Is never having the option for no option just? What are the implications?
So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? I guess this goes back to "most people" again..cause if most people like the options, it must be just, even if you could not pick no option :roll:.
Comments (165)
Great question!
Options to make sense must be numerically greater than 1. No options is about the number 1.
So, if you see on a menu, vanilla or chocolate, you have options but if you see only vanilla or only chocolate, you have no options. You don't select/choose/opt for "...the option for no option..." That would be a paradox!
In the case of flavors, you can simply choose the option for none of it at all. "No thanks". In the case of life, you cannot choose "no thanks" (only I "I didn't want this"). Less wholistic, you cannot say, "I don't want the option for homelessness, job, independently wealthy, free rider, etc. I just want none of those options". Is that just?
But you ask the impossible! To make a choice, one must exist. That precludes choosing nonexistence! However, ignoring the antinomy, if such were possible, some would definitely choose nothingness! :chin: Hmmmmm...
After all, the point of Camus' Sisyphus analogy is to bring to our attention that if the rock is going to roll back to where it started then did it ever roll anywhere at all. WTF? moment for me!
The entire scenario makes no sense. You've taken;
1.X
2.Y
3.Z
and complained that there's no 'not even have to choose'.
So we replace it with;
1.X
2.Y
3.Z
4.'don't even have to choose'
Now tell me how you go about selecting (4). If you select it, then it must de facto have been one of the choices (otherwise you could not have chosen it), but if it's one of the choices then you open it up to the complaint of not having the choice not to choose.
All you've done here is confused your grammar. One cannot have the choice not to choose, it just doesn't make sense.
I think the important fact here is about omission. When you are forced to choose between X, Y and Z previously you made a decision which lead you in this situation. So, for this reason, your are somehow forced to do “something” because omission could be worse.
There always be a lot of choices but I guess no human can stay without saying or doing whatever the choices show to us. I think is even part of the human nature to be in the act of “choosing” along their life.
Omission could be an interesting fact here. In some criminal code countries it is even a penalty not taking a choice when you are forced to (well probably this example was to extreme)
Actually, this scenario can appear in digital fill-out forms, for example, where the program won't allow you to go to the next step unless you complete the previous one. You have to tick one of the options given, or the program won't let you move on.
Apart from the above-mentioned digital fill-out forms, one can choose to conceive of the situation in a different way. Ie. not as a matter of picking options as presented by others, but instead take charge and conceptualize the situation on one's own terms. The salient point is that everything comes at a cost, and so one cannot live without the consequences of one's actions.
I don't mean it in the "meta" way of "don't EVEN have to choose", rather simply option 4. "Don't have to choose".. That option is on the table in the flavors example, not in the being born example. All you have is, "You don't like the flavor? Option 4. Kill yourself or find solace somehow brother!
I simply mean.. In the Ice Cream example, you can choose NOT to pick anything. In the life example, that isn't an option. Is that just?
In the less wide-ranging example, I used work/survival instead of life itself..
You can choose from options. Most people think this is justice and freedom- CHOOSING an option amongst many. BUT the option not to choose an option related to one's own survival (except slow death from starvation as default) is not on the table. Is that justice? So you have the OPTION to CHOOSE a lifestyle in Westernized economic system, homelessness, making it in wilderness, free rider, etc. But you cannot choose NOT to do any of those.
Interesting point.. the way the world works, everything has a cost, including the choice not to choose anything. My example is meant to show that life itself has no option for no option.. Suicide is not the same as not wanting to choose an option. Is the fact that "no option" was not an option just for the person born? It can never be the case that someone will have that option. Just because this is an impossibility doesn't mean that it is not an injustice to never have the option not to pick the options. Fitting it with what you were saying, by being born, you are just exposing people to the costs of decision-making, an option we cannot avoid as well.
The only defense to this is the "If a tree falls in the woods argument.." If no one is around to "realize" the injustice, then who cares is the usual response.. But I think preventing injustice is a thing if discussing something that exists preventing an instance of injustice that doesn't exist yet.
But can someone pick not to go through with the battles? Never. An impossibility without not existing at all..
In your supposition as stated in the OP, you specified a condition where the rational agent had a range of options to choose from and that is the condition that my comments addressed. Yes, there are many events upon which a rational agent has no choice, the choice to exist being one of them.
Is your point to ask whether it is just to bring a rational agent into existence? Again, I would say that it is relative. The one or ones bringing a rational agent into existence can certainly come up with justification for it, say survival of the species, or perhaps that those who currently exist require the continued creation of new rational agents to maintain a certain quality of existence throughout their lifetime.
As to the one being created, it would be relative as well. Depending on the environment in which one is brought into, it can be perceived either way, or in shades of grey.
I suppose I am saying that existence is neither just nor unjust, it just is. Once we begin to have choices we can then place subjective value on those available choices and act accordingly.
So with all this grey area.. wouldn't you say that "it" is a matter of just and unjust in regards to the ones who already exist in relation to choosing for something that could exist? So the justice lies in making a circumstance of no choice for someone else.
Are you arguing a position that one can never be justified in bringing a rational agent into existence? That can certainly be your subjective value choice. I would disagree that it should be considered unequivocally or universally true.
Can we recognize differences in conditions and environments of existence and value certain conditions over others? Certainly. One can also consider the potential environment into which a rational agent will be brought into to begin its existence and make value choices as to whether that potential environment meets a subjective standard. However, the standards and values will all be relative and subjective Even if one could ensure uniformity of environment for all in existence, it would in no way guarantee a sense of satisfaction or worth in ones existence. A person born in poverty may value their existence more than another born to privilege. There are many complex factors that inform value and a sense of worth, including biological, environmental, and social factors.
I would guess that enough people value having been brought into existence over the idea of never having existed that the whole process of bringing a rational agent into existence without consent can be considered worthwhile, to be considered justified.
So there's nothing new here other than the same old line that you think it's unjust to bring about a life which then cannot decide to not have been (the only choice you're concerned is not on the list)? It's not the choice not to choose (since that makes no sense), it just that you want an option which isn't on the list. What you mean to say is "Is never having the option I want just?" - Yes, it's fine, people are not morally obliged to provide you with the option you want at all times.
Hence my thread about the "Most people" defense (which I claim is still wrong): https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11469/the-most-people-defense/p1
If you make a choice on another because "Most people" would want it, it is only just if someone needed to replace a greater harm with a potential lesser harm. In the case of birth, no ONE needed to be saved from a lesser. It is a completely unnecessary choice made for someone else with much harm done to the other person.
But it's not just they are not obliged.. They are forcing the situation and then post-facto saying "Oh I'm not obliged". It's not obliging it's enabling the situation. That's different.
And since what is just or unjust is purely subjective, you can certainly hold the above opinion. To state that every birth will result in "much harm" being done to the one being born cannot be reasonably supported, in my view.
Calculating value and harm is multifactorial. If everyone is born without choice, and an overwhelming majority value having been born, then the risk is low that any one birth will produce someone who perceived their existence as causing them great, and irreconcilable harm. That risk is then weighed against any and all perceived benefits of continuing this process of life. Based on my observation it seems most people subjectively value this process of bringing new life into the world, that it is justified in spite of potential risks.
'Existence' is fundamentally facing a forced choice: to be or not to be? It is always too late for us the already-born not to have been born, so (A) live by reducing gratutious suffering as much as possible, which may or may not include being "antinatal" or (B2) choose, as Silenus says, "to die soon" (and, in the meantime, (B1) narrowing your 'consciousness' to near zero by heavily self-medicating (e.g. heroin, booze) or with the equivalent of a prefrontal lobotomy aka "philosophical suicide" à la religious fundamentalism or political nihilism).
So return the favor; or disfavor, in this case.
Wimps don't win.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So who or what is the instance to whom or which you can file this complaint?
It's a double-bind. YOU made the bad decision and its YOUR fault!
Right, I guess everything is subectivized.. So the boss exploiting the willing-worker is okay in doing so because, the worker doesn't perceive his own exploitation.
True.. I can't disagree too much with this.. I find it funny that we are on the lookout for all sorts of exploitation except the major one ha. It's too much to wrap people's heads around.. Better to sublimate, medicate, and commit as you say "philosophical suicide".
Whether or not the work environment is exploitive, or whether exploiting workers is ok, are both value judgements and subjective, yes.
Well right, so let's say you judge "working at X" to be good. Why is it good for someone else? That's where the trickiness of it lies- when dealing with others. To go further, it's not that why is it good for someone else, but why should you then proceed to force the situation for someone else?
All I can say is once one is brought into existence, one can begin making choices. That first choice will always be out of one's hands. And really, there will be many factors out of one's hands. Can't choose parents, can't choose parents circumstances, can't choose your physical characteristics, potential for illness or disease, etc. One cannot choose the hand one is dealt. One can make the best of it, or not. The choice is theirs.
What do you mean by this?
Yes, the throwness of existence.. discussed much in Existentialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
"Why be thrown into anything at all?" is the question or rather, "Why throw anybody into anything at all?".. Once you answer this, you have some justifications to do.. My point was that "Most people would want this.." isn't just "Okay, cool, let's wash our hands as we have a winner of a justification here!". See what I'm getting at?
Can you explain this? Presumably we know where babies come from and can prevent it. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything, but just countering the idea that procreation (not even saying sex) is so determined. The brain-states involved in "Wanting X" isn't necessarily the same as immediate physical gratification. Wanting X (Like "Sally wants a baby") is a very deliberate and personality-contingent-based thing (similar to "Sally wants a new house").
Quoting 180 Proof
I'd like to know how you are using the word "natality" here and pairing it with misery of offspring.
Oh but c'mon, we know that humans aren't just reflexively breeding and thus room for debate in the first place.
Asserting that humans tend to breed doesn't address this above:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Perhaps the people who choose to have children have some damn good reasons for doing so that the rest of us just isn't privy to.
Perhaps there is some deep wisdom in "going with the flow" that those who are outside the flow just cannot comprehend.
If I take this seriously (not just as a trick question simply setting its own rules), literally (to mean what it is saying), as: a claim about how options work, how working with options works, what it means to choose between them, when we are free and when constrained, what context makes something an option, a choice, I feel it misses that, ordinarily, selecting no option is just part of what a choice involves. Depending what the options are (for whose judgment, under what authority, i.e., how optional), and, more importantly, why we are being given options, what is our goal? on this, and more, choosing no option may be the best option, or we can be in a place where there is no option, as when we have no choice (which can be an excuse).
But this could be said to try to capture the sense that, even if we do not choose an option, if we do nothing, we may still be subject to judgment. Now to ask if it is just when we are forced to make choices, I feel we would mostly say no (I'm sure there are), but whether it is just to be held responsible for the options we choose, even responsible for not choosing, is a matter of our being answerable to the other, which I would say we would almost always see as at least a possibility (except perhaps the personal, secret). Of course, judgment on options on a menu are different than those which reflect who you are and/or what someone else might think of you/do to you. We could say unjust judgment here ranges from rude to guilty without proof. We may not have consented to be answerable, or at least to you. The judgment may be moralized; decided before the choice. But injustice may also be done by the chooser even in not choosing, if only to oneself.
I will say that we are born into a world of already-existing options, history, judgments, freedoms, consequences. There is no option out of this other than to abandon human responsibility entirely (which is all too human).
But your birth could never have been a choice you made. Is it just that that choice is made for you. There was no choice to opt out, and here is something more important possibly than any other decision and you could never have made it for yourself.
It brings up another question: Just because all choices X are due to the condition of being born B- does having choices X as a consequence of B, justify B which itself was a condition that did not even allow for choice? Is simply having the ability to make choices X override the first (possible) injustice of B (never having a choice for the whole course of life itself, which granted have subsequent choices one can make)?
Categorically, Kant would say; Grammatically, Wittgenstein would say: something you have no say in is simply not a choice. Can not BE a choice, considered as a part of a moral action, nor as part of what in our lives anyone would call or recognize as a choice--none of why it is a choice apply: there is no responsibility, there are no options, I have no authority, no one can rightly accuse me of the act (or not being able to act). There is force, oppression, servitude, etc., any number of things that make it so there is no possibility of it being a choice, including any number of fantasy situations which you want to create, say, I am completely paralyzed and no one knows, the entire world does not register my acts or speech, including "not being born".
Thus, your imposition (and continuing) idea of causality is manufactured as a backwards version of the part that responsibility plays in choice. If we take you seriously, the condition of being alive makes you responsible, as anyone is, but your choices are not caused by your birth. You are in the condition of answering for yourself (even if you do not choose); you may want to abdicate that responsibility, but then are you alive? are you (being) human?
The conditions of having choice (as any other condition, PERIOD), is from being born, so not sure about that underlined emphasis there. However, I get what you are saying, one may be what some existentialists refer to as being inauthentic by abdicating choice to social pressures, habits, unthinking roles, etc. And indeed one has made a subconscious choice to abdicate, if one is doing that..
However, this post-birth choice condition X, is not what I am referring to.. I am referring to the act made by the person's progenitors to create them...Was it just to make the decision to procreate for someone else who could not opt out of the choice? One is born, and has no choice in this. One can never decide to opt out (and suicide is NOT the same as not wanting it in the first place).
So here's my big takeaway... While people often refer to the ability to have choices as some sort of freedom and justice, the very condition for having these choices, (life itself) is glaringly NOT a choice. An injustice (perhaps) that one can NEVER have the choice for birth prior to birth (de facto part of reality), but just because this IS the case does not mean this fact is GOOD or JUST for the person who by the law of causality, could NEVER have the choice. So people change the debate to choices after birth and glaringly skip over the biggest choice that can never be made at all, one's own BIRTH.
You are mixing together "condition" and "causality". We would say birth puts us in a condition, or position, but not that it determines or forces anything (or whatever you imagine causality to do).
Quoting schopenhauer1
You appear to be attempting to critique an imagined situation where people somehow see this unremarkable (everyday) event as an actual consideration (in what is unclear) and then "change the debate" and "glaringly skip over" a fact that sheds almost no light on either the concept of choice or the human condition.
If you actually wanted to make the case, say: how parents are responsible for the choice they make in bringing a child into the world, this world, their inadequate world, and the possible justifications and qualifications, this is currently not that discussion.
Agreed, so no I'm not.
Quoting Antony Nickles
That's the discussion I'm trying to have, but I am trying to connect it with the idea that:
Another person has made a decision for you. You had no decision to opt out. Every birth is a "never can opt out situation". How is that a just thing?
Well we are definitely backing into this, and I still don't think we understand the subject we are actually talking about. The way I was taught to do philosophy is from the ground up, not setting conclusions, or terms, or conditions first. Now, I use examples, even imagined ones, but they have to be in the service of a claim to show something, not just a demand that it must mean something to us. As I said before, if we are talking about the concept of choosing, there are much better examples that tell us more about how that works. I would also think that if we were looking at how having no choice impacts justice, I would go with other examples also.
But if we are actually talking about how justice would function in terms of bringing a child into the world, I would think it is backwards to insist on highlighting the child's lack of choice, rather then simply starting with the parent's responsibility for bringing the child into this world--let's even call it: the willful act of forcing the child to come here, now. Does that exclude the fact that the child does not have a choice? To say it a different way, isn't the fact, that the child has no choice, already, in a sense, in there? and that specifically pointing it out adds, nothing? It, as it were, is not a moral consideration itself, but only a mere fact of the situation--part of what creates the context. Or maybe it is better to say that in a situation of responsibility, one upon which we can be judged (even later by the baby), there are particular moral considerations. Is this one of them? Not: the state of the world, our finances, the possibility of passing on an illness, that the baby may resent what is seen as a selfish act given our simple desire for a baby compared to the eventual impact on them, etc? A category of consideration for what it would mean to be just in this case seems to be: weighing having the child against our situation (including our desires and opinions). That someone asks the parents (or they ask themselves) "Why would you want to bring a child into this world?" Taking into consideration all that and more, if we say to the parents "But the baby has no choice!", what difference would it make? i.e., why say that?
Well yes, according to you:
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
So yes, sometimes impositions of this nature are ok. It depends on whether or not the options given are "bad enough". This was what you said 3 months ago. As to what determines "bad enough": It's a subjective feeling according to you, and there is no objective way to determine it
Quoting schopenhauer1
Another way of determining "bad enough" is how most people would react to the options.
It is unjust to force or coerce another to make a choice. But you cannot force or coerce another to make a choice if that other doesn’t already exist. The question arises as to who it is we’re being unjust to.
:up: Hence why I consider procreation to be an act of blameless wrongdoing.
