like the ones life "itself" imposes. — schopenhauer1

Which you still haven’t shown actually meet the threshold. See, I wouldn’t mind you saying “I see life as too much of an imposition so I won’t have kids”. That’s reasonable. It’s saying “life is objectively bad or straight awful, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong” that is the bold claim requiring support. It is not sufficient what you think of life but you need to show why you are more an expert on everyone else’s lives than they are without having met them.

The debate is of course how much and to what extent its taking place — schopenhauer1

At least we can agree on something.

You think it is absolutely up to the person's report how much inconvenience there — schopenhauer1

No I don’t. But I don’t have to. I think OB exists, sure, but I think it plays such a marginal role that it doesn’t affect the reports much.

Other than that kind of evidence, I can only invite you to look up the phenomena and read up on OB. — schopenhauer1

You’re making an error again. I’m past the point of questioning your unproven assertion that OB applies only to sufficiently long events since I see you really can’t be asked so there’s no point in asking. But you still have to show that OB plays a critical role and shifts the report significantly. And besides literally most happiness surveys aren’t binary, they ask you on a scale of 1-10. I’m willing to say that OB may sometimes increase the result by 1 occasionally.

The error is confusing “negative experiences tend to be remembered more fondly” with “every experience you remember fondly was probably the result of OB”. The first is a statement of OB, and the second clearly doesn’t follow from it. Yet you pretend it does.

But the difference is I am not entreating you to do this on this thread's dime. — schopenhauer1

Right, but you’re the one putting up the thread, you’re the one trying to change people’s minds about something. So I’d expect you to have support for what you’re saying.

I can only invite you to look up the phenomena and read up on OB. I also recommend Benatar's writings on it. Not too hard to search — schopenhauer1

incredulity — schopenhauer1

See the problem is when I do search it, I find nothing that states that OB applies to long experiences only. So I kindly ask you to support your view, and you seem incapable of doing so, not just unwilling. But I’ve already accepted it for the sake of argument to try to move forward. You still can’t get “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” out of OB. You’re committing a logical error as I show above.

It is an extent. But what if I were to bite the bullet and say surprise parties are wrong — schopenhauer1

I’d stop talking to you because it seems ridiculous. Especially since I know you think they’re fine and if you bite the bullet you’d only be doing so to “win” the debate by pretending to believe something you don’t.

I guess you are a strong "NO" to anything being contrary to someone's report — schopenhauer1

No I just think the reports are mostly accurate despite of some biases.

EVERYTHING is ONLY up to the person, and ONLY on self-reports on evaluations of the events. — schopenhauer1

Nope.

I am taking a view of the event itself. As long as imposition has happened, that should be considered, despite evaluations. There is not much we can do at this point because there is not much to prove one way or the other. — schopenhauer1

Yes there is. You have supposedly derived that life is “at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” without any reference to these super faulty (something you haven’t shown) evaluations. Can you tell me how you did that? I’ve been asking for ages now.

If someone (maybe yourself) is burdened with the surprise party — schopenhauer1

What do you mean “burdened by the surprise party”? As in I’m an organizer? If I didn’t organize a surprise party in the first place I’d be “burdened”? What?

Sorry I legitimately don’t get this.

it is THEY who lose out. — schopenhauer1

Who?

Prishon says: Great dialecital discous going between Khaled and other one Shoppyhauer2

Which you still haven’t shown actually meet the threshold. See, I wouldn’t mind you saying “I see life as too much of an imposition so I won’t have kids”. That’s reasonable. It’s saying “life is objectively bad or straight awful, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong” that is the bold claim requiring support. It is not sufficient what you think of life but you need to show why you are more an expert on everyone else’s lives than they are without having met them. — khaled

There is no way to "prove" this. What you think is proof, isn't for someone else. Similar to what you accuse me, of course I can't say anything that someone doesn't think is proof enough. These are values. Values are hard to "prove". Yet you don't accept my meta-ethical stance that it's simply about what seems compelling. You don't find it compelling.. I am at peace with that. Not gonna make me cry myself to sleep worrying if Khaled finds "proof" that he needs to be satisfied.

I will say again the arguments that we have had...
Sometimes people can overlook things that are going on (Exploited worker argument and Willy Wonka's Game). They have limited choices, and don't realize it etc.. Some people don't realize something is indeed bad for them.. Look at anti-vaxers.. There's a lot of "proof" but they don't find it compelling. Is it bad for them? You can say that these people are living in ignorance and possibly negligence to others, but I guess everything is subjective right? If the majority of people are anti-vaxers, are they right? If a majority of people are exploited by a big boss smoking a cigar laughing his ass off in a backroom, is it right? You will say yes, I will say no. This is not about whether someone is exploited, but whether someone's reaction to the exploitation makes the exploitation non-existent or not harmful. Life has harms People are harmed.

I will ask again, does almost all life contain unwanted burdens, yes or no?

The error is confusing “negative experiences tend to be remembered more fondly” with “every experience you remember fondly was probably the result of OB”. The first is a statement of OB, and the second clearly doesn’t follow from it. Yet you pretend it does. — khaled

Some ideas to consider said perhaps more eloquently regarding OB:

Professor Smilansky tries some other moves to mitigate the implications of the evidence that self-assessments of well-being are unreliable. He says, for example, that insofar as “life tends to be quite good … illusion is much less needed”104. But that is not
a way to show that illusions are less operative. We have evidence that the illusion is
present. It is not a proper response to this to assume the antecedent – that life tends to
be quite good. And if Professor Smilansky responds that he is not assuming that life
tends to be quite good, but is instead drawing on conclusions for which he has argued
elsewhere in his paper, then it becomes clear that the argument of his that I am now
considering adds nothing to his other arguments.
He also says that Pollyannaism often “actually makes life better for those under its
influence”105. I am sure that that is true, but only to a limited degree. Thinking that
things are better than they actually are can actually make things better, but it does not
follow that things will actually be as good as one thinks they are. In other words, there
may well be a feedback loop, but this is not sufficient to obliterate the distinction between one’s perceptions of the quality of one’s life and one’s actual quality of life106.
Saul Smilansky also argues that “even where people are not very happy, they can be
filled with a sense of the significance of their lives”107. This is more grasping at straws.
All the arguments I provided for why self-assessments of well-being are unreliable,
apply equally to self-assessments of significance. Indeed, on some views, significance
is part of well-being. And the suggestion that the “potential for existential meaning in
one’s life is granted only when one has been brought into existence”108 invites the response that those who never exist have no need for existential meaning and are not
deprived by its absence.
In his concluding remarks, Saul Smilansky says that the reasonableness of reproductive risk is largely neglected in my discussion. His response is to note that people “take
upon themselves considerable physical and emotional risk” and thus that “the fact that
104 Ibid, pp. 74-5.
105 Ibid, p. 75.
106 I discuss this further in David Benatar, “Suicide: A Qualified Defense”, in James Stacey Taylor (Ed.),
The Ethics and Metaphysics of Death: New Essays, New York: Oxford University Press (forthcoming,
but pre-printed in David Benatar, Life, Death and Meaning (Second Edition), Lanham MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2010, pp. 307-31).
107 Saul Smilansky, “Life is Good” p. 75..
108 Ibid, p. 76.
life is full of risk … does not, in itself, prove much”109. He says that the matter requires further exploration. In exploring this further, it would be worth recalling that
the risks people take upon themselves are importantly different from the risks of procreation, for in the latter the person brought into existence does not decide to assume
the risks. Instead, the very considerable risks are thrust upon him by his parents. — David Benatar

You still can’t get “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden” out of OB. You’re committing a logical error as I show above. — khaled

Does almost all life encounter burdens and inconveniences, yes or no?
Do we disagree that something can be wrong, and people don't realize it, yes or no?

When you answer these, the debate comes to a standstill as we are at odds and "agree to disagree".

What do you mean “burdened by the surprise party”? As in I’m an organizer? If I didn’t organize a surprise party in the first place I’d be “burdened”? What?

