When someone is born, this is the force. No "one" needs to be there prior. Imagine if the situation was someone put in extremely dire circumstances. J...
I don't think this is looking at it accurately. The alternative is NOT being forced to not exist, as in that scenario there is no "one" to not exist. ...
But why would putting someone into an inescapable game because YOU deem it to be a good game, just? How is this not a violation somewhere? Put someone...
I am beginning to think paternalistic "thinking this is good for someone else" may be an unjust reason. One's own sense of what is "right for another ...
Can't procreating another person into the world, be considered this? The injustice happens once born. straight away, as a game was forced. Suicide is ...
Ergo, another player should feel the same? Why is your happiness tied to someone else playing the game as well? Why are you the arbiter of what someon...
It's not necessarily a diversion. My point is survival and the limitations of being humans in a world, make it a non-starter that one can change the g...
So I'm talking about procreation.. Procreation brings people which have to go through obstacles.. Ergo, procreation leads to creating in a fashion "an...
Why should others go through obstacles because you think it's good (at the time you made the decision for that person at least). It's one thing to bri...
I don't disagree with this, but no one has found a better way. The closest thing in a kind of scale that was massive were communist revolutions which ...
uch a game. In fact, any situation in which we are forced to obey or accept it. Including paying taxes! :smile: Except all these examples happen when ...
Again, why is not being around at time X, but being affected at time Y, not count as a force? Any number of things can be justified with this notion. ...
Yet there was no choice for the person born. Why is someone not being around at X time, mean you can do something that affects them at Y time (affecti...
The game was not chosen, period. The limits are playing the economic/survival game, lest you hack it in the wilderness, go homeless, or kill yourself....
Why should this be decided for on someone else's behalf, especially if no one had to work in the first place (because they weren't born)? Why cause an...
So I think Hermeticus' quote here kind of sums up everyone else's response too give or take. How are we defining freedom? Y'all's take: As long as the...
Ah yes, reading from the book of Apo as to what is bugger and what is not. Granted, the point was to show annoyance at mere trivialities let alone thi...
Right, the point was to give you a pedestrian example (feet get it..:D). Anyways, you predictably wanted to focus on its triviality, but my point is e...
Yes I agree.. I am running into this question about what constitutes "objective harm" so the flipside.. You are trying to figure out (and not getting ...
Won't most people equate the "good life" with them "liking life"? Thus if they "like life" they are living the "good life". I guess the question becom...
Even if that metaphysical level were true, at my epistemological engagement with the world, I can evaluate the situation as negative. A really pedestr...
Gotcha. There is a sort of justification regress then? So someone can say, "Happiness is an immutable subjective feeling" and someone can always say, ...
Playing from devil's advocate perspective.. Can't someone just say that whatever a person thinks is a good life, is a good life for that person? They ...
You are changing the premises. The people (mostly) like the game, have taught their children to like it, and are comfortable in it. In fact, the degre...
Humans don't just reproduce by instinct alone, so this would be a false narrative. Rather, people can make a choice and do. Thus the contest creator c...
Yes. The agenda is already baked in at this point. It's all politics once you are enacting something for someone else. Your decision (to what though?)...
Not sure what this means, but there need be no society nor would the antinatalist claim care about abstract things like "society" (at least deontologi...
That's fine, but the philosophical part of it isn't the choice to have a child or not personally, but whether it is a moral question to bring someone ...
@"RAW" Keep in mind the Benatarian argument pertains only to a situation where there is no person (but could be), not already existing people. In the ...
But you realize our arguments had gone on for pages, right? ChatteringMonkey had a couple posts and was done. I did not randomly decide anything to do...
Because we also debated for much longer before we got to that point and I did agree with him that at some point axioms are just opposed. There is no m...
Dude, it's not causing harm onto another. It boils down to not overlooking the dignity of that person by creating harm unnecessarily for them which is...
I'm avidly NOT a utilitarian. My ethical premise is based more on deontological grounds. Ridiculous claim of what I'm doing. Is there non-trivial harm...
No not really. Rather, here is a case where someone A does something that affects person B. How is this NOT in the realm of philosophical ethical cons...
RAW DingoJones is just going to say things like "Creating art, love, relationships, persuing a project, delving into scientific and technological myst...
More examples of misguided utilitarianism. Sacrificing yourself so you can sacrifice your child on the alter of society, wasn’t morally considering th...
Ok, so you are bringing up this one again. You are bringing up a new topic now, right? The new topic is the old one we discussed in the last thread wh...
The main point was that if you can't know the good or bad of the future child, then don't create those conditions of bad for the child, if it's a poss...
I do agree about not arguing 2 threads.. but it seemed that something should have been learned on the last one and applied perhaps.. But you seem to t...
No that's not what the major premise.. You know it by now. Do we agree that foisting non-trivial, unnecessary impositions/burdens/harms on someone els...
I didn't read this first before I started making arguments.. I could have just said "read I love Chom-choms point 1! Yep.. Great analysis. You made a ...
@"darthbarracuda" Why would subjective/objective affect the argument? Either way it works for what bad entails. But the ability not to even "play" the...
But you know my response and probably something @"darthbarracuda" might say (not sure).. that starting a life is one of the only cases where ameliorat...
I think @"darthbarracuda" is saying that it can be subjectively defined. Whatever is bad to that person is bad. If that person thinks their life sucks...
Comments