All of those are considerations too and I have discussed those at length in other discussions. I specifically want to talk about the injustice of having no choice. I think because it is a fact of the situation, doesn't mean it is a good fact to begin with. Yes, it is a truisim that procreating means the procreated have no choice. But it is the very fact that so many people have no qualms about the lack of choice that I want to examine. If someone cannot make a choice by default of not existing, yet the resultant action would lead to something affecting another person none-the-less, why does the "default of not existing, thus cannot make a choice" get a "pass" as justifiable rather than the possible injustice of "the resultant action would lead to something affecting another person none-the-less? And we are not just talking doctor visits, vaccines, chores, and schooling.. We are talking making the decision that another person must endure all of life itself. This isn't a small thing. This isn't ameliorating a greater harm with a lesser harm. This is creating someone else and they would have no choice. The irony is that often people jump to, "But once born then they can have a choice.. But the biggest choice can never be made. By the way, if you think that I am trying to make an argument to "convince" parents, I am not. I am just pointing out something that is right under our noses.
Well I might be rethinking it and think there's a case for both kind and extent. It's just that I was accepting things like "surprise parties" as impositions, but there may need to be more context as stated here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So going back to the extent argument, "bad enough" for surprise parties is similar to "bad enough" for birth?
Also, with all the other things I explained, I think there are reasons other than "most people might want this" but what makes this hard to analogize to anything else is it is creating someone from scratch and then allowing the situation to be 'good or bad". A lot of times when people are already born, there is no choice except to try to make the least worst choice.
If a magician can snap his fingers and bring a person into a situation that they would not want, knowing the outcome will be a future person in harmful/unwanted situation, what say you then? Is the magician justified to make that choice for someone else?
I can maybe agree with that. What is your own justification for that? What I don't get is wanting a child is a discursive, deliberative thought. It is not an immediate need, nor even something as compelling as pleasure or the aversion/reflex away from pain. The statement, "I want a car" and "I want a baby" are absolutely the same as far as I see. One does not have any more unconscious pull than another. The wanting of something is simply the wanting of something.
I guess you can make the case that the "heat of the moment" outweighed the thought for whether or not to have a baby, but with the ubiquity of all sorts of birth control, this isn't as big a deal either.
So really, it is more of a cultural and personal want than a universal biological drive.. unless you want to argue that wanting anything is a drive itself, but then we are speaking about wants and not this specific wants.. Wants then can be mitigated like all other wants.. I want this Ferrari but I cannot afford it, best not try to buy it. I want X but...
It is assumed that you don't similar to how you don't know if your child will hate life or love it. Also similarly, most people like life, and surprise parties, with few that don't. And for obvious reasons, you can't ask beforehand ("Hey Jeff, would you mind if we threw you a surprise party on Saturday").
Quoting schopenhauer1
So is life....
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. Since you didn't consent to it for obvious reasons.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think so. You have to show it, you can't just say "Oh you can come up with a definition that suits my view". My definition of an imposition is something that is done to you without your consent. I think this is reasonable. You think this isn't sufficient so present your definition of imposition that makes life an imposition and surprise parties not.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We are agreed on that. Except life is also finite and temporary. And you need to present a case for why it is high enough in the imposition scale objectively. Which you can't do because that's how extent arguments work.
And so far you haven't actually argued that kind arguments here are tenable with your position. You need to give a definition of imposition that includes birth but not surprise parties. Not just say one can be found.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Depends on how bad the position is and why the magician is doing it.
Also I'm assuming you went back on this?:
Quoting schopenhauer1
A lot of this debate will fall on this. I am not sure I would classify it as an imposition if people like it. Presumably there are aspects of life which are harmful, and life itself can be classified as suffering from a Buddhist standpoint. If a surprise party is harmful then it is an imposition. If it is simply unexpected, I wouldn't necessarily say it's an imposition. A burden, a thing one must "endure" (not relish in). It is an inconvenience at the least and a terrible burden at most. A surprise party at its worst might be an inconvenience for someone, but then that is situational to the person.. However, with what I was saying earlier, much of life is full of burdens and inconveniences and harms etc etc. and its simply the post-facto reports that say, "Life is good" or "Good to be born", etc.
Quoting khaled
Okay, so the lifetime of the subject a lifetime of all such possible harms small and large vs. one temporary event within that lifetime. These are the types of things that make this non-analogous in the first place.
Quoting khaled
Yes as stated earlier, at the least inconvenience at most terrible burden and harm.
Quoting khaled
He was trying to give the non-existent argument. If no one exists, then no one is harmed, but then this is refuted by saying, but they will be harmed. Yes people can be harmed in the future from present events and the rest.
Quoting khaled
This was a meta-argument about ethical arguments. There is no way I can "prove" to you "objectively" any of my claims like pointing to something and say, "That is a chair".
You sure? That would make life not an imposition......
Quoting schopenhauer1
But you can't tell beforehand if it's an imposition or not. So now what? Is it wrong to do?
You seem to think they're not wrong to do, so I take it you think that if most people don't find a situation harmful, then it's not an imposition. Cool, so life isn't an imposition!
Quoting schopenhauer1
No Buddhist ever claimed life is suffering. The original quote is more like "Life has suffering". Not a groundbreaking discovery. "Life is suffering" is a problem not a serious philosophical position.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, most people relish in the burden of life. Few find it a thing they must endure.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
How do you know if a surprise party was burdensome or not? You ask the recipient right? And each recipient will give a different answer but most will likely agree the party was good.
So it's post facto reports and so invalid when someone says "Life is good". But when the recipient of a surprise party says "This surprise party is good" we should take his word for it.
Why exactly? They're both post facto reports. Why should one be dismissed in favor of "Actually, you're wrong, life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden and harm" while the other should be trusted?
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is an extent argument. You're saying life is "too bad" while surprise parties aren't bad enough. You are in the minority in thinking this. Yet you want to make a global statement, that having children is wrong (at least in 99% of cases) and that life is suffering despite you thinking it's fine (at least in 99% of cases). You have provided no support for this. Because extent arguments can't be true for everyone.
Not everyone is going to think that vanilla is too sweet and chocolate isn't sweet enough like you do. You telling them that they're wrong and actually both are too sweet, just doesn't apply. Your position is just as valid as theirs when it comes to this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
One is still subject to all possible harms even during a surprise party, it's not different in that sense. So the only difference is the length of the imposition.
All analogies break down at some point. However this isn't relevant. The length of the imposition shouldn't matter for what we're discussing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, this is an extent argument. Most people wouldn't say that life is "at least an inconvenience". They would say something like "At best an incredible joy, at worst a terrible burden (leaning more towards the former)". Again, the statement you're making is your view of life, and it is the minority view. Yet you want to say that this view is true of everyone, and that their post facto evaluations should be dismissed. Yet you don't dismiss post facto evaluations when it comes to surprise parties (you don't tell people "Actually you're wrong, and surprise parties are absolutely Satanic"). Why is that?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I mean objective as in: True of everybody. Do you think that having kids is wrong for everybody or at least the vast majority?
Similarly, do you think that life is "at the least inconvenience at most terrible burden and harm" for everyone? They all seem to disagree with you. But those are just fallible post facto explanations eh? Not to be trusted. Unless we are talking about surprise parties then they are to be trusted :up:
See the problem?
No, not at all.
1) The same may apply.. People can report one thing and experience another, but the main reason is
2) A surprise party lasts a certain duration with a set period of time. Life itself is a lifetime obviously. You cannot compare the two. And this is what you seem to do, is force me into these analogies and then try to say, "Gotcha!" and etc. I've said before, this particular analogy (and probably most others too) are not analogous to the situation of life itself, being that it is all experiences over a span of a life time.
Quoting khaled
This has too much to unpack and requires its own discussion. If you want to do that, start a new thread.
Quoting khaled
Enduring and "finding it a thing they must endure" is almost the same as the experience and the report later of the experience so this is just restating what we are arguing as far as I see.
Quoting khaled
Again, I don't believe this is analogous to life itself because of the vast difference in duration and the fact that one is one experience while the other is a lifetime of all experiences.
And like the "endure" and "report of endure" this suffers from the same problem, though I would agree that this particular experience would most likely fall under not suffering or being negative. I never claimed life has no good experiences.
Quoting khaled
Technically same response as above, experience vs. report. But I would agree that a particular event of a surprise party might align the experience and report as good. Being that this is disanalogous to life itself, being that life is the sum of all experiences, this really doesn't matter though as explained above.
Quoting khaled
Even if this was correct, one major difference is I am not forcing the ice cream on others. But see again, here you are sneaking in a dis-analogous analogy, so yeah ice cream flavors and surprise parties would make the whole thing seem pretty absurd. At least if you are going to be talking of extent, try to make an analogy of things that are daily X set of multiple experiences that are continuous and non-stop until death.. Oh wait, there's really not much to analogize to that.
Quoting khaled
But it does, especially if we are talking about an extent argument.
Quoting khaled
Because I can probably agree that actual lived experience and reported experience are more aligned in the case of surprise parties. Again, back to the dis-analogy objection. I am simply repeating now but you are presenting the same thing.
Quoting khaled
No. I mean objective as in, I cannot make my argument "THE ARGUMENT" because it is an argument. It is not a chair. It is not the laws of gravity, etc. I can simply provide ideas. Again, it's a meta-ethics thing about where it fits into the world of phenomena. I can't recall the exact conversation, but I think it was about the "airtight" case of the argument. But no argument is going to be airtight. Things resembling this would be empirical physical phenomena, and even this can at least be questioned like Hume's Induction Problem. Ethics is dealing with the human condition and human behaviors.
However, to the point of "objectivity", you may be referring more to "universality in belief" which you seem to refer back to over and over for why antinatalism is wrong. But in an ironic way, this is yet another example of the majority not necessarily dictating what is right and wrong. Think of veganism, and other things seen as on the "fringe". Think of times when mass groups of people did things we now consider barbaric or misguided. Perhaps there are universal appeals to wrongs- things like murder and theft. But then there are things more subtle and ingrained in cultural practice. It takes different perspectives to question what is often viewed as a given.
Quoting khaled
No, because as repeated over and over, the analogy is dis-analogous.
It's not just to limit someone's freedom like that.
What is "It's" here?
Limiting someone's freedom to just three options: x, y, and z.
So the point is with birth, there can never be an option to opt-out. Is this just?
Birth can be an accident. Should we limit sexual intercourse?
I guess my response is the same as to darth's here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
So not sure what Biology 101 would have to do with procreating other than accidents which can be highly reduced in the modern world. Even then, we can still deliberate. There is no, reflexive, instinctual driven, no way to stop it, breeding season.
Not necessarily. Just the risk it leads to birth which is reasonably manageable for many people.
:roll: wtf.
But you think it applies to one and not the other. Why? That's the question I'm asking you.
You trust people's reports when it comes to surprise parties but not life, why is that?
Quoting schopenhauer1
A lifetime is a "certain duration with a set period of time". The only difference here is length.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can't just keep stating this, you have to explain why you cannot compare the two. So far the only difference you outlined is the length of imposition which shouldn't be relevant (see next paragraph).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Irrelevant. The point of the surprise party example isn't to say "Surprise parties are ok so life is ok". That would be a stupid argument. The point is to show that acts that don't relieve any harm, while having a chance of causing harm, can still be ok to do. That's all I'm trying to argue.
And SINCE this is the case (again, you agree that surprise parties are ok even though they don't relieve harm, and can cause it), you have no objective basis for arguing that life is too much of an imposition. That's what I'm arguing, not that "It's ok to impose life" but "You have no objective (true of everyone) justification to say that it's not ok to impose life".
Quoting schopenhauer1
A surprise party is not a unitary experience. It's a duration full of experiences just like life is, just much shorter. This is not a real difference. Again, the only difference you pointed out is length.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm saying that people's reports of their experiences should be the thing you take into account when you are trying to examine the quality of others' experiences.
You are claiming that no, these reports can be wrong, and that life is objectively "a minor inconvenience or a terrible burden for everyone". That would be a tenable position, if you didn't also take people's word for it when it comes to surprise parties with no explanation as to why you treat them differently. Length is not a factor when it comes to the degree to which the reports align with the lived experience.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But life doesn't?
Quoting schopenhauer1
The differences that make it disanalogous are:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which one of those explains why the report is not to be trusted in the case of life? I don't see how either should be relevant (one isn't a real difference). It's like saying: "His report shouldn't be trusted because he has red hair while the other witnesses had black hair."
Quoting schopenhauer1
Irrelevant. Point I was making was purely about how extent arguments are not objective. Do you agree about that at least?
Quoting schopenhauer1
See below.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No it doesn't. Because I'm not saying "Surprise parties are ok so life is ok". I'm not arguing for natalism. I'm arguing you have no objective basis by which to push your belief. Yours is exactly as valid as natalism at best. For this argument to work, I would need to point out that you are making an extent argument. Which you are. And you haven't provided any basis for why your analysis of "bad enough" is any more "correct" than a natalist's.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You can't just arbitrarily agree that in one case the lived and the reported experiences are aligned and in the other case they aren't. Why are they not aligned in the case of life? Duration? How is that relevant?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not what I'm asking.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is what I'm asking. As highlighted by:
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes but those are all type arguments. Murder is wrong. Period. And murder is: Killing innocents. There is no "Too much murder is wrong". Every single instance is wrong. That's why you can make universal appeals like these.
But in your case you want to use: "Imposing on others is wrong" to make a universal appeal relating to childbirth. That would be fine. Except you don't think imposing on others is always wrong ex: Surprise parties. So it's more like "Imposing on others too much is wrong". Now you have no basis to make a universal appeal. Unless you can show that your estimation of "too much" is more correct than that of a natalist somehow.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not in a way that matters. What does the length of the experience have to do with the accuracy of the reports? Do people tend to report long experiences favorably or something? I'd say it's the opposite of that if anything.
No, what I am saying that because a surprise party is one defined event, and not a course of day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, a lifetime, it can indeed align more closely with the report.
Quoting khaled
Indeed and that makes a difference.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Phew.
Quoting khaled
I can be a Kantian non-nuanced person and say that all things which might cause harm are not okay. I am willing to be more nuanced and say that an event with short duration with extremely minimal costs of imposition are acceptable, hence why this doesn't compare which you keep insisting it does. You have only shown a specific event with extremely minimal cost of imposition is not an imposition. That isn't saying much.
Quoting khaled
It's not okay to impose a long duration of impositions on someone, despite the fact that discreet events of very minimal chance of impositions can occur in a lifetime of a person.
Quoting khaled
I just don't accept this as analogous to all of life. The amount of impositions is so minimal and non-pervasive that it would be intellectually dishonest to claim it is. So disanalagous again. There must be some kind of fallacy here of mistaking the specific for the more general.
Quoting khaled
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this then because your argument revolves a lot on this analogy holding and I don't think they are the same due to the pervasive nature of a lifetime of possible and actual burdens.
Quoting khaled
I'm not sure why longer duration with more perpetual, pervasive, and frequent impositions is not computing and is translated as arbitrary for you.
Quoting khaled
Forcing a burden on someone unnecessarily, do you think that is bad? That helps answer our disagreement perhaps. And you will say, not everyone will think "it" is bad. And then we will argue what "it" is. You will say report, I will say lived experience and we are back at square one. So where is this going to go but in circles with how we are arguing right now?
Quoting khaled
Then this goes back to my meta-argument for ethics in the first place.
Quoting khaled
Because surprise parties are general happy experiences. And if it isn't.. then you are unintentionally arguing in my camp. I'm actually trying to placate your view here that surprise parties are almost universally seen as good. I can go along with this and perhaps the lived experience is aligned with the report in surprise parties. That to me doesn't have much relevance when discussing every experience of life itself, as I have said ad nauseum now.
Quoting khaled
Okay sure, but I have given various examples of things that were not seen as wrong in the past and have become considered wrong today. I think I have explained to you my meta-ethical idea that ethics can evolve over time. You seem to think that if it does not convince people AT THIS TIME, it must be not right. What is your foundation for this claim? And if it's not, then you have to bite the bullet and say murder and theft is not wrong unless a majority say it is, cause now you are truly just saying right and wrong is whatever the majority says it is.
Quoting khaled
Then the goal of the person who sees the extent as too much is to convince the other that it is indeed too much. If it is not convincing so be it. You are not convinced. For a sociopath, it would be impossible for him to perhaps see how it is wrong to murder, but he is still wrong to murder. I am not comparing the two but showing an example for how in so-called "universal" cases, people might not convinced its wrong. There was Hitler and Stalin etc. who thought of their own objectives more than millions of peoples lives as more important. The instinct to say "murder is universally wrong" is not held by everyone either.
Ah, so the longer the period, supposedly the less accurate the predictions. Where is your evidence for this? You can't just claim it out of the blue.
