|
humans have a natural drive to eat protein rich meat, but killing animals can be wrong because their suffering outweighs the good that come from the meat same deal with human reproduction, when you make life, you create untold suffering, infinite pain, people should have a choice about that just like they have a choice with pregnancy.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
It's also all a big distraction from the real problems. Life is going to keep happening. We're not stopping that and thinking that reproducing is unethical is living life like a video game with a suffering points system. People are going to keep reproducing so if you want to minimize suffering than you need to remove it from our environment, not by arguing if it's wrong to reproduce.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
How about people try to answer my though experiment? - You believe that reproducing creates infinite pain, through the organism itself, the damage it will do, or the other organisms it will create - You see a pregnant woman starving in front of you, you have food that could save her - The moral choice, given the premise, is to let her starve, because that will cause less pain than the alternative - Do you agree? If not, why not? E: In fact, it doesn't even have to be starvation, which is to be fair a bad way to go. As an alternative, you see that a man is about to shoot her in the brain, giving her a relatively quick and painless death, but you know you have time to push her out of the way. The moral thing is to let her be shot, given the premise. Do you agree? Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
I did already point out that killing individual, or even quite a lot of people, doesn't really impact the preponderance of life in general, whereas technology and social atttitudes seemingly can, quite effectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Can I ask why? We moralise most of the things that we do, and questioning why things are "like that" is a tad important. its weird because the end goal of that line of thought is the end of all life and nihilism is loving weird at best it's lazy - someone choosing to have no kids because they would only know suffering in a post climate disaster world. at worst one could convince themselves that something like mass sterilization is a moral imperative because people arent going to stop loving on some proselytizer's say so its one thing to question why humans do the things they do. it is entirely another to pass judgment on those things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I did already point out that killing individual, or even quite a lot of people, doesn't really impact the preponderance of life in general, whereas technology and social atttitudes seemingly can, quite effectively. That's not the point. The point is whether you assume as a given that pain/suffering is the metric to determine the value (or valuelessness) of life. If you wouldn't kill the woman, than the arbitrary suffering metric you've chosen to judge not only your, but all other human's choice of reproduction, is inconsistent. My argument is that reproduction can't be reduced to a utilitarian calculus, and that (like my previous example of indigenous groups choosing to maintain their culture via reproduction in the face of oppresion) the moral calculus is complex and context based. Your retort is basically saying that since we can't end all suffering immediately, there's no point in ending it on a smaller scale. But again, that's because you've chosen to define life solely in terms of suffering, and define suffering minimization as the goal. This is pretty basic ethical philoshophy stuff. If you can't defend the core premise you're working from, the method you choose to execute it is irrelevant. Josef bugman posted:Can I ask why? We moralise most of the things that we do, and questioning why things are "like that" is a tad important. There are probably wasy to do it but for some reason whenever this question comes up on the internet, grognards come out of the woodwork to declare human life is intrinsically valueless and abloobloobloo nihilism. Unless you can agree on some core premises, ie. that life, human or otherwise, has value, then there's no point in debating because the positions are fundamentally irreconsilable. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
You aren't ending it on a small scale, I already said that killing people is bad because it just creates more suffering and does not appear to actually change the number of humans in the long run. If all human lives are of more or less equal value, which I think they are, then you achieve nothing by killing people, and killing people en masse usually leads to, and requires, extra lovely societies that people will be born into so I think you're actually just making things worse. I can fairly easily object to your suggestion without surrendring my core belief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You aren't ending it on a small scale, I already said that killing people is bad because it just creates more suffering and does not appear to actually change the number of humans in the long run. If all human lives are of more or less equal value, which I think they are, then you achieve nothing by killing people, and killing people en masse usually leads to, and requires, extra lovely societies that people will be born into so I think you're actually just making things worse. How does it create more suffering? The suffering from the death is finite (assume she has no family or close friends) are your premise is that the potential suffering is infinite. This isn't a social policy, it's purely the outcome of your argument that a lives always amount to suffering. You're avoiding the question. You personally choosing not to have children will have the same effect, and unless you are planning to collapse the vaccuum and annhilate the unvierse personally, your actions will have exactly the same effect on the sum total of life in existence. E: A woman choosing to have a child is immoral, because that creates a lifetime of suffering for the child, etc. The suffering the woman feels from not being able to have child (which is significant) does not matter in this moral calculus. I choose to kill a pregnant woman. This is immoral because it causes suffering on a small finite scale, even though the suffering I prevented was infinite. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