Sorry I legitimately don’t get this. — khaled

You said earlier YOU don't like surprise parties.. It isn't the people who never had surprise parties that are negatively affected (obviously), just the ones that don't like them.. Those are the people that it is relevant as an ethical issue. In other words, no people = no missing out on surprise parties. There is no harm done to people not born, obviously.

There is no way to "prove" this. What you think is proof, isn't for someone else. — schopenhauer1

Well it becomes a problem when you try to convince others of something for which one of the main premises is not provable isn’t it?

If the majority of people are anti-vaxers, are they right? — schopenhauer1

No. Because being antivax isn’t an ethical position, it’s the stupid idea that vaccines are harmful which has been empirically falsified.

I guess everything is subjective right? — schopenhauer1

Don’t know where you’re getting that from.

If a majority of people are exploited by a big boss smoking a cigar laughing his ass off in a backroom, is it right? — schopenhauer1

Well if they don’t mind it I would say yes. But for the sake of argument I’ve been saying no so far.

I will ask again, does almost all life contain unwanted burdens, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Now let me ask you this: If something that could contain unwanted burdens is pushed on someone is it automatically exploitative?

Because that would make everything you do to someone else exploitative.

And are you seriously quoting David benetar in response to me asking you why OB only applies to long events? Talk about unbiased sources!

1- Nowhere does he show that OB is operative enough to invalidate reports in the first place. He takes a few incredibly weak arguments and says “these don’t show that OB is less operative than I said it was”. But he never showed that it was operative much in the first place.

2- Nowhere does he show that OB is only active for longer events. Which is crucial to your view and which I gave up on asking you to prove because you clearly can’t. I thought at first that you couldn’t be bothered, but since you went out of your way to quote something anyways this shows me that all the “proof” that you have was just what Benetar said. If you had scientific proof of OB working only for longer events you would’ve quoted that as well while you’re at it.

Does almost all life encounter burdens and inconveniences, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Yes.

Do we disagree that something can be wrong, and people don't realize it, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

For the sake of argument. Yes. Also I think you meant “do we agree”

Now, how do these two answers lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden”

Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive? (Hint: Surprise parties)

You said earlier YOU don't like surprise parties — schopenhauer1

Yes but despite my annoyance at anyone who would throw me one I wouldn’t say they’re doing something ethically wrong. Because I know they had good reason for believing it would work (unless they knew me and were just being malicious)

I will ask again, does almost all life contain unwanted burdens, yes or no? — schopenhauer1

Obviously, the answer is no. It's ALL life. And they are there out of necessity. Without them, it would all be in vain. The burden of our dog's dead, still with me today, exists to emphasize the loving. The burden of proof exists to articulate (a kind of proof). The burden of death exists to make life. Without death life would be shit. Though sometimes I think I wanna live forever. The burden of a hurricane exists to seek shelter. The burden of war to release stress and see things with a fresh eye. The burden of TPF exists to keep an open mind or keep it closed.

Well it becomes a problem when you try to convince others of something for which one of the main premises is not provable isn’t it? — khaled

There's a lot of things that are not "provable".. Are conservatives or liberals "right"? Why should politicians care to convince people? There is no "objectively" right, right? However, that's not quite the case either. It's about values and society. So, someone who thinks a homeless shelter should be built and funded with government money values this, and thinks this is generally good. Maybe the opposition says that it leads to other, unintended consequences, and this is actually not "good". Maybe anything government funded is always wrong to this person.. etc. etc. But see, these are views that they think are important and will try to convince others of their idea of justice, the right, the good, what is necessary, etc.

Now, I am not saying ethics is equivalent to politics, but it can function similarly in the idea that it is about making compelling arguments about what is right. For some weird reason, you think that no one should try to convince others unless its some sort of scientific law of gravity. Quite the opposite, gravity is gravity, it is what you do with that information that becomes where convincing comes in...It's the social aspects of human affairs that are where the grey areas are, and where debate occurs. In fact, your whole tenor to me wreaks of anti-debate in general.. DON'T TRY TO CONVINCE ANYBODY!! Which you are of course trying to convince me of.. A bit of a circular logic. And no, debating values like, "Not causing unnecessary harm and burdens on others if you can prevent it" or "Some things are wrong even if those wronged don't know it" is NOT the same as debating whether chocolate is better than vanilla. Tastes and values are different. Believe it or not, someone else's values affects us everyday.. Someone's preferences for vanilla or chocolate generally do not (unless somehow that is affecting values). So now it's a matter of which values.

Don’t know where you’re getting that from. — khaled

Your seeming insistence that wrong is only taking place when the person wronged perceives it as such. This seems an absolute rule for you.

Well if they don’t mind it I would say yes. But for the sake of argument I’ve been saying no so far. — khaled

Things like this prove the above.. You have been saying "no"? Your whole line of argument is "You can't say that there is wrong if others think there isn't".

Yes.

Now let me ask you this: If something that could contain unwanted burdens is pushed on someone is it automatically exploitative?

Because that would make everything you do to someone else exploitative. — khaled

I mean yeah, there's unavoidable harms we do to others all the time.. But that's more reason in my direction.. But wait, here is an instance where you actually can avoid burdening someone with unwanted harms. That's why I said earlier where other harms tend to be compromises and ameliorations, here is a place where you would be unnecessarily causing burdens, and not only "burdens" with a small "b" but ALL BURDENS, period. And yeah you don't like the asymmetry but look at it again.. There is no downside to anyone when it comes to the goods of life.

And are you seriously quoting David benetar in response to me asking you why OB only applies to long events? Talk about unbiased sources! — khaled

He is the one who is the main proponent of the theory so I think it is wise to quote a professional who spends their career studying how this bias affects perceptions. But I am not going down the scientific article route.. Which article would convince you? Nature? Psychology Journal? Cognitive Science Weekly? It will probably turn into justification regress.

Now, how do these two answers lead to “life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden”

Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive? (Hint: Surprise parties) — khaled

Right a minor event that is only slight isn't a big deal but is problematic. A major event (oh let's say a whole life time of negative experiences) is indeed problematic.. It's not a matter of apples to apples here. It's apples to grenades.

Yes but despite my annoyance at anyone who would throw me one I wouldn’t say they’re doing something ethically wrong. Because I know they had good reason for believing it would work (unless they knew me and were just being malicious) — khaled

See I think you think me more hostile than I am to those who have children. I think it is a wrong, and ethically problematic.. But I don't castigate people who have children.. I castigate procreation itself yes, but I do not personalize it.

Problem for natalists: Rising suicide rates.
Problem for antinatalists: The ongoing population explosion.

There's a lot of things that are not "provable".. Are conservatives or liberals "right"? — schopenhauer1

Well it depends on the issue.

Why should politicians care to convince people? — schopenhauer1

Precisely because they think they’re right. You don’t see a politician saying “Ah well you see, this is just my opinion, but I think abortions may be wrong”

So, someone who thinks a homeless shelter should be built and funded with government money values this, and thinks this is generally good. Maybe the opposition says that it leads to other, unintended consequences, and this is actually not "good". — schopenhauer1

This implies that if people can agree on exactly what the consequences of building said shelter will be, they can agree whether it’s right or wrong yes? The only difference between the people is not holding different values here it is disagreement on what would happen. “Helping the homeless”, everyone agrees is good. “Promoting a culture where you get everything for no effort” everyone agrees is bad. The disagreement is how much of each is going to happen.

Your seeming insistence that wrong is only taking place when the person wronged perceives it as such. This seems an absolute rule for you. — schopenhauer1

Right but even if I argued this in this thread (which I’ve avoided doing on purpose), it still wouldn’t lead to “everything is subjective”. Shooting people for fun will be perceived as wrongdoing by any victim. That makes “shooting people for fun is wrong” objectively true.

Things like this prove the above.. You have been saying "no"? Your whole line of argument is "You can't say that there is wrong if others think there isn't". — schopenhauer1

Then quote when I used that argument in this thread.

But wait, here is an instance where you actually can avoid burdening someone with unwanted harms. — schopenhauer1

Surprise parties also. Can we just skip this? Before you make an argument relating to birth could you ask yourself “does this also apply to surprise parties?” And only state the argument when it doesn’t?