What if the party lasted a week, suddenly not accurate anymore?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not until you explain why you believe it does. Where is your evidence that the longer the period, the less accurate the predictions are?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, this would mean literally nothing is okay, and the fact that you're doing something right now shows you can't hold that position with your current beliefs.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This isn't any better. You have no reason to say that life is long enough and that its impositions are not minimal enough. You can't establish that objectively. One can easily consistently hold that life is not long enough and not a big enough imposition to be unacceptable in the general case.
You still have no objective basis to push your belief.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You understand how analogies work right? I can't provide you with an example of an imposition that is lifelong, and just as much of an imposition as life, because that would just be life. All analogies will be different in magnitude from the originals but have the same properties. That's what an analogy is.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because you haven't shown how either affect predictions. You want to make a claim that longer durations make us see the experience through rose tinted glasses. You have provided no support for this. So it remains an arbitrary claim until you do.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm assuming this is what you mean we have to "agree to disagree on". I disagree. You've made a claim without evidence. That people generally embellish long experiences in a positive light and don't do so with shorter ones. You need to provide evidence for this. Then your position may have some objective legitimacy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Depends on the extent of the burden compared to how likely it is the "burden" is enjoyed. Slavery? Bad. Surprise parties? Good.
This is your position as well.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This assumes there is a threshold, and it's not a simple yes/no question.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is the problem. We both say report. Because that's all we have access to!
You think that the lived experience is what matters, but how do we get at what this lived experience was like? Well, only thing we can do is ask the experiencer correct? Except in one case (life) you think their reports should be dismissed and that life is objectively neutral to bad, but in the other (surprise parties) you think their reports are accurate. This is an arbitrary belief that you have to provide evidence for.
What we disagree on currently is how trustworthy the reports are. I say they're trustworthy, you seem to arbitrarily decide they are not when it fits your argument.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Again, I'm not asking you to:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'm showing you that there is no reason your belief should be universalized although you seem to think it has that kind of justification
Quoting schopenhauer1
(Note: again, I'm not arguing antinatalism is wrong. I'm arguing that you have no objective (true of everyone) way to show it's right)
Quoting schopenhauer1
So is life. According to the reports. Which you choose not to trust without giving any reason as to why they shouldn't be trusted. "It's too long" is not a reason until you explain what length has to do with the accuracy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which is arbitrary. Why is it that in the case of life our reports are inaccurate while for surprise parties they're not? I agree they're dissimilar in many aspects, but you have to still show instead of arbitrarily claiming, that one of those aspects results in inaccurate reports in the one case and accurate ones in the other.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No one disagrees there. What I disagree with is your belief that this is such a case where having children is something acceptable now that we will come to see as wrong later. It's unsupported.
And a very important point: ALL of these ethical evolutions were evolutions that took the form of type statements. Murder is wrong, not "too much murder is wrong". Slavery is wrong not "too much slavery is wrong". Yours takes the form of "too much imposition is wrong" which is already a (basically) universally held principle. You cannot get "having children is wrong" out of that as any more than a personal conclusion. At the same level as "Eating white chocolate is bad" because it's too sweet. It's not an objective statement, it's entirely personal, and depends on your definition of "too sweet".
Quoting schopenhauer1
False. I'm not arguing it's not right. I'm arguing you have no basis for thinking it will eventually be right. And so no reason to push it. It's on the same level as: "Eating white chocolate is bad" because it's too sweet. In other words, that the natalist position is just as valid.
This is the 3rd or 4th time I've made it clear I'm not arguing for natalism. I'm arguing that your belief that antinatalism is superior in any objective (again, universality of belief not whatever else you thought it was) sense is unfounded.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is no meaning to "It is indeed too much". You are claiming that there is some objective measure of the "right extent" of imposition. Is there an objective measure of the "right extent" of sweetness?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But the person that believes it has a claim to objectivity. He can respond "actually murder is wrong because anything the prematurely and unjustly ends life without consent is wrong and murder is that". If anyone believes in the first premise, and that murder fits that category, they will agree it is wrong.
There is no equivalent for antinatalism. "Imposing on people is wrong"? well, you don't believe that (surprise parties). It's "Imposing on people too much is wrong". Literally everyone agrees with you there. And not everyone is an antinatalist. Because what is "too much" is personal. It's again like "Eating things that are too sweet is bad". Everyone agrees, yet they eat different foods,and none think that they're more "correct" than the others in doing so. But you seem to for some reason.
Both "murder is wrong" and "having children is wrong" are not universally held. But the difference is for the first, if the premises are true the conclusion is true, giving a way to objectivity if you hold that the premises are true of everyone. For the second, even if the premise is true of everyone the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Meaning that those who believe in the the second, have no reason to think it applies to everyone. They will disagree with people that think "Imposing on people too much is wrong" is false, but outside of that, they have no justification to claim that they're right as long as that first premise is shared.
I was agreeing with you that a surprise party is generally considered a good experience. So in this case (generally), the lived experience matches the reported experience. Like if someone had their favorite food, and right after you asked, "Did you like that food?". Believe it or not, I can believe the person is truly reporting they liked the food. However, the optimism bias would indeed be absurd if we only applied it to times when people are generally actually happy about something. It is about going through a series of events during a longer duration and cherry-picking the good ones, when it comes time to reporting for various reasons I have mentioned.
Quoting khaled
It's just the function of studying the optimism bias.. It is over a long duration. It's not a poll of likes and dislikes right after an event. "Did you like this event that you prefer?" Well, shit, of course! I guess optimism bias is debunked, someone reported they liked a surprise party when they generally like parties and surprises by their friends who planned a party on their behalf!
OB is often pointed to as an evolutionary adaptation to cope with difficult situations, so is about a multitude of events that pass through a life and how one is filtering it.
Quoting khaled
I'm not. I am saying, I am being more nuanced than a rigid Kantian who would say something like, "If a murderer asks where the victim is hiding, I cannot lie". That lacks nuance.
Quoting khaled
I believe this is like saying, "If I break someone's arm, someone MIGHT not mind it because I haven't surveyed everyone". There are some things which are known entities like that life contains a certain amount of lived experience that is harm, suffering, negative. It's like, I am even giving you the surprise party example as a given of something almost universally liked. I'm not going to ask you to "prove" it because it's a known. It would be uncharitable and in this kind of argument to even make you give me data on surprise parties. I will go with it. Hell I can even deny that people like surprise parties all together and will not concede this is a good example unless you get me surveys from certain scientific sources! Otherwise, I will not entertain it. Period!
Quoting khaled
Yes, but when the analogy does not hold, it really can't be used as a counter-example, because it is not actually showing the case. Again, this is some sort of specific general fallacy. At time one, the football team is pumped.. Throughout the game, they get pummeled and frustrated and generally are not happy. At any point during that longer duration, they might have had various negative experiences. If you just interviewed the team at the beginning of the game, you would have thought their experience that game day was great.
Quoting khaled
Because you are picking one positive experience and saying, "This is like life" instead of a steady stream of a variety of daily experiences. I don't have to prove that that is the case which makes this disanalogous. Life isn't a stream of surprise party experiences. If I have to prove this, then I am done debating this. There is some sort of justification fallacy where every word I use can be asked for justification. At some point you have to have a foundation of agreement. Life has a variety of experiences. Yes.
Quoting khaled
I mean, I don't get your gripe now. Are you trying to say that the events of the surprise party can have many negatives that people aren't reporting? That could be a possibility, but I am already telling you that most likely the events will be positive for events people generally like. I'm not sold that it works as an analogy. Perhaps if you want to elaborate what happens at a particular surprise party, we can analyze that as a case of possible optimism bias, but I am willing to say that generally the lived experience of things people like match their report.
Quoting khaled
Indeed. So we agree on something and there is a basis for a real understanding. Our difference is that often there are negative events (maybe not conditions of slavery) that people encounter but do overlook because there is an optimism bias. The lived experience is disrupted from the reported one.
Quoting khaled
If you want me to say that even the surprise party recipient isn't trustworthy, I mean that may be the case. Maybe throughout the course of the day he had a bunch of negative experiences and then reported otherwise. However, I think that most experiences during a surprise party are already positive and thus would accurately be reporting that. However, I am not going to discount that if there were mostly negative experiences, it is a possibility that someone might report otherwise. That could happen, but since I believe the experiences in the party to already be of a positive nature, this doesn't happen much because the lived experiences are already positive. I am not trying to argue that.
Quoting khaled
I'm not going to throw you articles if that's what you want. It is a psychological claim that this is the case that I am saying I think has validity and further proves a case where humans have a tendency to overlook, under report, etc. If you don't find it compelling, then do some research and see. I don't have the time to go over every article and parse that with you.. Justification regress. If you want, let me block off the rest of my life to scour every article because khaled doesn't find my argument compelling on an internet forum.
Quoting khaled
Over and over I am saying because that surprise parties generally is an experience people like. I can agree that someone who did not have a good time, could also do the same thing as people do for life in general but then, ok then, that is going on there as well. However, if someone likes ice cream, gets ice cream, and you ask, "how was the ice cream", and they say "good", I'm not going to argue he is wrong! However, if the person had ice cream, tripped, spilled it on himself, did a bunch of other things throughout the day positive and negative, he might report something different.. Then aggregated over a period of time.. All of a sudden someone asks "Binary answer, Yes/No life".. that is a difference and it does have to do with an aggregate of many experiences being crammed into a binary question.
Quoting khaled
And I am saying for the 3rd of 4th time, I don't even believe ethics works like that! IT either convinces or doesn't', period. It doesn't have universality, not prima facie at least. It is compelling or not compelling.
Quoting khaled
I am trying to figure out what exactly that extent is, but let me answer something you said here to elucidate in general:
Quoting khaled
But this works on both arguments. So we both agree:
1) People can deny the premise and thus never universally hold an ethic.
The case of the premise of murder and antinatalism can be the same as well, you are just being very narrow in your degree/extent with murder. Murder is a set of things.. There's death, killing, accidental death, killing with intent, killing under some mitigating circumstance, 1st degree, 2nd degree, etc. etc. There are extents to even this event. One that gets it to being considered "murder" and one that defines to what degree the murder took. Only the process of law deems it as "agreed upon" and that is basically a social agreement. But see, now we are back to the majority argument that you claim not to be making. The universality devolves into social construction. I can imagine a society who values non-imposition as a very important rule and thus antinatalism becomes a principle constructed over time in a long process over many years and becomes ingrained where degrees are defined etc.
If imposing burdens on someone else is wrong, then there is a basis here. We are now arguing:
1) Are burdens underreported?
2) Are burdens okay to give to someone if someone accepts the burden?
3) Are all burdens of this nature in #2?
4) How much of the burdens are not of the nature of #2 and are unwanted (but possibly reported as wanted)?
As an aside, I cannot keep up these long conversations. I just don't have the time, so if we can consolidate these, it would be much appreciated as we are basically repeating the same things over and over anyways.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What makes you think this isn’t what the surprise party recipient is doing? Cherry picking good experiences. Why do you trust he’s reporting accurately but the person giving an opinion on life must not be.
We agree OB exists. But you say it’s active in some scenarios and not in others as it suits the argument. Anyone who thinks life is good? OB. Anyone who enjoys surprise parties? Not OB. Arbitrary.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No it’s more than that. it’s “Although I think X is unethical, I have no basis for telling someone who disagrees it is”. people can agree that too much imposition is wrong without being AN.
Quoting schopenhauer1
A surprise party is a steady stream of experiences not all of which are necessarily positive.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So does a surprise party. And similarly people report that they generally enjoy it and that most experiences are positive for them. A minority hates surprise parties (including me ironically). A minority hates life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. I’m printing out that you choose to believe a surprise party is not subject to OB but life is. Arbitrarily. You need to explain why you think so.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don’t deny OB. I have a problem with you selectively using it though. Either both life and surprise parties are subject to OB, or neither is. Otherwise explain why one is and the other isn’t.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’ve been doing something weird the entire reply. You’ve been pretending like you’re privy to how an experience felt for a stranger. So a surprise party is positive both in experience and report. But life is positive only in report and not in experience.
How did you come to this conclusion? What did you do to discover that life is not good in experience. You don’t trust the reports (arbitrarily), so how did you find out what others are feeling. Same with surprise parties. What did you do to discover that they’re good experiences?
It’s not:
1- Life is an inconvenience or terrible burden
2- People report that it’s good
3- The reports are not to be trusted
As there is no way you get premise 1 for anyone but yourself. But we’re talking from a general case here. You can’t get that life is bad generally without asking people what they think, which means you must choose to trust the reports FIRST then CONCLUDE whether or not the experience is good. Not the other way around.
It’s:
1- People’s reports of life are untrustworthy
2- People report it’s good
3- Life is an inconvenience or terrible burden.
But then how did you get 1? You arbitrarily chose to distrust reports about life but to trust reports about surprise parties. Is this because of the following psychological claim?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then where did you get the claim from? Just to be clear: the claim is that OB only applies to long experiences and not short ones. And you think it has validity, but refuse to provide evidence. Ok, let me at least ask you, is there any more justification behind this belief other than that you think it’s true?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well it should only take a minute if you actually had a source to support your belief so I’m assuming you don’t.
It seems you came to the conclusion first, then decided to ask your interlocutor to do the research to prove it for you not knowing if such research even exists. An interesting strategy.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You instead want khaled to pause HIS life to search for a source to support YOUR arbitrary claim? Nah.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So you think the natalist’s position is just as valid?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not really. Accidental death is manslaughter. Intent is required for murder. And having a mitigating circumstance doesn’t make murder any less wrong, but does make the killer less culpable. Also, First and second degree murder are both wrong. Because remember: Murder is wrong. Extent doesn’t matter. All of the differences above are used for deciding punishment, not for deciding whether the act was wrong.
For AN, as you argued it, everyone can agree with the premise and not reach the conclusion.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s… literally impossible. You can’t have a society of antinatalists. It’s going to die out in a generation. And how do you define the “degrees of imposition”. All you can do if you want any objectivity is define the properties that make an imposition bad. For instance “Impositions that last longer than 30 years are wrong”. But it’s up to you to come up with a definition in that case that doesn’t contradict with your other beliefs which you haven’t done.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sometimes, but I don’t know the rules. You seem to know for a fact that they’re underreported for life and not for surprise parties though. Care to prove that?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think so, but that’s irrelevant for now. I’ve been arguing as if I also think the experiencing self is what matters.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well if they’re in a good state of mind yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How many unaccepted burdens are unwanted? All of them?
I tried to make it a bit shorter this time.
Don't have time. Consolidate your thoughts please, and I will reply. Take the main arguments put them in a condensed paragraph. Every statement doesn't have to be parsed and I'm not into that right now. Call me what you will, but I don't need to do the tit-for-tat on every sentence. Let's just get our main arguments and stop repeating the same things.
I think this probably the key point here. You don't see the pull of having kids. OK. But most people do, for whatever reason. Certainly cultural indoctrination has a lot to do here, with cities being population farms and all that. But people were procreating long before civilization. There is an instinctual aspect to it. For what reason would a hunter-gatherer have offspring, their own material benefit? Hardly, because it's just another mouth to feed. Infanticide and presumably abortions were quite common back then.
Probably a more interesting question would be to ask why people have children, and whether there can be a substitute for doing so. I remain unconvinced that there is something that can fill that need for a child that so many people have.
For those.
And my main argument is:
Your position is inconsistent for you think that OB applies only to life and not surprise parties because of some unidentified psychological principle that you have no support for that you instead ask me to research and prove for you. Both are impositions. Either OB applies to both, or neither. Otherwise explain why it applies to one but not the other.
Also:
Quoting khaled
To the discussion about the morality of having children, the needs of the parent are irrelevant, since one's own needs are never sufficient to justify an action that involves other individuals. To argue otherwise would lead to a predictable slippery slope.
That isn't to say that the question isn't interesting.
Maybe it is instinctual, but doesn't that essentially mean people have children because they are incapable of reasoned thought in that regard?
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting 180 Proof
So my deeper argument here is the claim of instinctual. I guess, what counts as "instinct"? The thought, "I want a baby because X" doesn't seem like an instinct. It does seem like a preference though. Because the preference is tied to a biological phenomenon it may be people are mixing up the preference for an instinct. An instinct to me involves things like automatic responses to stimuli. Many animals go through estrus, have sex, have offspring, and that is that. There was no thought from the animal, "I want a child so that I can fulfill a need" or "This child represents the love between me and my partner and I want a little version of the mix of the two". These are all complex thoughts that are combinations of ideas people patch together from preferences. It doesn't seem like something like an automatic response to certain ingrained stimuli. People also often throw around things like females' propensity to produce hormones after childbirth that might bring about general happy feelings towards the child or whatnot, but that is after childbirth not before and also mixed up as it does have to do with childbirth but not the before/during procreation part.
