schopenhauer1

I don't have a problem looking at it in either way. But let's not kid ourselves, the reason for the survival is so that individuals in the society (li...

Yes and Schopenhauer also emphasized and agreed with the suffering that Buddhism discusses. However, Schopenhauer definitely identified more with the ...

I am not sure this is a definition of morality other than your definition. However, even if we are to judge it by those standards, certainly many peop...

No, not quite. This is why I think dignity is violated after a certain threshold is met. This also has to be balanced with unnecessary suffering. So b...

Benkei might say if no person is there to not suffer, antinatalism is wrong on the account as there is no recipient to not suffer.

Agreed.

Based on what is known.. We can't know what we don't know..

We work with what is known. We can imply anything.. QM theory says... (place any possibility because infinite multiverse).

I guess so, but besides you telling me, how would anyone know that?

That Nietzsche's active nihilism supersedes Schop's metaphysical pessimism or that they are commensurate. Edit: Meant the opposite.. you seem to be sa...

Yes, where did I disagree with this based on my last posts? That's right. He didn't mind the admiration, but still wasn't a fan of his work. Good enou...

Not sure where you're going with this.. The point in the comment you quoted was that starting an existence is unnecessary suffering started on someone...

Not sure your point...

It's that right there that I don't agree with. But I generally see more sympathy for Nietzschean "pessimism" (more optimism to me with eternal return)...

So I am a thorough-going Schopenhaurian here. Probably the only one who identifies so on this forum. So let me give you the minority perspective here....

He @"Benkei" thinks that if the no person is born, that "no person born" does not benefit from being prevented from existing. The problems are that he...

It can't be "demonstrated" to be false if people find the state of suffering as no good. Those people are the ones making the decisions.........

Communities are only there to sustain individuals. Thus the community is necessary because individuals in the community benefit. Generational benefits...

I don't care what you want to call it. It is ensuring that at a future state, something does not suffer. I'm not buying the word-games that you think ...

There is a state of affairs that did not take place. It could have. You chose not to bring it about.

Absurd that you think that you cannot consider the person who would be born if you do such and such

And so then I'll just keep saying:

You are PREVENTING a future person from suffering. It's about the decision for another person.

One of my posts a little while back is the odd difference in our species to be able to evaluate any task we do as negative. This is especially odd whe...

Right this is the Benkei absurdity of "You have to live so you can not like suffering". But it's preventing another person from suffering in the first...

This has always been your beef. That no one will suffer is good is unacceptable to you, leading to absurdities like, people have to live so that "they...

You keep replacing "conditions of" with "causes". Your choice to misquote all the time. I can take this several ways: 1) In a universe with potential ...

Right but presumably harm is weighted as what counts or matters here.

:rofl: You're funny (unintentionally?). Right because you don't read the word "conditions of suffering" and replace in your head with "cause". ABSURD....

Okay, gotcha. It is that last part I disagree with then because it is assuming an aggregate utilitarian approach... It looked like you were agreeing w...

Because you don't think in future conditionals based on there not being a "person" existing at the moment you make a decision.

And if someone finds themselves born into terrible circumstances (more than what you consider "normal" life) and the person knew they were going to bi...

But this is of course where I say dignity is violated.. And we don't have to use the narrow definition of "will" either. Just the state of affairs of ...

Not for a negative utilitarian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism

I would agree with both of those statements, though let's parse out several things here: 1) Some people do not intend evil when they procreate, but th...

So we definitely disagree there, because once the situation is "inescapable game, that 'hey you might like some aspects'" I believe there to be a prob...

Yes I get what you're saying and I can see why you might think that, but I think this is really the same as the causing unnecessary suffering rule. We...

Time 1: No state of affairs exists where a baby is in a net that I set in the sand, hidden. Time 2: A baby is in now in the net. Time 1 caused the vio...

Yeah, that wasn't your disagreement. You were trying to make an argument that because the decision was made prior to the "existence" of the person, it...

I think even a threshold right there is met being that it is unknown for the person involved being such an immersive and intractable game for the pers...

Presuming the game of life should be played, or the challenge/overcoming challenge game. Sure. Right, an intractable game of challenges forced onto so...

Now I don't understand. Procreation meets the threshold, similar to the lifeguard example.. I just cannot provide a concrete calculus (yet) of how the...

Right, and I did answer you previously:

So yes, I should say that suffering not existing is always good.. even if there was no person to benefit from this good. Good things not occurring is ...

No that is true.. but that is after the threshold is met.. Degrees that reach a threshold. I think it can come from common intuitions, it's just peopl...

It's not conflating.. it is about state of affairs in regards to non-existence (no human), it is person-contexted in regards to already existing. The ...

Maybe. But then we are just talking about degrees of meeting the threshold. But I explained earlier that it isn't binary but a matter of degrees meeti...

Yes this is along the lines of what I mean by "dignity/autonomy being violated". Yes, and I was arguing that the threshold is extremely high for both ...

I would say birth. You may place it at some sort of level of consciousness. That is when it goes off. There is now a will at that time, no? A decision...

I'm actually not sure what your problem with the idea of the cause being displaced from the consequent. You plant the device, and then it blows up lat...