Better not leave the house, suffering exists outside of it on a far greater scale than inside
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
UHD posted:its weird because the end goal of that line of thought is the end of all life and nihilism is loving weird Why is that particular example lazy? I, as an individual, cannot hope to challenge forces beyond my ken even if I knew exactly what to do and how. But we do this all the time? Do you not pass judgement on anyone? Also, when does nihilism become the correct response to things? Beelzebufo posted:There are probably wasy to do it but for some reason whenever this question comes up on the internet, grognards come out of the woodwork to declare human life is intrinsically valueless and abloobloobloo nihilism. Unless you can agree on some core premises, ie. that life, human or otherwise, has value, then there's no point in debating because the positions are fundamentally irreconcilable. But a lot of reasons that people have for things are directly at odds. It doesn't mean that we don't try and understand them in some way. some plague rats posted:Better not leave the house, suffering exists outside of it on a far greater scale than inside This doesn't actually answer anyones concerns though. The fact that suffering exists is bad, and it should be stopped. To say that "oh it's everywhere so why do anything" is far more churlish than to go "perhaps there are ways to not approach things". Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 22:41
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
Not if you start from fudamentally opposed premises, which is what I'm arguing is happening in this thread. The only way out is for one side to be wrong or proven to be inconsistent in some way. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm not the one who stated that people are wrong/deluded to judge their own lives as on the balance good (in all cases!), or the one to declare that wanting to have kids is always selfish and immoral. If you're going to walk in with those premised, then defend them when people challenge you. Josef bugman posted:Also, when does nihilism become the correct response to things? Never? Why does it have to the correct response to something? If you are a nihilist, you hold other views of existence as being inherently incorrect. True nihilism doesn't recognize context as making other viewpoints valid, so why should it be ever be considered correct? Josef bugman posted:This doesn't actually answer anyones concerns though. The fact that suffering exists is bad, and it should be stopped. To say that "oh it's everywhere so why do anything" is far more churlish than to go "perhaps there are ways to not approach things". Do you believe that an indigenous woman choosing to have a child to resist colonial domination and pass on her culture is doing something selfish and immoral, yes or no? Don't just pass judgement in the abstract, tell me exactly why you get to decide the value of human life, why you are correct in a nihilistic viewpoint and she is wrong. We are talking about the inherent morality of reproduction, not individual contexts. Either it is inherently moral or immoral. If that's not the premise, if reproduction is value neutral without considering other factors, then we aren't debating the inherent ethics of it and the situation will vary wildly person to person, or organism to organism, and you won't be able to argue that life is inherently flawed and should be encouraged to end. E: A woman choosing to have a child is immoral, because that creates a lifetime of suffering for the child, etc. The suffering the woman feels from not being able to have child (which is significant) does not matter in this moral calculus. I choose to kill a pregnant woman. This is immoral because it causes suffering on a small finite scale, even though the suffering I prevented was infinite. Do you agree that this is a contradictory set of statements, Josef bugman? Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:To say that "oh it's everywhere so why do anything" is far more churlish than to go "perhaps there are ways to not approach things". In the context of this thread those are exactly the same thing though. You just rephrased it. "suffering exists so don't have kids" is just doing nothing but making it sound active instead of passive
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:Not if you start from fudamentally opposed premises, which is what I'm arguing is happening in this thread. The only way out is for one side to be wrong or proven to be inconsistent in some way. That's what I'm trying to do. I'm not the one who stated that people are wrong/deluded to judge their own lives as on the balance good (in all cases!), or the one to declare that wanting to have kids is always selfish and immoral. If you're going to walk in with those premised, then defend them when people challenge you. Something can be bad for you to do, but you cannot understand other people doing though. For instance, I'd consider that someone who has lived a less advantaged life than my own is permitted some different and more morally flexible way of living life. In the same vein we should strive to uphold a higher standard for those among us who are more advantaged.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Something can be bad for you to do, but you cannot understand other people doing though. For instance, I'd consider that someone who has lived a less advantaged life than my own is permitted some different and more morally flexible way of living life. In the same vein we should strive to uphold a higher standard for those among us who are more advantaged. Ok so without context actions are value neutral. So you're not actually arguing for nihilism at all then. You just don't understand moral philosophy. E: Or you're arguing that the action is still immoral, but condescendingly allowing more unfortunate people to keep being deluded, while you, educated and advantaged, know the truth. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:Never? Why does it have to the correct response to something? If you are a nihilist, you hold other views of existence as being inherently incorrect. True nihilism doesn't recognize context as making other viewpoints valid, so why should it be ever be considered correct? I can hold that a lot of points of view are incorrect for myself, or for any number of reasons. If you hold that life has value, or inherent meaning to it then that's great, but it is not obvious. And if you hold a position of course you will believe that other views are incorrect, but that could be due to any number of things, differing points of view need not be completely at odds. Beelzebufo posted:Do you believe that an indigenous woman choosing to have a child to resist colonial domination and pass on her culture is doing something selfish and immoral, yes or no? Don't just pass judgement in the abstract, tell me exactly why you get to decide the value of human life, why you are correct in a nihilistic viewpoint and she is wrong. We are talking about the inherent morality of reproduction, not individual contexts. Either it is inherently moral or immoral. If that's not the premise, if reproduction is value neutral without considering other factors, then we aren't debating the inherent ethics of it and the situation will vary wildly person to person, or organism to organism, and you won't be able to argue that life is inherently flawed and should be encouraged to end. That's up to her, and eventually her child, and not me to determine. One can hold that certain moral precepts are up to other people to decide upon, as much as we are able to decide upon anything within our own contexts. some plague rats posted:"suffering exists so don't have kids" is just doing nothing but making it sound active instead of passive To flip this round, do you think it is moral to have children then? Beelzebufo posted:Ok so without context actions are value neutral. So you're not actually arguing for nihilism at all then. You just don't understand moral philosophy. I don't think I am capable of deciding for other people? It's attempting to recognise my own context, to a greater or lesser extent. It's for other people to decide, though I could try and make arguments as to why you should or shouldn't, depending on the situation. Beelzebufo posted:A woman choosing to have a child is immoral, because that creates a lifetime of suffering for the child, etc. The suffering the woman feels from not being able to have child (which is significant) does not matter in this moral calculus. I missed this bit, so I will add it in a little late, sorry! A woman choosing to have a child is up to her. It's not up to me because I don't think I have the right to make other peoples choices for them. If you choose to kill a pregnant woman then you are obviously at fault because you killed someone. You took away their right to choose how to live or not. In the same way that I'm sure someone who felt suicidal would still be pissed if they got murdered by someone they dislike. Now as to are those two things contradictory? I am not entirely sure? Why does the woman suffer from not being able to have a child? Alongside that your choice to kill someone inherently takes away their ability to choose for themselves whether they think life is worthwhile. Which, as I am trying to point out, is up to them. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I can hold that a lot of points of view are incorrect for myself, or for any number of reasons. If you hold that life has value, or inherent meaning to it then that's great, but it is not obvious. And if you hold a position of course you will believe that other views are incorrect, but that could be due to any number of things, differing points of view need not be completely at odds. So you agree with me entirely then. E: My entire point is that you can't declare a categorical statement like "life brings suffering, suffering is bad, therefore reproduction is immoral", which is the argument at hand. My whole point is you can't judge others for choosing to reproduce because of your personal viewpoint on suffering. Therefore, reproduction cannot be inherently immoral, it is value neutral and context dependent. Versus the other viewpoint posited in this thread (the nihilistic one), which is that the woman in that example is acting immorally by choosing to bring a life into the world, no matter how she rationalized it. That is the core of this argument. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:05
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:So you agree with me entirely then. I have no idea. To put it bluntly your examples don't make things simpler and I find your writing style hard to parse. I believe that is my error not yours though. But I do believe that one can judge something as "incorrect" whilst still respecting the people involved and the choices they made. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I have no idea. To put it bluntly your examples don't make things simpler and I find your writing style hard to parse. I believe that is my error not yours though. That's not the position OwlFancier has. His stated belief is that people who think life has value are deluding themselves/"programmed by biology" to believe something false. That is the problem with this thread. I don't think his value system is universal, and I think people can have valid reasons to have children even if I do not share them. That is why I argue against his point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:E: My entire point is that you can't declare a categorical statement like "life brings suffering, suffering is bad, therefore reproduction is immoral", which is the argument at hand. My whole point is you can't judge others for choosing to reproduce because of your personal viewpoint on suffering. Therefore, reproduction cannot be inherently immoral, it is value neutral and context dependent. Versus the other viewpoint posited in this thread (the nihilistic one), which is that the woman in that example is acting immorally by choosing to bring a life into the world, no matter how she rationalized it. That is the core of this argument. I would say that life is suffering, but I can more than understand why people have kids. You can still go "this may