Finally, people often mix up the desire for pleasure with the desire for procreation. One leads to the other, but one is not the other. To engage in sexual activity I would not say is instinctual as much as it is pleasurable and that pleasure is often sought after because its pleasurable. Often this can stem from many things.. Boredom, it feels good, it's more preferable than other things that don't feel as good, etc. But that's not necessarily instinct either. If for example, when the full moon came out, people could not help but hump the next person who walked by once he/she smelled their pheromones, then you might have a case for instinct or something like that... I am purposely being provocative here to illustrate what I mean by "instinct" versus something else (simply wanting something, often because it feels good at the time or because its a preference based on personality-based wants and desires like other wants and desires).
@darthbarracuda
So the only mitigation here is that amelioration of a greater harm with a lesser harm. A child getting a vaccination, for example. So procreation would be prefaced in my view as different than the vaccination scenario, because there is no amelioration. Procreation is a decision that was unnecessarily creating harmful scenarios where there were none. The vaccination is preventing a greater harm and imposition down the line from disease.
Another argument might retort that the child might lead to some sort of "greatest happiness overall in society" cause they would be a great scientist or something. That would mean that all that matters is the aggregate and like most AN, I don't think that ethical matters should be based on "because this will increase aggregate X". Overlooking the person this is being done to, because it can cause an increase in output, is overlooking the dignity of the person being affected for an impersonal thing. There has to be a ground at some point, and usually these are the grounds where its hard to go much further without simply shouting matches of "aggregate yes" and "person-affecting view yes" and just do this over and over.
No it wouldn't. One could simply treat one's own needs as just as valuable or less valuable as those of others. So don't do something to others that is harmful unless the alternative is equal or way greater harm onto yourself. That's a simple solution among countless others.
Please stop spamming inane shit
My shit worked. Provoking a reaction.
My main point here is that OB can obtain in a surprise party, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the actual experience matches the report because often surprise parties have elements people like in it and so may not be reporting wrong if they say, "I like it". It here being a very discrete event in their life versus many hours experiencing things other than they like and then asking to report on a summary of their whole life.
However, there very well could also be cases of reporting what was not experienced.. You don't want an event that is "supposed" to be good to be reported as bad, so you go along and say, "Yes, I liked it", but you didn't.. That starts looking more like when you combine multiple life events.. Because life has more than events that we just like in it going on in the lived experience. Because the vent is so discrete, it becomes harder to analogize and becomes much more specific to the preference of a person's attitude towards that particular event.
However, now that I think of it, it may very well be the case, the the even as lived could have been a 6 on the person's scale (let's just say in their experience at the time) but when they recalled it many years later, it was like a 10.. That would be OB.
Quoting khaled
If they believe too much imposition is wrong, then why not be AN? I think you mean they don't think life has enough imposition to be an AN. So I think this really does get to the heart of our debate. I am claiming impositions are often underreported and that often people are mistaken as to how much imposition there is imposed on them. Think of it this way.. At one point, a serf could have no right to land. That's because they were born without a title of some kind or their parents also didn't have land. The serf accepted the arrangement because well, "that's how it is". But at some point, maybe after the Black Plague, there was a movement against serfdom. The economic situation made them realize that their work had value and the situation of perpetual landlessness was unjust. Wait, what changed? Was it really that the serf's view was the only thing that changed the unjustness of serfdom or is there something unjust about serfdom?
Just to clarify before this progresses too much further, what you're describing is not Optimism Bias (as in the psychological phenomena). Optimism bias is about expectations, not recollections.
As I've already explained (to the wall it seems), there is no such thing as experience which is not constructed, it simply does not exist. You are comparing two falsely distinguished entities. The experience at the time and the recollection of it later are both constructed in the same way by the same regions of the brain, one has no primacy over the other in any ontological sense.
What do you mean by this?
If I can judge for others what is harmful or not, then there is indeed no limit to the actions I can afford myself while still considering myself moral.
If, however, one comes to the sensible conclusion that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to judge what is good for others, then one will realize one must always tread carefully when imposing things on others, with all the implications that has for childbirth.
And for @schopenhauer1, in case further explanation is useful.
When we have an experience, like a surprise party, it causes physiological sensations (retinal and audio stimulation, raised heart rate, digestive changes etc) our brain tries to guess the causes using predictive models based on previous experiences (sometimes from years ago, sometimes from milliseconds ago). So increased heart rate at a surprise party might go "oh, my heart's beating faster, why might that be? I'm at a surprise party, I like those, I expect it's 'excitement'". In other situations the exact same physiological response might be interpreted as 'anxiety' because the circumstances are such that this is what you've learned to call it there.
There's no objective thing 'excitement', or 'anxiety'. They're both socially constructed models of physiological signals.
If nothing else just reply to the last paragraph.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And my main point is that exact paragraph but replace “surprise party” with “life”. You disagree with this evaluation because you think life is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” while surprise parties are “full of elements people like”. Where is your evidence this is the case?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok stop with this. Surprise parties also often last many hours and for an introvert like me are MOSTLY comprised of things other than I like. This “single event vs many events” distinction is not real.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So do surprise parties…. According to most reports. Which you arbitrarily decide not to trust. More on his in second to last paragraph.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Literally everyone believes too much imposition is wrong. The statement is true by definition. And they’re not AN.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I agree that this is the crux of the disagreement so let’s focus on it. I’m claiming you have no evidence for this claim. Remember: you don’t have access to what an experience felt like for another person. So you must choose to decide whether or not trust their report, without any evidence about whether or not it’s accurate.
For surprise parties, you choose to trust the reports, so when people say they liked it you believe they actually liked it. For life you choose not to trust the reports, so it must be bad given that everyone says it’s good.
This is an arbitrary inconsistency. What evidence do you have that most people are lying about life but not about surprise parties? What evidence do you have that surprise parties are actually pleasant while life is an inconvenience or terrible burden?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. But this doesn’t come into the debate yet. I could agree that there is fundamentally something wrong about serfdom and still make all the same arguments.
The main question I’m asking you is: How did you come to the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong about life but not surprise parties. Please trace your steps and tell me.
But one often has a pretty reasonable estimate of how much harm they'll suffer vs how much harm they'll inflict by doing an action. In some cases it's pretty clear. For instance: Is it really reasonable for a sadist to believe that his pleasure from torturing compares to the victim's pain?
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. And one way to tread carefully is by making it so that:
Quoting khaled
And then using common sense.
Anyways I want to ask you this: If a thief is about to stab you what justification do you have to stop them? Or is it not right for you to stop them?
Remember your needs are insufficient here. And to stop them is an imposition on them. Tread carefully!
You assume both to have the same physiology. The raised heartbeat may be same in both cases. But thats about all...
Maybe. I cannot be the judge of that. I'm quite skeptical of a parent's ability to reasonably estimate the life of their child.
Quoting khaled
This is not a bad start, but it is not enough. A person often times is not even able to accurately determine their own needs, let alone those of another.
Quoting khaled
I would argue that in this situation one's needs are sufficient, because they extend only to oneself (self-preservation). One's life and body belong to the individual, and thus one is justified in protecting oneself.
It is the thief whose apparent needs extend to others, and therefore he who must tread carefully and doesn't.
If the thief was my daughter I would ask her to stab carefully. Im her father!
:chin:
In this case your needs clearly extend to the thief no? You need the thief to stop. Self preservation implies a party you’re preserving yourself from (by imposing on them).
Your needs extend to the thief just like the thief’s needs extend to you. He needs the money, you need to kick him in the face (in both cases to survive)
So if your argument for why said needs are insufficient is that “they only extend to me” that’s not true in this case. So by your first statement, your needs (to kick him in the face) would still be insufficient to justify stopping the thief (since they extend to the thief. Violently).
I try not to 'assume' when it comes to matters about which some facts can be established.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5390700
If the imposition informs you of a greater reality that perhaps you were oblivious to as opposed to some petty personal desire or conditions thereof, what do you think? Some dude calls me on the phone, "yo man your house is on fire", assuming it actually is and he wasn't the one who started it, that's more of a helpful and courteous gesture than an imposition. I'd think so at least.
But maybe the right thing to do is to turn the other cheek? I'm willing to consider that option.
What do you mean then when speaking about anxiety and excitement? Both exist independently of what we think about them.
Before every establishment of facts assumptions are made.
But you said needs like these are insufficient.
So are they sufficient now?
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree, but this isn’t reflected in your blanket statement that your needs are not sufficient to impose. Here is a care where they are.
Quoting Tzeentch
I’m not.
That's what Jesus did. How noble it may be (I would be in awe if you really did that!), in reality, the gun (and less, the knife) rules suppreme. Cowardly as that might be, but I dont think a robber jumps you empty-handed. Well, he was empty-handed off course and thats probably the resson he muuged you.
The need itself is not, however perhaps the need in conjuction with an assault on something that unquestionably belongs to the individual is sufficient. Perhaps the need in conjuction with the thief's mistake of imposing is sufficient. Maybe a combination of those, or maybe there are more we could think of.
Note, it is not the need that may justify an action, it is the thief's imposition that justifies it.
That doesn't quite work, because one's own evaluation of what belongs to who can be completely different from the evaluation of another, hence the slippery slope
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
So you can't impose anything on anyone unless they impose first?
Say there is a drowning person and a sleeping ex-lifeguard on the beach. You can't swim to save them. Do you impose on the sleeping ex-lifeguard by waking them up to save the drowning person?
I was talking about the individual's physical body. I hope we can agree that the individual's physical body belongs to the individual.
Quoting khaled
The nature of the examples you are comparing is different. I can explain to you why, but you are smart enough to see it yourself.
As I said earlier, impositions, if they are to be done at all, must be done with the utmost carefulness. Does the individual possess enough wisdom and insight to judge this situation accurately: a life can be saved and at most what can be lost is the lifeguard's temporary sleep.
Then perhaps he may take the risk of imposing. But even then it is a risk, you see? It required an accute situation of distress to force our hand, no time to discuss and deliberate.
I consider the ones handling the the guns (or any tech-weapon) very alive. Oppenheimer lamented himself for having become dead after his contribution to the bomb. So in a way you are very right indeed.
Maybe instinct isn't the best term of use, but I don't think preference is the right one either. I suspect children typically represent hope. When all other reasons are lost, it's the children we're told we have to look out for. The hope for a better tomorrow, this is a life-long project for people. To take that away from them would be tantamount to the destruction of their entire reason for being, probably many would find it cruel.
I agree with you that never being born is preferable to being born, because life is truly rotten. But because it is so rotten, I think it is understandable why people would cling to something - anything - to make it less rotten, even if it means bringing someone else into the mess. If you figured out how to get by without having kids, that's cool, good for you, but not everyone wants to live without hope. What do you propose we substitute, if not children?
We keep tumbling into the next generation, children are born because their parents were born because their parents were born because their parents were born...the best any person can do, if they can find it in themselves, is to not have children and accept that there is no hope. That is a very bleak worldview and so it is not surprising that most people will reject it, and I don't think we can blame them.
I have seen it both future and past. I can agree about the brain constructing things. That idea actually favors my argument though. There is no "one" version, yet the one reported is given as accurate. All I am trying to explain is that what we "think" and what we "thought" and what we "hope" and what we "did" and what "happened" can all be different to a degree that the report, should not be taken as "this is the one to pick" just because it is a report.
Quoting Isaac
Fair enough.
Quoting khaled
Your explanation of my reason for the difference is what is inaccurate here. First, I do believe there can be "good experiences". I do believe people can experience surprise parties as "good experiences". I do believe that right after the surprise party, if you asked them, "Was the surprise party good", they may say "yes" and it would be roughly accurate to what they experienced. I also believe you could have someone (like yourself maybe), who had some not pleasant experiences, and actually thought it was negative in its duration. I can someone asking, "Was the surprise party good" and the answer being "yes".. why? Cultural reasons (surprise parties are SUPPOSED to be good). Cognitive bias (well.. you saw your friends so that's what you will remember..). Anyways, the details aren't important as much as the illustration. Now, you will say, "This is like life!". What I am saying is because this is ONE event, it is very skewed, and skewed heavily in the case of alignment of lived experience and report. Life truly has multivarious events of all shapes and sizes in just one day, let alone, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime. From here, is where I will stop my explanation because you will then ask for articles and I am just not interested in that in this setting. So if you want Dr. Von Nostrums latest trend on duration and Optimism Bias, sorry don't have the time or inclination to stat digging into peer review journals on this particular one. Perhaps if you want to start a thread and bring that into it, I will join. I think though, even on this theoretical scale, it is plain enough to see the difference in the two that the disanalogy is apparent.
Quoting khaled
I think this is another "We're going to have to agree to disagree" as we are repeating here and I am not interested in a large justification regress when I feel this is sufficiently apparent enough through simply its magnitudes of difference and my explanation thereof that the difference doesn't need to be explained much further.
Quoting khaled
Yes we are repeating, what I was afraid of... I've said what I had to say. One more explanation..
1) Most people like chocolate ice cream.. a minority does not. You give them chocolate ice cream and have them report on it. Most say they like it.
YOU are saying this is analogous to ALL the events of life itself being like "Most people like chocolate ice cream". I am saying, that this analogy is not even comparable. A life time of events versus one event (one which indeed is pleasurable to many people), is not the same as experiencing a large time interval of events that were neutral to unpleasant, aggregating it over many years and reporting "Life is good". Just not the same.
I will say this.. Perhaps it is not JUST duration. The example you picked was pretty skewed. If you had provided a more neutral or ambiguous one then perhaps you would get closer to the idea of reporting on life itself.
Quoting khaled
Not sure what you mean here.
No it doesn’t. It doesn’t favor any argument. Just because it challenges the status quo doesn't mean it supports alternatives.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right, and even if we accept this it gives no reason to accept that life is “an inconvenience or a terrible burden”.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure. So do surprise parties. People are capable of experiencing multivarious events and concluding that the sum of the events was good. You choose not to believe them for no reason only when it comes to life.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Not to me. Putting "apparent" in front of something that you have no justification for thinking is apparent doesn't make the thing apparent.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This has nothing to do with "justification regress". I'm telling you that, just like life, a surprise party lasts for a certain duration (although much shorter) and has multivariable experiences. I don't understand how that's debatable.
You think it's disanalogous because you begin by assuming that life is bad to awful. More on that last paragraph.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But the difference is not significant for the purposes of the argument
Do you or do you not believe that someone can examine a long event, full of variable experiences, and accurately report that it was good or bad? Because every time I make any analogy to life you reply "Ah yes but life has variable experiences and is long so people's reports are false and it's actually at least an inconvenience and at most a terrible burden" as if that follows in any way. Even if we accept that people have an optimism bias only towards long events (something I've been begging you to justify without any success), that STILL doesn't lead to the conclusion that life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What makes you think I'm the one that's skewed and not you? What makes you believe that a surprise party is so unlike life, despite having a similar percentage of people reporting that they like the experience for both?
You refuse to address the question I specifically requested you address, if you address nothing else in the last comment.
I will repeat it again: You think life is "at best an inconvenience and at most a terrible burden". How did you come to this conclusion? Please retrace your steps and tell me. Reply to nothing else in this comment, but just address this question. This is the second time I request this, so kindly address it.
It's a very bold claim to make that everyone's reports of their quality of life are wrong, and that you know how it's "really like". You need to justify this claim. Every time I make an analogy between life and anything largely reported to be positive (which life also is by the way which is precisely why I liken it to other things commonly reported to be positive) you automatically say that's disanalogous. You start by assuming that life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden. You do not prove this you assume it.
Anyone who thinks that life is either bad or awful will obviously not want kids. But you want more than that. You claim you know that life is bad or awful for everyone, despite the vast majority assuring you they don't think it is. What is your justification behind this belief.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You wanted to establish that there are some impositions that are "fundamentally wrong", even if the person being imposed upon doesn't think of it as an imposition. I disagree, but I'm pointing out that's insignificant. I can agree that some impositions are fundamentally wrong while still doubting that life is one such imposition like I'm doing right now.
Things to consider:
1.) The duration and the kinds of experiences matter here. Duration means there's a lot more experiences, which means memory can cherry-pick. The intensity and magnitude of the experiences in life are also that much more extreme, meaning the kind of pains being overlooked are that much more. Similarly, an event like, "Eating an ice cream cone" is a very limited event. The report can roughly match the experience being so short, and not being of a pervasive but always changing nature that characterizes life itself versus one very limited event within life.
2.) Similar to above, a single event is more of a subgenre of a subgenre of life itself. Life itself involves pervasive routines one has to fulfill to keep alive.. work, maintenance, etc. It is not one discrete event that one can analyze. Reporting on pervasive, yet constantly changing events that occur over a lifetime are just of a different kind than a discrete event that is not pervasive like a surprise party.
