Is Pain a Good?
A lot of people will say the reason it is okay to bring people into existence that has pain is that pain is a good thing. According to this theory, it has some sort of redemptive quality whereby being exposed to it and overcoming it, one becomes "better", more "fulfilled", a more "complete" person, or something along those lines.
Comments (75)
Surely, it doesn't have to be a definite yes or know. Some people fall apart amidst pain and suffering whereas others learn and are transformed. There is also the extent of pain and how much each person can bear and what support the person has.
Even if suffering is a source of growth and transformation it could be dangerous to just say that it is a good thing because that could lead to us to not offer compassion support for those in pain.
How do you know who or when someone would fall apart prior to their birth? If its about "manning up" then why is thst a value people must be exposed to in the first place?
Quoting Jack Cummins
So we need pain so we can have compassion for those in.pain? That sounds circular.
That's why I'm not voting in @schopenhauer1's poll.
And my reply would be the same.
Which is this thing below...?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yep.
And what are you saying there? It's not like you're making any more sense than when you started this thread.
What dont you understand?
Oh I understand what you're saying -- I want you to put more effort in giving an account of how pain plays a role in our lives.
For example, can you try to qualify the below statement -- who says they're more fulfilled or complete after experiencing pain? If a physician must suffer all kinds of cancer, headache, broken bones, shattered limbs, and or cracked skull, then she wouldn't be an excellent doctor, would she? She'd be dead, as in rigor mortis.
Quoting schopenhauer1
No, actually, pain destroys a lot of people. Abusive parents destroyed a lot of children.
Not to contradict you but learning is traditionally divided into theory and practicals. I think @schopenhauer1 is referring to the latter when he says:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Too, practicals in this context don't necessarily involve actually experiencing pain/suffering. It may take the form of snippets, brief glimpses, so to speak of pain/suffering - just enough to get an idea of what it feels like but short of the real McCoy.
The general idea behind such a theory is dualistic, the yin-yang. I've always had a hard time understanding yin-yang. The claim is that to understand yin, yang must be understood but the problem is to understand yang, one has to have a grasp of yin and so on in an infinite loop that precludes any understanding at all.
Perhaps, if we look at it differently, we can achieve some clarity. Happiness and suffering, the duo we're interested in, are, all said and done, emotions and as far as I know emotions can't be expressed propositionally i.e. we can't convey, or it's notoriously difficult to, convey emotions in declarative sentences.
For instance I can describe with a fair degree of confidence that the intended meaning will be conveyed that the plant I posssess is a rose, like so: This plant is a rose.
However, to my reckoning, I can't, in fact no one can, convey the happiness or sorrow or some other emotion fae feels with a sentence: Happiness is... and Sorrow is... What would replace the three trailing dots?
If I'm correct so far then it implies that happiness, sorrow, and other emotions need to be directly experienced to gain even a modicum of understanding of what they are. Since not experiencing pain/suffering firsthand means that one is completely unaware of a certain aspect of reality, we would, in that sense, be incomplete.
Assuming the person doesn't die from it (that's not overcoming it then, would it?) the theory goes that she would be better for it. Maybe no one would wish it would happen to them, but if it does, they are better. Indeed, I do see the flaw in the argument. It is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Hence, why I say a post-facto justification. Life has unknown quantities of pain and suffering, yet people say this is permissible to continue to a next generation because, they will learn from it. That sounds like "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Well, certainly it's the only move one can make besides being a pessimist. The life-affirmer would try to co-opt the pain as acceptable, good, or necessary in this argument so as to justify continuing new people who will experience said pain and suffering. It is now "ok" so no problem, apparently.
That would assume we are all in a scheme of yin-yang with no self-agency. For example, If pain is necessary for pleasure (which I still don't think is proven, so we can go back to that), one can choose not to continue this scheme unto a next generation rather than saying "it is what it is" which would be a false presentation of the choice. There is a choice, it isn't.. "So let's continue forward with more people.".
