??

Shall we look at a rap video with twerking females, as example of "just the practice of using reason to find out what's true"?

And it's not geographical. And arguments don't go from being sound to unsound from region to region. I mean, you can't seriously think that if you get on a plane arguments that were sound when you took off will be unsound depending on where you land?

Duh.

Now, which premise in my deductively valid argument do you dispute?

The implicit one, "People are born innocent".

Of course. How else do you think I have my opinion on the matter?

How we respond to a perception of lack etc? — skyblack

Who is "we"? Hence, it seems you're after a universally applicable explanation of gratitude that will hold for every person, regardless of said person's specifics.

The more educated society, the less of an effect. — enqramot

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now.
— baker

But maybe less of a prey to choose from? Stronger resistance? — enqramot

No. Just more educated villains.

When self-help books titled to the effect of "The art of not giving a fuck" or "First take care of your own ass" get to be praised by many people as giving sound advice, you know what time it is.

He didn't talk much about virtue. His focus was on love and forgiveness. — Tate

You mean hatred and contempt?

I'd urge the Putin and company, the attacker, to quit bombing :fire: and send the troops home now. — jorndoe

While the West continues to hate and despise Russia, as it has always done?

Those who present contempt and hatred as good things, as virtues, should not be surprised by the consequences of what they teach.

Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c. — ucarr

By not regarding as self that which is subject to change.

Science can help you with all three of those? — universeness

No.

If not you then your kids or their kids but if there are no more kids then the human adventure dies along with the suffer/learn why/ prevent the suffering process, due to the whims of spoilsport antinatalists.

I really don't think this is something to fear.

Yeah, I can appreciate that but you might have been the father of the one.

No, it's precisely because I know I can't be that kind of parent that I don't feel qualified to have children.
Not having a definitive solution to the problem of suffering is even worse than not being able to feed and clothe the child.

Procreating creates an innocent person. And an innocent person deserves a harm-free happy life. That's not something you can give them. So you've done wrong - a great wrong - if you create that person. — Bartricks

This view is limited strictly to some particular Western worldviews, namely, mainstream Abrahamic religions and secularism.

The vast majority of the human population, however, believe in some kind of serial reincarnation or rebirth; a view in which it takes the will and actions of at least three entities to synchronize in order for conception to occur (namely, the prospective mother, the prospective father, and the prospective child; and in the theistic variant, the will of God). In Dharmic religions, they do not believe that a newborn child is innocent; rather, that a person has a "karmic debt", and this is why they are (re)born to begin with.

IOW, for a traditionalist Asian person, your argument would be unsound. Just pointing out the limited applicability of your argument.

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

This is so cold.

It's understandable that you might feel this way about some stranger or their children. But to feel this way about your own (prospective) children??

It clearly isn't moral intuition - people disagree with you, so it can't be intuitive, can it. — Isaac

A fallacious ad populum.

People have children all the time and virtually no one judges it to be moral problem

Empirically not true. From eugenics to some people regretting that they had children to antinatalists, some people do judge procreation as a moral problem.

Unless you're reaching for some magical, or supernatural source of moral rules, you've got nothing to go on to judge intuition other than how people actually behave.

People's behavior can reflect their intution, or not. So your point is moot.

The issue at hand is, actually, who or what is the authority in these matters.

If you make the most basic behaviour of humans immoral, it's your judgement of moral intuition that's wrong, not humanity.

Another fallacious ad populum.

People do not see the harms of life as being significant enough to meet the threshold of "characterized by intense suffering" that would be required to initiate this 'wrong-maker'. — Isaac

Clearly, some people do see it that way, at least some antinatalists do.

So the argument that we have a duty to avoid harm befalling innocents cannot be derived from the intuition that innocents do not deserve harm. They don't deserve harm, but they don't deserve non-harm either. — Isaac

It's best framed as an ideological stance.

Every day, many Buddhists chant this sutta:

Think: Happy, at rest,
may all beings be happy at heart.
Whatever beings there may be,
weak or strong, without exception,
long, large,
middling, short,
subtle, blatant,
seen & unseen,
near & far,
born & seeking birth:
May all beings be happy at heart.

Let no one deceive another
or despise anyone anywhere,
or through anger or irritation
wish for another to suffer.