not be the best decision" whilst doing all you can to attempt to live differently to others. There is a difference between the silly buggers doing things like yelling "crotchspawn" and people who just plain don't have kids. Like the difference between PETA and actual vegans for instance. But that isn't the Nihilistic example? The Nihilistic one is not anti natal as an axiom, is it? You could believe "life is suffering, it would be better not to have more children" whilst also going "but people are going to continue having kids anyway, so lets ensure things are as good as possible for them". Your asking people who believe the first to also believe "and therefore we must murder every child and everyone born is a vile stain upon this revolting planet." Beelzebufo posted:That's not the position OwlFancier has. His stated belief is that people who think life has value are deluding themselves/"programmed by biology" to believe something false. That is the problem with this thread. Do you think that it is impossible to respect people who you believe may be wrong about something? Lots of things we believe are false/fake though? I believe in justice, but I wouldn't be able to find it if you melted the universe down now would I? We are all stuck inside of our own contexts that are, mainly, informed by our societies and our biology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
just having suicide facilities solve all of these issues
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:That's not the position OwlFancier has. His stated belief is that people who think life has value are deluding themselves/"programmed by biology" to believe something false. That is the problem with this thread. That is how beliefs work, they are generally applied universally by the person who holds them, including your apparent belief in refraining from thinking about the actions of others. Also more specifically my practical objection is rooted in the idea that people who think life has value like to project that idea forward onto lives they intend to create, which I do not think is a very good idea. So if anything I am actually taking the anti-universalist position here. I realise, of course, that you cannot really help doing that though, hence why I also attempt to argue that it is a belief you should doubt in yourself too, in order that you will universalize that doubt rather than an apparent certainty in the value of life for its own sake. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
Life has a negative value because life is intrinsically and inalterably comprised of more suffering than anything else. As such it is immoral to reproduce, thus subjecting another person to that suffering. Non-existence is always preferable to existence. If I had a big button that killed all humans everywhere instantly and painlessly I would hit it because that would forever end all human suffering. Do I have that right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I would say that life is suffering, but I can more than understand why people have kids. You can still go "this may not be the best decision" whilst doing all you can to attempt to live differently to others. There is a difference between the silly buggers doing things like yelling "crotchspawn" and people who just plain don't have kids. Like the difference between PETA and actual vegans for instance. That's why my original though experiment allows a woman to die by non-action. In both cases, the argument is you are preventing suffering by choosing not to do something. Why is it moral in one case and not in the other? I'm asking a pure moral philosophy question. What is the moral system that says that choosing not to have kids is moral, but choosing not to save a pregnant woman is immoral, if you are basing the argument on lessening human suffering? I'm positing a situation where the lessening of "suffering" being caused is essentially identical, especially against the enormity of the world and all the people in it. If you really believe that by definition a human life is always more suffering than good, then you are sparing the woman and her child that suffering, which under the moral system posited is a net good, in fact a bigger net good then just not having children. Josef bugman posted:Do you think that it is impossible to respect people who you believe may be wrong about something? Lots of things we believe are false/fake though? I believe in justice, but I wouldn't be able to find it if you melted the universe down now would I? We are all stuck inside of our own contexts that are, mainly, informed by our societies and our biology. "I believe x", "well I believe y, and furthermore I believe you are deluded to believe x", "let's agree to disagree then" OwlFancier posted:That is how beliefs work, they are generally applied universally by the person who holds them, including your apparent belief in refraining from thinking about the actions of others. I don't believe in refraining from judging the actions of others, I'm questioning the moral framework and precepts you use to come to your conclusion. I am saying that your argument is reductive and that there are other things besides the net utility calculation you seem to be using, and that those reasons for living are valid alternatives to your framework.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
What about animals? Does animal life have value? Is it right or wrong to try to save species from extinction? Should we let the elephants go extinct because they can grieve like humans can? EDIT: How does any of this explain altruistic behavior in nonhuman animals? Is it wrong for humpback whales to save even other animals not their own species from killer whales? DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:I actually don't think that I can respect someone with an axiomatic position (or belief) that argues their subjective experience is somehow more clearheaded then every other human in existence who holds a different viewpoint. It's the same way I don't respect white supremacists. Beyond that, what is the point of debating something if you don't explore the logical conclusions of what is being proposed? I would hope that your objection to white supremacists is not merely that they are too universalist...
