Okay, so we can gain common ground here at least that we can recognize future states of people who will be born and compare that to not having future people. — schopenhauer1

No.

But this is fundamentally different from saying this "non-existent" child is better off never having been born because when we talk that way, it is neither a child nor a person nor capable of having any properties, because it is nothing. — Benkei

Yes, but again, I don't think these are mutually exclusive. You can try to improve circumstances while at the same time recognizing that the conditions of life are not something to impose on the person that will be born. — schopenhauer1

Again. I'm not imposing anything unless I know there are particular circumstances that will cause harm. Since living in and of itself does not cause suffering I have no obligation to avoid every life (only specific ones).

Generally, this refers to a view of society that is comprised of individuals meeting each other on a level playing field with no previous obligations, and where the goal of social interaction is ultimately to restore that state of no obligations.

It's called "transactional" because it treats all human interactions as market transactions between strangers. For historical reasons, this view of society underpins the idea of rights and freedoms which traces back to classical liberalism. It also lends itself to a moral philosophy which is fundamentally based around what you should not do, where positive moral duties are exceptions that arise if you have in some sense an outstanding debt. Hence again this is a transactional view where moral subjects have no standing connections to each other, and any interaction is concluded with reinstating that status quo. — Echarmion

Better than I could've said it. Thanks.

The alternative would be either I must not help them (which we can agree is ridiculous) or I must help them. But if we look at other scenarios such as charity or volunteer work, we don't feel morally obligated to do those do we? Or are you saying charity and volunteering are also obligatory and if so, how much must one donate to who? — khaled

I don't see how it follows that if I say that if you can save someone's life that you must therefore do it, that you must therefore also give to charity and do volunteer work. I think not saving a person who's drowning would make you a bad person and therefore you should do it, not because you owe him but because it's the right thing to do. While it's laudable to give to charity or to help others through volunteer work and you'd be a better person for it, it doesn't follow that if you don't you'd be a bad person.

I agree but am not sure how to understand "owing someone" as a basis to accept a moral duty. I have moral duties because I want to be a type of person. They're self-imposed most of the time.

I'm saying I don't have to. That I don't owe them anything — khaled

Sorry, I misread. You would help them but don't think you should. I still think that's a transactional interpretation of morality though.

I believe this to be the crux of your argument. I believe I answered these when I said that your idea here seems to indicate that if a baby was born into torture, then it would not be a legitimate move to prevent that birth for the sake of the future child. Its the same with impositions. You don't need someone born at x time present, for y time future to make a difference for a person that will be born. — schopenhauer1

You're not reading what I write.

We cannot imagine a person's suffering "as if" they don't exist because that is to assign properties to "nothing" (it's akin to saying something exists that doesn't exist, which is a contradiction). We can imagine a person's suffering "as if" they do exist. And if they would be born into a situation of abject poverty, where the good does not outweigh their suffering or because of a biological defect that cannot be treated, we understand that "poverty" or that "defect" would cause unacceptable suffering and we should not have a child under those circumstances. What we are comparing then is a possibility of existence with other examples of possible lives lived and we find that possibility unacceptable. But this is fundamentally different from saying this "non-existent" child is better off never having been born because when we talk that way, it is neither a child nor a person nor capable of having any properties, because it is nothing. — Benkei

This is clear about not having babies under specific circumstances.

However, now that we know that these circumstances are not intrinsic to life, it follows that we have some measure of control over them. We imagine that poorer people are unhappier, so we alleviate poverty. We imagine disease causes suffering, we treat diseases. Even if unhappy persons currently outnumber happy persons, it appears to me that we can control for circumstances to maximise happy persons over unhappy persons. It is, after all, not a lottery when we choose to have a child. See also Nordic exceptionalism with respect to happiness. — Benkei

This is clear that the point is to improve circumstances.

All the arguments basically boil down to - no-one should be able to impose anything at all on me, I owe no-one anything etc. The basic individualism which drives modern capitalism. — Isaac

That's something I noticed in @khaled's reasons not to help someone too. That morality is somehow transactional, something I must owe someone else. It's an interesting divide that I don't think can actually be bridged.

I would. — khaled

Give me an example to understand this one. Someone is drowning and you can save them. Under which circumstances wouldn't you?

I don't think a demerger will really solve anything either but it's a start of politicians realising the problems these companies are creating.

