schopenhauer1

I see what you're saying, but you will know my answer. It wouldn't be right to use current generations in a "greatest good" principle, to benefit futu...

It would be my position not to use people in present generations (cause conditions of harm for them) for future generations to be better off.

One actually encompasses and respects the individual, and not using them. The other is in a locus that is not where the ethical concerns lie. An princ...

However, being uncertain at all moments can be harmful to individuals and lead to any action being acceptable. At the same time, if viewed differently...

Haha, you giveth and taketh away.. I would say love them nonetheless and realize that they have a viewpoint on existential conditions of life itself, ...

Again, I applaud your positivity and good-spirit, but I would just have to say I disagree with this perspective-especially because of its conclusion (...

I'd probably agree here- positive ethics is not quite the same as affirmative ethics, as he uses the term, but there are parallels. One of these being...

Because "society" doesn't actually experience suffering or happiness or anything, individuals do. It can be many individuals, but once individuals get...

@"TheMadFool"@"Tzeentch"@"HereToDisscuss"@"Possibility" I'll try to answer you all one at a time, but this post is about as good a summary as it gets ...

Interesting idea. This is more geared towards psychology or sociology, but interesting. I'd have to ask for any proof that homeless people are "often ...

So, if we are uncertain about birth, and thus, can prevent any uncertainty, that can easily be remedied- refrain from procreation. Once born, we are b...

Um, ok. So all of this gestation comes from nowhere. Nothing caused this? You can do better than that. Creating instances of harm so that people can g...

Well, if you look at the OP you can probably guess my answer, but the answer is no amount if it means that collateral damage will ensue and that by th...

I'm not sure where you got that because I agree with you. Nope, this is very much just a sliver of the argument. That is why I started a separate thre...

If I were to make this into a table, it might look something like this: Normal conditions: Non-aggression followed | Non-aggression violated Following...

A lot, because you keep advocating for a greater good principle and I'm saying this is overlooking individuals for third-parties. I'm still a bit lost...

In a way they are, but only because the parents procreated the children. You cannot force someone into a game, and then say "Well it's YOUR fault for ...

Why should people be used like this? What you are saying is that we must be pressured to violate negative ethics in order fix some X situation. Two wr...

Okay, I will amend this to make it align with what I am intending. If you are breaking negative ethics (non-aggression/non-harm) in order to fulfill s...

Again, it is hubris to think we know with certainty such outcomes based on X, Y, Z factors of the parents and environment. We simply don't. Even if th...

This I believe to be just a wrong assessment of the information. There is no one-to-one ratio of good intentioned, good child-rearing parents always p...

I am not saying that ethics does not apply to many individuals at once. Rather, what I am saying is ethics does not apply to some third-party entity o...

So this would go back to my aversion to ethics based on an amorphous collective or society (like the greatest good principle). Ethics is directed at t...

I disagree that ethics is at a social level. The ACTUAL entity affected by any decision isn't a social entity, but the individual within that society....

I can make any number of choices based on preferences that are not constrained by the negative ethics. In the intra-wordly mess of the real world, som...

I don't believe it would be moral to create people such that, their best option is "live out your life you don't want or go kill yourself". Suicide is...

Yeah, this dystopian world you present sounds like exactly the case of following X "positive agenda" (become super-human) at the behest of negative et...

I guess the test would be, when creating this super-human stuff, are you creating harm for various generations leading up to this (even just by procre...

Well I am not against giving oneself a positive ethics. Rather, what I am saying is it would be wrong to pursue a positive agenda by violating negativ...

So here is where I sort of agree with you.. The principle is the standard, and it indeed DOES break down after birth. This is the intra-worldly affair...

Ok I think I see. You are saying, shouldn't we prevent people who will cause pain to others. My response would still be that once born, considerations...

I agree with this so far. Yes, that makes sense. But from what I see in your post, you are not disagreeing that indeed, negative ethics is easier to j...

But this idea works regarding any positive ethics. That is to say, put any X positive ethics (happiness, love, self-actualization, pleasure) and the p...

Right, so no one can ever specialize in a topic that they prefer :roll: . Someone who agrees with Plato can't talk about Platonism.. Someone who agree...

That's actually a really good summary.

How is what you're doing not trolling? But here I am feeding you, so that's on me for answering. However, it shows i dont just create a post and leave...

So this is a lot of ad hominem, not engaging the argument itself. And of course, I am for the non-aggression principle, which means not forcing your v...

Yes, makes sense. Ideals as a shield against extreme relativity. It is interesting.. I wonder if a certain form of perfectionism has pervaded Western ...

Yes. Good way to put it.

I think it comes into play most when it comes to procreation. There are several first principles that must be agreed upon- a) it is not good to cause ...

From what I know of Platonic Ideals and Platonism in general, if we are to historicize it, is that its origin has more to do with combining elements o...

I think @"180 Proof" had in mind more than mere worries about mortality and sickness, though these are certainly problems. By the way, if we include a...

But the "harm" to the parent for not procreating doesn't measure up to the harm done to the future child, especially because it is creating conditions...

It may be, but can you make a few sentences or paragraph actually framing what you are saying about basic necessities and negative ethics.

You'd have to explain this a bit more. I'm not quite getting the scenario. If we prevent birth, and that person who was prevented from birth might hav...

But in what context?

I don't follow. Is this a new idea or something pertaining to a previous post?

So again, you are ignoring the autonomous human part. Autonomous individuals have to be accounted for. If you are paying attention, these ethical theo...

So, if you pay attention to my arguments, I put a lot of weight on non-aggression. Once born, people have their own autonomous identity as individuals...

I refer you to my last post as it is basically the response to this notion that positive ethics is required as default for other people to follow.