Quoting TheMadFool
Why would that be important? Even if it was, certainly we wouldn't want to experience all manner of pain just to be "complete" (torture, etc.). If this reality is not a utopia. If this reality needs negative (pain, suffering) states in order to have a contrast, then why is that reality seen as acceptable to cause for other people? In other words, anything less than a utopia- a reality where you don't need pain to be complete, or feel happiness, for example, can be argued to be not an acceptable reality to cause the conditions for future people.
As I said @Caldwell, to use a sexual metaphor, one can get some, "adequate"???, idea of what a home run means if you get to first base. Praticals, as part of learning, are controlled environments, carefully designed simulations if you will, with the option, hopefully, to pull out.
To reiterate, emotions can't be conveyed with words, making it impossible to understand what they involve or mean through discourse, written or spoken. This is a major obstacle if one is seeking knowledge of emotions which ultimately narrows our choices down to one viz. actually, directly going through, experiencing in an immediate sense, emotions if we are to ever know/understand them.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sorry, I couldn't make head or tail of this.
We have agency to prevent pain. Whether the pain is some yin-yang with positive moments, you can make a decision to prevent future people from pain. Just because this up and down is part of the current reality, we do not have to procreate the current situation, just because it is the current situation and can't be anything else.
Quoting TheMadFool
And now I, can't make heads or tails of this.
Quoting TheMadFool
So what is your point with emotions and pain? Are you trying to say that since it's hard to put some sensations into words, that therefore pain is okay to create for other people?
Right! There is no need to perpetuate an agonizing experience. I'm with you on that one. However, don't forget that happiness is something real and that one has to be alive to experience it. This will force us to shift the focus to comparing degrees of happiness and suffering and that, for some, the suffering is far in excess of happiness, so and so forth.
There's truth in this of course? I'm not denying that but, if I were to weigh in on this, the truth of suffering is a contingent truth and not a necessary one. In all honesty, I don't see why we can't decouple suffering from life. I mean red lights turning on in a car's dashboard isn't exactly painful but does the job of warning the driver that something's amiss. I'm speaking from the perspective of pain as a signal mechanism for injury or death.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Pain is never ok, it's primary function is to inform the experiencer that something's wrong, that it's not ok.
That said, if one can't/never goes through pain/suffering then that's only half the story of what reality is.
I want to ask you a question. What if we could anesthetize ourselves completely and live a life free from all suffering/pain? Would you then agree that life is worth living?
You say that we have agency to prevent pain but this is not a straightforward.
Yes, certainly through choices we make now, such as one's made by government we have can make a difference to ecology and future generations.
But even then, we are not gods and cannot control nature. For example, no one a year ago would have expected Covid_19. Some people put the blame on a laboratory mistake in China, but even then, the virus as a deathly aspect of nature is hard to control. Of course, decisions made by politicians may have not helped but none of the decisions have been clear because the virus once it is spreading is a force of its own and human beings cannot master it. Also, preventing certain people's suffering may be at the cost of other people. For example, lockdowns may prevent deaths for certain vulnerable people but create poverty for others.
Another complication is that physical pain is easier to define than emotional pain. Certain experiences such as abuse and bullying are highly likely to lead to emotional suffering but beyond that emotional pain can be subjective. Two people can be in a group discussion and one person may come away feeling uplifted and another one may feel completely depressed.
So, the problem of pain and suffering is very complex. So, I really can't see how you thought it was a matter for a vote, and what would a majority vote count for. However, I think the issue is a very important area of philosophical discussion.
I would argue that we should do the best we can to prevent all suffering but we can only do this to this. To intentionally create pain for others on the basis of promoting growth through suffering would be dangerous indeed. However, by the very unpredictable nature of life it is inevitable. We may fall apart or be transformed by it and this is a quest, but the creation of pain itself only partially preventable. Utopian attempts be worthwhile to eradicate a fair amount of suffering as humans are complex creatures it is likely that suffering would still exist in some form or another.
