Whenever I use harm I mean it in the sense that I strictly made the situation worse. If I do not buy you the suit, I do not harm you. Even though it i...
"Does no harm". Last I checked "the human race" was not a person. On the other hand, a generation of resentful malcontents comprises of many people. I...
For Isaac he usually goes to the "The human race is worth preserving" wall. I'm curious why he's trying this one for a change this time. At least the ...
I have not made claims about the rate of change of laws. So I don't need to look at how they change. I have set out a moral framework where socially p...
The premise is that you have an obligation to uphold social contracts you are a part of. So if you work as a doctor for instance, you cannot refuse to...
Have no clue what that means either. So there ARE situations where it's wrong not to have kids. I would think that this is "in accordance to freedom" ...
Fair enough. Wouldn't say "most countries" have that though. None that I've been in have. When did I do that? No. I let my morality depend on my respo...
Literally the first element of negligence claims: Duty. And the fact that we do not sue bystandards for negligence claims shows that we do not believe...
But we can still generalize there. I'm not asking for hard rules, just any indication at all. Murderers get different sentences or are sometimes excus...
When I said that I assumed it is not your job to save the drowning person, aka it is not your responsibility. A doctor already has a responsibility to...
Oh I agree. If you let a man drown you caused his death. But that is not immoral. That's my view. You said it yourself. So in that case he does actual...
What you cause and what you are responsible for are different. If the bad outcome would have happened without you being there you are not responsible ...
Ok maybe. But I'm not doing this. "Abject" means extreme. People can be extremely poor and happy. And yet you did exactly such a calculation to conclu...
Neither is there much point in psychoanalyzing. Sounds to me like: "It is good to have children, but you don't have to". Even though you kept asking m...
I think he goes on to generalize form this that we mean to HELP Billy or Sarah. We don't. That makes no sense. We are using the same model, we just se...
Oh. I thought you meant "will" as in actually bring it about. Really? Well: The universe doesn't care about your relationship or your farm either. Thi...
No one is doing this. Antinatalists are not trying to improve life for anyone. There is no one to be better off. It's a very common misconception. Agr...
Something that always didn't seem right to me in the OP; You recognize that people shoulnd't have children in some circumstances. This conclusion is a...
Because you said that if a sizeable minority of the population doesn’t see the whole community project as worthwhile we wouldn’t have survived. That s...
Net gains for who? You or them? Social contracts. Laws and such. That if everyone in a community harms for their own desire that the community would b...
What do you mean “will it be universalized”? I can conceive of a world where personal pleasure is a worthy moral goal and people go around doing whate...
I would say this is justification not to risk harming people for your own desires. That tends to break down the community if everyone does it. Highly ...
I would expect the person being harmed to also share the goal at least. Or else I can just say go around killing people because I find my own enjoymen...
Fair enough. So just like Isaac, the only reason inflicting harm by having children is acceptable for you is because there is some "more worthy" goal ...
So the motivation is the only determining factor? So someone who is millions in debt with no home, who has a drinking problem, and 15 inheritable gene...
Here you seem to be placing the child's wellbeing ABOVE the desire of the parents. So creating a slave caste is wrong because everyone in said caste w...
The latter must include the former. When looking at reasons to do something, some of those reasons will be "bad" and therefore the action should not b...
Incorrect. Look at my wording: Had I been a moral objectivist I wouldn't have included the bolded area. I would have just outright said that you have ...
The way I define harm is doing something to someone that they don't want done. People don't want to die. Simple. I wouldn't be so sure. Your main prob...
That doesn't make it not a moral issue. Gangsters are indifferent to your suffering. Doesn't mean they can go around shooting people. Not putting much...
Agreed. Well whatever "more basic principles" you find from which "you cannot kill people" derives I can still ask that question about. As in "where d...
And yet we act as if consent is required. Fair enough but it's as close as we'll get. If a written document doesn't imply consent then idk what will. ...
You do not have to minimize anyone else's suffering unless they're dependents. But what you must not do is act in such a manner that they suffer more ...
There is. And I've repeatedly said there is. On multiple threads. The intention is not to seem like a moral naturalist, but to see if you share the sa...
Why would it be? You keep asking these questions that seem to imply a "default position" where there is none. I don't require it answered. You're the ...
I have explained this countless times now. You are part of the calculation. You are part of these "others". Harming others is fine if it either you or...
I don't remember anyone making arguments from objectivity. But regardless you haven't said what is accomplished by talking about "societal morality" i...
Agreed. I didn't say people would act as they do in isolation from social pressures. However I think it's important to note that these "social pressur...
So not all social censure is a form of a moral duty. And not all moral duties are expressed in the form of social censure. Therefore the "assumption" ...
Comments