And yeah you don't like the asymmetry but look at it again.. There is no downside to anyone when it comes to the goods of life. — schopenhauer1

There is no downside to the recipient when it comes to the goods of the surprise party either.

I mean yeah, there's unavoidable harms we do to others all the time — schopenhauer1

Surprise parties aren’t unavoidable. And you think they’re fine.

He is the one who is the main proponent of the theory so I think it is wise to quote a professional who spends their career studying how this bias affects perceptions. — schopenhauer1

So should I start quoting all the professionals that disagree with him (all of them)? And you still haven’t shown how the Benetar quote is supposed to prove anything I asked you to prove.

Which article would convince you? Nature? Psychology Journal? Cognitive Science Weekly? — schopenhauer1

Any of the above. Prove that OB applies only to long events AND that OB completely ruins an accurate assessment of quality of an event.

Right a minor event that is only slight isn't a big deal but is problematic. A major event (oh let's say a whole life time of negative experiences) is indeed problematic. — schopenhauer1

This has 0 bearing on the argument no? The question was:

Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive? — khaled

When does duration of the event come into it?

You think it’s fundamentally ok for an event that is mostly positive to be inflicted correct? Let’s say a surprise party is 80% positive 20% negative (however you want to measure that since you seem to ignore people's reports and experiences….) and you find it acceptable to inflict. If we knew a particular child would enjoy a similar 80% positive 20% negative life experience, would it be wrong to have them?

I think it is a wrong, and ethically problematic. — schopenhauer1

That’s the difference innit?

despite my annoyance at anyone who would throw me one I wouldn’t say they’re doing something ethically wrong. — khaled

Precisely because they think they’re right. You don’t see a politician saying “Ah well you see, this is just my opinion, but I think abortions may be wrong” — khaled

That's my point! How is that arguing against what I'm saying?? Procreation is wrong, ergo don't procreate. The point is when people think there is something problematic, they may speak up and explain why think think it's problematic.. Abortion, how much to restrict X, etc. By the way where do you address your circular logic of arguing that I should not try to convince people, when you are trying to convince me not to try to convince people yourself?

This implies that if people can agree on exactly what the consequences of building said shelter will be, they can agree whether it’s right or wrong yes? The only difference between the people is not holding different values here it is disagreement on what would happen. “Helping the homeless”, everyone agrees is good. “Promoting a culture where you get everything for no effort” everyone agrees is bad. The disagreement is how much of each is going to happen. — khaled

Not really. It is a difference of values how people prioritize things like what the government should fund, whether it's okay for it to be in their "backyard" (NIMBY), whether what they say and what they do is aligned, whether shelter matters more than other priorities, etc. Any number of issues can be about any number of viewpoints and usually people bring their values to this. If not this example that you are satisfied with there are literally hundreds of political issues you can choose from where people are going to differ in values- Immigration, recreational drugs, crime, military, etc. etc. etc. If you can't think of any, then you are not thinking hard enough and trivializing political differences as negligible for some sort of false picture. Just look at the political arguments even on this forum!!

Right but even if I argued this in this thread (which I’ve avoided doing on purpose), it still wouldn’t lead to “everything is subjective”. Shooting people for fun will be perceived as wrongdoing by any victim. That makes “shooting people for fun is wrong” objectively true. — khaled

Yes, of course you have purposely done so, because that would lead you to actually have an argument yourself which would make it easier for others to attack and you hate making claims yourself it seems, because you love being the one who attacks other claims and not leaving your own views exposed.. Quite a nice tactic to be dodgy like that and never be the one to say a statement others can debate.. You can be perfect khaled whose views are some how flawlessly never left open for debate :lol:.

But anyways, you are still being radically subjective in the fact that it has to be perceived as such by a majority.. but instead of majority you say "everyone" which by the way is never always the case. And yes you have said your view that you are subjectivist way back, but yes you are not saying it outright throughout this debate.. Anyways, I take your quote as saying, "If everyone thinks it (most people), then it is right". It is the case that people can be imposed upon but haven't put it together just how.. Hence I like to elucidate on exactly that.. Think of things like Marx and "class consciousness" and historical dialectic. It opened up a new dialogue for how to talk about economic class relations in the world. Even things such as "human rights" or "universal rights" in the 1600s and 1700s opened up a way of discussing universality of humanity which really was not discussed other than perhaps in religious terms before this.. New theories and insights open up paths for "realizing" new ideas which then become so part of the culture it seems like it was always there. But no, before the Enlightenment, it would be very doubtful any person would be talking about their universal, or constitutionally-given rights, or anything like that, but a perspective of discourse was opened to them, and now it is like part of the water for most Westernized countries. Look at China's more communitarian value systems.. Perhaps individualistic rights are actually NOT something often quoted by those happy with government practices and who have limited access to Westernized political ideas and media, etc.etc.

Surprise parties also. Can we just skip this? Before you make an argument relating to birth could you ask yourself “does this also apply to surprise parties?” And only state the argument when it doesn’t? — khaled

Honestly, so F'n tired of your surprise party disanalogy. Honestly, almost all your strategy is to falsely equivocate bad analogies to the main argument. I go along with it for argument's sake, but I really don't even agree to the analogy.. I humor you in other words, but I think you unfairly pigeon hole arguments into bad analogies and steer the argument around the so-called hypocrisy you have conjured by wielding it that isn't even taking place because the analogy itself is only shallowly similar. Can we just drop the analogy or is that your main one trick pony you learned in khaled debate class (i.e. get people to agree to some sort of analogy and then bludgeon them over and over with it..life guards and surprise parties oh my!)? We are going to have to agree to disagree in a major way here if you can't see how surprise parties are different in too substantial a way from literally a lifetime of negative experiences itself. You have picked something that is imposed upon on others, but pretty much falls apart in all the other way in which life itself has negative experiences over someone's literal lifetime.

There is no downside to the recipient when it comes to the goods of the surprise party either. — khaled

Who cares.. Not the same anyways.. But even if I was to humor you (yet again I must be nice or something to agree to even indulge this bad analogy).. If there's no downside to no good of the surprise party, and those who would be harmed from the surprise party are not being harmed.. There ya go.

So should I start quoting all the professionals that disagree with him (all of them)? And you still haven’t shown how the Benetar quote is supposed to prove anything I asked you to prove. — khaled

See, I am NOT asking for that because as I have said repeatedly now, I am keeping this to a discussion on a philosophy forum not slinging scientific articles at each other. This isn't a science forum, and I don't intend to make it one. I have said that neither you nor I need to look up articles on this thread's dime.. you can entreat me to do so, but I'm not biting. Being that I don't even think your analogy holds, this whole line of arguing about the duration of the (fuckn) surprise party has become a waste-of-time rabbit hole that you have managed to steer here. AGAIN, to indulge your bad analogy (for the last time cause if you bring it up I am just not debating it now)... I am saying that summing up a (let's say) 4 hour event might be easier than summing up 90 years worth of experiences. That's all I'm saying. Even if I am wrong on this.. It doesn't change that one is summing up 90 years of experiences into a binary statement of "Is life good or bad?".

Any of the above. Prove that OB applies only to long events AND that OB completely ruins an accurate assessment of quality of an event. — khaled

In the words of Dana Carvey's George Bush impression.. "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent".

This has 0 bearing on the argument no? The question was:

Isn’t it possible that an event can have inconveniences, and still be ok to inflict due to it overall being positive?
— khaled

When does duration of the event come into it?

You think it’s fundamentally ok for an event that is mostly positive to be inflicted correct? Let’s say a surprise party is 80% positive 20% negative (however you want to measure that since you seem to ignore people's reports and experiences….) and you find it acceptable to inflict. If we knew a particular child would enjoy a similar 80% positive 20% negative life experience, would it be wrong to have them? — khaled

Besides that fact that we don't "know" the experiences of any particular child (and the ones that will be affected negatively are what matter here if we go with my other argument we were discussing for never born vs born but negatively affected)..It is still a life time of pervasive inescapable negative experiences and that is not okay to impose on someone (this is a value statement...one that can definitely be debated which you seem to think it is not).

The point is when people think there is something problematic, they may speak up and explain why think think it's problematic. — schopenhauer1

And others may speak up to say why it's not problematic.