Let me ask you this then: Is it okay to risk putting someone in pain because there is a chance they may get pleasure out of your decision without asking for their consent first. An example would be buying you things with your money because they were on sale without asking for permission. In that case if you like the thing I buy all is well and good but if you don't then I have harmed you. Is it okay for me to do that? And does it become worse or better the higher the risk? (is buying lottery tickets with all your money worse than the previous example?)
Quoting TheMadFool
There is a difference between worth living and worth starting. I don't think @schopenhauer1 is saying life isn't worth living because of the pain in it but he's saying that it is not worth starting.
For example: Life is still worth living if you're blind, but that doesn't justify going around blinding people. Just because it is bearable once it has begun doesn't mean it is worth starting.
No, of course not. Your argument is in agreement with truths as they stand but these are contingent truths, something you've failed to address in your post. Is it absolutely necessary that life and suffering have to go together? Even as we speak the world is such that suffering is an undeniable truth and yet we have, among us, those who either suffer less or even not at all. Can I, may I, take this as good grounds to infer the contingent nature of suffering?
Quoting khaled
But what if life is free from suffering? Would you still feel or think it would be not worth starting?
No. It's good because it makes you pull your hand out of the meat grinder before you lose your whole arm.
What do you think? I do not think pain/suffering is redemptive.
I meant in relation to preventing it for future generations (by not having them). It's too late for us. We are in the pain boat. And again, I don't think it is awe-inspiring that we have this pain to appreciate the happiness.. Don't agree with the need the downs for ups (or that this is good), don't agree that pain adds something "more" to the human experience so is needed.
Quoting Jack Cummins
All reasons not to procreate life with suffering, yes.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yep I agree, emotional suffering is also a huge factor in life, and hence another reason not to procreate a life that has it.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Perhaps one of the most important in the realm of existential thought and ethics.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Yes, and because of this, we should not create more humans who suffer. Hence, the OP where because we can't get rid of suffering, I suspect some people try to justify the need for it, so they can justify creating new people in a life with suffering as well.
Good example.
Quoting khaled
Yes exactly.
If we know the world has known and unknown amounts of suffering, what is the justification of bringing people into this? I suspect people use post-facto justifications like "We need the downs to know the ups!" and that "Pain brings some sort of redemptive quality or makes people better." So it is about justifications around pain that people do regarding procreation. They want to co-opt it and circle the square, but I think it is not justified.
If a reality has pain and suffering in known and unknown quantities, then there is no justification to put more people in this situation. Pain is not redemptive. It does not make life better. It is a post-facto way of justifying putting people in conditions where they will inevitably suffer. See Khaled's argument here as well: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/460245. So I am not discussing the evolutionary origins of immediate physical pain as you are discussing, but how people justify pain and suffering when creating new people. How does one justify bringing people into a reality that has pain and suffering?
So, you think the best solution is to avoid bringing new human beings into the world. I have never brought another human into the world personally but surely the problem of pain is not so great that it means that humans should not be born. Surely, life for future humans may have great possible potential rather than being all negative.
At times during the Covid_19 situation I have even wondered if part of the reason leaders have allowed the virus to get out of control was a means of reducing the population, in a world of diminishing resources.
Is it justified to bring someone into a world where there is suffering? Suffering can be defined subjectively or objectively here, it wouldn't matter.
In other words, if reality is not a utopia, is it worth bringing someone into it? How? Just saying there may be more good than bad is kind of avoiding the question. What can justify bringing someone into a world with any suffering in it? Let's say a world like ours.
Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering.
If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering?
The trouble is procreation is a gamble, and I believe there is a fair chance of creating someone with a net negative experience, and a chance (however small) of creating someone with with a life of general suffering. I don't believe it is right to take this gamble, so I agree with your conclusion, if not your path to getting there.
I am not really seeing the point you are making about not bringing people into the world because who is going to stop them. Surely you are not wanting prohibitions. Surely we don't want further loss of civil liberties than is happening already. Also, I think your thinking is rather negative.
The arguments you have been conveying in this thread are very convoluted and consist of black and white thinking, starting with the question of whether pain was inherently good or bad, and, after a few responses you are declaring that children should not be brought into the world.