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:Moral Philosophy What is someone who actually knows what they're talking about doing in this thread? I'm not sure that's allowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:15
|
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:Why is this thread considered "pseudo intellectual nonsense" in your mind? there's no real intellectual reason to believe 'reproducing' as a broad concept could be an inherently ethical or unethical act, any more than taking a poo poo is inherently ethical or unethical, or living and dying is. All consume resources and all could, in theory, be at least pared back if you're willing to just completely go full brutal authoritarian on your population, but the scale at which it'd mean anything to do would require entire nations to do that. Beyond that, the whole 'more birth = more resources' isn't an inherent fact, and applying a global scale to the whole 'we're running out of land/resources' thing is absurd on face value. It's a personal choice, draping it in an ethical imperative either to pop out Lil Revolutionaries or to castrate yourself in the name of the global ecosystem's survival is just a way to justify your personal choice which is basically the exact connotation of something like this being pseudo intellectual nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:What about animals? Does animal life have value? Is it right or wrong to try to save species from extinction? I already answered that as well, it seems weird to me to imagine that animals are necessary happy (insofar as they are capable of experiencing happiness) given that nature is often very unpleasant to live in. However the idea that if you just let a species go extinct that is somehow better is again missing the point. You aren't trying to run up a scoreboard of number of lives ended or species wiped out, the value of a species living or dying I think is better understood as a function of how it impacts life in general. Specifically a lot of current extinctions are a sympton (and in turn, cause of) ecological damage which will reduce the quality of life of a lot of other forms of life including humans, and I don't really think that slowly starving things to death is a very good idea and also it's not likely to actually wipe out life entirely. A more inhospitable world seems likely to just make life more miserable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I already answered that as well, it seems weird to me to imagine that animals are necessary happy (insofar as they are capable of experiencing happiness) given that nature is often very unpleasant to live in. well now you're talking about an entirely different scale, though. Environmental impacts won't be solved by not having kids, unless you define that as literally zero babies, if you're trying to entirely focus on human life as an environmental stewardship issue you're gonna have to start a-culling, so who's first up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:well now you're talking about an entirely different scale, though. Environmental impacts won't be solved by not having kids, unless you define that as literally zero babies, if you're trying to entirely focus on human life as an environmental stewardship issue you're gonna have to start a-culling, so who's first up? And again as I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't think there is much historical evidence to suggest that just killing lots of people actually diminishes population growth in the long run, and also societies that do that are lovely to live in/around. But education, access to contraception, and changes in social attitudes regarding the importance of procreation absolutely do. And are also just good things in general. Do not reproduce, make it easier for people not to reproduce, give people other things to do than reproduce, tell people it is a good idea not to reproduce, this helps stop people from reproducing. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And again as I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't think there is much historical evidence to suggest that just killing lots of people actually diminishes population growth in the long run, but education, access to contraception, and changes in social attitudes regarding the importance of procreation absolutely do. And are also just good things in general. And this is a global scale program? A kid in, I dunno, rural Lithuania and a kid in Manhattan get the same education of 'having babies is bad, actually'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I already answered that as well, it seems weird to me to imagine that animals are necessary happy (insofar as they are capable of experiencing happiness) given that nature is often very unpleasant to live in. It seems like your basic problem might be that you never developed empathy or theory of mind and are incapable of understanding experiences beyond your personal ones?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:And this is a global scale program? A kid in, I dunno, rural Lithuania and a kid in Manhattan get the same education of 'having babies is bad, actually'? Yes? I don't see why not? Both potential lives have equal value so I don't want either of them to have to be brought into existence and deal with the poo poo the world has in store for them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And again as I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't think there is much historical evidence to suggest that just killing lots of people actually diminishes population growth in the long run, but education, access to contraception, and changes in social attitudes regarding the importance of procreation absolutely do. And are also just good things in general. You keep waxing between either a categorical "X is wrong" position and "X is impractical and unsupported by evidence" position. Which one is it? My question is "Is it categorically wrong to pursue the action of preventing species to go extinct?" not "Is it practical". Is it moral in the abstract to let species continue to propagate themselves? OwlFancier posted:I already answered that as well, it seems weird to me to imagine that animals are necessary happy (insofar as they are capable of experiencing happiness) given that nature is often very unpleasant to live in. I never said anything about imagining animals are necessarily happy or not. I asked whether their lives are inherently valuable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