Have you heard of the information apocalypse?

Google, alibaba, weibo, they all need to die as far as I'm concerned. Or at least the targeted ads and mass use of personal data need to go. Death to the bubble!

After a recount? Anyhow, the consistent thing seems to be condemning them both?

Fucking finally: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization

You do not have a duty to help people, but you do have a duty not to harm them. — khaled

I have to disagree on both counts. If someone is drowning - and since I'm an expert swimmer - I should safe them. I doubt anyone would deny this moral duty. Similarly, I might have to harm someone to protect either them or others from something worse. Harming a criminal in the act is perfectly fine. Jabbing a vaccine needle in a child is morally right.

But this is of course not your point. The point here is whether you're treating the child as a means to an end by accepting his suffering for a greater good and whether that's ok. I'd say, it depends. Have you played The Last of Us?

If you're going to treat a potential existence as a moral subject — Echarmion

Please just don't. It hurts my brain.

Rather, one that is closer to my stance is that it is wrong to force unnecessary impositions on people. Recently, I have been using the term "dealing with" situations (I'll just call DWS for short since I'll probably bring it up a lot). To force someone absolutely into DWS, is wrong to do. Absolutely here is defined as not needing to experience a DWS instrumentally to get a more desired state, but simply put people in DWS unnecessarily and by force. — schopenhauer1

You'll just get stuck on the causality issue any way so it doesn't matter how you formulate it. The main point of the metaphysical part is that we need to be sure we are comparing something with something and not nothing with something, to avoid the contradiction that something exists that doesn't exist, etc.

There's also some issues with the loaded language of "force" and "impositions" which are assumptions but since it doesn't matter for the end result I'll leave that as it is.

The easiest way is to simply say that until all causal chains of suffering are worked out, it is not worth risking that suffering onto someone else. If we knew the world was a utopia without suffering, then we are in the clear. Otherwise, as you point out, we don't know every avenue of the causal chain, so precisely the reason to not impose the causes onto someone else. One need not know which cause to know that all causes are not resolved. Even if we are to weight some causes as "not as bad as others", there are some really bad causes out there that are indeed bad. — schopenhauer1

We don't need to know the avenue of all causal chains because it's obvious that living is not a sufficient condition. Just being alive doesn't cause suffering. If your point is it does, then suffering is intrinsic to life
and therefore an ethical moot point because living doesn't cause suffering if it's intrinsic. We should be dealing with the proximate and sufficient conditions for suffering to resolve it.

However, that's not even a main argument. My main argument against this reasoning is in regards to the idea that suffering is unique. While I agree, each instance of a particular brand of suffering is suffered individually by humans, certainly there are categories that can be distilled down that are well known sources of suffering. Further, I do agree with philosopher's like Schopenhauer that life isn't just instances of contingent harms (that is to say situational, probabilistic, contextual, etc.) but rather there are necessary forms of suffering as well. Necessary here meaning, sort of "baked into life". These baked in forms of sufferings are overlooked for the more immediate (I'd characterize as Western) ideas of suffering (physical torture, hunger, disasters, disease, illness, emotional anguish, etc.). However, I do take seriously that we are imposed upon to "deal with" survival, finding comfort, and existence itself (overcoming one's own boredom). These are forms of suffering in the form of deprivation. There is always a lack of something to be overcome. Now add the usual (Western) forms of contingent harm that we must deal with and overcome and the bigger picture of an existence of both necessary and contingent harms comes into focus. All of these are DWS imposed upon the person born. — schopenhauer1

I find philosophical pessimism totally irrelevant to this discussion as pointed out before. If suffering is intrinsic to life than living doesn't cause suffering. It reveals a misunderstanding of what causality is.

As far as the first part, one of the main reasons antinatalists are against birth is the idea that there is no possible consent, so this is an important part of most antinatalist claims. Certainly if consent is a factor for birth, it is also a factor for death. — schopenhauer1

I don't ask for consent of animals to breed them, to kill them or to eat them. Ethically totally fine. Yet the idea of killing every animal on the face of the earth seems to be an issue.

Now, as far as your idea bout no moral actors, this I find not a good argument. There's two ways to address this.. — schopenhauer1

Probably because you misunderstood the point.

