'Default wrong' doesn't mean always and everywhere wrong. Sheesh, are you doing this on purpose? It is often perfectly justified to do something to so...
No, I mean by default wrong what I said I mean. Now address the argument not the label I have attached to it. The label is correct and all you're doin...
Like I say, you're off topic. My argument is - for the umpteenth time - 'Kantian'. It is distinct from "Kant's ethics" even though a believer in Kant'...
And I am unclear why you have said that "your consciousness is not your soul". I know! Consciousness is not a thing, but a state of a thing. The mind ...
No, that's clearly false. The lump of cheese in front of me is casting a shadow and it is the sun that is responsible for that. Yet manifestly the lum...
There are no leaps in any of my arguments. Each argument is deductively valid - that is, its conclusion must be true if the assumptions are. And so in...
No, the 'mind' is an object - it is whatever object is bearing our conscious states. So, someone who believes that conscious states are being borne by...
But they ARE near universal. Most people really do consider sexual betrayal worse than financial betrayal. You may not, but most people do - and most ...
What - they thought it would be good if we could solve every problem by masturbating? That's insane. Plus surely that would make many trivial problems...
No, I try to read as little as possible and, as I understand it, Freud was a psychologist not a philosopher, so I think that the odds are he will have...
Question begging. By insisting that it is irrational to view sex as ethically special you are assuming that reason does not represent it to be. Yet as...
I mean by 'default wrong' 'default wrong'. I do not know of another way to say the same thing more clearly. Defeasibly wrong? That seems less clear, b...
Question begging. I have just explained why it appears that sex most certainly is an appropriate subject for ethics as it would seem to be a feature, ...
I just picked my nose. How on earth did that affect everyone? I just made my partner a cup of coffee after asking if she wanted one - how on earth did...
Wrong again. As I made clear by saying that I was making a Kantian argument, the focus is on the nature of the act, not its real-world consequences (e...
No, it really isn't and you're the confused one. If you've tried to conceive a child then you're as bad as someone who actually did and you're being f...
No, for although I believe we all existed prior to being born here, I think that is irrelevant. For even if the procreative acts that brought us here ...
not everything affects everyone, so that's false, and not everything that affects others affects them without their consent, so that's false too. But ...
As said before, this thread is about whether procreation is default wrong due to blah did blah consent (can't be bothered to keep writing it). It is n...
Off topic. This is not about what Kant did or did not say. This is about whether procreation is wrong due to the fact that it is an act that affects a...
Don't - don't, don't, don't - go to Wikipedia for insight. Wikipedia is not an academically respectable source, as your institution should itself have...
I think most of you are approaching this the wrong way. You are attempting to explain why it might have come about that sex appears to us to be morall...
I should also say that you seem fundamentally to misunderstand Kant's ethics - so, you say that Kant places supreme value on one's own value and that ...
At what point have I said that Kantian ethics and deontological ethics are one and the same? A Kantian ethics will be deontological, but a deontologic...
I have noticed that you like to throw the word 'logical' into what you say a lot. Yet you seem to mean by 'logic' 'what Echarmion says'. Why not expre...
Yes it is. Like I say, it is common to draw a distinction between 'Kant's ethics' and 'Kantian ethics'. The latter is a broad term reserved for any ki...
Hume was quite wrong. Morality is not made of feelings. If it were then we could change the morality of a deed by changing our feelings. For instance,...
I do not understand your point. Yes, there are consequentialist arguments against procreation. But there are also deontological ones. The one I have p...
Er, the person you will have created exists at the time you create them - and can thus be affected by the act of creation. People - lots and lots of p...
Yes you can. There's a distinction to be drawn between 'Kant's ethics' and 'Kantian ethics'. I am not talking about Kant's particular view - this is n...
Yes there is - the person who is created. You're falsely assuming that to be affected by something you need to exist prior to the affect occurring. Im...
Premises 5 and 6 are false. Not procreating does not necessarily lead to the extinction of moral agents. And even if it did, how is that any kind of '...
But my case above makes no appeal to actual consequences. Rather, the point is that procreative acts are ones that cannot be consented to by the affec...
Ah, I don't think it is question begging. Your argument, I think, is this: 1. If everything we do is antecedently causally determined, then we lack fr...
[ But what it is right or wrong for us to do is not constitutively determined by our feelings. Our reason is our source of insight into what it is eth...
Yes, it is a lottery insofar as we cannot guarantee that our attempts to create a person (or bring a person into this realm if they already exist else...
It is not clear to me whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I've said. You seem to be describing what it may be in our reproductive interes...
Comments