By the way where do you address your circular logic of arguing that I should not try to convince people, when you are trying to convince me not to try to convince people yourself? — schopenhauer1

There is a pretty critical difference here. I'm not going around telling people "Y'all should have kids". You're going around telling them they shouldn't. So it's not simply enough that your values are "different". You can't agree to disagree here. When you put forward a position, you must justify why your values are "better" than the alternative, that's what convincing is. You haven't done so, instead it always ends on "let's agree to disagree".

To say "let's agree to disagree, our values are different and unprovable" seems to me to mean that you have failed to find a reason someone should take your values instead of the alternative. If so, starting new threads every time makes no sense. And will be met with the same response.

I'm not against convincing. I'm against trying to convince when the convincer knows that the opposing view is just as valid as his own without mentioning so. Because they're telling people they're right while knowing there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. It's intentional lying.

Not really. It is a difference of values how people prioritize things like what the government should fund, whether it's okay for it to be in their "backyard" (NIMBY), whether what they say and what they do is aligned, whether shelter matters more than other priorities, etc. Any number of issues can be about any number of viewpoints and usually people bring their values to this. — schopenhauer1

I'll give you that one

Yes, of course you have purposely done so, because that would lead you to actually have an argument yourself which would make it easier for others to attack and you hate making claims yourself it seems — schopenhauer1

Oh so you failed to find a quote eh? A second ago I thought it was my main point. Huh, weird.

And I have made that argument on separate threads and we discussed it at length before so it makes no sense to say I haven't. But no the reason I don't make it isn't fear that someone would attack it, rather, it's that you don't find it convincing. I don't think you have a justified position even without making this argument. I'd be happy to discuss it later, but you seem to not have time for long posts. In fact, if you could somehow access comments before they were edited you would find that I had a pretty long paragraph critiquing the way you judge situation without taking into account the recipient's experiences or reports, but I deleted it out of fear you would dismiss everything again because it's too long.

But anyways, you are still being radically subjective in the fact that it has to be perceived as such by a majority. — schopenhauer1

That seems like the exact opposite of radical subjectivity..... I'm being humanist, not subjective. And I don't get what the point of the rest of the paragraph is sorry to say.

You have picked something that is imposed upon on others, but pretty much falls apart in all the other way in which life itself has negative experiences over someone's literal lifetime. — schopenhauer1

So as usual the ways in which it fails are: Length and Percentage of negative experiences. And the latter you have yet to prove is sufficiently different to make it wrong despite being asked to do so around 8 times now.

If there's no downside to no good of the surprise party, and those who would be harmed from the surprise party are not being harmed.. There ya go. — schopenhauer1

I.... Don't understand what this means. So you're saying surprise parties are wrong or right?

I am saying that summing up a (let's say) 4 hour event might be easier than summing up 90 years worth of experiences. — schopenhauer1

Well you certainly are saying it. Doesn't make it correct. Generally speaking when you make up psychological principles you need to be able to back them up. But ok. I already accepted that OB only applies to long experiences for the sake of argument. Still doesn't lead to "life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden". You need to show this.

Even if I am wrong on this.. It doesn't change that one is summing up 90 years of experiences into a binary statement of "Is life good or bad?". — schopenhauer1

Well that's also false isn't it? I already told you most surveys measure quality of life on a spectrum (1 to 10) and the vast majority say something (way) above 5. What makes that report untrustworthy? It's no longer binary. How much do you think OB raised the average score?

If you could somehow show that OB raises the score by like 5 or 6 then you may have a case. But you can't show this despite it being crucial to your view about the quality of life, which is crucial for your Antinatalism. And if you can't show this, if you have no good argument for your position, why are you trying to convince people of it?

It is still a life time of pervasive inescapable negative experiences and that is not okay to impose on someone — schopenhauer1

But.... it isn't. It literally has the same quality as a party the entire time. So you think that duration somehow makes the experience more wrong to inflict?

You seem to be valuing suffering much more than pleasure. So although the quality of the experience hasn't changed one bit, one case has a higher quantity of suffering making it wrong. Is that it?

Again, does life have burdens and inconveniences for people? Is this something that someone would otherwise not want? Then it was indeed a burden, and it was indeed imposed by way of being born. You are saying that it only matters if someone minds that they are being imposed upon. I am saying, it is simply wrong to impose on another, despite if someone minds it or not post-facto. These positions are a difference to a point of not being reconciled through mere arguments. They are sort of axiomatic differences that are hard to "prove" other than explaining a perspective and seeing if that is compelling enough to the other person. You are pissed at me for having a certain viewpoint. Believe it or not, other people who are neutral or pro-procreation have a viewpoint too. I am not forcing my viewpoint, but perhaps giving people a perspective they haven't thought about. Maybe it isn't good to impose or cause harm for another person, period, without regard to the tendency for people to report that they okay being harmed. Well, that's something to consider perhaps. Can you have another viewpoint? Of course. There's always another viewpoint. The obvious "majority" viewpoint is that procreation is "fair game".. If people are harmed, so be it.. At the end of the day they say they are fine with being born, so therefore its justified. Yep, I get that this is the point that "most people" try to make when justifying the fact that another person will be harmed by being born and imposed upon. — schopenhauer1

And others may speak up to say why it's not problematic. — khaled

Absolutely, that is discourse, dialectic, debate, etc.

There is a pretty critical difference here. I'm not going around telling people "Y'all should have kids". You're going around telling them they shouldn't. So it's not simply enough that your values are "different". You can't agree to disagree here. When you put forward a position, you must justify why your values are "better" than the alternative, that's what convincing is. You haven't done so, instead it always ends on "let's agree to disagree". — khaled

I think I do, thank you very much. But as far as telling people "Y'all shouldn't have kids", that is a poor and uncharitable interpretation of what I'm doing. As I said before, I am debating the ethical implications of procreation, I am not personalizing it saying, "You, YOU, should not have kids". There is a difference between making something a personal condemnation and debating a philosophical principle. I don't go around shaming pregnant people or trying to make them feel bad.

To say "let's agree to disagree, our values are different and unprovable" seems to me to mean that you have failed to find a reason someone should take your values instead of the alternative. If so, starting new threads every time makes no sense. And will be met with the same response.

I'm not against convincing. I'm against trying to convince when the convincer knows that the opposing view is just as valid as his own without mentioning so. Because they're telling people they're right while knowing there is a perfectly reasonable alternative. It's intentional lying. — khaled

Oh you are being self-righteous here.. I'm glad you made it your duty to put me in my place with the other side :roll:. Even hardcore anti-abortionists knows that the otherside thinks their point of view is just as valid.. But again, different values leads to different ethical arguments. Different views on "life" in the case of abortion. Is a fetus of X months a "life"? What really makes it so? These are all debatable and highly contentious for some people. Is life "really" debatable? Same thing. To pretend like I thought that there is no argument just because I present my view of it, is to me suspicious. Like you are trying to paint me a certain way for some reason.

I'll give you that one — khaled

:up:

Oh so you failed to find a quote eh? A second ago I thought it was my main point. Huh, weird.

And I have made that argument on separate threads and we discussed it at length before so it makes no sense to say I haven't. — khaled

Ok. I just chose not to hunt for it it and paste it, I remembered it though.

But no the reason I don't make it isn't fear that someone would attack it, rather, it's that you don't find it convincing. I don't think you have a justified position even without making this argument. I'd be happy to discuss it later, but you seem to not have time for long posts. In fact, if you could somehow access comments before they were edited you would find that I had a pretty long paragraph critiquing the way you judge situation without taking into account the recipient's experiences or reports, but I deleted it out of fear you would dismiss everything again because it's too long. — khaled

Fair enough. But I am just saying that it is still just a viewpoint, similar to how I have a viewpoint. It can be debated as well.

That seems like the exact opposite of radical subjectivity..... I'm being humanist, not subjective. And I don't get what the point of the rest of the paragraph is sorry to say. — khaled

I mean to say that you take people's subjective view of what is right and wrong. Not sure where your distinction is here. If 51% of those views think the same thing it's right? Ok, then some sort of subjectivist-majoritarian thing going on. Either way, it's a viewpoint- one of various different epistemological ones regarding whether something is moral or not.