1) Let's say it is almost 100% certain a baby that would be born would get tortured. Your reasoning would conclude, "Well, the baby would have to be born in order for there to be a person in the world to be tortured, so considerations of the baby being born don't matter until they are born". Clearly, that is faulty reasoning to say that the baby needs to be born so that torture exists so that we can say torture should not exist. — schopenhauer1

Quite obvious this is not what I said nor does it follow from what I said.

2) No suffering in the world means no people who suffer, nor people deprived of happiness. The instant a person is put into the world, the antinatalist position becomes valid. You do not need people to exist in order to recognize that the "good" of not existing is taking place. All you need is the fact that if someone does exist, the position becomes valid at that point. We can have millions of years of nothingness, and then this position would be sort of "activated". Once something exists where suffering would take place, then it becomes valid. — schopenhauer1

But your "no suffering the world means no people who suffer" actually means "nothing who suffer". You're just camouflaging bad metaphysics and bad language. Of course we need moral actors to exist. Without moral actors to experience "good" there is no good or bad. If we are in a position where we cannot ascribe propositions such as "people are suffering" or "people are not suffering" then the absence of suffering is not a moral good because it's not enjoyed by anyone.

I don't think the argument that living logically entails suffering is one anyone reasonably makes. — Hanover

These arguments usually don't start that way until you raise the issue of causality and then all of a sudden life equals suffering because no life is without suffering, etc. etc. So it does come up and I just highlight that the argument goes nowhere. Of course, there are more roads to Rome and more ways to skin a pig to reach the same point.

This doesn't do justice to distinguishing between happiness and pleasure and so we are left with suffering being the counter to happiness. This becomes more clear when you provide examples of how we ought to find the sources of suffering so that we can eliminate them so that we can increase happiness. If I suffer from hunger, I'm sure I will be happier if I am fed, but I don't know you've made any real progress toward making me happy in the holistic sense typically needed to truly declare me happy just because you tended to my needs.

What this means is that happiness is not alleviation of suffering and that suffering is not incompatible with happiness. In fact, considerable wisdom, growth, perspective, and gratitude arise from suffering, all of which are traits of someone who is happy. — Hanover

I don't disagree. I'm constraining myself to how antinatalist often argue their case to hopefully demonstrate that the philosophy is inconsistent and therefore wrong.

I see this as a stab at creating a formula for societal harmony, but I don't see it as eliminating suffering entirely. I also see this as only half the solution for creating societal harmony. The half you provide is that those who have more should be generous and giving. The other half of this would therefore be that those who have less should be humble and gracious. This societal harmony is achieved I would think only upon recognition that everyone is both of these halves. — Hanover

Good point. It's my priviliged upbringing and position that probably got the better of me here and as you know I'm devoid of humility and grace so at the same time I have no clue what you're talking about.

My point being that I don't see suffering as demonic, devoid of all light, joyless, and evil. I see suffering as a necessary component needed to fully achieving one's full potential. This obviously means that I'm placing an intrinsic goodness to life itself and its promotion and development. I'm not entirely sure you can avoid pessimism about life if you're not able to posit the intrinsic value of life. — Hanover

There's certainly a value to philosophical pessimism. I don't believe in progress as much as the next because of philosophical pessimism. I think we're all basically barbarians and that the relative peacefulness of Western societies is only a very thin veil of civilisation that is easily disturbed. I don't consider Holocausts or genocides unthinkable or as something that will never happen again. I don't believe we've fundamentally evolved morally speaking. In fact, I agree with most conservatives that there's a lot of "happiness" eroding due to social and technological pressures. I disagree with them how these should be dealt with. I think social media, deep fakes and the information apocalypse will make the world worse off by... a lot, and we've only seen the beginning with the latest (further) fragmentation of US society.

But I also see that getting a pandemic under control requires us all to work together and that nothing we do is done without the context of what came before and what exists as a society around us. Even this thread would never exist without a disagreeable anti-natalist. So in the end I believe in the Hegelian aufhebung, that we will find a way upward in these conflicting forces... it's just going to get messy.

I could be wrong and he's more of a self-destructive ideologue, but I've seen nothing to change my mind yet. — Baden

He's not personally affected by Brexit so there's nothing destructive about it. Blair is still around and making money despite giving support to the Iraqi war. It's just a job and since he's not there for the best interest of the country but because he craved power this will blow up. He doesn't care, like most Brexiteers.

That works as an answer.

