|
It never was, OP.
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
Think of all the lives you can save by not having children. If you don't have children, your children can't have children, and if none of your progeny ever exist, they can never die. *taps side of head*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I'm going to have sex Check your privilege.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
You don't need another person around in order to decide whether a thing is just or not, but I would suggest that in this instance "your prospective kid" would be a good start.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And if my prospective kid wants to be born? Well I would suggest that humans aren't actually fit to make that decision about themselves because of our survival instincts, people, as far as I can tell, will attempt to cognitively minimize their own suffering, subsisting on a seemingly unfounded sense of positivism and optimism. People try to forget or explain away the bad in their lives but it doesn't stop them experiencing it, only preventing them from acting to remedy it, personally I feel like this is a post-hoc rationalization for our in-built instinct to not die, but whatever the cause I think the effect is fairly plain. And while you can make many good arguments against killing people "for their own good", I don't think any of them really apply to not creating people in the first place. Not having children is ethical where involuntary euthanasia is not. Also, like, you can't ask your kid so you shouldn't assume they'd be fine with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is mandatory sterilization ethical as well? In a vacuum, arguably, but not as it's overwhelmingly practiced. And trying it species-wide would probably not actually be achievable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What's your reasoning that justifies violating people's bodily autonomy against their will? That procreation produces magnitudes more suffering than violation of bodily autonomy. in the same way it's ethical to violate someone's bodily autonomy by arresting them if they show evidence of intent to harm others, it is ethical to do so if they show evidence of intent to create life that will primarily suffer. Bodily autonomy is not inviolable, it is simply desirable to preserve it without a good reason not to. If you could flip a switch and sterilize the entire planet, it would produce a horrible world, but it would be a very finite amount of horror. A procreating world has far, far more time to endure far, far more horror. You could also make a somewhat awkward argument that creating life itself is a violation of the bodily autonomy of the created individual, or at least that all subsequent suffering can be traced back to the initiation of that life, incurring a degree of fault at that point, but I would probably not lead with that argument as I don't think it's as strong. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Mulva posted:You do know that the ultimate conclusion of that logical train is shooting you in the face, right? If I torture you, then wipe your memory, then leave you be for a day, then torture you again, then wipe your memory again, then give you another day, and I do this for years on end, with the net effect being that you are living in intense suffering, but your inability to build an accurate perspective of your life (because of the selective memory alteration) means you don't perceive it that way, are you or are you not suffering? I would take the position that you are, regardless of whether you are aware of it after the fact. And you could shoot me but, I think, the key point is simply to ensure that I don't procreate, which you could do by shooting me but as I'm not going to anyway that would be a bit superfluous. I'm going to die anyway in a comparatively short amount of time so there's very little need to accelerate that. If you're trying to minimize suffering you would be better served convincing people not to have children rather than going out and shooting people, which does cause rather a lot of suffering because people who already exist have relationships and things, they can be missed, a person who never existed cannot. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do you keep talking as if it's an obvious fact that any given life contains more suffering than non-suffering? How could you possibly even begin to quantify that? Presumably about as well as you can quantify the opposite. Mostly gut instinct. Though I do think that people trend, near universally, towards cognitively minimizing their suffering, they avoid thinking about it, dwelling on it, discussing it, so at the least, I think it's sensible to assume there is more suffering in the world than there seems like, because everybody tries to hide it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
If you've got a justification for why the world is mostly nice I'd be interested to hear it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Because "suffering" is quite an arbitrary concept, and more or less completely in the eye of the beholder. The fact that people aren't throwing themselves off bridges en mass is a pretty good indicator that they see a net positive in continuing to breath and reproduce. Well, no I'm arguing specifically that the fact that people think their lives are good is not a trustworthy metric, because if people didn't think their lives were worth living they would die, which suggests that the people who are alive are the ones most resistant to believing that their lives aren't worth living, not necessarily that they are the ones with the best lives. Do you think it is more likely that humans have objectively good lives, or simply that they have evolved a cognitive bias to make them incapable of recognizing that their lives are bad? While still experiencing pain constantly? And as you say, suffering is arbitrary, or at least relative, to use your internet example, before the internet existed, people relied on different forms of communication, now our society relies quite heavily on telecommunications, and to be excluded from that is now to be excluded from a quite significant aspect of society. So saying "you have internet you can't be sad" is about as sensible as saying "you own a television you can't be poor" because it ignores the fact that the commodities serve functions in people's lives and because they are available, society has changed so that those functions are not easily met in other ways. And thus the deprivation can cause suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:"Objectively good lives" is an irrational concept, especially if your measurement is something as nebulous as "suffering". Or perhaps all of that is after-the-fact justification to align your ability to think and philosophize with your overriding, animal instinct to not die above all else. You don't really have much way of knowing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well then you'll need to ask somebody who actually made that claim. Well it does kind of have to be one or the other.