Quoting khaled
On a separate tangent, why should the people who don't think life is a burden make such an all pervasive and controlling decision for the people who think that life is indeed a burden? Why should one have precedence? This goes back to the "Most people" argument. Most people want this, therefore those who don't want this must deal with it. That is unjust when the converse would be "No person exists to even care they don't exist". As you know, not existing people don't have "injustice" applied to them. Not existing doesn't matter to anyone. And this is a large point people overlook. Missing out only matters to those who exist to miss out.
Fair enough. Finally some attempt at proving that OB applies to longer events more. Anyways, as stated above, it still doesn’t lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst an incredible burden”. OB makes us remember things we used to hate more fondly. However this doesn’t mean that people's reports of their quality of life are significantly altered by OB. It could just be that they have few memories where they’ve really suffered and so their report will be accurate overall, even if they forget some of said suffering.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What kind of control? I haven’t seen any natalists forcing antinatalists to have kids.
Unless by the “pervasive and controlling decision” you mean having children in the first place, I’d agree with you. That is, people who have kids that they know will consider life a burden are indeed wrong in doing so. But they don’t know. And they know that they most likely will like it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Going back to type arguments? Surprise parties are done simply because most people would want them and those who don’t have to deal with it, when the converse could be “The recipient didn’t know about a party they’re missing out on to even care”
Yet you find them acceptable despite them meeting all the features. So maybe it’s not so unjust?
Going back to cover the same ground we covered long before in countless threads instead of addressing the specific point I want you to address makes the weakness in your position clear. And I will repeat for the last time, because if you don’t address it this time it’ll be obvious you’re just dodging a valid argument that you can’t respond to. I thought it could be you didn’t see it but that’s clearly not the case.
Quoting khaled
This is required for your position. Since you use an extent argument, you must show that life meets the threshold. And I’m willing to agree that something that is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” is indeed too much to impose. So, how do you know life meets those features? Because if you don’t then a required premise in your argument is unjustified and is just as valid as “Life is at worst a good experience and at best heaven”, now I don’t believe that, but it has just as much evidence to support it as your view does.
Again, someone's day can be Negative, Negative, Negative ... Report = Good day or at least, "not bad". But it was clearly negative while living through it (versus the calm reporting thereafter). Now extend this to life itself, with its analog ups and downs and digital reporting on it. It's even that much more stark for a whole life versus a day. It's just the report that is misaligned with the occurrence itself. That is the claim. We said our positions on it. However, I think an event in a day, a day itself, a week ago, etc. can be more clearly assessed than a whole lifetime. However, I would definitely say that if the report about the one event happened 50 years after the event, I bet there would be some OB going on. So I guess, it's not only duration but time displacement as to when the report is being taken from the actual occurrence.
Quoting khaled
Are there any burdens "most people" incur in their life? Are there any inconveniences that most people have to endure in life? Surely, you would admit yes. Then it comes back to how many of those inconveniences we actually experience vs. an evaluative, summative, binary report of it. That is the crux of this current argument. I think we have covered our positions well enough. One thing I ask, is how are we going to have an end to the debate? For you, does one person have to say, "You are clearly the winner here?". Because obviously that isn't going to be the case. I think a thing to learn is how to gracefully and respectfully end a debate that clearly isn't going to be one side switching their position. There is much to be gained without one person declaring some sort of victory or whatnot.
However, moving to the other debate (the tangent), I'd actually like to focus on that because I think in the previous thread about "Most people", my argument was meant to revolve around that issue and I sort of digressed into the discrepancy of the report and the occurrence rather than simply about "Most people" vs. those who feel life is a burden. If you remember, "Most people' had multiple meanings. This debate is in regards to how "Most people" can possibly be wrong about their experiences vs. their reports on them later. However, the other "Most people" was simply about the position of the majority "liking being born" vs. those who think "life is a burden" or whatnot.. So there were multiple inter-related and intertwined threads of thought going on here. I want to delineate turning to this different argument now.
Quoting khaled
You didn't seem to address my point. If no one exists, who is the injustice done to as far as "missing out" on the goods of life? However, an injustice is surely done to those who do think life is a burden. No one is "losing out" to the "burdenites" because no one exists to lose out to them. However, there is potential for someone to lose out who is born. Yet those people have to "deal" with it. How is that just? In one case, actual injustice is done. In another, it would be a category error to even apply injustice as there is no "one" to apply the injustice to.
Key word: Can. You have yet to prove this happens to a sufficient degree so as to distrust the overall report. It’s like saying “People sometimes lie therefore everyone is lying all the time”
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure. But you need to do more than simply cover your position or make claims. You need to show that it is the case. You’re the one trying to argue for AN, starting a new thread every week on it. So you need to show that “life is an inconvenience or terrible burden” is true of everyone since you seem to think that everyone shouldn’t be having kids. It’s crucial to your position, yet you can’t show it’s the case despite being asked to do so 3 times now.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure but still. That it can occur doesn’t mean it’s occurring all the time. You can guess that a negative experience will get remembered more fondly. But you can’t go from that to: “If you remember something fondly it was probably bad” like you seem to be doing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What do you think we’re debating? Whether or not AN is right? Again, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I am arguing is that your version of AN is personal and can’t be generalized.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I did address the argument by showing you that there are analogous actions that you find acceptable. So either you’re being a hypocrite or the argument doesn’t make sense.
If the recipient doesn’t expect the party, who is the injustice done to as far as “missing out” on the goods of the party? Same deal. Yet you find it ok here.
No one is "losing out" to the "burdenites" because no one expects them to lose out on them. However, there is potential for someone to lose out who is in the party. Same deal. Yet you find it ok here.
I don’t understand why you’re going back to the asymmetry “argument” one I disagreed with even when I was AN. We addressed this so long ago. You seem to want to “reset the conversation” now that there is an argument you can’t address, hoping it’ll go in your favor this time. It’s tiring when I write responses that largely go ignored. You seem to have no trouble relentlessly debating people for days until you can’t respond anymore. Then it’s all “let’s agree to disagree” and willfully ignoring questions asked about your position 3 times in a row.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Agreed. Just not in this case. And it doesn’t seem to me that you have any intention of honestly addressing my responses so I’ll just stop writing them until maybe you stop trying to “reset” the conversation.
Again, does life have burdens and inconveniences for people? Is this something that someone would otherwise not want? Then it was indeed a burden, and it was indeed imposed by way of being born. You are saying that it only matters if someone minds that they are being imposed upon. I am saying, it is simply wrong to impose on another, despite if someone minds it or not post-facto. These positions are a difference to a point of not being reconciled through mere arguments. They are sort of axiomatic differences that are hard to "prove" other than explaining a perspective and seeing if that is compelling enough to the other person. You are pissed at me for having a certain viewpoint. Believe it or not, other people who are neutral or pro-procreation have a viewpoint too. I am not forcing my viewpoint, but perhaps giving people a perspective they haven't thought about. Maybe it isn't good to impose or cause harm for another person, period, without regard to the tendency for people to report that they okay being harmed. Well, that's something to consider perhaps. Can you have another viewpoint? Of course. There's always another viewpoint. The obvious "majority" viewpoint is that procreation is "fair game".. If people are harmed, so be it.. At the end of the day they say they are fine with being born, so therefore its justified. Yep, I get that this is the point that "most people" try to make when justifying the fact that another person will be harmed by being born and imposed upon.
Quoting khaled
No dude, I am just getting tired arguing the same points. It has nothing to do with me not proving anything. I've addressed them throughout the conversation. You have to be charitable enough to just stop a conversation after a while. Not even other philosophers go on endless threads. They write their reposponsas and move on.. You are not respecting that this particular line of debate is for me, not interesting anymore. You then want to declare some sort of victory because I don't want to play. It's winning through attrition not winning by argument man. I'm just tired of this line of thought and want to move on.
This whole debate is pretty much back and forth on this:
My point was that imposing on others to a large extent is wrong.
Your point is that it is subjective to what extent.
My point was that often people under report the negatives.
Your point was either that people don't under report or that the report is just as accurate as the occurrence.
This just goes around and around now. We've said some interesting responses. Can't you accept that sometimes that's just the nature of arguments? There is no "winner" in these kind of arguments.
Moving to the other argument now..
Quoting khaled
No person exists prior to existence, no? Another disanalogy. In this case, the party has someone who exists, who "is" indeed missing out. There is no injustice in the case of the not born. No one "is" missing out. No one has the injustice of "not living" applied to "them". This doesn't hold for the burdenites though.
By this logic surprise parties are definitely wrong. You’re being inconsistent.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes. Because you said it first….
Quoting schopenhauer1
Can you at least keep track of your own position?
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I’m pissed that you refuse to address: “You think life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden, how did you come to that conclusion” despite being asked to do so 4? 5? Times now. I’ve lost count. Instead of addressing you bring it back to things we’ve discussed forever ago.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes you can. I’m doing so by pointing out yours isn’t even self consistent. You don’t think imposition is always wrong no matter how the recipient views it. First off, you don’t even count it as an imposition if they like it. Secondly, it would make surprise parties wrong, which is inconsistent with what you think. Now that doesn’t make my view correct, but that was never what I was arguing
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then stop responding. It’s not like I have a gun pointed to your head.
And you’re not respecting that it’s annoying for me to respond to someone who spontaneously loses interest in any line that may challenge their point of view despite claiming they welcome opposing views. Anything I say as a valid counter you ignore out of “I’m just not interested man” but I still respond to everything you write. It’s annoying when you don’t return the courtesy, and doubly so when you ignore specifically the lines that are problematic for you, and triply annoying when you bring back lines we’ve exhausted before.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Really? The sequence didn’t seem cyclical to me in any ways. That is largely my point yes. One that validly critiques your position because it requires that everyone be under reporting. And you have no evidence of this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sometimes there is, though that’s not what I’m after here. I’m just after you addressing what I say. And eventually we’ll reach a point where have to agree to disagree probably. But it’s annoying when you keep trying to bring this point about prematurely, instead of actually addressing critiques.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Another insignificant one. The only role non existing does in your argument is establish that no one is missing out. Well when a surprise party is cancelled, the recipient isn’t missing out either.
Quoting schopenhauer1
False. You can’t be missing out on a party when not knowing it was going to happen. Were you missing out on the 5 bucks I was totally about to give you a year ago but changed my mind and only told you about how? Were you suffering thinking “Damn, khaled hasn’t given me 5 bucks, this is painful despite the fact they I have no reason to believe he will give me 5 bucks”. Were you missing out on 5 bucks?
Quoting schopenhauer1
And no one has the injustice of “no party” applied to them.
Notice how I continue to address the awful asymmetry argument even though we’ve discussed it at length before and even though I’m tired of it.
We've been through this. The caveat was large impositions, like the ones life "itself" imposes. Didn't think I had to put that caveat by now as we have been through it before.
Quoting khaled
Yes, but you can't. I said that impositions are unwanted burdens- something EVERYONE deals with, or are you going to argue with that? The debate is of course how much and to what extent its taking place, but that is the debate at hand so to reiterate that point is to just say that we are debating that point as we speak, well yeah.
Quoting khaled
I addressed this. You think it is absolutely up to the person's report how much inconvenience there is and I think there is more than this straightforward account. The only thing I am refused to do thus far is start rattling off scientific papers. Just not interested. Other than that kind of evidence, I can only invite you to look up the phenomena and read up on OB. I also recommend Benatar's writings on it. Not too hard to search but I am not going to provide the links for you.. I know, I know, somehow your incredulity is my burden now. But see I can say the same for you.. You just bother not to look things up, etc. etc. But the difference is I am not entreating you to do this on this thread's dime. Simply put, we have two views of how this works, and then you want a justification regress that would require multiple scientific articles beyond the scope of this debate. Repeated ad nauseum now.
Quoting khaled
Same same as above. It is an extent. But what if I were to bite the bullet and say surprise parties are wrong, but to a much lesser degree (like degrees of burglary and other crimes)? What does this really matter? It's the same as extent really.
Also, I'm proposing some psychological theories for how we deal with burdens and report them. There are a number of other ones too for how we cope. I guess you are a strong "NO" to anything being contrary to someone's report. But EVEN with all these contingencies, the major point is the perspective we are taking. You are taking a radical subjectivist view... EVERYTHING is ONLY up to the person, and ONLY on self-reports on evaluations of the events. I am taking a view of the event itself. As long as imposition has happened, that should be considered, despite evaluations. There is not much we can do at this point because there is not much to prove one way or the other.
Quoting khaled
I believe I am and have.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
I guess then I am wondering then how this surprise analogy disproves the point, then? By not going through with the surprise party no "one" loses out (if the analogy is truly equivalent). If someone (maybe yourself) is burdened with the surprise party, it is THEY who lose out. The injustice still occurs for the burdenites, and that's the point.
Which you still haven’t shown actually meet the threshold. See, I wouldn’t mind you saying “I see life as too much of an imposition so I won’t have kids”. That’s reasonable. It’s saying “life is objectively bad or straight awful, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong” that is the bold claim requiring support. It is not sufficient what you think of life but you need to show why you are more an expert on everyone else’s lives than they are without having met them.
Quoting schopenhauer1
At least we can agree on something.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I don’t. But I don’t have to. I think OB exists, sure, but I think it plays such a marginal role that it doesn’t affect the reports much.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You’re making an error again. I’m past the point of questioning your unproven assertion that OB applies only to sufficiently long events since I see you really can’t be asked so there’s no point in asking. But you still have to show that OB plays a critical role and shifts the report significantly. And besides literally most happiness surveys aren’t binary, they ask you on a scale of 1-10. I’m willing to say that OB may sometimes increase the result by 1 occasionally.
The error is confusing “negative experiences tend to be remembered more fondly” with “every experience you remember fondly was probably the result of OB”. The first is a statement of OB, and the second clearly doesn’t follow from it. Yet you pretend it does.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right, but you’re the one putting up the thread, you’re the one trying to change people’s minds about something. So I’d expect you to have support for what you’re saying.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
See the problem is when I do search it, I find nothing that states that OB applies to long experiences only. So I kindly ask you to support your view, and you seem incapable of doing so, not just unwilling. But I’ve already accepted it for the sake of argument to try to move forward. You still can’t get “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” out of OB. You’re committing a logical error as I show above.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I’d stop talking to you because it seems ridiculous. Especially since I know you think they’re fine and if you bite the bullet you’d only be doing so to “win” the debate by pretending to believe something you don’t.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I just think the reports are mostly accurate despite of some biases.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nope.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes there is. You have supposedly derived that life is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” without any reference to these super faulty (something you haven’t shown) evaluations. Can you tell me how you did that? I’ve been asking for ages now.
Quoting schopenhauer1
What do you mean “burdened by the surprise party”? As in I’m an organizer? If I didn’t organize a surprise party in the first place I’d be “burdened”? What?
Sorry I legitimately don’t get this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Who?
There is no way to "prove" this. What you think is proof, isn't for someone else. Similar to what you accuse me, of course I can't say anything that someone doesn't think is proof enough. These are values. Values are hard to "prove". Yet you don't accept my meta-ethical stance that it's simply about what seems compelling. You don't find it compelling.. I am at peace with that. Not gonna make me cry myself to sleep worrying if Khaled finds "proof" that he needs to be satisfied.
I will say again the arguments that we have had...
Sometimes people can overlook things that are going on (Exploited worker argument and Willy Wonka's Game). They have limited choices, and don't realize it etc.. Some people don't realize something is indeed bad for them.. Look at anti-vaxers.. There's a lot of "proof" but they don't find it compelling. Is it bad for them? You can say that these people are living in ignorance and possibly negligence to others, but I guess everything is subjective right? If the majority of people are anti-vaxers, are they right? If a majority of people are exploited by a big boss smoking a cigar laughing his ass off in a backroom, is it right? You will say yes, I will say no. This is not about whether someone is exploited, but whether someone's reaction to the exploitation makes the exploitation non-existent or not harmful. Life has harms People are harmed.
I will ask again, does almost all life contain unwanted burdens, yes or no?
Quoting khaled
Some ideas to consider said perhaps more eloquently regarding OB:
Quoting David Benatar
Quoting khaled
Does almost all life encounter burdens and inconveniences, yes or no?
Do we disagree that something can be wrong, and people don't realize it, yes or no?
When you answer these, the debate comes to a standstill as we are at odds and "agree to disagree".
Quoting khaled
You said earlier YOU don't like surprise parties.. It isn't the people who never had surprise parties that are negatively affected (obviously), just the ones that don't like them.. Those are the people that it is relevant as an ethical issue. In other words, no people = no missing out on surprise parties. There is no harm done to people not born, obviously.