I guess I don't disagree for the most part, but if the Democrats would win again, it would be with an incumbent on the ticket instead of Ms. identity politics on steroids (and even then it's a 50/50 thing). It's clear the party has learnt the wrong lessons from last time and they'll go on pretending like the problem is not with them which isn't a good sign for their future.

The only other way I can see the Dems winning again is if Trump somehow blows his party up in the next 4 years. It's crazy to say that that's not a total impossibility but that's where things have gone in America. — Mr Bee

I agree except that the GOP blowing up means the Democrats won't offer real policy changes because they won't have too. It's not something to look forward to if that happens as it will probably set back the progressive influence on the party for years, which has been gaining recently.

Yeah, we'll see them again in 12 to 20 years or so.

Depends on if Biden can even run by then. If not then the Democrats will most likely nominate Harris whose message is *checks notes* being the first Black, Asian American Female president. She'll probably have Buttigieg as her running mate as well, who will be the first gay VP if elected. I mean, Biden's cabinet was praised for it's diversity (despite being full of the same corporate goons) so it's very obvious that the party is all in on identity politics as their winning pitch for the foreseeable future. — Mr Bee

I meant I don't see the Democrats winning next time. They had the "not Trump" turn out now but that's gone next time. And the corporate shill spiel, I'm betting Americans are smarter than that and if not smarts then definitely they must feel something is off after the lost decade with terrorism wars and the first crisis and now a pandemic and another crisis where again the rich aren't bleeding like the next man. Two lost decades? They sense the inequality and the betrayal hence Trump last time.

Nothing to do with guts but long term political gain. The lie the election was stolen will cause high voter turn out for Republicans for years, whereas most democratic voters will relax once Trump is gone. I predict a 4 year presidency.

OK. I was afraid it was something as trivial as that. Breathing proves we're alive too. And everyone does it, so neither are a privilege but we all rather breathe freely than cough.

You're privileged when you have a right or some other benefit that most others don't.

Also the math is wrong: My mask ( that work makes me wear) is designed to stop over 95% of bacteria and pollen. Great. Bacteria are, on average 20 times greater diameter than the Coronavirus, so, mathematically, this is like using a volley ball net, set up appropriately for volley balls, to stop paint balls. To me this seems ridiculously ineffective. I am thinking the pain balls are gonna hit me anyway, so why bother with the net? — Book273

I suspect you're confusing masks as PEP and as a measure to protect others. It's not effective as PEP without additional PEP but it's quite obvious why healthcare staff wear a respiratory mask when, for instance, intubating or during surgery.

It stops droplets though, making it an obvious choice to limit risk for others.

It's not about you though. Read unenlightened post above.

Joe Biden gains votes in Wisconsin county after Trump-ordered recount.

:rofl:

The privilege of getting sick belongs to all living humans. Let's all be grateful. — Merkwurdichliebe

What does this even mean? Do you mean getting sick proves we're alive so hurray?

I love it when two people argue from their own perceived moral superiority. Makes for an entertaining read devoid of any arguments.

And that could well be what is meant, in which case the duties nature imposes on us become purely negative--we should not infringe on someone else's right to property, right to free speech, right to life, etc. — Ciceronianus the White

I'm not sure. It would be interesting to see when they first thought of negative and positive freedom. Eg. freedom from interference and actively creating choices to maximise freedom. In the latter we recognise there's a duty to save people from certain death, to create the circumstances that they can be the best person they can be, etc. That's not just respect for another's rights. We can imagine duties to exist without an underlying right to exist. That might be already in Aristotle his time as part of his idea of flourishing. Maybe @180 Proof knows more?

It certainly is part of collectivist philosophies but those are relatively young.

When covid is pretty much done for the US, then give it 3 to 6 months.

Your anecdotal evidence, unverifiable as it is, doesn't replace the fact that overall:

White students still make up almost three-quarters of all private external scholarship recipients in four-year bachelor’s programs, almost two-thirds of all institutional grants and scholarship recipients, and over three-quarters of all merit-based grants and scholarships, although white people only make up about 62 percent of the college student population and about half of all people under 19. White students are more likely than black, Latino, and Asian students to receive scholarships.

So despite affirmative action the US is still racist enough to not let that deter itself from promoting white people more easily than people of colour, meaning systemic racism, you know, the REAL kind, not the perceived slights you claim to have experienced - is very much alive and well.

