Yes, only that one presumption creates harms and presumes set of choices that’s supposed to be good for another with its other intention. This matters...
Yes, that slippery slope argument. I called it a brand of "repugnant conclusion". All your efforts would have to be towards other people's affairs. If...
That's the child, not the person making the decision for them. And I have had this debate before, but just because someone says that at one moment in ...
Well, you can say that about any philosophical debate, right? That's a whole value sentiment that can be discussed in another thread. Should philosoph...
Are you sure I haven't done that in the past? Look at some of my past posts focusing on Schopenhauerian philosophy. However, though it CAN be relevant...
It's not about thinking for others on its own. It's about specifically creating impositions for them or deciding what impositions are appropriate for ...
I'm still trying to articulate this more clearly, but I'd like to ask you, can you define what it is that makes not imposing harms from scratch (for s...
So that's the very point in question. Is it ever okay to aggressively assume harms/choices for another person? I understand your position that it is o...
But it’s not about effects. It’s about the rule. And so contra your post here, you are misconstruing the argument. We will continue to disagree becaus...
You gotta stop harping at a point I didn’t make. It’s about the parent making a choice that could affrect someone. It’s about whether to impose or not...
Indeed we disagree. I don’t think a person needs to exist prior to life to know it will be affected, and thus at some point negatively. Child born in ...
You’re simply going to be unreasonable to make your same argument. If I went around assuming for others significant limitations on their choices and f...
There’s a lot of things off here. 1. Being rich does not equal heaven obviously. Though being rich can help make some things easier. 2. It’s not about...
A great point. The antinatalism on the thread about impositions is about when or if it is ever right to create impositions for others if it is not ame...
The asymmetry between harm and benefits. In this existence, it isn't a heaven, it comes with harms. Harms = Impositions (point B specifically.. the bu...
I've already answered this.. Since life does not offer a personalized utopia, it is creating major impositions onto someone else, so being that this e...
Go back to my response again and not just put out the same old non-identity argument which I have objected to many a time. You talked about someone no...
On what person is this imposing? A person could be born that likes a bike you could have bought them. Do you mourn that person who is not there to lik...
I call it aggressive paternalistic thinking. Their values must be lived by another person. I don't know what to say other than it is an attitude. Atti...
You aren't forced onto a sports team though. How is this not a violation if you were? Even if it was seen as a benefit if you joined the team. Not onl...
No. It would have to be some sort of personalized utopia you know the person was born into to not violate the imposition of one view into another pers...
Those weren’t moral claims in that post but descriptions of what your stance leads to. You were waiting to take that “arbitrary ethics” attack out of ...
But this to me is insane moral thinking, if examined and not just taken due to current convention. Your project being deemed worthy means another pers...
@"Tzeentch" @"Isaac" So I was gone for a bit, but rejoining this thread, there are several points to consider regarding this current back-and-forth ab...
Because that's how governed is used unless in the context of talking about government, as in "The people were governed by X government". Anyways, this...
Yep. Remember my arguments around the differences in things like drinking water, taking a shit, and procreating? Procreating is not instinct in the wa...
It says govern, but the definition I pasted did not mention "accepted rules about behaviour". That of course makes your definition entail some sort of...
Well, I think that's why it should be read in its context. He gave common intuitions we have when trying to justify the claim. So he thinks that while...
Agreed. I liken it to vegetarian/veganism. Propose, make a case, don't impose. I also separate discussions of ethics from law. Government/law and ethi...
Based on what it means to have an ethics that obtains for reasoning, feeling, people who have their own internal reasons and preferences. It comes fro...
See, this is the false dichotomy I don't accept. Morality itself just becomes the capricious whims of a community's time, place, and circumstance. The...
Why is a person's dignity being violated something that must be based on some community standard? Again, the witch being burned. Why is that allowed? ...
That's the interesting part... If no person is born, no person is imposed upon. There is no person not obtaining anything. If they are born, there is ...
No, I don't know how that conclusion is reached that each person does exactly as they wish. That isn't a necessary conclusion. Clearly there are rules...
No it's not an inconsistency, he is working off of moral intuitions about non-had goods and non-had bads. I rather don't like it formulated in that fa...
Right, but this doesn't refute the point, if the things are different for everyone, why go with the riskiest move? And then this also goes back to the...
Yes, this is more to the point I was trying to make. But one doesn't affect a person, and the other does. So even if one is aware of the problem, but ...
I wasn't saying that. I wasn't advocating for some preference-maximizing or something like that. I was saying that WHO is the person that enjoys, does...
Comments