Well it becomes a problem when you try to convince others of something for which one of the main premises is not provable isn’t it?
Quoting schopenhauer1
No. Because being antivax isn’t an ethical position, it’s the stupid idea that vaccines are harmful which has been empirically falsified.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Don’t know where you’re getting that from.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well if they don’t mind it I would say yes. But for the sake of argument I’ve been saying no so far.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.
Now let me ask you this: If something that could contain unwanted burdens is pushed on someone is it automatically exploitative?
Because that would make everything you do to someone else exploitative.
And are you seriously quoting David benetar in response to me asking you why OB only applies to long events? Talk about unbiased sources!
1- Nowhere does he show that OB is operative enough to invalidate reports in the first place. He takes a few incredibly weak arguments and says “these don’t show that OB is less operative than I said it was”. But he never showed that it was operative much in the first place.
2- Nowhere does he show that OB is only active for longer events. Which is crucial to your view and which I gave up on asking you to prove because you clearly can’t. I thought at first that you couldn’t be bothered, but since you went out of your way to quote something anyways this shows me that all the “proof” that you have was just what Benetar said. If you had scientific proof of OB working only for longer events you would’ve quoted that as well while you’re at it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
For the sake of argument. Yes. Also I think you meant “do we agree”
Now, how do these two answers lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden”
Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive? (Hint: Surprise parties)
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes but despite my annoyance at anyone who would throw me one I wouldn’t say they’re doing something ethically wrong. Because I know they had good reason for believing it would work (unless they knew me and were just being malicious)
Obviously, the answer is no. It's ALL life. And they are there out of necessity. Without them, it would all be in vain. The burden of our dog's dead, still with me today, exists to emphasize the loving. The burden of proof exists to articulate (a kind of proof). The burden of death exists to make life. Without death life would be shit. Though sometimes I think I wanna live forever. The burden of a hurricane exists to seek shelter. The burden of war to release stress and see things with a fresh eye. The burden of TPF exists to keep an open mind or keep it closed.
There's a lot of things that are not "provable".. Are conservatives or liberals "right"? Why should politicians care to convince people? There is no "objectively" right, right? However, that's not quite the case either. It's about values and society. So, someone who thinks a homeless shelter should be built and funded with government money values this, and thinks this is generally good. Maybe the opposition says that it leads to other, unintended consequences, and this is actually not "good". Maybe anything government funded is always wrong to this person.. etc. etc. But see, these are views that they think are important and will try to convince others of their idea of justice, the right, the good, what is necessary, etc.
Now, I am not saying ethics is equivalent to politics, but it can function similarly in the idea that it is about making compelling arguments about what is right. For some weird reason, you think that no one should try to convince others unless its some sort of scientific law of gravity. Quite the opposite, gravity is gravity, it is what you do with that information that becomes where convincing comes in...It's the social aspects of human affairs that are where the grey areas are, and where debate occurs. In fact, your whole tenor to me wreaks of anti-debate in general.. DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ANYBODY!! Which you are of course trying to convince me of.. A bit of a circular logic. And no, debating values like, "Not causing unnecessary harm and burdens on others if you can prevent it" or "Some things are wrong even if those wronged don't know it" is NOT the same as debating whether chocolate is better than vanilla. Tastes and values are different. Believe it or not, someone else's values affects us everyday.. Someone's preferences for vanilla or chocolate generally do not (unless somehow that is affecting values). So now it's a matter of which values.
Quoting khaled
Your seeming insistence that wrong is only taking place when the person wronged perceives it as such. This seems an absolute rule for you.
Quoting khaled
Things like this prove the above.. You have been saying "no"? Your whole line of argument is "You can't say that there is wrong if others think there isn't".
Quoting khaled
I mean yeah, there's unavoidable harms we do to others all the time.. But that's more reason in my direction.. But wait, here is an instance where you actually can avoid burdening someone with unwanted harms. That's why I said earlier where other harms tend to be compromises and ameliorations, here is a place where you would be unnecessarily causing burdens, and not only "burdens" with a small "b" but ALL BURDENS, period. And yeah you don't like the asymmetry but look at it again.. There is no downside to anyone when it comes to the goods of life.
Quoting khaled
He is the one who is the main proponent of the theory so I think it is wise to quote a professional who spends their career studying how this bias affects perceptions. But I am not going down the scientific article route.. Which article would convince you? Nature? Psychology Journal? Cognitive Science Weekly? It will probably turn into justification regress.
Quoting khaled
Right a minor event that is only slight isn't a big deal but is problematic. A major event (oh let's say a whole life time of negative experiences) is indeed problematic.. It's not a matter of apples to apples here. It's apples to grenades.
Quoting khaled
See I think you think me more hostile than I am to those who have children. I think it is a wrong, and ethically problematic.. But I don't castigate people who have children.. I castigate procreation itself yes, but I do not personalize it.
Problem for antinatalists: The ongoing population explosion.
Well it depends on the issue.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Precisely because they think they’re right. You don’t see a politician saying “Ah well you see, this is just my opinion, but I think abortions may be wrong”
Quoting schopenhauer1
This implies that if people can agree on exactly what the consequences of building said shelter will be, they can agree whether it’s right or wrong yes? The only difference between the people is not holding different values here it is disagreement on what would happen. “Helping the homeless”, everyone agrees is good. “Promoting a culture where you get everything for no effort” everyone agrees is bad. The disagreement is how much of each is going to happen.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right but even if I argued this in this thread (which I’ve avoided doing on purpose), it still wouldn’t lead to “everything is subjective”. Shooting people for fun will be perceived as wrongdoing by any victim. That makes “shooting people for fun is wrong” objectively true.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Then quote when I used that argument in this thread.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Surprise parties also. Can we just skip this? Before you make an argument relating to birth could you ask yourself “does this also apply to surprise parties?” And only state the argument when it doesn’t?
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is no downside to the recipient when it comes to the goods of the surprise party either.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Surprise parties aren’t unavoidable. And you think they’re fine.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So should I start quoting all the professionals that disagree with him (all of them)? And you still haven’t shown how the Benetar quote is supposed to prove anything I asked you to prove.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Any of the above. Prove that OB applies only to long events AND that OB completely ruins an accurate assessment of quality of an event.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This has 0 bearing on the argument no? The question was:
Quoting khaled
When does duration of the event come into it?
You think it’s fundamentally ok for an event that is mostly positive to be inflicted correct? Let’s say a surprise party is 80% positive 20% negative (however you want to measure that since you seem to ignore people's reports and experiences….) and you find it acceptable to inflict. If we knew a particular child would enjoy a similar 80% positive 20% negative life experience, would it be wrong to have them?
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s the difference innit?
Quoting khaled
That's my point! How is that arguing against what I'm saying?? Procreation is wrong, ergo don't procreate. The point is when people think there is something problematic, they may speak up and explain why think think it's problematic.. Abortion, how much to restrict X, etc. By the way where do you address your circular logic of arguing that I should not try to convince people, when you are trying to convince me not to try to convince people yourself?
Quoting khaled
Not really. It is a difference of values how people prioritize things like what the government should fund, whether it's okay for it to be in their "backyard" (NIMBY), whether what they say and what they do is aligned, whether shelter matters more than other priorities, etc. Any number of issues can be about any number of viewpoints and usually people bring their values to this. If not this example that you are satisfied with there are literally hundreds of political issues you can choose from where people are going to differ in values- Immigration, recreational drugs, crime, military, etc. etc. etc. If you can't think of any, then you are not thinking hard enough and trivializing political differences as negligible for some sort of false picture. Just look at the political arguments even on this forum!!
Quoting khaled
Yes, of course you have purposely done so, because that would lead you to actually have an argument yourself which would make it easier for others to attack and you hate making claims yourself it seems, because you love being the one who attacks other claims and not leaving your own views exposed.. Quite a nice tactic to be dodgy like that and never be the one to say a statement others can debate.. You can be perfect khaled whose views are some how flawlessly never left open for debate :lol:.
But anyways, you are still being radically subjective in the fact that it has to be perceived as such by a majority.. but instead of majority you say "everyone" which by the way is never always the case. And yes you have said your view that you are subjectivist way back, but yes you are not saying it outright throughout this debate.. Anyways, I take your quote as saying, "If everyone thinks it (most people), then it is right". It is the case that people can be imposed upon but haven't put it together just how.. Hence I like to elucidate on exactly that.. Think of things like Marx and "class consciousness" and historical dialectic. It opened up a new dialogue for how to talk about economic class relations in the world. Even things such as "human rights" or "universal rights" in the 1600s and 1700s opened up a way of discussing universality of humanity which really was not discussed other than perhaps in religious terms before this.. New theories and insights open up paths for "realizing" new ideas which then become so part of the culture it seems like it was always there. But no, before the Enlightenment, it would be very doubtful any person would be talking about their universal, or constitutionally-given rights, or anything like that, but a perspective of discourse was opened to them, and now it is like part of the water for most Westernized countries. Look at China's more communitarian value systems.. Perhaps individualistic rights are actually NOT something often quoted by those happy with government practices and who have limited access to Westernized political ideas and media, etc.etc.
Quoting khaled
Honestly, so F'n tired of your surprise party disanalogy. Honestly, almost all your strategy is to falsely equivocate bad analogies to the main argument. I go along with it for argument's sake, but I really don't even agree to the analogy.. I humor you in other words, but I think you unfairly pigeon hole arguments into bad analogies and steer the argument around the so-called hypocrisy you have conjured by wielding it that isn't even taking place because the analogy itself is only shallowly similar. Can we just drop the analogy or is that your main one trick pony you learned in khaled debate class (i.e. get people to agree to some sort of analogy and then bludgeon them over and over with it..life guards and surprise parties oh my!)? We are going to have to agree to disagree in a major way here if you can't see how surprise parties are different in too substantial a way from literally a lifetime of negative experiences itself. You have picked something that is imposed upon on others, but pretty much falls apart in all the other way in which life itself has negative experiences over someone's literal lifetime.
Quoting khaled
Who cares.. Not the same anyways.. But even if I was to humor you (yet again I must be nice or something to agree to even indulge this bad analogy).. If there's no downside to no good of the surprise party, and those who would be harmed from the surprise party are not being harmed.. There ya go.
Quoting khaled
See, I am NOT asking for that because as I have said repeatedly now, I am keeping this to a discussion on a philosophy forum not slinging scientific articles at each other. This isn't a science forum, and I don't intend to make it one. I have said that neither you nor I need to look up articles on this thread's dime.. you can entreat me to do so, but I'm not biting. Being that I don't even think your analogy holds, this whole line of arguing about the duration of the (fuckn) surprise party has become a waste-of-time rabbit hole that you have managed to steer here. AGAIN, to indulge your bad analogy (for the last time cause if you bring it up I am just not debating it now)... I am saying that summing up a (let's say) 4 hour event might be easier than summing up 90 years worth of experiences. That's all I'm saying. Even if I am wrong on this.. It doesn't change that one is summing up 90 years of experiences into a binary statement of "Is life good or bad?".
Quoting khaled
In the words of Dana Carvey's George Bush impression.. "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent".
Quoting khaled
Besides that fact that we don't "know" the experiences of any particular child (and the ones that will be affected negatively are what matter here if we go with my other argument we were discussing for never born vs born but negatively affected)..It is still a life time of pervasive inescapable negative experiences and that is not okay to impose on someone (this is a value statement...one that can definitely be debated which you seem to think it is not).
And others may speak up to say why it's not problematic.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is a pretty critical difference here. I'm not going around telling people "Y'all should have kids". You're going around telling them they shouldn't. So it's not simply enough that your values are "different". You can't agree to disagree here. When you put forward a position, you must justify why your values are "better" than the alternative, that's what convincing is. You haven't done so, instead it always ends on "let's agree to disagree".
To say "let's agree to disagree, our values are different and unprovable" seems to me to mean that you have failed to find a reason someone should take your values instead of the alternative. If so, starting new threads every time makes no sense. And will be met with the same response.
I'm not against convincing. I'm against trying to convince when the convincer knows that the opposing view is just as valid as his own without mentioning so. Because they're telling people they're right while knowing there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. It's intentional lying.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I'll give you that one
Quoting schopenhauer1
Oh so you failed to find a quote eh? A second ago I thought it was my main point. Huh, weird.
And I have made that argument on separate threads and we discussed it at length before so it makes no sense to say I haven't. But no the reason I don't make it isn't fear that someone would attack it, rather, it's that you don't find it convincing. I don't think you have a justified position even without making this argument. I'd be happy to discuss it later, but you seem to not have time for long posts. In fact, if you could somehow access comments before they were edited you would find that I had a pretty long paragraph critiquing the way you judge situation without taking into account the recipient's experiences or reports, but I deleted it out of fear you would dismiss everything again because it's too long.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That seems like the exact opposite of radical subjectivity..... I'm being humanist, not subjective. And I don't get what the point of the rest of the paragraph is sorry to say.
Quoting schopenhauer1
So as usual the ways in which it fails are: Length and Percentage of negative experiences. And the latter you have yet to prove is sufficiently different to make it wrong despite being asked to do so around 8 times now.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I.... Don't understand what this means. So you're saying surprise parties are wrong or right?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well you certainly are saying it. Doesn't make it correct. Generally speaking when you make up psychological principles you need to be able to back them up. But ok. I already accepted that OB only applies to long experiences for the sake of argument. Still doesn't lead to "life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden". You need to show this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well that's also false isn't it? I already told you most surveys measure quality of life on a spectrum (1 to 10) and the vast majority say something (way) above 5. What makes that report untrustworthy? It's no longer binary. How much do you think OB raised the average score?
If you could somehow show that OB raises the score by like 5 or 6 then you may have a case. But you can't show this despite it being crucial to your view about the quality of life, which is crucial for your Antinatalism. And if you can't show this, if you have no good argument for your position, why are you trying to convince people of it?
Quoting schopenhauer1
But.... it isn't. It literally has the same quality as a party the entire time. So you think that duration somehow makes the experience more wrong to inflict?
You seem to be valuing suffering much more than pleasure. So although the quality of the experience hasn't changed one bit, one case has a higher quantity of suffering making it wrong. Is that it?
Quoting khaled
Absolutely, that is discourse, dialectic, debate, etc.
Quoting khaled
I think I do, thank you very much. But as far as telling people "Y'all shouldn't have kids", that is a poor and uncharitable interpretation of what I'm doing. As I said before, I am debating the ethical implications of procreation, I am not personalizing it saying, "You, YOU, should not have kids". There is a difference between making something a personal condemnation and debating a philosophical principle. I don't go around shaming pregnant people or trying to make them feel bad.
Quoting khaled
Oh you are being self-righteous here.. I'm glad you made it your duty to put me in my place with the other side :roll:. Even hardcore anti-abortionists knows that the otherside thinks their point of view is just as valid.. But again, different values leads to different ethical arguments. Different views on "life" in the case of abortion. Is a fetus of X months a "life"? What really makes it so? These are all debatable and highly contentious for some people. Is life "really" debatable? Same thing. To pretend like I thought that there is no argument just because I present my view of it, is to me suspicious. Like you are trying to paint me a certain way for some reason.
Quoting khaled
:up:
Quoting khaled
Ok. I just chose not to hunt for it it and paste it, I remembered it though.
Quoting khaled
Fair enough. But I am just saying that it is still just a viewpoint, similar to how I have a viewpoint. It can be debated as well.
Quoting khaled
I mean to say that you take people's subjective view of what is right and wrong. Not sure where your distinction is here. If 51% of those views think the same thing it's right? Ok, then some sort of subjectivist-majoritarian thing going on. Either way, it's a viewpoint- one of various different epistemological ones regarding whether something is moral or not.
As for the rest of the paragraph it was to say that my particular epistemic view is that people may be imposed upon but they aren't aware how.. I mentioned how Marx and the Enlightenment brought ideas out people weren't really fully aware of and then once he put them in center stage people gained (you can almost say "grew") more awareness of some ethically problematic things (rights-violation, class consciousness and exploitation, etc.). They opened up paths for new understandings on ethics and politics that were not there previously (at least not in the concrete way that these formalized). Perhaps a "majority" of people simply weren't aware of certain ethical implications before the explanations of these thinkers and ideas being presented. So to quote myself again with this explanation in mind:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting khaled
I don't agree to the analogy as explained above, so doesn't matter. However, to keep indulging this, it has gotten bogged down from my initial reason for its disanalogy. That is because it is a discrete event that people generally like.. Life isn't a "discrete event people generally like". To me, its more of a container with various kinds of events/experiences. So, if you were to say to me life is like the someone giving the gift a bowl of chocolate ice cream (your favorite flavor let's say), then I would say that is wrong right off the bat. However, even if we were to keep your example, because the stakes are so low (dislike of surprise parties aren't a big deal to the person), the imposition becomes negligible as to not be equivalent to (literally), a lifetime of negative experiences of all degrees and kinds.
