schopenhauer1

Again, this doesn't make sense to me, as we discussed in earlier discussions. Ethics only exist because humans exist. Once there are no more humans, e...

No, "society" doesn't suffer, individuals with POVs do. I make a distinction between mitigation ethics and preventative ethics. Once born, we are in m...

It might be this assumed stance that I most vehemently reject as being moral. It is circular reasoning. Why should burdens be imposed? You will use yo...

Pain vs. Suffering certainly does bring on debate. Does a pinprick followed by no other suffering (necessary or contingent) count as suffering? Well, ...

I just saw this. The story does implicitly indicate that suffering would still be a universal, at least inherent, part of life, even for an advanced r...

Not as impactful as the longer clip but you get the point ha: https://youtu.be/UAxARJyaTEA?si=sM-6yjfeF1LkfZMj

Not in this case: https://youtu.be/oLoNGRVeC7Y?si=Oe0mHWW063neXlji

But yet we have a deliberate choice to create more people, and so existential ethics DO come into play. And we can force more people who need to labor...

But then thinking that nothing in this actual world does or ever will meet that threshold, effectively makes this a nonissue. I am fine with that. But...

Can I do anything I want to you based on percentages, or do you have a right to not be so callously violated, disregarding your autonomy and the princ...

What are you talking about? It’s either effectively the same (a threshold needs to be met, but empirically, this seems to never be the case..and this ...

The charade is that “it’s good for you!” And the implication is to jump off a cliff if you question the assumptions (more aggressive paternalism for w...

The tyranny is to cause people to be put in a situation whereby they must labor to earn a living.

Hence existential problem.

Shit, sucks doesnt it?

Notice I didn’t attempt to say that, simply that people shouldn’t be used for their labor, whether it’s enjoyable or not. Hell, some assembly line wor...

This would I would think fall more into those objections as presumably, some condition of life would simply need it to be 51% good to procreate when y...

Fair enough, slightly different than what I meant but in the ballpark. My way of interpreting the balancing is more deontological I think than your ap...

Simple, the ideal is that people should not be used for labor, not that labor is the purpose of human life. That’s one reason Marx was wrong. His very...

As I saw it, he was saying something very similar to me. He was saying those other considerations (not just purely pleasure) matter not against the on...

This seems in line with my interpretation to Also, this is on line with what I was getting at here: Projects is a good word IMO as it captures exactly...

That is the consideration of the “balancing”. No one exists who is deprived of good. Someone will exist who will suffer and thus non harm violated. An...

Generally, AN is about suffering AND consent- that is to say, the deontological principles of non-harm and non-autonomy are both broken in regards to ...

So I am offering two arguments: 1) Suffering in Pinprick World isn't "suffering" as we know it, and thus disqualifies for 2 in the asymmetry. 2) Since...

Edit: Added bold statement. That was important.

I can make another argument along the lines of @"AmadeusD"': That is to say, what is the asymmetry about? It's about the following: That is to say, th...

So I said way back that a world where pain was ONLY comprised of a pinprick is NOT OUR WORLD. That is an interesting one, but not this one. I present ...

Also to add, yet again, when I mentioned Benatar, it was to bring up AN (not THE ONE AND ONLY) asymmetry that I then elucidated on, as my take on it. ...

No bro, you haven't answered my objections and we seem to be at an impasse, as I have answered you about the stabbing that reanimates. That's my answe...

Delete

Bingo! When it comes to these things, I tend to think anthropological and historical. The God you bring up, seems to be the one from the Abrahamic var...

I do wish there was a middle ground whereby the AN topic can be cogently discussed in separate threads without "cluttering" the main forum. The only o...

I get that, but how does one differentiate between all the threads of argument dealing with the subject?

This has a lot of unjustified assumptions.. such as, why should virtuous men matter? If you say that because the know how to live a "good life", AN al...

So this is why we shouldn't debate Benatar's full position here without actually having Benatar's full positions available to us. I am not going to de...

You'd have to qualify "foundation" but there are MANY foundational ethical frameworks for which AN conclusions have been drawn or at least "fit into",...

Now what you did not quote nor did you actually address was this: Yet I said here: SO you are still arguing against your own arguments.. ones cleverly...

Nah, we can just do that for any topic right? The instant you make your 30th post on Kant, you should have its own thread to wade through in the Searc...

It seems to be the case that general decorum for debate in this forum has long ago been deemed as unnecessary.. people like to pull out the roots rath...

@"Baden" Funny you defend this ghettoizing of the topic of antinatalism (something you vociferously disagree with), and yet you bring up a topic we di...

I think this would be one man's assertion without intellectual "legs" to refute it. You say that AN isn't intellectual but a symptom of a diseased min...

Dude, your point is not valid. Buck up buttercup. Future people can be considered. It’s just how things work. If a future person could exist, they cou...

Your observations are correct. I used to have posts that dealt with various aspects that are disparate enough to warrant their own topic. I wonder, wo...

Edit: I added a substantial amount to explain more and keep on track above.

Oh yes, THAT natural philosophy :roll:. This is a non-sequitur. Besides the fact that you would then have to justify Aristotle's philosophy in regards...

This might be a fatal mistake in your reasoning as it is literally the naturalistic fallacy, but not even hidden, but embraced. You'd have to seriousl...

The point is that you would not WANT murder because it's wrong, even if, for practical purposes, such as law, we can differentiate punishment and blam...

You've already started off the argument then in bad faith argumentation as its about the normative. 1st degree murder isn't 2nd degree murder isn't ma...

Fair enough, as the other poster said. I'll just leave you with the idea that some things are just principles, not everything in human actions have to...

This is more than a bit of bad faith argumentation being that you didn't address any of my points, and only left a sweeping general claim, don't you t...