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:But that's circular logic. Specifically, it's the fallacy of Begging the Question . You're assuming with the premise that suffering is universal and constant, and rationalizing how everyone isn't killing themselves based off of that, which then justifies your premise. My actual position would be that you can't really satisfactorily know which case is true, and that this uncertainty should give you very serious pause when it comes to thinking whether or not you should reproduce. The unknowability is why I definitely don't suggest you should kill yourself or other people because of it, because killing people does have some very definite badness associated with it. But not creating life? That's far more grey. I'm stating it from the assumption that suffering is more prevalent than its opposite (whatever that is) so that I can illustrate the argument from that premise, I can't prove the premise, you're correct, my argument is that you should have a lot of reason to think that whether the premise is correct is actually unknowable, even for your own life. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:If you ditch your dualistic premise of a discrete "animal" instinct and "rational" mind, this falls apart. It's the same "after the fact rationalizing" by our sapient mind that equates bodily and mental discomfort with "suffering" in the first place. The "rational" concept of suffering is rooted in the same instinctual directive to "not die" as is the ability to cope. If. LogisticEarth posted:And again, what is an "objectively good life"? One which does not require cognitive bias to be recognized as such. It is not the perfect word to describe it but I lack a better one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to claim I know or even believe which it is. No, but knowing that, or not knowing that, or which is correct, is very pertinent to the question posed in the thread, and any attempt to answer it, I think, must address the question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
As I said, my position is primarily that you really can't know satisfactorily, that there is a prevalent cognitive bias among humans that suggests that it is worse than it seems, whatever that is, and personally it doesn't seem super good to me. You can disagree with the last bit if you want but the rest, I think, holds. It's not a complete answer but I think it should formulate part of your own personal answer to the question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:There's a whole other group of problems if you assume a dualistic mind, but I'm phoneposting and don't want to dig into that right now. If, as I posit, there is an optimisitc bias present in a majority of people, this interferes with their ability to make accurate judgements. Again use my example from earlier, if I torture you a lot and then give you amnesia, does that make the torture not immoral and does it erase the suffering you experienced during it? Does it undo the fact that you lived in suffering for that time? Is suffering bad because people experiencing it is bad or is it bad because people remember that it's bad? If I kill people who suffer does that mean I have done a good thing because now they don't, and that undid the time when they did? The only way suffering makes sense to me is if it is bad because it is experienced, entirely irrespective of what we think about it afterwards. So from that, I must view optimistic bias as a method of preventing people from making accurate decisions about their level of suffering. And again, if this is a thing that almost everyone has, which I think it is, then I'm not "giving someone the choice" as to whether they want to live or not, because nobody is capable of making that choice properly. Or rather, whether they want to live does not correlate with how much they suffer, it is entirely possible for someone to live a life primarily full of suffering, serving no purpose, and dying afterwards, while still thinking it's a good thing all the while. To any observer who could accurately perceive that life, it would be barbaric, but because nobody can, we permit it. I am positing that if this optimistic bias exists, it is entirely possible for humanity to be a kind of perpetual engine of misery, constantly propagating itself because it is pathologically incapable of establishing an accurate concept of its own suffering. And we wouldn't know about it. Who What Now posted:Even if it's worse than it seems that doesn't mean that it is still bad enough to justify saying that life isn't worth creating without a more concrete understanding of exactly how much worse it is than the average person might think. This is even granting that people do in fact underestimate how much suffering they experience, which is also an unfounded assertion. My belief in an optimistic bias is entirely based on personal observation so obviously I can't prove that to you, you will have to make that decision for yourself. And it does indeed depend on how generally unpleasant you perceive the world to be. You can also decide that for yourself. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