Quoting khaled
I'm saying that the harm doesn't matter to those who never experienced the surprise party (and didn't know about it), it matters to those who had to go through it and didn't like it (though it is seems very trivial even for them which is mainly why this is so disanalogous).
Quoting khaled
Right, because of how we view differences is impositions (something which you seem to have a hard time with). So I will ask again..
Does almost all life have some impositions?
As I said earlier:
Quoting schopenhauer1
And
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting khaled
Now this is a very core part of the argument. Imposing unwanted and unnecessary burdens for someone else is the main axiom here. That is the wrong being done. 1) Working to get better circumstance = a necessary (evil/need/thing/event)
2) Creating the conditions where someone needs to get better circumstances (aka through working) = not necessary.
It is unnecessarily creating conditions of harm and impositions for others that is what matters here. It is not ameliorating anything, but unnecessarily creating it. So Quoting khaled
Yes, the surprise party becomes somewhat negligible when compared to the impositions of other harms of a whole lifetime. Again Willy Wonka's forced game (more limited options than people think), and other Exploited worker.. One is forced to play the game and but has no other choice but to play it, really. What other option is there? And suicide brings up a whole other issue.
Maybe. But that’s what it sounded like to me.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yea but they don’t think the other side is valid (hence hardcore). And so they don’t agree to disagree. You keep saying “let’s agree to disagree” which implies you think the other side is just as valid.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
So you think they’re debatable but that there is no right answer?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Same question as above.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No I think what’s right and wrong is objective. I also think most of the time the majority view happens to coincide with that objectively correct thing or at worst, is indecisive. More so as time passes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
How do you define a discrete event as opposed to a:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
I never claimed they were equivalent. Not even close. The whole point of the analogy is to stop type arguments like the following:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which… by your logic would make it wrong no?
Do the party:
Risk of suffering - bad
Chance of pleasure - doesn’t seem to matter to you, or matters very little.
Don’t do the party: No risks
You can replace “Do the party” with “Have kids”, and that would be your argument.
This would make it wrong by your logic. But you don’t think it’s wrong. So your logic (asymmetry argument) must not make sense, since it’s saying something you think is false, is true. Type arguments tend to be rigid like that producing all sorts of ridiculous side effects.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yes but as above: You don’t always mind impositions. You don’t mind surprise parties.
There is a loop going on here:
[b]You: Actions of type X (impositions, things to which the asymmetry applies, etc) are wrong. (1)
Me: But surprise parties are of type X and you think they’re fine. (2)
You: Well surprise parties aren’t X enough. They’re not even comparable! (3)
Me: Define “X enough” such that you can make your position objective. Why is someone that thinks that life is not X enough either wrong? (4)
You: Well life is clearly X and actions of type X are wrong! (5)
Repeat.[/b]
Quoting schopenhauer1
That’s step one. Response: Parties :cool:
Again, not saying they’re close in terms of suffering inflicted. Just saying they share all of these properties and you think they’re fine. So these properties aren’t sufficient to tell which impositions are right or wrong. (Step 2)
Quoting schopenhauer1
So you’re saying the imposition of a surprise party is not big enough to make it wrong. (Step 3)
Why is someone that thinks the imposition of life is not enough to make procreation wrong, wrong? (Step 4)
Let’s see if we can make it to step 6 and not just go back to step 1
How "hardcore" do you want me to be? I think that's the problem with people like "hardcore" anything.. People don't know when to stop when everyone's points are made and the dialogue can't go any further.
Quoting khaled
I think there's a right answer based on the logic and evidence, but that not everyone is going to see it that way, and I accept that. Open dialogue with people who don't share the same view is not a bad thing. The problem is that no one is going to get 100% what they want. Even anti-abortionists in the US wouldn't get what they really want if Roe v. Wade was reversed because a majority of the states would allow it (as it would get thrown back to the states rather than being allowed on a federal basis). By the way, I am in no way siding with the anti-abortionists side, but giving an example. Certainly in a universe if anti-abortionists had their way, they would roughshod their point right through cause there would be no opposition (in their universe).
Quoting khaled
I think that's a slippery slope with aligning what is objective with the majority view. It took real effort and convincing- compelling arguments, to ensure things like "rights", "human rights", "women's rights", "minority rights", etc. Your profile says you live in Tokyo.. At one point Japan's majority thought it great to expand into China for things like resources and perhaps even racial reasons. After WWII and two atomic bombs, this view is largely replaced with anti-militaristic majority (albeit with a lot of force at the beginning). At one point actually, many people sided with the idea that Japan should be separate from Western powers and isolated to not get corrupted.. Then they went the complete opposite, copying (and often improving) Western-originated ideas. That only took 40-50 years for Japan's medieval economy to outmaneuver Russian forces (a more Westernized force) in the Russo-Japanese War..
Anyways, these changes from what was previous to what seems as self-evident weren't just "always there".. They took people's hard efforts to make it part of the mainstream. So my meta-ethical theory is more Hegelian.. Ethics is discovered over time, but has been true all along. It unfortunately takes a lot of tragedies, empathetic thinking, and the efforts of people who are able to convince, to change the current trend. So it isn't just that a majority happens to align with what is objective by happenstance, it was because of a slow march of historical dialectic. But, I have said too much that is a bit off topic so I will stop here.
Quoting khaled
So I think you are missing a crucial middle ground which is something I'll call type-extent arguments. That is to say, stealing is wrong no matter what. However, stealing a pencil from Walmart, while wrong would not be on the same level as stealing let's say your neighbor's car, or lifesaving medicine from a pharmacy because you can sell it on the black market. There are degrees of wrong. So I can very well say that surprise parties are wrong, but to such a minimal extent that its negligible. And indeed law often reflects this same reasoning. If some teenage punk says "Fuck Walmart!" and steals a pencil, he might get fined, maybe community service. If he breaks into a pharmacy and steals drugs to sell on the black market, that might be a much more major offense. It's a different degree of stealing. Your line of argument seems to try to push me against the wall to not notice any degrees at all. Why should I overlook degrees of wrong? I never said I was a full on Kantian or anything, so I am not being hypocritical here (though I sympathize with deontology more than other normative theories). Also, going back to your life guarding example (ugh), it may indeed be worse to wake up the life guard (for no reason!) causing the negligible harm compared to letting the drowning kid die. The degrees are so incommensurable that to not save the child would be the much greater wrong. And I have already said that in living, one of the downsides is the very fact that we must ameliorate greater harms (wrongs) with lesser harms (wrongs). Two wrongs can make a right if the wrong of one is to mitigate the worse wrong. So yes, Kant can be right in a way. .Lying to the perpetrator could be wrong, but it is necessary to overcome the greater wrong in contributing to your friend's death by telling him where he is.
Another point here.. So you seem to be fine with causing CONDITIONS of harm as long as those CONDITIONS lead to some form of happiness (which can then later be reported as good later on). But that is precisely the kind of utilitarian thinking that I am arguing against. The creation of the wrongs in the first place (unnecessarily I say) is the wrong part. There is no obligation to create happy people, but there is an obligation to prevent harm (when it is possible). This axiom prevents all sorts of utilitarian exchanges.. Such as making a person who will be harmed to prevent so X future event. That is like saying "I am going to cause there to be conditions of drowning, because X good might come about for some people as well". It is the conditions of drowning that matter here. Unfortunately, in the situation of being ALREADY BORN, the condition of drowning is already a factor (for him and the lifeguard). NOW ameliorations of all sorts take place. However, if the condition of drowning ITSELF could have been prevented, THAT was the right action (even though it meant the life guard couldn't work on his/her summer tan).
So to sum it up, you can have degrees of wrong. I would still say to the punk teenage kid, "Don't steal the pencil". I can still say to the surprise party committee, "Don't throw surprise parties".. but if they do, the degree of harm and imposition is so light that I wouldn't lose much sleep over it, let alone write numerous posts about it. My "convincing" is a bit different than what you are doing here with me. That is to say, I am usually appealing to our human experience holistically more or less. You seem to interpret my style as being much more condemning of actual individuals than it actually is.. So me trying to demonstrate some of the negatives of living (to the point that perhaps we shouldn't "foist" this situation on another), you seem to be taking as outright condemnation of individual people who have kids, which I am absolutely not doing.
Quoting khaled
So going back to what I said earlier, ALL I CAN DO, is show how indeed life DOES contain more suffering than they may at first realize. That's all I can do.. convince. So what if they are not convinced? So be it. I've been saying this the whole time. The convincing is trying to show how much suffering there really is compared to what they are taking into consideration. You keep saying things that I already know, that people don't INHERENTLY agree with this. It is also showing that perhaps there is an injustice here by foisting the inescapable, unnecessary imposition/harms. (see next paragraph)
We have to admit this.. Once born, there is a conundrum that one cannot be unborn. One can only commit suicide if one wants "out". But this is not the same thing. By being born, we exist to be harmed but if we didn't exist there is no us to know anything one way or another.
There are multiple reasons a dialogue can't go forward. Either, a party refuses to move it forward, or the parties have found a fundamental disagreement in values. You keep making it seem like the latter is what is occurring here. But if that is the case, why do you keep starting threads advertising your view when you know that the opposing view is just as valid?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Same.
Quoting schopenhauer1
It is well known that public sentiment wasn't exactly all for the war in Japan since it put a ridiculous toll on the working class. The "need" to expand was mostly only seen in the military. But hey, I just live here, I'm not from here so I don't know the history very well. At least, that's what the Japanese seem to think happened.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Which.... would lead to the majority being correct most of the time as time passes.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Do you think at the time women's rights weren't a thing that most women were convinced that a lack of rights was fair? Same with minorities. You seem to equate a group of people not being able to voice their opposition, to that same group agreeing with the current system.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Nothing I said prevents this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But you don't. If you did I wouldn't have engaged in the first place.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No. But it does require you to say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong". Then you'd be out of the "wall"
Quoting schopenhauer1
Most would see that the harm done in having children is much much less than the harm done by trying (and most most likely failing) to bring humanity to extinction. But that's an argument we already went over forever ago. And your response was something like "There is some degree of dignity that cannot be violated" or something like that. It will go very similarly to this. I'll ask you "Why is someone that thinks that life doesn't violate the "dignity threshold" wrong?" And we'll go around in circles again. I don't mind, but I don't understand why you're rehashing arguments from months ago when you seem so keen on ending the conversation.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right. So surprise parties and gifts are wrong?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Also makes surprise parties wrong. But as of yet, you haven't said they are.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That's what I've been asking you to do for ages now. How much do you think OB raises the quality of life reports in surveys? And why that specific number? You refuse to answer this.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Now replace "born" with "admitted to a surprise party" and "commit suicide" with "leave"
This is going to keep going around in circles until you either:
1- Say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong" to be consistent.
2- Show that people are completely incorrect in their evaluations of life quality while maintaining that they're not wrong about evaluations of surprise parties (if you want to keep those morally ok).
I've been asking you to do one or the other for ages now.
So why should anyone debate anything that they care about? You think this is about debating specifically YOU. Most debates last for a certain amount of time. Every time I make a thread I am not trying to debate specifically YOU, with the same type of debate topics over and over believe it or not.
Quoting khaled
Maybe, but then you had fighter pilots committing kamikaze. That doesn't seem like simply being forced. But I do get that it is more nuanced. Quoting khaled
Yes, a lot of women didn't really rally around it for a long time. It was just not part of the culture yet. It slowly spread over time. There was a strong minority though that kept pushing for more recognition of rights like voting. There had to be convincing for some women and for at least some men for this to have become more popular. My point was that a majority had different ideas that didn't come about until there was a push for it. Caveman, nor ancient man, nor medieval man, had the same ethical principles of Enlightenment man, and even then the Enlightenment hadn't reached more than the educated elite. And even then, people like Thomas Jefferson believed slavery tolerable (if not preferable). And today, even more rights are recognized than in the Enlightenment.
Quoting khaled
I am saying that. Surprise parties are >0 wrong (but just barely). I find it akin to let's say being pressured to go to a family dinner party when you don't like going to family dinner parties. Maybe you find them boring. Maybe you get anxiety around certain people. You have no real obligation to go to the dinner party simply because you are a family member that was invited to the dinner party. If one were coerced to a degree of shaming and such, one can say that is similar to being "imposed upon" by the surprise party. Now one is going there from severe guilt mechanisms rather than truly caring or wanting to be there. This severe form of coercion is unnecessary impositions and is wrong. However, it is not like they are coercing some horrible miserable event on the person.. It's just a dinner party, so though the coercion is wrong, it is minimal and nothing like imposing a whole lifetime of inescapable limits and harms on someone.
Another minor imposition.. A really busy waitstaff that is slammed with people, mistakenly overcharges a meal $4. The person who is overcharged doesn't realize this until after the meal. However, they see how busy the restaurant is and then at the end of the day says, "it isn't worth $4". Now the waitstaff was definitely in the wrong. They unintentionally stole from the customer. However, the imposition was minor. It was wrong still.. Doesn't matter what the customer allowed to be the case. However, imagine if the waitstaff did that every time the customer came in..again again and again. At some point the customer, even if they are just too nice to say something, is getting ripped off to the point that this crosses the threshold of dignity.
Quoting khaled
Because you keep bringing them up, so I keep answering as I usually do to these same/similar lines of inquiry.
Quoting khaled
Sure, negligibly. The same way that if someone puts a spritz of lemonade in their free water at the soda fountain, are "negligibly" wrong but if they kept taking full cups of lemonade or soda every time they went there, it starts add up to a bigger offense. Like in calculus where limits are essentially going to zero, negligible wrongs like this can be practically swept under as near to not wrong as it can get while still being wrong.
Quoting khaled
I have been and did say I'd "bite the bullet" for your little analogy.
Quoting khaled
This one. I've already said it.
However, Quoting khaled
This is also the case but I'm not going down the science forum article game with you. I will offer my examples of the Exploited Worker and Willy Wonka's Game (limited choices that people don't realize are more limited than they think).
If I said to you, "I don't want to work to survive". Then you can say, okay, "find a better job". And I say, "No no, I just don't want to play the game of work itself (Willy Wonka Game of limited choices), what do I do?" And you said, "Oh, well you take some pills, or a gun, or a sharp knife see, and you destroy your body and consciousness in one fell swoop".. I don't know if you realize how fucked up that is. Of course I'm going to play Willy Wonka's Game rather than the latter.. A majority don't commit suicide but not because they necessarily like the game of working to survive. They don't mind it cause there's NO OTHER OPTIONS!! Of course the course of advice will be to radically ACCEPT the situation and embrace some form of work and find happiness in it. There are literally NO OTHER OPTIONS (excepting the painful and scary prospect of suicide). There has to be some level of group think going on here. People can't just rebel against work, their employer, the country, and life itself. This will go to shit and we can't have that. People are put in a (practically) inescapable, and limited game. You accept or die. Yet this is overlooked because self-reporting to you is all that matters for what is right. And this is where our axioms will not go much further in debate.
And as I said previously, no one is obligated to bring happiness to people, so that part of life isn't what's in question. I see happiness-bringing as supererogatory.. It goes above and beyond, is nice to have, but not an obligation. Certainly, UNNECESSARILY creating pain to bring about happiness for SOMEONE ELSE is also wrong. The unnecessarily part there negates any ideas about cases of ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms as we already went through that.
You know they couldn't land right? They get punished or killed for cowardice. Again, conflating not being able to voice opposition with agreement to the current system.
Quoting schopenhauer1
They shouldn't debate it every week would be my answer. I just don't understand what you hope to gain by starting the same topic over and over.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I would think that a large part of that was not by choice.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yea, just now.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I didn't bring up the lifeguard thing because it was supposed to be showing something else. It was supposed to be showing that it is ok to impose on someone if it saves someone else a lot of suffering, even if you weren't responsible for said suffering (you didn't throw the guy in the water). One could argue for having children being ethical from that angle. That by imposing they reduce suffering much more than by not doing so.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, good thing no one would do that! You make it seem like having children can never ameliorate harms. As above, having children can itself be seen as amelioration of harms.
Do you think that the person who gave birth to the inventor of painkillers did something wrong assuming he knew that would be the outcome?
Quoting schopenhauer1
You said you "could" bite the bullet. But only now did so.
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
You also think that if I surprised you with 5 bucks as a gift that I just did something wrong so I don't particularly care what you think anymore.
