I do not wish to give up on others because valuing life cannot be just about oneself or one's group. However, each person will choose their own path. ...
The value can be greater, though this isn't always going to be the case (just as its complete absence is not an ineluctable truth). May you have a won...
The ethical standards of caring about the well-being of creatures that all sentient beings hopefully share, I suppose. It's in people's own interest t...
I certainly hope they don't. Value can be found in life even in difficult times. Additionally, one could feel that they could reduce more harms by bei...
Not if they are addressing separate things. Edit: Here is an explanation in case you have any doubts. What I meant was that I am aware of what your re...
There wasn't much of a reason to reply here. However, I am grateful to you for your insights. I know what you will say, but it shall remain erroneous....
It's better than letting pessimistic preferences for the void blind one. An act that doesn't violate existing interests and reduce one's well-being do...
Of course. If one is saying that not creating someone is better, they are essentially saying that there would be future innocent beings who would dese...
The point was that if the value of preventing harms persists even if nobody exists (yet) to benefit from it, then it's also good to create positives r...
"Yes. One needs to exist in order to be deprived of something Yes, where have I denied that?" I never said that there was any denial. I was focusing o...
Beauty can be discovered in unlikely places :) If one needs to exist in order to be deprived of something (and this is supposedly why the absence of h...
Name-calling is the epitome of intellect, after all. One could talk about crude deontology that might say that it's better to let trillions die instea...
Trying to tell everyone that they should not procreate due to an alleged pre-eminence of harms is a pessimistic imposition. It's just that it's intell...
Indeed, that is what I tried to explain. After all, if one needs absolute perfection in order to say that creation can be good, then why can't one say...
Even deontologically speaking, it doesn't make much sense to disregard the value of bestowing happiness that would have ineffable value for countless ...
Neither have I denied that the harms aren't undeserved or bad. However, please do try and understand that, despite being partially bad, creating someo...
They also get good. Procreative act is also good because it creates a good. Since most people seem to have more experiences they value, the goodness o...
I am not obligated to accept unreasonable claims. I didn't say that the action wasn't negative. However, it could be a lot more morally positive than ...
You don't seem to be paying attention, friend. haven't begged any questions. You are misconstruing my view. Creating undeserved harm is indeed problem...
I never said that I reject 3. I appreciate your interest in thickness. Non-sequiturs are a thing. My "case" is that although innocent sentient beings ...
I said that I think so in my previous comment. But, once again, deserving something doesn't mean that anything short of perfection is simply unaccepta...
I don't think that you're nasty. The world still has many people who don't care about reducing suffering as much as they should. I can't speak for my ...
Of course. I don't disagree with it. I disagree with the idea that not getting that absolute good makes everything else worthless. However, not being ...
I already did. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718667 I cannot use the actual quote feature for some inexplicable reason, but the qu...
That an absolutely harmless state is necessary for creation to be ethical, but it would not make sense to say that nothing but negatives are required ...
I never highlighted what I said. The problem can be found in the OP: "They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-fre...
I already mentioned it. One doesn't require absolute perfection for something to still be good. The mere presence of harms doesn't give us a reason to...
Non-existent beings aren't on a majestic bridge they want to stay on ;) I didn't ignore the argument. There's a difference between something that shou...
I did. :smile: One could argue that innocent people deserve to experience some positives, so, unless one's life is completely terrible, it would be be...
The fact that many people experience benefits (happiness) that they can and do value (I am not saying that this is always the case) despite the harms ...
I did. Knowing and understanding are different things. The absence of perfection doesn't justify never bestowing a good. If not causing harms is good,...
Innocent beings might not deserve harm, but they also deserve benefits. Your premise isn't necessarily false, but I believe that the positives also ma...
Well, we should probably also take things such as the fear of death and optimistic biases into account. However, I don't think that being optimistic i...
Additionally, innocent people also deserve happiness. Since most people do seem to prefer existence despite the harms, it doesn't seem right to solely...
They also deserve positives and the prevention of a one-sided perspective regarding value. It's as solid as air. Nevertheless, it does highlight, dire...
Most Buddhists don't accept universal AN. The ones I've talked to have said that this is because Buddhism also teaches that suffering can be ended by ...
Comments