As for the rest of the paragraph it was to say that my particular epistemic view is that people may be imposed upon but they aren't aware how.. I mentioned how Marx and the Enlightenment brought ideas out people weren't really fully aware of and then once he put them in center stage people gained (you can almost say "grew") more awareness of some ethically problematic things (rights-violation, class consciousness and exploitation, etc.). They opened up paths for new understandings on ethics and politics that were not there previously (at least not in the concrete way that these formalized). Perhaps a "majority" of people simply weren't aware of certain ethical implications before the explanations of these thinkers and ideas being presented. So to quote myself again with this explanation in mind:

Think of things like Marx and "class consciousness" and historical dialectic. It opened up a new dialogue for how to talk about economic class relations in the world. Even things such as "human rights" or "universal rights" in the 1600s and 1700s opened up a way of discussing universality of humanity which really was not discussed other than perhaps in religious terms before this.. New theories and insights open up paths for "realizing" new ideas which then become so part of the culture it seems like it was always there. But no, before the Enlightenment, it would be very doubtful any person would be talking about their universal, or constitutionally-given rights, or anything like that, but a perspective of discourse was opened to them, and now it is like part of the water for most Westernized countries. Look at China's more communitarian value systems.. Perhaps individualistic rights are actually NOT something often quoted by those happy with government practices and who have limited access to Westernized political ideas and media, etc.etc. — schopenhauer1

So as usual the ways in which it fails are: Length and Percentage of negative experiences. And the latter you have yet to prove is sufficiently different to make it wrong despite being asked to do so around 8 times now. — khaled

I don't agree to the analogy as explained above, so doesn't matter. However, to keep indulging this, it has gotten bogged down from my initial reason for its disanalogy. That is because it is a discrete event that people generally like.. Life isn't a "discrete event people generally like". To me, its more of a container with various kinds of events/experiences. So, if you were to say to me life is like the someone giving the gift a bowl of chocolate ice cream (your favorite flavor let's say), then I would say that is wrong right off the bat. However, even if we were to keep your example, because the stakes are so low (dislike of surprise parties aren't a big deal to the person), the imposition becomes negligible as to not be equivalent to (literally), a lifetime of negative experiences of all degrees and kinds.

I.... Don't understand what this means. So you're saying surprise parties are wrong or right? — khaled

I'm saying that the harm doesn't matter to those who never experienced the surprise party (and didn't know about it), it matters to those who had to go through it and didn't like it (though it is seems very trivial even for them which is mainly why this is so disanalogous).

Well you certainly are saying it. Doesn't make it correct. Generally speaking when you make up psychological principles you need to be able to back them up. But ok. I already accepted that OB only applies to long experiences for the sake of argument. Still doesn't lead to "life is at best an inconvenience and at worst a terrible burden". You need to show this. — khaled

Right, because of how we view differences is impositions (something which you seem to have a hard time with). So I will ask again..

Does almost all life have some impositions?
As I said earlier:

Again, does life have burdens and inconveniences for people? Is this something that someone would otherwise not want? Then it was indeed a burden, and it was indeed imposed by way of being born. You are saying that it only matters if someone minds that they are being imposed upon. I am saying, it is simply wrong to impose on another, despite if someone minds it or not post-facto. These positions are a difference to a point of not being reconciled through mere arguments. They are sort of axiomatic differences that are hard to "prove" other than explaining a perspective and seeing if that is compelling enough to the other person. You are pissed at me for having a certain viewpoint. Believe it or not, other people who are neutral or pro-procreation have a viewpoint too. I am not forcing my viewpoint, but perhaps giving people a perspective they haven't thought about. Maybe it isn't good to impose or cause harm for another person, period, without regard to the tendency for people to report that they okay being harmed. Well, that's something to consider perhaps. Can you have another viewpoint? Of course. There's always another viewpoint. The obvious "majority" viewpoint is that procreation is "fair game".. If people are harmed, so be it.. At the end of the day they say they are fine with being born, so therefore its justified. Yep, I get that this is the point that "most people" try to make when justifying the fact that another person will be harmed by being born and imposed upon. — schopenhauer1

And

Sometimes people can overlook things that are going on (Exploited worker argument and Willy Wonka's Game). They have limited choices, and don't realize it etc.. Some people don't realize something is indeed bad for them.. — schopenhauer1

You seem to be valuing suffering much more than pleasure. — khaled

Now this is a very core part of the argument. Imposing unwanted and unnecessary burdens for someone else is the main axiom here. That is the wrong being done. 1) Working to get better circumstance = a necessary (evil/need/thing/event)
2) Creating the conditions where someone needs to get better circumstances (aka through working) = not necessary.

It is unnecessarily creating conditions of harm and impositions for others that is what matters here. It is not ameliorating anything, but unnecessarily creating it. So

You seem to be valuing suffering much more than pleasure. So although the quality of the experience hasn't changed one bit, one case has a higher quantity of suffering making it wrong. Is that it? — khaled

Yes, the surprise party becomes somewhat negligible when compared to the impositions of other harms of a whole lifetime. Again Willy Wonka's forced game (more limited options than people think), and other Exploited worker.. One is forced to play the game and but has no other choice but to play it, really. What other option is there? And suicide brings up a whole other issue.

But as far as telling people "Y'all shouldn't have kids", that is a poor and uncharitable interpretation of what I'm doing. — schopenhauer1

Maybe. But that’s what it sounded like to me.

Even hardcore anti-abortionists knows that the otherside thinks their point of view is just as valid. — schopenhauer1

Yea but they don’t think the other side is valid (hence hardcore). And so they don’t agree to disagree. You keep saying “let’s agree to disagree” which implies you think the other side is just as valid.

But again, different values leads to different ethical arguments. — schopenhauer1

These are all debatable and highly contentious for some people. — schopenhauer1

So you think they’re debatable but that there is no right answer?

But I am just saying that it is still just a viewpoint, similar to how I have a viewpoint. It can be debated as well. — schopenhauer1

Same question as above.

I mean to say that you take people's subjective view of what is right and wrong. — schopenhauer1

No I think what’s right and wrong is objective. I also think most of the time the majority view happens to coincide with that objectively correct thing or at worst, is indecisive. More so as time passes.

That is because it is a discrete event that people generally like.. Life isn't a "discrete event people generally like". — schopenhauer1

How do you define a discrete event as opposed to a:

container with various kinds of events/experiences — schopenhauer1

However, even if we were to keep your example, because the stakes are so low (dislike of surprise parties aren't a big deal to the person), the imposition becomes negligible as to not be equivalent to (literally), a lifetime of negative experiences of all degrees and kinds. — schopenhauer1

I never claimed they were equivalent. Not even close. The whole point of the analogy is to stop type arguments like the following:

I'm saying that the harm doesn't matter to those who never experienced the surprise party (and didn't know about it), it matters to those who had to go through it and didn't like it — schopenhauer1

Which… by your logic would make it wrong no?

Do the party:
Risk of suffering - bad
Chance of pleasure - doesn’t seem to matter to you, or matters very little.

Don’t do the party: No risks

You can replace “Do the party” with “Have kids”, and that would be your argument.

This would make it wrong by your logic. But you don’t think it’s wrong. So your logic (asymmetry argument) must not make sense, since it’s saying something you think is false, is true. Type arguments tend to be rigid like that producing all sorts of ridiculous side effects.

Does almost all life have some impositions? — schopenhauer1

Yes but as above: You don’t always mind impositions. You don’t mind surprise parties.

There is a loop going on here:

You: Actions of type X (impositions, things to which the asymmetry applies, etc) are wrong. (1)

Me: But surprise parties are of type X and you think they’re fine. (2)

You: Well surprise parties aren’t X enough. They’re not even comparable! (3)

Me: Define “X enough” such that you can make your position objective. Why is someone that thinks that life is not X enough either wrong? (4)

You: Well life is clearly X and actions of type X are wrong! (5)

Repeat.