Same goes to you buddy. Why are you debating me so much? You feel your life's mission is to put me in my place on this forum for some reason? If my debating is repetitious to you, yours is that much squared, as you are perpetuating it and you don't even like the philosophy.
Quoting khaled
Not necessarily. Like everything, there is nuance. Some might have been pressured or forced, but some volunteered.
While it is commonly perceived that volunteers signed up in droves for kamikaze missions, it has also been contended that there was extensive coercion and peer pressure involved in recruiting soldiers for the sacrifice. Their motivations in "volunteering" were complex and not simply about patriotism or bringing honour to their families. Firsthand interviews with surviving kamikaze and escort pilots has revealed that they were motivated by a desire to protect their families from perceived atrocities and possible extinction at the hands of the Allies. They viewed themselves as the last defense.[59]
At least one of these pilots was a conscripted Korean with a Japanese name, adopted under the pre-war Soshi-kaimei ordinance that compelled Koreans to take Japanese personal names.[60] Eleven of the 1,036 IJA kamikaze pilots who died in sorties from Chiran and other Japanese air bases during the Battle of Okinawa were Koreans.
It is said that young pilots on kamikaze missions often flew southwest from Japan over the 922 m (3,025 ft) Mount Kaimon. The mountain is also called "Satsuma Fuji" (meaning a mountain like Mount Fuji but located in the Satsuma Province region). Suicide-mission pilots looked over their shoulders to see the mountain, the southernmost on the Japanese mainland, said farewell to their country and saluted the mountain. Residents on Kikaishima Island, east of Amami ?shima, say that pilots from suicide-mission units dropped flowers from the air as they departed on their final missions.
Kamikaze pilots who were unable to complete their missions (because of mechanical failure, interception, etc.) were stigmatized in the years following the war. This stigma began to diminish some 50 years after the war as scholars and publishers began to distribute the survivors' stories.[61]
Some Japanese military personnel were critical of the policy. Officers such as Minoru Genda, Tadashi Minobe and Yoshio Shiga, refused to obey the policy. They said that the commander of a kamikaze attack should engage in the task first.[62][63] Some persons who obeyed the policy, such as Kiyokuma Okajima, Saburo Shindo and Iyozo Fujita, were also critical of the policy.[64][65] Sabur? Sakai said: "We never dared to question orders, to doubt authority, to do anything but immediately carry out all the commands of our superiors. We were automatons who obeyed without thinking."[66] Tetsuz? Iwamoto refused to engage in a kamikaze attack because he thought the task of fighter pilots was to shoot down aircraft.[67][/quote]
Quoting khaled
Cultural indoctrination is a thing. When something is just "the way it is" for a long time, it isn't really questioned as there was never a precedent for it.
Quoting khaled
Don't need painkillers if there was no pain to begin with. This is just moving the needle down the line. Using people for ends like this is a slippery slope. How many generations and people need to suffer so someone can "save" them? And did the painkillers save anybody? It is a bandaid on a much larger wound that life itself creates for people. By having children it's like hot potato.. and the potato gets passed on over and over anew.
Quoting khaled
Thank goodness. Your tactics are getting old. Create a situation where no one gets harmed and then compare it to one where there is immense harm. At least surprise parties the chance of harm is a bit more greater. What I do notice is you clearly don't pay attention to the argument if it doesn't quite jive with the "checkmate" you were looking for. For example, right here you ignored all the examples of wrongs that are so negligible as to not matter, like the limits of calculus. Giving five bucks to someone is so far off the harmful impositions of life, you have lost the forest for the trees in your tiresome trick pony show.
Also, now that I think about it, why would a case so clearly unharmful even be considered as in the same category as imposing harms? How is this not under the supererogatory category of happiness-bringing? But you see, this goes down to disanalogies. Life itself contains all harms, and yet here is a case of so limited a prospect of harm as to be negligible in terms of "harmful imposition". In fact, no act of unasked for happiness-bringing would be exempt of that minimal possibility of harm. This would also put more evidence in my camp that once born, there is almost no escaping ameliorations. Happiness bringing becomes wrapped up in the possibility of harm. But again, procreation is one place where no ameliorations have to take place. No using anyone has to take place either. You simply prevent unnecessary harm, period. No ONE loses.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because I FEEL LIKE IT!!!!!!!!
Also to prevent AN threads from turning into the echo chambers they usually turn to. Start whatever thread you want, but stop complaining when the same people respond to the same arguments in the same way.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You think slaves were culturally indoctrinated to believe what’s happening to them was fair?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Is it no one gets harmed or is it:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because it makes a pretty big difference. Also, when did this comparison take place? Kindly point me to where I compared imposing life to giving 5 bucks.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I didn’t ignore them. I ignored you for thinking them. You unironically think that surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong. To make it sound less ridiculous, you say “oh but they’re not that wrong”.
You think gifting someone 5 bucks is wrong. I don’t see the point of continuing the conversation at that point.
And I also ignored them because you don’t see the obvious next problem: You think that some things, while wrong by to do, are acceptable (surprise parties). What makes life not one of those things? And we’re back at step 4
Quoting schopenhauer1
False. The people who exist are ameliorated usually. Unless everyone decides tomorrow not to have kids, which won’t happen. Assuming the “torch will be passed” (which we agree it will) it is not clear that having children is so unnecessary.
Quoting schopenhauer1
But there is and there will continue to be. Making this a pointless hypothetical.
But you were the one who mentioned being annoyed that I start these threads. And yet you continue to engage in argument with me, despite this. Sometimes a troll is a troll is a troll. There is something odd of the fact that you find this whole line of argument ridiculous and yet you engage. I find the echo chamber thing dubious. Barely anyone agrees with me.. If anyone else agrees, they leave like two comments and then they tend to leave, leaving me with the brunt of the work to defend. More so I find disagreement, maybe not as ardent and continuous as yours, but that is NOT an echo chamber. Take a general survey here if you like.. I don't mind argumentation, it's trollish pointed argumentation that I am suspect of. Instead of being mutually invigorating, it's just a slog.
Quoting khaled
Some of them, yes. A lot of religion was used in this respect for example. Systematic breaking down of one's own identity as an independent person, and then generationally etc.
Quoting khaled
I don't know, does someone get harmed? Did we not agree that there is something called type-extent? Or at least did you not acknowledge that I posited this and then explained about degrees and limits to practically 0?
Quoting khaled
That's your whole strategy to say, "If this isn't wrong, life isn't wrong".
Quoting khaled
Right as I said above you are doing.. We disagree on the extent of the unnecessary burdens of life. You think I'm overestimating it and I think you are underestimating it. I also disagree that self-reports are the only way to assess whether it is estimated correctly. Rather, both inescapable and contingent burdens great and small take place regularly, whether or not people report that they have a positive favorability towards life.
Quoting khaled
You mean, YOU believe this to be false based on how you view philosophical positions on this manner. But I get it, shorthand..
Quoting khaled
Irrelevant. If the majority found X wrong thing to be good, doesn't make it so. Some people are ameliorated by things that harm others.. I don't put any malicious intent on this, just a kind of ignorance of the harms. Do you think that I think most natalist-sympathizers are malicious in wanting or condoning having kids? Then you would be very mistaken.
Huh, funny, I was just about to say the same to you.
You understand it takes two to debate right?
And it was only recently with your saying “having surprise parties is wrong” that I began to find it ridiculous. But you also introduced old arguments which are what I spend most of the list addressing.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is a difference between 0 and “practically 0”.
Practically 0 is what you say when you want to make a ridiculous position sound less ridiculous. “Yes gifts are wrong, but so slightly that we’re better off ignoring I just said this”.
Quoting schopenhauer1
False. And I pointed out on 3 separate occasions that this is not what I’m doing. It's more like "If you think this isn't wrong you have no consistent basis by which you can tell someone life is wrong". Now you do, since you thinking gifting people things is wrong....
Quoting khaled
Quoting schopenhauer1
So, you recognize the fact that next generations will exist, and even in light of that fact do not consider that having children could be ameliorating?
You consider surprise gifts wrong, and to make it less ridiculous you introduce a degree of wrong at which it "tends to 0 like in calculus" so it's fine to do, not realizing that this doesn't help you at all since now you have to explain why surprise gifts are "wrong but not wrong enough" while life is "wrong and wrong enough". Again:
Quoting khaled
In addition to having these ridiculous premises that I very much doubt you believe yourself, you also don't even understand what I'm arguing for despite me pointing it out to you multiple times previously. So continuing this is pointless. Bye.
Well, at least I don't hear anything about echo chambers so I think I made my point on how it isn't/wasn't for my threads.. so still suspicious for your ardency. I probably debate you as I feel if I just leave it, then you think that I am just saying that the case rests.. I don't know how you interpret silence, but it is not going to be in a charitable way based again, on your ardency and style. You can also say, that I fall for troll bait, not sure.
Quoting khaled
No, not at all. It's what others might say is "trivial harm". I have nothing against trivial harms.. If life was JUST trivial harms, then it is fine.. That is the point of type-extent.. You don't get that part because you are still shoe-horning it into type-only arguments and not getting how degrees work.
Quoting khaled
Okay.. I see at least a landing pad here for your argumentation.. I know you have said this before but you did keep arguing so I am still in the air, so to say...
Quoting khaled
I am not an aggregate utilitarian so this wouldn't even be a consideration. Creating UNNECESSARY, non-trivial, inescapable, burdens on someone else is the key. We do not have a right to cause unnecessary, non-trivial, inescapable burdens on someone else because it might increase our happiness.
Quoting khaled
So other people would phrase the term of giving a gift or surprise parties as "trivial harms" (if anyone at all is even harmed by this, hence why it's so trivial). You are comparing trivial harms that can easily be dealt with and gotten rid of with perpetual, inescapable, and unnecessary burdens. You know the difference but you are trivializing trivial harms. It is showing how non-trivial, inescapable, persistent, and unnecessary these burdens are, that I normally do on the threads when I am not talking about surprise parties with you.
Do you mean that in multiple-choice exams, for instance, you should also have an option of "No choice" for each question? :smile: (Of course, you always have the option of not answering any question (= no option) and fail the exams! :smile: )
I thought that my previous comment could be taken as ironic. Sorry about that. Well, that was not my intention. It's just that I use to joke a lot. In fact, I started initially my comment as follows, but then I thought it was too serious.
What kind of "no option" do you mean? Anyway, wouldn't that have to do with the kind, subject and purpose of the options?
So please, replace my previous comment with the above two questions. Thanks.
So this had to do with the idea that we have no option for "no option" when it comes to being born. Is it just to procreate with this in mind? One can never opt out of the endevour in the first place. This leads to all sorts of problems.. We must "deal with" and endure burdens great and small because we could not not do this excepting the option of committing of suicide (which is not the same as opting out of life in the first place).
Well-stated, on the state, of no option status.
I'm reminded of two things:
1. The old liberal saying: "When someone gives you two choices, pick the third";
2. When the Marines say "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" they forget the fourth option, which is to actively resist.
My point here is that, whether or not it is "just" for one to try and limit another's options, that other always has the option to not play. The one might kill you, or otherwise make your choice untenable, but, as they say, the last great act of defiance is "FUCK YOU!"
The fact that most people like the options does not make them just. They must rely upon something else besides numbers if they want to find justice. In the U.S. we have a system designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Certain rights are not dependent upon alliances. It doesn't always work, and sometimes it only works after the fact, but it is, nevertheless, there.
But it can be "just" to limit options. We can say you must take the vax or stay home. We should add: Or you can offer an alternative(s) suitable to us, but if we don't like it/them, then tough: vax or stay home. That is "just", whether you like it or not. Justice, or just us, doesn't matter: we have a right to not be subjected to your filthy disease or your ability to catch and transmit it. Justice can be isolation as a penalty for obstinance, petulance, stupidity, what have you.
This is a totally different thing. You didn't mention anything like this in your description of your topic, which referred to options in general, in fact, to all kinds of options ...
This "new stuff" refers to the known "No one asked me if I wanted to be born!" This indeed indicates a lack of option, a "no option", as you call it. We can say then that "no option" indicates a forced action. It can also indicate something less realistic: Fate! A lot of people believe that all things, their life etc. are predetermind, already preplanned. So, they believe that they actually have no choices in their life! Consequently, they believe that there's no such a thing as free will! How sad!
I'm not convinced that we had no option regarding birth. I can see souls sitting around, bored out of their minds with eternity and infinity. And, while not necessarily uncomfortable with being All, they decide they want to drill down on being a part of All instead of All itself. After all, someone has to do it. So they say "This time I'll be that (person, place or thing)." And presto! It happens. Their memory may be wiped for having made the decision (it wouldn't be you if you started out with a slate full of knowledge, and life is learning, after all) and so they start anew.
Some go on to whine about not having been given a choice. But that's cool too. Maybe, as a soul, they said "I'd like to live and not like it. I'd like to live and blame someone else, like my parents. Someone has to do it."
Right but this just has all the problems with hard determinism. On a meta-level there it is all mapped out and you cannot change the situation, but on a daily level, it seems as if you can. Since we can never know the meta-level.. It is not even knowable, all you can do is look at the daily level part where we all believe we can effect/affect things.
Same response as to James Riley.
I don't see a problem. And I don't see a map that can't be ignored. In consideration of All, choice can still remain while not running afoul of it. Literally anything is possible, and not, at the same time. Not knowing, having the slate wiped clean, is the beauty of it.
I don't think this answers the objections I raised about the distinction between the daily life and meta determinism problem. You will still act in such a way that people can choose.
I believe in All. Which means everything you just said true. And not. In fact, there is a you right where you are, right now, that is not. How can we tap that shit? Well, it is being tapped, by you, right now. Why don't we know that? Well, you do, right now. Try harder. And not. There you go! Good job! And not. It's all good. And not. And everything and nothing in between. :smile:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/584073
I think this makes sense. Children do typically represent hope. Without the prospect of hope, people tend towards angst and despair. A typical normally socialized person, would not like to experience these feelings head-on. I also think, as I was saying to someone earlier, people in general don't think about thinks in a philosophically "robust" way. It gives them some sort of purpose and way to fill their life. It's a manifestation of a love with someone else, etc. Taking away the prospect of children, takes this avenue of feeling purpose.
Quoting darthbarracuda
I think that thinking long and hard on the harms of life should start chipping away at this idea.
Quoting darthbarracuda
It is an interesting conundrum. The idea that it won't be so bad for the next generation, but it's just Sisyphus on repeat, and we are perpetuating it. I think again, just showing people not to overlook things is the key. People have to get more creative.
OK, I read that reply of yours. Not much illuminating, but it's OK.
The bottom line / question is ... "Do you have a free will or not?"
Here's the real question. Does it matter, if the only default is to think I do? Everything else goes from there.
Well, it's not the only option ... You might also think that you were predestined to write this reply and what exactly to write! :grin:
Yeah but for our daily interactions, and my daily identity as a person makes decisions as if it wasn't. There is no way to tell which decision was predestined.. When I made the decision, there presented to me a choice. That level of experience of making the choice is what matters.
Yeah, thinking philosophically is not always congruent with (healthy) living. Thinking too much about existence makes you depressed, yes. So what is the value of doing so? Self-delusion is how a healthy mind keeps itself intact. It's a shame that one of the things people do to delude themselves is having children (who will have to delude themselves too) - but do you have a real, concrete substitute for it?
Do you expect everyone to selflessly cancel all their hope and accept ultimate eventual annihilation for the sake of people who won't even be around to appreciate this sacrifice? That's just crazy, of course nobody who hasn't already been beaten by life will accept this. Nobody who hasn't already been stripped of their hope can truly accept this position without reservation. If you are going to destroy the values people hold, you need to give them new ones (Nietzsche).
One of the things that seems to remain for people who have failed in life is to strip the hope from everyone else, as a vengeance strategy: "if I can't be happy/successful/content, then you can't be either; let me show you how everything you cherish is meaningless, so I don't feel so inadequate and isolated." Just food for thought, I have no way of knowing if this applies in any way to you, nor did I intend to insult, just another Nietzschean observation.
If I break your argument down, you seem to be saying that:
Future people's suffering is less important than current people's hopefulness..
Wouldn't it be best to not impose future suffering on that person? I am not an aggregate utilitarian here. I don't think that we are obligated to reduce hopelessness in some general way, but that in the case of the birth decision, not to perpetuate the imposition on yet another person.
At the same time you are admitting the hopefulness is kind of a flimsy veneer to fix depression, and is self-delusion to keep sanity. I don't think feeding the self-delusion is justified simply because it helps keep people sane.
But at the same time you are asking for me to give a substitute. Perhaps communities of catharsis? Why perpetuate the suffering for self-delusional purposes?
Your complaint is more of the practicality of AN. I can agree with you there. It's hard to convince those who don't think about the ideas much.