Saying that, the whole question of suffering is an area for discussion but I think you need to formulate clearer and more sound arguments.
I am also wondering if your views are based on personal experience of suffering. If they are, I do empathise with you. At times I find life really painful but I do think life can be worth living because we can create and find ways of overcoming physical and emotional pain in most instances.
I know that you say that Shopenhauer1 is saying that life is not worth starting rather than living but the logic of this is not rational. Any belief that life is not worth starting must rest on the assumption that it is not living, surely?
Also, a belief that life is not worth starting is a far too simple philosophical statement to address the problem of pain, which is a part of life for all living beings.
Because existing is good! Again, pain is just a sign to your body that you need to change something, that you're being damage. Pain is letting you know, "Hey, existing and being healthy is good! Something is hindering this, do something about it!"
Pain tells you, "Take care of yourself, you're worth it."
Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.
I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why?
What I think isn't important. Your opinion matters.
I think his point is that missed "benefits" are not "bad" unless an actual person is deprived of them. However, he sees missed "negatives" as indeed ALWAYS a good thing, even if no person is around to know that there are missed negatives. I think that asymmetry is the crux of his particular argument. He gives some intuitive arguments like people not caring if a distant planet is vacant of happy people, but probably feeling bad for a distant planet where people are experiencing bad things.
Thus, there is just something about preventing bad which outweighs in some regard missed happiness. This obviously has the most bearing in the scenario of procreation, where one can prevent all badness which is more important than missed happiness (which wouldn't matter anyways since people won't exist to care).
But this is the exact justification for procreation that I am arguing against. Perhaps it is unjustified to create new people in a reality that has any suffering short of a utopia. Can we at least entertain the idea that this excuse that suffering is needed so people can have the joy of overcoming it, might be a defense mechanism, like a post-facto excuse for allowing more people to be exposed to harm?
Also, I didn't even mention the grey, neutral states that are not really good or bad. I dealt with this in another thread, but I stated that there are a lot of things throughout the day that can be replaced by sleep, and we really wouldn't care, or we might even welcome sleep over the tedium. Again, we might overcome the tedium but then we are back with the "joy" of overcoming a negative state which again seems like a defense or post-facto excuse for having to endure them in the first place.
If we are deciding that we should continue another person (a next generation), and one of the considerations is suffering. Why on Earth would you think that exposing people to pain is good? What you seem to be saying is that physical pain evolved for some evolutionary purpose. So what? Just because something might have arose from a utilitarian or natural cause, doesn't mean that it must be good. That is a naturalistic fallacy. Hurricanes in themselves are interesting events. Hurricanes that cause mass devastation, not so much. Pain in itself, well, okay.. that has a context, and usually when you ask a person in pain they are not (during the painful event) going to give you a soliloquy about isn't it funny how pain arose from evolutionary reasons to tell us something is wrong?
Of course you are entitled to any viewpoint which you wish to have but I do have one true memory which might be useful for you to reflect upon.
I used to woman who did not wish to have children because she thought that the world was to horrible to bring children into. However, she was married and while her husband respected her opinion her husband was wishing for children. The woman gave in and had a daughter and a son. At some point, the daughter who was about 10 or 11 somehow found out how her mother had not wished to have children. The daughter was deeply distressed by the mother's view that the world was too bad a place to bring children into.
I have not seen the woman for a few years and the child would be a teenager now, so I don't know how the dialogue continued. I think it is an interesting real life scenario pointing to the way in which the people of the future can judge for themselves whether they should have been born at all.
Tell me/us why 'procreation' ought to be "justified".
It can be easy, in any philosophical topic, to be bogged down in word semantics. Whether or not it is 'bad' that no life exists on a foreign planet, I maintain that if every life that could be created would experience net positive, it would be the morally correct thing to bring them into existence.
C'mon. So any action is justified?
You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? It seems very odd to me that you're focused on only a slice of human existence, and ignoring all the rest.