It is unnecessarily creating conditions of harm and impositions for others that is what matters here. It is not ameliorating anything, but unnecessarily creating it. — schopenhauer1

That’s step one. Response: Parties :cool:

Again, not saying they’re close in terms of suffering inflicted. Just saying they share all of these properties and you think they’re fine. So these properties aren’t sufficient to tell which impositions are right or wrong. (Step 2)

Yes, the surprise party becomes somewhat negligible when compared to the impositions of other harms of a whole lifetime. — schopenhauer1

So you’re saying the imposition of a surprise party is not big enough to make it wrong. (Step 3)

Why is someone that thinks the imposition of life is not enough to make procreation wrong, wrong? (Step 4)

Let’s see if we can make it to step 6 and not just go back to step 1

Yea but they don’t think the other side is valid (hence hardcore). And so they don’t agree to disagree. You keep saying “let’s agree to disagree” which implies you think the other side is just as valid. — khaled

How "hardcore" do you want me to be? I think that's the problem with people like "hardcore" anything.. People don't know when to stop when everyone's points are made and the dialogue can't go any further.

So you think they’re debatable but that there is no right answer? — khaled

I think there's a right answer based on the logic and evidence, but that not everyone is going to see it that way, and I accept that. Open dialogue with people who don't share the same view is not a bad thing. The problem is that no one is going to get 100% what they want. Even anti-abortionists in the US wouldn't get what they really want if Roe v. Wade was reversed because a majority of the states would allow it (as it would get thrown back to the states rather than being allowed on a federal basis). By the way, I am in no way siding with the anti-abortionists side, but giving an example. Certainly in a universe if anti-abortionists had their way, they would roughshod their point right through cause there would be no opposition (in their universe).

No I think what’s right and wrong is objective. I also think most of the time the majority view happens to coincide with that objectively correct thing or at worst, is indecisive. More so as time passes. — khaled

I think that's a slippery slope with aligning what is objective with the majority view. It took real effort and convincing- compelling arguments, to ensure things like "rights", "human rights", "women's rights", "minority rights", etc. Your profile says you live in Tokyo.. At one point Japan's majority thought it great to expand into China for things like resources and perhaps even racial reasons. After WWII and two atomic bombs, this view is largely replaced with anti-militaristic majority (albeit with a lot of force at the beginning). At one point actually, many people sided with the idea that Japan should be separate from Western powers and isolated to not get corrupted.. Then they went the complete opposite, copying (and often improving) Western-originated ideas. That only took 40-50 years for Japan's medieval economy to outmaneuver Russian forces (a more Westernized force) in the Russo-Japanese War..
Anyways, these changes from what was previous to what seems as self-evident weren't just "always there".. They took people's hard efforts to make it part of the mainstream. So my meta-ethical theory is more Hegelian.. Ethics is discovered over time, but has been true all along. It unfortunately takes a lot of tragedies, empathetic thinking, and the efforts of people who are able to convince, to change the current trend. So it isn't just that a majority happens to align with what is objective by happenstance, it was because of a slow march of historical dialectic. But, I have said too much that is a bit off topic so I will stop here.

Yes but as above: You don’t always mind impositions. You don’t mind surprise parties.

There is a loop going on here:

You: Actions of type X (impositions, things to which the asymmetry applies, etc) are wrong. (1)

Me: But surprise parties are of type X and you think they’re fine. (2)

You: Well surprise parties aren’t X enough. They’re not even comparable! (3)

Me: Define “X enough” such that you can make your position objective. Why is someone that thinks that life is not X enough either wrong? (4)

You: Well life is clearly X and actions of type X are wrong! (5)

Repeat. — khaled

So I think you are missing a crucial middle ground which is something I'll call type-extent arguments. That is to say, stealing is wrong no matter what. However, stealing a pencil from Walmart, while wrong would not be on the same level as stealing let's say your neighbor's car, or lifesaving medicine from a pharmacy because you can sell it on the black market. There are degrees of wrong. So I can very well say that surprise parties are wrong, but to such a minimal extent that its negligible. And indeed law often reflects this same reasoning. If some teenage punk says "Fuck Walmart!" and steals a pencil, he might get fined, maybe community service. If he breaks into a pharmacy and steals drugs to sell on the black market, that might be a much more major offense. It's a different degree of stealing. Your line of argument seems to try to push me against the wall to not notice any degrees at all. Why should I overlook degrees of wrong? I never said I was a full on Kantian or anything, so I am not being hypocritical here (though I sympathize with deontology more than other normative theories). Also, going back to your life guarding example (ugh), it may indeed be worse to wake up the life guard (for no reason!) causing the negligible harm compared to letting the drowning kid die. The degrees are so incommensurable that to not save the child would be the much greater wrong. And I have already said that in living, one of the downsides is the very fact that we must ameliorate greater harms (wrongs) with lesser harms (wrongs). Two wrongs can make a right if the wrong of one is to mitigate the worse wrong. So yes, Kant can be right in a way. .Lying to the perpetrator could be wrong, but it is necessary to overcome the greater wrong in contributing to your friend's death by telling him where he is.

Another point here.. So you seem to be fine with causing CONDITIONS of harm as long as those CONDITIONS lead to some form of happiness (which can then later be reported as good later on). But that is precisely the kind of utilitarian thinking that I am arguing against. The creation of the wrongs in the first place (unnecessarily I say) is the wrong part. There is no obligation to create happy people, but there is an obligation to prevent harm (when it is possible). This axiom prevents all sorts of utilitarian exchanges.. Such as making a person who will be harmed to prevent so X future event. That is like saying "I am going to cause there to be conditions of drowning, because X good might come about for some people as well". It is the conditions of drowning that matter here. Unfortunately, in the situation of being ALREADY BORN, the condition of drowning is already a factor (for him and the lifeguard). NOW ameliorations of all sorts take place. However, if the condition of drowning ITSELF could have been prevented, THAT was the right action (even though it meant the life guard couldn't work on his/her summer tan).

So to sum it up, you can have degrees of wrong. I would still say to the punk teenage kid, "Don't steal the pencil". I can still say to the surprise party committee, "Don't throw surprise parties".. but if they do, the degree of harm and imposition is so light that I wouldn't lose much sleep over it, let alone write numerous posts about it. My "convincing" is a bit different than what you are doing here with me. That is to say, I am usually appealing to our human experience holistically more or less. You seem to interpret my style as being much more condemning of actual individuals than it actually is.. So me trying to demonstrate some of the negatives of living (to the point that perhaps we shouldn't "foist" this situation on another), you seem to be taking as outright condemnation of individual people who have kids, which I am absolutely not doing.

So you’re saying the imposition of a surprise party is not big enough to make it wrong. (Step 3)

Why is someone that thinks the imposition of life is not enough to make procreation wrong, wrong? (Step 4)

Let’s see if we can make it to step 6 and not just go back to step 1 — khaled

So going back to what I said earlier, ALL I CAN DO, is show how indeed life DOES contain more suffering than they may at first realize. That's all I can do.. convince. So what if they are not convinced? So be it. I've been saying this the whole time. The convincing is trying to show how much suffering there really is compared to what they are taking into consideration. You keep saying things that I already know, that people don't INHERENTLY agree with this. It is also showing that perhaps there is an injustice here by foisting the inescapable, unnecessary imposition/harms. (see next paragraph)

We have to admit this.. Once born, there is a conundrum that one cannot be unborn. One can only commit suicide if one wants "out". But this is not the same thing. By being born, we exist to be harmed but if we didn't exist there is no us to know anything one way or another.

Added some more information in the last post.

People don't know when to stop when everyone's points are made and the dialogue can't go any further. — schopenhauer1

There are multiple reasons a dialogue can't go forward. Either, a party refuses to move it forward, or the parties have found a fundamental disagreement in values. You keep making it seem like the latter is what is occurring here. But if that is the case, why do you keep starting threads advertising your view when you know that the opposing view is just as valid?

I think there's a right answer based on the logic and evidence, but that not everyone is going to see it that way, and I accept that. — schopenhauer1

Same.

