I just don't know what you are trying to get at.. So you are claiming that people should procreate in the hopes that their progeny will reduce sufferi...
I think it is interesting how force and harm have inverse aspects to them. If someone is harmed, it is okay to help them (even if not asking.. this is...
Not really. Not using people and not harming them.. non-force (unnecessarily) and non-harm (unnecessarily) principle are pretty standard ideas. Don't ...
My conception of it is not utilitarian, though a huge component is preventing harm. I don't consider it utilitiarian because I see ethics as agent-bas...
No, you misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that, in terms of dealing with suffering, one doesn't have to put emphasis on the aggregate, but rather c...
There is a thread on suicide, so ideations and actual acting on suicide does occur. Having the instinct to fear death and pain is not the same as prev...
This doesn't negate that one can prevent human source of suffering via antinatalism. It's a red herring of sorts. Not all forms (or many) look at suff...
Again, my point is the idea of forcing pain on someone else for one's own benefit of alleviating pain is not a good one. If you can't see the wrong in...
Rather, if you force others in the grand old pursuit of the game of flourishing, and in doing so, force unnecessary harm and challenges on another per...
I'm going to bypass all of this and reiterate the main point: The bomber and the parents have the same problem.. their "harm" is predicated on causing...
The funny thing here is that while it is always good that that future person will not suffer if not born, the pleasure foregone for the future person,...
And again, unnecessary suffering (for someone else). Was it necessary for her to not get harmed further or are you causing the very harm in the first ...
All known and unknown forms of suffering will occur when born. Don't see a problem here. I don't need to actaulize torture on someone to prove that pr...
Is someone obligated to prosper? No. Is someone obligated to not cause unnecessary harm? Most likely yes. That is why prosperity seems to not be relat...
Sorry, I should say, if one can prevent ALL pain for another person when one is able to, that is the correct action. Otherwise, of course not to your ...
Perhaps by having children you would be continuing the chain of suffering and causing others to deal with the same existential problems. The best way ...
It just means, either preventing a negative or not violating a right. So preventing harm to others or not unnecessarily forcing things upon others. Th...
Again, this can be attributed to violating a negative ethics of non-harm and non-force. Flourishing is only a secondary hypothetical imperative. IF yo...
I'm not sure if you agree or not with the objection that it leads to a rule-based system. My other main point was not only does it lead to a rule-base...
No applied ethics is when ethics is tested, in a way. But, I am just saying virtues in themselves mean very little, and what ends up happening is a hi...
So there is some complexity here. Let me explain: 1. In the case of procreation, you would not only be preventing all harm, you would be preventing al...
Morals need not be grounded in a desire to flourish. In a negative rights or negative utilitarian approach one can say that it is a simply a desire no...
You can put up a better rebuttal than this... Not getting to cause other people's pain because one wants children, is not a good argument to go ahead ...
Yes, that is the correct answer to that rebuttal, JacobPhilosophy. Three things being born has that makes it a detriment for the person being born: 1)...
Not changing the subject. Changing the parameters for which something can be answered. Example: Person 1: X problem can only be answered using 1, 2, 3...
A lot of philosophy might be about opening up new ways of thinking about something rather than as a definitive solution to a problem. That means that ...
Agreed.. Nothing should just be taken as "proven" because there is no evidence on the other side. Interesting article from April in The Washington Pos...
What he said. I'm just saying we can't discount it, and I also provided an article with good questions to ask, from a reputable science magazine. Here...
So now we are speaking a bit different languages. I am speaking in likelihoods and you are speaking of direct evidence. I am saying that there is a hi...
So you hang your hat on that argument. It could be a coincidence that the virus started in a the wet market in the same city as a virus lab studying t...
This is an arbitrary weighting of the system. My guess is there are other wet markets in China and the world. This one happened to have a virus lab st...
SSU, c'mon though.. So one quote from someone at the lab saying "“In fact, like everyone else, we didn’t even know the virus existed,” she said. “How ...
Yes all this stuff you mention sounds like bullshit, and I was not referring to this, or any similar-dubious claim, so this is kind of a non-sequitor ...
Just wondering, how so? Why? I know I've seen that in reports, but even if it was a natural adaptation in lab, why wouldn't one look at the possibilit...
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but has anyone discussed the possibility that the virus leaked from the Wuhan lab? That could be either fr...
Being already embedded, and recognizing that being embedded doesn't mean the universe is only how a human is embedded. There can be relations of thing...
I thus said it pretty much: Correlationism is the idea that you cannot get beyond the human mind's constructs of the world I explained it myself here:...
No, again you're letting your smarmy quips block actual understanding. The minute you find "evidence" of folk not making stuff up, the stuff becomes p...
I never said ineffable. Just not the animal/human perception of it. I was discussing Speculative Realism with @"fdrake". One of the things that makes ...
Not really. Body- neural pathways, chemicals, molecules, cells, etc. Mind- seeing, hearing, sensing a food particle (if you're something like a fish),...
But yet you failed to acknowledge what I said: a) Presumably you are not a mind/body dualist, and thus emergentism fails to satisfy the anti-dualist (...
Well, it's obvious we don't know. Nothing wrong with speculative metaphysics. You think you Kant do it, and rely on Witt to get you out of thinking ab...
I see what you mean.. You seem to have a very narrow definition of consciousness. Presumably you are not an advocate of mind/body dualism. Emergentism...
Comments