I don't see a reason why it would be no.Quoting TheMadFool
No then it would definitely be worth starting. But the point is, if you agree with the antinatalist position you will never get to the point where life becomes free of suffering unless we do so literally within this lifetime.
It doesn't negate it so much as make it a risky action. Have kids: Risk of harm and risk of pleasure (risky), Don't have kids: No risk of either (safe)
And in every day to day situation whenever we want to do something risky like that onto someone else consent is required. Consent cannot be found in this case so it is considered to be not given. Would you be happy if I used your credit card to buy you new clothes that you hated but that I thought you would like?
I don't think so. Once humans are born we have an innate drive to keep living. Going against that drive is painful. However before we are born there is no such drive, so there is no justification to begin a life. Think of it like: Once you've paid for a movie ticket, the movie is worth watching even if it is mediocre but that doesn't mean the ticket was worth it in the first place. Or like: If you lose a finger in an accident that doesn't suddenly make life not worth living, but that doesn't make it okay to go around cutting people's fingers.
Quoting Jack Cummins
"simple" doesn't equate to "wrong". What is unsatisfactory about it? Antinatalism doesn't even try to address the problem of pain. It is simply the recognition of procreation as a source of harm and so not partaking in it.
I do not agree with your basic logic. You say that once a person is living that there is a drive to keep on living and this makes sense, with reference to the life instinct or drive, identified by Freud. You go on to say that this drive is not present before life is started and this is a flawed argument because it is simply stating that people do not have drives because they do not exist. It is as pointless as saying that triangles don't have 3 sides until they are put on paper. It is meaningless statement ultimately.
With regard to my dismissal of antinatalism, I would say firstly that I do not have an ultimate agenda in favour of procreation. I am not even partaking in procreation but that is about relationship choices more than anything else. Once, I was even in a conversation with someone who thought I was selfish because I was not in a procreating which was extremely ridiculous too.
However, I am not of the view that it is wrong for children to be born. That is because the antinatalist view as far as I understand it is an inadequate solution to the problem of suffering. While human beings are likely to suffer to some extent they may have pleasure and happiness too. Surely, it is better for us to make the world the best place we can for future generations rather than saying that these generations should not exist.
But of course I am not in any way saying that you need to procreate. That is your basic choice. I am simply pointing out that I think that antinatalism is not the necessary solution to the problem of suffering.
In the first place Shopenhauer1's thread was about whether pain was good or not. The argument that children should not be brought into existence is based on the premise that pain should can only ever have negative consequences. That in itself is black and white thinking because while suffering is not necessarily good suffering is the source of innovation.
How many of the greatest artists, poets and musicians would have created their greatest works if they had not touched down to the depths of pain and suffering? Scientific progress is spurred on to provide happiness rather than pain. So, what I would argue is that while pain and suffering are not good in themselves they are an inevitable part of life in providing motivation. In that sense, suffering is neither all bad or good but a core part of evolution in the past and future.
Pointless, Meaningless, maybe. False? No.
Quoting Jack Cummins
If it was "surely" we wouldn't be arguing. Now if you are saying that it's better to make the world a better place then yea I agree. But I do not agree that it is necessarily better than no one being there at all.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Again, that just makes the act "risky". And in day to day life when it comes to other people we always make sure to get consent before we commit risky acts otherwise we'd be doing something wrong. Given that, and that consent is impossible in this case (since the affected party will not exist until after being affected) then one shouldn't have kids.
Quoting Jack Cummins
So does that make it okay to force others to suffer so that they can "innovate"? I don't think so. I never get why people bring this up in relation to antinatalism. Sure pain and suffering make us better but no one in their right mind would say that it is morally okay to force someone to suffer because you're "bettering them"
Quoting Jack Cummins
Actually I had an exact question that I asked a friend about this once. I asked "If your kid would be the next mozart but would live a terrible life and be serverly derpessed would you have them". Naturally they replied "no".
