Question begging. Harms can be deserved or non-deserved. If a harm is deserved, then we have reason - or can have raeson to - to create it. I could be...
That's not what I said. I said that in order for something to be good, there has to be someone for whom it is good, for moral value requires a valuer....
Here is, it seems to me, a much better way to explain the asymmetry in our intuitions between the happy-life case and the miserable life case. Better,...
Why? Do my criticisms of it fail - in what way? Note, this thread is not about the credibility of antinatalism, but about a particular asymmetry that ...
It doesn't imply suicide. The whole point of it is to show that there's a world of difference in the moral importance of benefit and harm between the ...
It's like arguing with farmyard chickens. Here's a nuanced view about the harmfulness of death. "Cluck cluck cluck cluck cluck". Nothing you've just s...
I am not denying it would be good if no one was experiencing pain. The point is that it would be good for someone, namely the person whose valuing of ...
Yes. The point, though, is that it would be good for someone. That is, there would be someone who is valuing the absence of anyone experiencing pain. ...
I have argued that death is a great harm and that its harmfulness consists in what it does to you, rather than what it deprives you of. It takes you t...
But I did not deny that! Jeeez. However, clearly whatever intrinsic value they have, we nevertheless have overall reason not to start them. And this i...
These possibilities seem demonstrably false. For example, imagine you know - thanks to a pocket oracle or something - that any child you have will hav...
That's the deprivation account again. And the problem with it is that death is clearly a harm even when our lives have ceased to be worthwhile. So, ag...
Ah, I see, so you have precisely no point whatsoever to make with your restaurant example, you were just talking about restaurants. Excellent. Just ex...
Back at you: relevance? I don't understand what point you are making. I have described a situation analogous to the one we are in. All you have done i...
I don't see how that follows - the situation you describe is not remotely analogous to our situation. First, we do not voluntarily enter the restauran...
No, the point rather is that neither impressions of reasons to do things, or reasons to do things themselves, are desires of ours. And thus to get the...
You have not read it at all carefully. I made no claims about human desires. I did not say - and would not, for it is stupid - that we desire not to d...
A good test for BS is whether you can say the opposite and it sound just as profound to a Buddhist. Apply it to everything you have ever said. So, Hmm...
I know you don't. I do though. And you don't know what you're talking about. 'Consciousness' is a 'state'. It's not a 'thing'. Not an 'object'. It's a...
Have you published anything on the philosophy of mind? It's just you're bizarrely confident for someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking ...
Do pay attention: that's a 'conclusion'. Our reason does not tell us it directly. We have to 'infer' it. Once more, my restaurant example. The waiter ...
And what is your argument? Or do I once again have to remind you that you're not God and you don't get to determine what's what? Construct an argument...
Again, we're getting into general issues. Most people have the intuition - which is a term of art that I, like most philosophers, am using to refer to...
No, it appeals to people's intuitions - their rational intuitions - which is what any argument for anything does. So, you know, if that's a problem, t...
This is a philosophy forum. Do some. Don't just state things. Consciousness is not a subject -that's gibberish. Consciousness is a state. It is a stat...
No. This: "you have reason to avoid death" does not - obviously does not - mean the same as "you are compelled to avoid death". It also doesn't mean "...
Why does it matter how angry a thesis makes you? Do you think reality cares? Are you 6? There's life after death whether you like it or not. First, de...
No it doesn't. Sheesh. It says that we have 'reason to' avoid death. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Reason to. Not 'will'. Reason to. Not 'will'. No...
Again, stop the blithering and engage with the argument. Start by understanding it. Then try and see if you can construct an argument that challenges ...
I take it there is universal agreement that if death really is a portal to hell, then it would be seriously wrong to procreate? That is, I take it tha...
So here you are saying that we do not have reason to avoid death, because there are explanations of our fear of death (something I did not mention). E...
No they're not. Some do, some don't. This thread is about one particular argument for antinatalism - the one in the OP. It is not about 'antinatalism'...
No you haven't. And my conclusion is justified - see the valid and apparently sound argument I gave for it. That's how one justifies a view. Learn. To...
Everything that has come into being needs a cause of its doing so. And as there is not an actual infinity of past causes, some things must not have co...
Which premise are you denying? No, you just don't seem to understand the difference between saying that we have 'reason' to do something and saying th...
Oh, ok. If you say so. It's just it is not what any of the evidence implies. But if you dislike a conclusion, then it's false. That's definitely how r...
Which premise mentioned that? You seem to think that saying 'we have reason to avoid dying' means the same as 'we are averse to dying' or 'we fear dyi...
Comments