At one point Japan's majority thought it great to expand into China for things like resources and perhaps even racial reasons. — schopenhauer1

It is well known that public sentiment wasn't exactly all for the war in Japan since it put a ridiculous toll on the working class. The "need" to expand was mostly only seen in the military. But hey, I just live here, I'm not from here so I don't know the history very well. At least, that's what the Japanese seem to think happened.

So my meta-ethical theory is more Hegelian.. Ethics is discovered over time, but has been true all along. — schopenhauer1

Which.... would lead to the majority being correct most of the time as time passes.

It took real effort and convincing- compelling arguments, to ensure things like "rights", "human rights", "women's rights", "minority rights", etc. — schopenhauer1

Do you think at the time women's rights weren't a thing that most women were convinced that a lack of rights was fair? Same with minorities. You seem to equate a group of people not being able to voice their opposition, to that same group agreeing with the current system.

That is to say, stealing is wrong no matter what. However, stealing a pencil from Walmart, while wrong would not be on the same level as stealing let's say your neighbor's car, or lifesaving medicine from a pharmacy because you can sell it on the black market. There are degrees of wrong. — schopenhauer1

Nothing I said prevents this.

So I can very well say that surprise parties are wrong, but to such a minimal extent that its negligible. — schopenhauer1

But you don't. If you did I wouldn't have engaged in the first place.

Your line of argument seems to try to push me against the wall to not notice any degrees at all. Why should I overlook degrees of wrong? — schopenhauer1

No. But it does require you to say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong". Then you'd be out of the "wall"

The degrees are so incommensurable that to not save the child would be the much greater wrong. — schopenhauer1

Most would see that the harm done in having children is much much less than the harm done by trying (and most most likely failing) to bring humanity to extinction. But that's an argument we already went over forever ago. And your response was something like "There is some degree of dignity that cannot be violated" or something like that. It will go very similarly to this. I'll ask you "Why is someone that thinks that life doesn't violate the "dignity threshold" wrong?" And we'll go around in circles again. I don't mind, but I don't understand why you're rehashing arguments from months ago when you seem so keen on ending the conversation.

Two wrongs can make a right if the wrong of one is to mitigate the worse wrong. So yes, Kant can be right in a way. .Lying to the perpetrator could be wrong, but it is necessary to overcome the greater wrong in contributing to your friend's death by telling him where he is. — schopenhauer1

Right. So surprise parties and gifts are wrong?

There is no obligation to create happy people, but there is an obligation to prevent harm (when it is possible). This axiom prevents all sorts of utilitarian exchanges.. Such as making a person who will be harmed to prevent so X future event. — schopenhauer1

Also makes surprise parties wrong. But as of yet, you haven't said they are.

So going back to what I said earlier, ALL I CAN DO, is show how indeed life DOES contain more suffering than they may at first realize. That's all I can do.. convince — schopenhauer1

That's what I've been asking you to do for ages now. How much do you think OB raises the quality of life reports in surveys? And why that specific number? You refuse to answer this.

We have to admit this.. Once born, there is a conundrum that one cannot be unborn. One can only commit suicide if one wants "out". But this is not the same thing. By being born, we exist to be harmed but if we didn't exist there is no us to know anything one way or another. — schopenhauer1

Now replace "born" with "admitted to a surprise party" and "commit suicide" with "leave"

This is going to keep going around in circles until you either:

1- Say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong" to be consistent.

2- Show that people are completely incorrect in their evaluations of life quality while maintaining that they're not wrong about evaluations of surprise parties (if you want to keep those morally ok).

I've been asking you to do one or the other for ages now.

There are multiple reasons a dialogue can't go forward. Either, a party refuses to move it forward, or the parties have found a fundamental disagreement in values. You keep making it seem like the latter is what is occurring here. But if that is the case, why do you keep starting threads advertising your view when you know that the opposing view is just as valid? — khaled

So why should anyone debate anything that they care about? You think this is about debating specifically YOU. Most debates last for a certain amount of time. Every time I make a thread I am not trying to debate specifically YOU, with the same type of debate topics over and over believe it or not.

It is well known that public sentiment wasn't exactly all for the war in Japan since it put a ridiculous toll on the working class. The "need" to expand was mostly only seen in the military. But hey, I just live here, I'm not from here so I don't know the history very well. At least, that's what the Japanese seem to think happened. — khaled

Maybe, but then you had fighter pilots committing kamikaze. That doesn't seem like simply being forced. But I do get that it is more nuanced.

Do you think at the time women's rights weren't a thing that most women were convinced that a lack of rights was fair? Same with minorities. You seem to equate a group of people not being able to voice their opposition, to that same group agreeing with the current system. — khaled

Yes, a lot of women didn't really rally around it for a long time. It was just not part of the culture yet. It slowly spread over time. There was a strong minority though that kept pushing for more recognition of rights like voting. There had to be convincing for some women and for at least some men for this to have become more popular. My point was that a majority had different ideas that didn't come about until there was a push for it. Caveman, nor ancient man, nor medieval man, had the same ethical principles of Enlightenment man, and even then the Enlightenment hadn't reached more than the educated elite. And even then, people like Thomas Jefferson believed slavery tolerable (if not preferable). And today, even more rights are recognized than in the Enlightenment.

No. But it does require you to say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong". Then you'd be out of the "wall" — khaled

I am saying that. Surprise parties are >0 wrong (but just barely). I find it akin to let's say being pressured to go to a family dinner party when you don't like going to family dinner parties. Maybe you find them boring. Maybe you get anxiety around certain people. You have no real obligation to go to the dinner party simply because you are a family member that was invited to the dinner party. If one were coerced to a degree of shaming and such, one can say that is similar to being "imposed upon" by the surprise party. Now one is going there from severe guilt mechanisms rather than truly caring or wanting to be there. This severe form of coercion is unnecessary impositions and is wrong. However, it is not like they are coercing some horrible miserable event on the person.. It's just a dinner party, so though the coercion is wrong, it is minimal and nothing like imposing a whole lifetime of inescapable limits and harms on someone.

Another minor imposition.. A really busy waitstaff that is slammed with people, mistakenly overcharges a meal $4. The person who is overcharged doesn't realize this until after the meal. However, they see how busy the restaurant is and then at the end of the day says, "it isn't worth $4". Now the waitstaff was definitely in the wrong. They unintentionally stole from the customer. However, the imposition was minor. It was wrong still.. Doesn't matter what the customer allowed to be the case. However, imagine if the waitstaff did that every time the customer came in..again again and again. At some point the customer, even if they are just too nice to say something, is getting ripped off to the point that this crosses the threshold of dignity.

Most would see that the harm done in having children is much much less than the harm done by trying (and most most likely failing) to bring humanity to extinction. But that's an argument we already went over forever ago. And your response was something like "There is some degree of dignity that cannot be violated" or something like that. It will go very similarly to this. I'll ask you "Why is someone that thinks that life doesn't violate the "dignity threshold" wrong?" And we'll go around in circles again. I don't mind, but I don't understand why you're rehashing arguments from months ago when you seem so keen on ending the conversation. — khaled

Because you keep bringing them up, so I keep answering as I usually do to these same/similar lines of inquiry.

Right. So surprise parties and gifts are wrong? — khaled

Sure, negligibly. The same way that if someone puts a spritz of lemonade in their free water at the soda fountain, are "negligibly" wrong but if they kept taking full cups of lemonade or soda every time they went there, it starts add up to a bigger offense. Like in calculus where limits are essentially going to zero, negligible wrongs like this can be practically swept under as near to not wrong as it can get while still being wrong.

Also makes surprise parties wrong. But as of yet, you haven't said they are. — khaled

I have been and did say I'd "bite the bullet" for your little analogy.

1- Say "Surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong" to be consistent. — khaled

This one. I've already said it.

However,

2- Show that people are completely incorrect in their evaluations of life quality while maintaining that they're not wrong about evaluations of surprise parties (if you want to keep those morally ok). — khaled

This is also the case but I'm not going down the science forum article game with you. I will offer my examples of the Exploited Worker and Willy Wonka's Game (limited choices that people don't realize are more limited than they think).