Quoting Jack Cummins
Why all this effort to fix a problem (suffering) that can simply be fixed by not having kids? A utopian solution is preferrable I agree, but I don't think generations should suffer so eventually humanity no longer suffers. Which is the same reply I gave themadlad
Because it was the initial cause of every single harm possible.
If you really believe this you entitled to your views but while you(or I) will bring children into the world the majority will.
One question I would just wonder about, do you really wish that you had never come into existence at all?
Also, you do say that ideally utopia would be better? Perhaps this ideal is worth thinking about as a imaginative possibility. I know that it is difficult to create utopia. Even if it is not possible to create a world free from suffering highest dreams and ethical ideals are a starting point for more desirable futures for future generations.
I just noticed a typing error in my comment it should have read that you(or I ) will NOT bring children into the world. I just thought I had better clarity that was what I meant.
Yes they do by my definition. If there was no forest there would be no forest fire. Causes = Is a necessary condition for. Is the definition I'm going with.
What makes you think that? I am an example (and a thankfully common one) of someone taking a gamble with someone else's life by brining them into existence and that gamble turning out well. I am very happy so no I don't wish I never came into existence. But that doesn't justify further gambling.
Quoting Jack Cummins
It is a possibility. But I'd rather have no suffering tomorrow than a chance at no suffering at some unspecified time in the future.
It shows how upside down and back to front we both are. Or, perhaps fear of suffering is worse than the reality, itself.
More nonsense. 'A causes B' iff BOTH necessary AND sufficient conditions are met. For example, 'leading a jackass to water' may be a necessary condition but alone is insufficent for causing this jackass 'to think'.
A) Besides some rough estimate at the end of one's life, I don't think one can really tell their own estimate if their life on whole was a net benefit at the point of being interviewed. (You mentioned optimism bias for example).
B) More importantly, I don't think positives and negatives are weighted the same when compared with their absence. An absent pain is indeed always good. An absent pleasure doesn't matter. It isn't really a moral obligation or consideration, especially on its own without someone there to be deprived. In a way a universe without suffering, tedium, drudgery, agony, etc. is the most moral universe. Just because this may also be a universe without self-aware beings, so be it. I think sometimes people imagine themselves trapped in nothingness or something. That's not even nothingness, just a projection of someone onto the concept of nothing, as one cannot square that circle as a living being, and fears of the unknown color our bias here.
C) Just because something like 51% of life vs. 49% of life is considered (to one's biased self) as positive, doesn't then mean that the suffering is thus magically justified. Pain just isn't symmetrical to benefits. While pleasure/happiness is good to have and desirable, the pain one must endure is even more so undesirable. The pain is the problematic part of the equation. It taints the whole thing. Thus if happiness is to only really be had from its contrast with pain, all the more suspect it is as a vehicle that is deemed good and justified to promote on behalf of other people. As I've said before, anything short of utopia may be wrong conditions to create for another human. Contra Nietzsche's maniacal howls, no this universe with its pain is not utopia. Again, maniacal embracing of what already exists isn't philosophy, its simply making do, at its utmost logical conclusion.
Causing conditions for which people will experience suffering, is a weighty matter, a moral one. At the least it is a core existential question that one must grapple with. Is bringing another life into the world something one ought to do? To simply say, why question any matter that affects another person, to me seems to be arguing out of bad faith, because I am sure in many other realms you are willing to entertain arguments for justification (for example, theft, intentionally causing harm to others, etc.).
Didn't address the problem with your question of why justification is needed in the first place on this issue particularly (as compared to any other issue affecting others).
But the decision is to have a life. Life has known and unknown kinds and quantities of pain. That should be a factor when considering affecting another person's life.
Again, you have failed to answer the question. Why does the risk of pain outweigh all the other benefits of life? If you don't answer this time, I'm just going to assume you don't have one.
I don't know, procreation is a natural behavior of biological organisms. People fuck and wanna have a family, it's not too complicated. When (if) morality plays a part in the decision to have a child, it's usually just in terms of when, e.g. when is the right time to have a child.