If you’ve got the power to somehow educate everyone into rejecting the base biological drive to reproduce (or otherwise enforce that) why don’t you just transform society into a form that maximizes pleasure and exists in perfect harmony with the biosphere? It’d be trivially easy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:You keep waxing between either a categorical "X is wrong" position and "X is impractical and unsupported by evidence" position. Which one is it? My question is "Is it categorically wrong to pursue the action of preventing species to go extinct?" not "Is it practical". Is it moral in the abstract to let species continue to propagate themselves? It could be both? I don't really see much evidence to suggest that life is a particularly good thing, and also I can therefore suspect that it categorically isn't. I imagine that if I were exposed to sufficient practical evidence I might change my mind, but the general thought is influenced by practical experiences. And sometimes a desire to make the right practical choice might put me at odds with my ideal outcome in the short term. e.g if I had a button that would zap all life out of existence I might well push it, but I don't have a desire to just go out and start murdering people. Pentecoastal Elites posted:If you’ve got the power to somehow educate everyone into rejecting the base biological drive to reproduce (or otherwise enforce that) why don’t you just transform society into a form that maximizes pleasure and exists in perfect harmony with the biosphere? It’d be trivially easy. Because I think that evidently we are much closer to getting people to stop reproducing enough to decrease the population over time, and in some respects that appears to coincide with improving their quality of life. So I don't think that improvements to people's lives are actually opposed to getting them to stop making more life. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Apr 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:That's why my original though experiment allows a woman to die by non-action. In both cases, the argument is you are preventing suffering by choosing not to do something. Why is it moral in one case and not in the other? I'm asking a pure moral philosophy question. What is the moral system that says that choosing not to have kids is moral, but choosing not to save a pregnant woman is immoral, if you are basing the argument on lessening human suffering? I'm positing a situation where the lessening of "suffering" being caused is essentially identical, especially against the enormity of the world and all the people in it. If you really believe that by definition a human life is always more suffering than good, then you are sparing the woman and her child that suffering, which under the moral system posited is a net good, in fact a bigger net good then just not having children. Yes but one is active not doing as opposed to a passive not doing, as it were. One is choosing to actively bring about a level of harm towards a person based on moral principle. If instead you "ranked" your principles and instead hold that "people should have a choice to make about things" at a higher level than "it's probably best to not have children" then you end up in a situation where you attempt to build a system that would encourage the latter whilst still bearing in mind the former. Would you believe otherwise? Is life not suffering? Beelzebufo posted:I actually don't think that I can respect someone with an axiomatic position (or belief) that argues their subjective experience is somehow more clearheaded then every other human in existence who holds a different viewpoint. It's the same way I don't respect white supremacists. Beyond that, what is the point of debating something if you don't explore the logical conclusions of what is being proposed? Why? Are you not doing the same now? "Everyone who doesn't believe as I do is muddled in their thinking" that sort of thing? If I explore the "logical conclusions" of what people propose they inevitably look like my caricature of their position. Because I often do not hold their position and my understanding is going to be different from their one. Do you believe we are not affecting by our physical bodies and our own cultures/drives? At what level do those drives and wants cross over and become "delusions" as it were. I do hope I am not being rude, but this is a lot to think about. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes? I don't see why not? Both potential lives have equal value so I don't want either of them to have to be brought into existence and deal with the poo poo the world has in store for them. why is the conclusion "life must end" instead of "life must be better"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
UHD posted:why is the conclusion "life must end" instead of "life must be better" Again, it can be both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Again, it can be both. No it can't!!! You have to choose one! Pretending it can be both is obviously an asinine exercise in doing nothing while reassuring yourself that you're helping! This is obvious to everyone except you and maybe the bugman, I have no idea what he's on about at any given moment
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 03:17
|
|