It would be nice to think so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:Prove to me all pain is bad. Suffering can actually be really good for you! I've yet to find a case where that is true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So you're against most forms of medicine? The presence of suffering is not what is good for you, it's the actual material benefits and prevention of further suffering that is good. If I club you over the head with a rock so it hurts, that isn't medicine. And equally, if you perfect medicine to the point it doesn't cause suffering, it doesn't lose its effectiveness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:This I think is one of the core problems with your (and OwlFancier's) argument. Consent prior to existence is an irrational and impossible concept. There is no violation of consent when one creates a being that is able to consent. I assume everybody wants to continue living, I simply don't have much faith that they are well founded in that desire. I see little reason not to honour their wishes however, they will die eventually anyway. And my argument has really nothing to do with consent, my argument is that procreation primarily creates more suffering, regardless of consent. The question of consent is immaterial to my position.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Again, you don't actually have an argument, you just have an unjustified assertion. I have an argument based on premises that I cannot prove to you, if you do not accept the premises then you will not agree with the conclusion, that is how arguments work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Utilitarianism is great.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Premises you can't prove or demonstrate are faulty premises. Your argument is fallacious from the start. I can't take my observed reality out of my head and jam it into yours. This is a limitation of communication. I'm fine with you not accepting the premises for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Utilitarianism being difficult to apply to hard-to-quantify questions doesn't legitimize stupider ethical systems' attempts at doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do you think that you and you alone are free from bias when it comes to accurately assessing the amount of suffering in life? I don't, but what I see is all I have to go on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why would you go on it at all if you know it's unreliable? Because the alternative is bashing my head on something until I lose the ability to think. I have the capacity to make decisions, I have a limited ability to perceive information to make those decisions, whether or not I procreate is a decision I have to make, I make it with the best information available to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You're being hypocritical though. You throw out other people's as being completely useless but won't don't the same for your own even though you admit you suffer from the same problems. The alternative is I discard my own observation, I am more inclined to trust my observation than somebody else's, absenting further rigor. The wishes of the procreating individual are utterly insignificant compared to the welfare of the potential progeny, by any metric. Whether you believe life is good or bad, there is no possible way you can say that the created life is less important than the right of the creator to create it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
I won't live, and neither will anybody else alive today for more than 100 years at best, the question is whether we will be replaced or not. And life can get far worse than simple negative utility.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Bud if you want to jerk it to the idea of shooting me in the head I'm not gonna stop you but I don't super want to be involved.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Real talk though I always thought the resolution to bringing someone into this world and them deciding their existence was necessarily evil/anti-eco was just called suicide. When they cease existing they're not experiencing or remembering any suffering anymore so it's neutral just like the good someone not yet conceived has yet to experience. The issue with that line of thinking is that it makes all ethics meaningless because everyone is going to die. I would tend to take the position that suffering experienced is probably bad, like, objectively so, insomuch as anything can be, regardless of what happens afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Liiiiiitle bit creepy now duder.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So? What do you care? Why would I not? Helsing posted:Unfortunately you're rejecting the one insight that sounds like it might help you make peace with yourself and your brief time on earth. I tried nihilism but it was boring. Really hard to keep up for long.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Because you don't have anything other than fallacious reasoning to care. I mean, from my perspective that is true of everyone whether they believe it or not, it evidently isn't an obstacle for them so I don't see why it should be for me? I also don't live in a perfect world. Or, don't not live, or whatever. Actually I think my perfect world would be one where I am wrong, and the optimist in me hopes that one day people might live in such a world, but the creation of such a world isn't contingent on you creating as many people as possible right now so you still shouldn't have kids. Helsing posted:That's not nihilism. What you currently believe is essentially nihilism but with a thin veil of self aggrandizement on top of it. What's the insight then because I think I'm missing it. Mulva posted:Nah, anyone that gets into a discussion with a starting position of "When you think of it maybe sterilization is a kindness?" should be constantly reminded of the nearest tall buildings around them and the cheapest ways to get some inert gasses. If you can't justify killing yourself you are really just an rear end in a top hat when you try to deny life to others. It's "gently caress you got mine" in existential value of existence form. And it deserves zero respect. Kill the rich, no matter the nature of their temporal wealth. I mean, I'm forced to assume that you're making babies all the time, then? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You shouldn't have kids. You don't have any valid reasons why anybody else shouldn't have kids. I think if you're going to you should probably be able to expect that their lives will be enjoyable. And if you can't, I think that's kind of unethical.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Leroy Diplowski posted:Happiness is intrinsic. How can anyone be expected to decide for someone else what an enjoyable life is? 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. Unless you're suggesting that quality of life is literally a dice roll and has no heritable factors or environmental basis whatsoever, in which case, well, I wholly disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
And if maybe if my aunt had worn trousers she would have been my uncle. E: Who What Now posted:Women can wear pants, don't be sexist. My grandmother used to say that to me when she thought I was asking silly "if" questions but apparently it's not a thing anyone else says upon googling it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 00:37
|
|