Is it wrong for a pigeon to shit on my car? Is it wrong for a shark to prey upon another fish? These organisms are behaving in accordance to their nature.
Procreation is an act of blameless wrong-doing, i.e. foolishness. Is it wrong for a fool to act foolishly, if it is in their nature to do so? There is nothing in procreation to justify, it's just what people do. We might think it is stupid, or that it would be better if they refrained, but demanding people give a rational justification for something that is natural and instinctive is equally foolish.
Quoting darthbarracuda
There's a lot to unpack here, but the crux of this is that procreation is instinctive. Is procreation itself actually instinctive or a consequence, rather? Humans have preferences which they often like to fulfill, but there is no inevitability or mating season or anything like that. Even sex itself, might not be considered "instinctual". Rather pleasure is enjoyable and people tend to act on what is enjoyable if permitted, I would say.
It doesn't, and I never said that it did. But that is irrelevant. We require consent for risky actions when we do them unto others.
For example: Going to a theme park has a risk of pleasure and a risk of pain. So depending on the person it may or may not be worth it to go. If person A thinks it's worth going that doesn't justify person A forcing person B to go without consent. The reason behind that is NOT that the risk of going "objectively" outweighs the risk of not going, but simply because person B MAY think that the it does. Maybe person B has a fear of heights or something or hates crowded spaces. That is why person A cannot assume person B will like the theme park simply because A personally liked it. Which is why person A must ask person B first if he wants to go. If person B is not available to be asked, that still doesn't justify person A forcing him to go.
A definition can not be nonsense. I can define whatever word however I want.
Quoting 180 Proof
But if the water was poisoned, and the person that led the jackass to water KNEW it was poisoned, and furthermore didn't try to stop the jackass from drinking the poisoned water, and the jackass died, we say that the person leading the jackass killed the jackass. In other words that the jackass's death was caused by the person leading him there, even though that was not a sufficient condition. That is how I see the word regularly used within ethics. "Your honor, my client pulling the trigger was not a sufficient condition for the victim's death therefore my client is innocent" is not a very good defence.
Quoting khaled
:shade:
To wit:
Why?
Because of the first half of the sentence. I pulled a MadFool on ya :joke:
Seriously though it's because if you believe in the antinatalist position we're not gonna be here 80 years from now and I don't think we can make a utopia in 80 years. It's not because suffering is inextricable from life or anything.
I don’t get this argument. There is no person B because no such being has been born. And it seems to me that a necessary condition of requiring consent for risky actions when we do them unto others is that the other must first exist. Pretending that we require the consent of some non-existent, imaginary person seems nonsensical.
The fact that the subject of anti-natalist concern does not exist gives me reason to believe the anti-natalist has no ethical argument, and instead seeks some round-about praise for his masturbatory activities.
Youre being ridiculous. We went over this before. If this line of reasoning is followed, then if someone who would be born, we knew was 100% going to be tortured, we wouldnt consider that future person at all because they werent born yet. So essentially the person has to be born and tortured for this consideration to be relevant. Ridiculous.
Note that all you have to work with is your fantasies—you require the consent of an unborn being, or you’re quite sure an unborn being will be tortured, and so on. But the reality is less noble than the fantasy because it is no different than saying I’m being ethical by using birth control or jerking off into my sock.
It doesn't seem to me that way. It seems to me the requirement must be that the person exists at the time the risky action will affect them. The problem with birth is that the person exists, by definition, at the same time as the risky action will affect them (birth) in this case so it makes it difficult to understand what to do.
Why would it be wrong to genetically engineer children to be crippled for example? In the same way, at the time the action is taken no one exists to be harmed. So that makes it right? What about implanting a fetus with a bomb that blows up once the child reaches 15? Again, no one existed to be harmed at the time the bomb was planted.
Quoting NOS4A2
I think I've explained this concept to you at least 10 times by now on the other thread but again. An antinatalist doesn't see not having kids as good. He only sees having kids as bad. In the same way a sane person wouldn't consider "not shooting people" good but would consider shooting people bad. And antinatalism isn't even against sex.