As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
cultivate a limitless heart:
Above, below, & all around,
unobstructed, without enmity or hate.
Whether standing, walking,
sitting, or lying down,
as long as one is alert,
one should be resolved on this mindfulness.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html

What is more compelling: One's nightmare experiences in childhood and adolescence that led one to decide to not parent a child, or a logical argument? — Bitter Crank

Depends on the person or the topic.

There are many things one doesn't need to experience for oneself in order to know one doesn't want to experience them and to instead take preventative action against them.

Never look at yourself, huh.

My child would be my flesh and blood, mine, and of course I wish to have no harm come to him, so I would do everything to prevent any such harm, including not conceiving the child at all.
— baker

Interesting that you have already chosen a gender for your imagined child and suggested a singular ownership rather than joint ownership with your imagined partner in procreation. — universeness

It's no good being female in this world; and men cannot be relied on.

Can you give a clear idea of exactly which harms you might be unable to protect your imagined child against?

Illness, old age, disease.
Not being able to satisfactorily answer his existential questions.

Are you ok with, accidental bumps/bruises/scratches/throwing up/nappies containing something akin to nuclear waste?

Sure.

would you also not have a child because it might become a drunk or a junkie or even worse, a UK tory or a US Republican later in life?

Are you concerned your imagined child might become a serial killer or be the antichrist?

No.

What actual list of harms/learning opportunities do you want guarantees against?

Growing up, I had existential questions that the adults refused to answer, or gave useless, or worse answers to.
Such as, "When you'll get older, you'll become numb, and then life will be much easier."

Early on, I swore I would rather not have a child at all than to give him such answers.

Good points.

The more educated society, the less of an effect. — enqramot

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now.

I agree with you about disaffected working folk - there should be a way to reactivate a Reformist Left (as opposed to a Cultural Left, which may be seen more as a product of elites and latte sipping hypocrites).

When I speak with working people I often hear that for them much of what passes for the Left hates and mocks them because the left is about elitism (education) and cultural issues they don't relate to and is palpably snooty about working people and the suburban life. I can see why they say that. 'The Right' has an opportunity to say - hey, we're not elitists, we don't dig modern culture much either, we just want all people to live the dream and make money for their family and be left alone by academic wankers and interfering governments. This can be seductive. — Tom Storm

The right-wingers have a plebeian mentality, regardless of their education status and wealth.

I agree with both your answers, but the question seeks a deeper answer; why do they want to overthrow the Government, what motivates their participation in a "culture war". — Janus

They probably don't see it that way, but more in terms "so that the truth may prevail".

this taste for revolution is coming, it seems, from the disaffected working class; those who you would expect to be more aligned with the left.

No, I think the disaffected working class align themselves with right-wingers, because their focus is on material wealth, it's that plebeian mentality.

So, Trump seems to have played on this disaffection and duped people into thinking he is all for the worker, the 'every woman and man'.

I don't see it that way. People are eager for wealth, so they look up to the wealthy; but only to those wealthy they can already relate to, ie. those with a plebeian mentality, ie. the right-wingers.

Could explain the behavior. NOTHING excuses the inaction!!! — creativesoul

Are you God?
Else, on what grounds can you fret about what they do or don't do?

If you look at the core teachings of Jesus, you have things such as
Love God.
Love your neighbor and enemies.
Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Forgive others who have wronged you.
Don’t judge others.
Now these things may not resonate with you, but these teachings appeal to many people even outside of Christianity. — Paulm12

Show me someone to whom those teachings "appeal", and I'll show you someone who expects, even demands, that _other_ people should behave in line with those teachings, while they themselves absolutely abhor being expected tobehave that way.

For most people, morality is all about how _other_ people should behave.

Furthermore, there are many parallels to Jesus's teachings and the teachings of Buddha

If I had more time, I'd take you up on this.

When I say Christianity speaks to the human experience, I mean that whenever people appeal to a "common humanity," they are usually doing so under the influence of Christianity, especially in western society.

That's a claim that esp. Christians and those Christianity-adjacent people like to make, but a study of cultural history suggests otherwise. (As has been already addressed in this thread.)

Either way, the fact that these ideas are still around are either a testament to the influence of Christianity or a testament to how Jesus's insight/the teachings of Jesus do resonate with many, perhaps most, people on a fundamental level.

Jesus brought the sword. Yeah, that really resonates with many many people, on a fundamental level.

Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

Oh, does it? Or are people just thinking hard how they can capitalise on the backwardness of others?