|
TomViolence posted:If I hold someone's hand over a stove but then give them a cookie afterward I'm still an rear end in a top hat no matter how much pleasure that cookie gives them. Similarly, if I force a conscious being into an existence where they inevitably will suffer but also have at best a chance of enjoyment, I'm an rear end in a top hat for the same reason. Pleasure does not cancel out pain, the chance of joy does not counter the certainty of suffering. Propagating sapient life is ethically indefensible. Wrong. Small moments of happiness easily outweigh suffering otherwise we'd all kill our selves. So at that point you forcing that life to not enjoy those moments is ethically indefensible. Edit: actually I take that back as no one should be forced to procreate. However forcing someone not to is loving ridiculously horrible
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 21:48 |
|
|
# ¿ May 5, 2024 21:10 |
|
TomViolence posted:Wrong. The presence of pain is bad, the absence of joy is neutral at worst. If I choose not to have a child and thus deprive that potential child of joy, no harm is being done - not least because they never exist. If, however, I choose to have a child it is a certainty that they will suffer and thus harm is done, which cannot be canceled out by the presence of whatever joy they might or might not experience. Prove to me all pain is bad. Suffering can actually be really good for you!
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 21:57 |
|
TomViolence posted:You can't. Same way you can't get consent to have sex with a sleeping woman. This breaks down, because it does not account for the pleasure this person would have brought to others if they existed.
|
# ¿ Mar 31, 2017 22:22 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I can probably take a guess based on my material circumstances what the circumstances of my children are likely to be, and I can probably suggest that if they haven't given me a super good life, maybe they won't give my kids one either. Or maybe you actually are living a super good life and just can't see it?
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 00:34 |