Reads like hate mongering to me.

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/myth-of-reverse-racism/535689/

I noticed that your first topic on this forum invoked the responsibility to protect. — jamalrob

The responsibility to protect is also a program intended to give a framework for the UN, and the UN only, to approve the use of armed force. It's not a blueprint for countries to go at it alone.

That makes it hard to give head in the bedroom.

and those that didn't do much (perhaps the Netherlands). — ssu

Errr... No. This is the second black page in Dutch history together with its slave trade. We viciously shot Indonesians, who of course had no guns, when we first colonised it. Then we denied them independence by going to war against them from 1945 to 1949, which war to this day we still refer to as "the policing action".

And then there's the Boers...

Touchee. Lol.

The question is obviously asked to test a person's understanding of Nozick, so you should stick to the question.

Your reply is like saying, "you should use Einstein's relativity theory" when someone asks "what does a Newtonian description of celestial bodies look like?"

While very interesting, that actually doesn't answer the OP.

1) justice in acquisition - which is about the initial acquisition of holdings and how a person justly acquires rights to something previously unowned
2) justice in transfer - which covers how a person transfers these holding rights to someone else
3) the rectification of injustice in holdings- the principle of dealing with holdings that are unjustly acquired (rectification of violations of the other two principals). — Jasmine

I would say 3. Our concept of justice may evolve over time and as such would have to be rectified, which is the only venue open to amend existing injustices. The other two only ensure justice moving forward from the present.

What's their importance for the macro picture? — BitconnectCarlos

That's a bit vague. What sort of things are you wondering about?

What should newer investors know about either buying them or the bond market in general? — BitconnectCarlos

It's important to know the difference between the coupon rate (the interest being paid) which is always at least 0%, and yield, which is your actual rate of return, which can be negative. Although I'm not sure about the US, in the EU it's nearly impossible for retail clients to buy bonds in the primary market, whereas it's quite common to buy shares with an initial public offering of a company. So the primary market is opaque and ruled by large institutional players, although I'm sure the banks that underwrite do plenty of riskless-principle trades with affluent retail clients.

But the most interesting thing about bonds is that they can be collateralised, meaning some of the default risk can be recovered, improving the recovery rate and therefore potential losses. Especially poorer countries will offer collateral to get the coupon down and avoid paying too high interest. The interests are still decent usually and relatively safe when compared to corporates.

Also, check your local tax rules. The coupon or buying at a discount may trigger capital gains tax.

And in relation to that, you might consider a fixed income ETF instead which probably avoids the capital gains tax. But these are always actively managed, so relatively expensive when compared to other ETFs, because it needs to be rebalanced regularly when bonds mature.

I'm probably forgetting a thousand things.

Well, that's murky. I'm not sure where US capitalism begins and ends and EU capitalism does. So I don't think capitalism as such can be an imperialistic force. I do think companies, furthering interests of their home country abroad, can be an instrument for imperialism. Say, by threatening to move an important factory to a third country, to force reduced trade tariffs between that country and the home country.

Soft power is usually not included as far as I know. Mostly military capability or economic influence to direct policy in foreign territories.

You're claiming those Trump voters were thinking? What were they thinking?

I believe there are a lot of good, decent, sensible Republicans - but they've all migrated to the Democrat Party as refugees. — tim wood

I think the idea that 73 million people are too stupid to know what's good for them is precisely the kind of elitism why about 70 million people refuse to vote for the Democratic Party. — Benkei

It's hard to believe you do not know how an election works, even an American election, but so it appears. I will explain it to you. The voter gets a choice between option A and option B, no other option. Or if you think there is, what is it? Some people believe that not voting is a third option, and of course in one sense it is. But in terms of the election itself, it is not.

And I've heard and read exactly nothing of substance against the Democrat party. Are there some bad people in the Democrat party? No doubt, but "some bad people" goes with the territory. So now educate or complete the demonstration of your ignorance. What is wrong with the Democrat Party, with some evidence. And, before answering, please read the question until you understand it. — tim wood

Perhaps someone can explain to me what you're exactly replying to.

EDIT: Quite frankly I find the only indecent thing here your assumption that 70 million of your countrymen (you know, the people you're trying to have a society with!) don't think and that none of them are good or decent because otherwise they would've migrated to the Democratic Party. Talk about a too broad brush. Jeez.