I'm not sure what you mean as what is my goal. I guess I meant in the OP three years ago that we live in the imperfect situation of a world where we u...
No, you are purposely using my argument against me in a way I overtly said in the last post it shouldn't be used. I purposely said that this is an imp...
This is rhetorical blather. You know that procreation is the direct cause of someone else's existence. This whole "there's nobody there until they are...
What agenda would you put above preventing suffering in the unique case of procreation. In this situation you can prevent, all future suffering for a ...
If the children are harmed by being brought into existence when the alternative is nothing, then nothing is better alternative as it is always good no...
Yes I can agree with this conclusion. I think your formulation of the argument makes sense. To add to this, I'd like to throw the idea out there that ...
I would not characterize it as a sum of all persons or potential persons. Rather in the scenario of choosing whether to procreate, when considering if...
Counter: You can never know how much there will be, why take the chance? If you predict wrong? Even if you think it is a low chance, is that worth it ...
Are you always on disagreeable mode? I'm trying to reconcile the fact that the basis for axiological considerations in morality are hard to prove one ...
That's fine, but I am giving you the reasonings for antinatalism. You can choose to agree with the principles are not as they are laid out. I think it...
This is a good question. I think the justifications for the original axiological settings get murky. Some use "intuition", for example. Harm seems to ...
If you look at my last paragraph you'll see that I said it is a difference in values between the antinatalist and pro-birth position. If someone does ...
Benatar's asymmetry is based on the idea that preventing harm is always good even if there is no actual person, where preventing pleasure is neither g...
Here's some quotes from his in the Wisdom of Life https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/wisdom/complete.html#chapter1: ...So arises an ...
The X Beings don't experience pleasure or get deprived of it. This is not good or bad. The humans experience pleasure, this is good. The non-existent ...
What would you like input on? Dealing with mental illness is one of the harms of being alive. Like most other things in life, in order to get better y...
If no negative states were attached to the deprivation then the outcome is not bad. I would just like to see a human with no negative states due to de...
You pick the outcome and not the cause for rhetorical purposes. But if we are going to go down this absurd route between a situation where the only th...
I just told you- creating situations of lack, and more strongly, adversity for something when there was nothing there to originally experience lack or...
It represents having a lack. Why create situations of lack, (and adversity) for something that doesn't need to? To put a put a premium on adversity or...
Sure it is, and one clever part of Benatar's argument is that the different thresholds in starting a life and continuing a life. I would take the hard...
It isn't the activities that result from the suffering, it is the lack that is there in the first place. It is not an immediate physical pain. It is y...
You did a great job bridging utilitarian antinatalism with philosophical pessimism/structural antinatalism. Structural antinatalists (like myself) wou...
Your scenario about X beings is that they don't feel pleasure. Well, this follows under Benatar's idea that if something already exists, then it is be...
I'm assuming you were talking about the idea of antinatalism and that you are anti-anatinatalism because birth brings more experiences of pleasure and...
But Benatar takes into account outcomes. What is the outcome of pleasure being prevented (and no one there to be deprived of it?). What is the outcome...
The difference being that we are not talking about X beings that already exist, but no being at all. It can be regrettable for X beings that they don'...
A lot of the intuition of why preventing pain is always good, where preventing good is neutral comes from this type of thought experiment: To this it ...
So this is precisely why its an asymmetry. Pleasure is only good as person-dependent, no pain is good is person independent. Benetar is pretty clever ...
Ok, so the contention is over the use of absolute/relative or intrinsic/relative. The point that I think we both agree he is saying is that preventing...
But then, that's your judgement, not the person you would be creating's judgement. Even if probability was a factor (high, low, what have you), preven...
I don't have the book with me. I used to have it but no longer in my possession. If you have an online source, please let me know. From what I gather,...
The weight is on the negative. What is good is that painful experiences did not occur for an individual. Pleasurable experiences not occurring does no...
Fine just add in epigenetics and the physical properties that make them unique. This wouldn’t change it much. Also I meant rigid designator, not defin...
Kripke was into scientific essentialism so I would suppose that something like your unique DNA fingerprint would be considered a candidate for a rigid...
Comments