If I said to you, "I don't want to work to survive". Then you can say, okay, "find a better job". And I say, "No no, I just don't want to play the game of work itself (Willy Wonka Game of limited choices), what do I do?" And you said, "Oh, well you take some pills, or a gun, or a sharp knife see, and you destroy your body and consciousness in one fell swoop".. I don't know if you realize how fucked up that is. Of course I'm going to play Willy Wonka's Game rather than the latter.. A majority don't commit suicide but not because they necessarily like the game of working to survive. They don't mind it cause there's NO OTHER OPTIONS!! Of course the course of advice will be to radically ACCEPT the situation and embrace some form of work and find happiness in it. There are literally NO OTHER OPTIONS (excepting the painful and scary prospect of suicide). There has to be some level of group think going on here. People can't just rebel against work, their employer, the country, and life itself. This will go to shit and we can't have that. People are put in a (practically) inescapable, and limited game. You accept or die. Yet this is overlooked because self-reporting to you is all that matters for what is right. And this is where our axioms will not go much further in debate.

And as I said previously, no one is obligated to bring happiness to people, so that part of life isn't what's in question. I see happiness-bringing as supererogatory.. It goes above and beyond, is nice to have, but not an obligation. Certainly, UNNECESSARILY creating pain to bring about happiness for SOMEONE ELSE is also wrong. The unnecessarily part there negates any ideas about cases of ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms as we already went through that.

Maybe, but then you had fighter pilots committing kamikaze. — schopenhauer1

You know they couldn't land right? They get punished or killed for cowardice. Again, conflating not being able to voice opposition with agreement to the current system.

So why should anyone debate anything that they care about? — schopenhauer1

They shouldn't debate it every week would be my answer. I just don't understand what you hope to gain by starting the same topic over and over.

Yes, a lot of women didn't really rally around it for a long time. — schopenhauer1

I would think that a large part of that was not by choice.

I am saying that. Surprise parties are >0 wrong (but just barely). — schopenhauer1

This one. I've already said it. — schopenhauer1

Yea, just now.

Because you keep bringing them up — schopenhauer1

I didn't bring up the lifeguard thing because it was supposed to be showing something else. It was supposed to be showing that it is ok to impose on someone if it saves someone else a lot of suffering, even if you weren't responsible for said suffering (you didn't throw the guy in the water). One could argue for having children being ethical from that angle. That by imposing they reduce suffering much more than by not doing so.

The unnecessarily part there negates any ideas about cases of ameliorating greater harms with lesser harms as we already went through that. — schopenhauer1

Well, good thing no one would do that! You make it seem like having children can never ameliorate harms. As above, having children can itself be seen as amelioration of harms.

Do you think that the person who gave birth to the inventor of painkillers did something wrong assuming he knew that would be the outcome?

I have been and did say I'd "bite the bullet" for your little analogy. — schopenhauer1

You said you "could" bite the bullet. But only now did so.

It is an extent. But what if I were to bite the bullet and say surprise parties are wrong
— schopenhauer1

I’d stop talking to you because it seems ridiculous. — khaled

And as I said previously, no one is obligated to bring happiness to people, so that part of life isn't what's in question. I see happiness-bringing as supererogatory. — schopenhauer1

You also think that if I surprised you with 5 bucks as a gift that I just did something wrong so I don't particularly care what you think anymore.

They shouldn't debate it every week would be my answer. I just don't understand what you hope to gain by starting the same topic over and over. — khaled

Same goes to you buddy. Why are you debating me so much? You feel your life's mission is to put me in my place on this forum for some reason? If my debating is repetitious to you, yours is that much squared, as you are perpetuating it and you don't even like the philosophy.

You know they couldn't land right? They get punished or killed for cowardice. Again, conflating not being able to voice opposition with agreement to the current system. — khaled

Not necessarily. Like everything, there is nuance. Some might have been pressured or forced, but some volunteered.

The tradition of death instead of defeat, capture, and shame was deeply entrenched in Japanese military culture; one of the primary values in the samurai life and the Bushido code was loyalty and honor until death.[3][4][5][6][7] In addition to kamikazes, the Japanese military also used or made plans for non-aerial Japanese Special Attack Units, including those involving Kairyu (submarines), Kaiten human torpedoes, Shinyo speedboats and Fukuryu divers.

While it is commonly perceived that volunteers signed up in droves for kamikaze missions, it has also been contended that there was extensive coercion and peer pressure involved in recruiting soldiers for the sacrifice. Their motivations in "volunteering" were complex and not simply about patriotism or bringing honour to their families. Firsthand interviews with surviving kamikaze and escort pilots has revealed that they were motivated by a desire to protect their families from perceived atrocities and possible extinction at the hands of the Allies. They viewed themselves as the last defense.[59]

At least one of these pilots was a conscripted Korean with a Japanese name, adopted under the pre-war Soshi-kaimei ordinance that compelled Koreans to take Japanese personal names.[60] Eleven of the 1,036 IJA kamikaze pilots who died in sorties from Chiran and other Japanese air bases during the Battle of Okinawa were Koreans.

It is said that young pilots on kamikaze missions often flew southwest from Japan over the 922 m (3,025 ft) Mount Kaimon. The mountain is also called "Satsuma Fuji" (meaning a mountain like Mount Fuji but located in the Satsuma Province region). Suicide-mission pilots looked over their shoulders to see the mountain, the southernmost on the Japanese mainland, said farewell to their country and saluted the mountain. Residents on Kikaishima Island, east of Amami Ōshima, say that pilots from suicide-mission units dropped flowers from the air as they departed on their final missions.

Kamikaze pilots who were unable to complete their missions (because of mechanical failure, interception, etc.) were stigmatized in the years following the war. This stigma began to diminish some 50 years after the war as scholars and publishers began to distribute the survivors' stories.[61]

Some Japanese military personnel were critical of the policy. Officers such as Minoru Genda, Tadashi Minobe and Yoshio Shiga, refused to obey the policy. They said that the commander of a kamikaze attack should engage in the task first.[62][63] Some persons who obeyed the policy, such as Kiyokuma Okajima, Saburo Shindo and Iyozo Fujita, were also critical of the policy.[64][65] Saburō Sakai said: "We never dared to question orders, to doubt authority, to do anything but immediately carry out all the commands of our superiors. We were automatons who obeyed without thinking."[66] Tetsuzō Iwamoto refused to engage in a kamikaze attack because he thought the task of fighter pilots was to shoot down aircraft.[67][/quote]

I would think that a large part of that was not by choice. — khaled

Cultural indoctrination is a thing. When something is just "the way it is" for a long time, it isn't really questioned as there was never a precedent for it.

Well, good thing no one would do that! You make it seem like having children can never ameliorate harms. As above, having children can itself be seen as amelioration of harms.

Do you think that the person who gave birth to the inventor of painkillers did something wrong assuming he knew that would be the outcome? — khaled

Don't need painkillers if there was no pain to begin with. This is just moving the needle down the line. Using people for ends like this is a slippery slope. How many generations and people need to suffer so someone can "save" them? And did the painkillers save anybody? It is a bandaid on a much larger wound that life itself creates for people. By having children it's like hot potato.. and the potato gets passed on over and over anew.

You also think that if I surprised you with 5 bucks as a gift that I just did something wrong so I don't particularly care what you think anymore. — khaled

Thank goodness. Your tactics are getting old. Create a situation where no one gets harmed and then compare it to one where there is immense harm. At least surprise parties the chance of harm is a bit more greater. What I do notice is you clearly don't pay attention to the argument if it doesn't quite jive with the "checkmate" you were looking for. For example, right here you ignored all the examples of wrongs that are so negligible as to not matter, like the limits of calculus. Giving five bucks to someone is so far off the harmful impositions of life, you have lost the forest for the trees in your tiresome trick pony show.

You also think that if I surprised you with 5 bucks as a gift that I just did something wrong so I don't particularly care what you think anymore. — khaled

Also, now that I think about it, why would a case so clearly unharmful even be considered as in the same category as imposing harms? How is this not under the supererogatory category of happiness-bringing? But you see, this goes down to disanalogies. Life itself contains all harms, and yet here is a case of so limited a prospect of harm as to be negligible in terms of "harmful imposition". In fact, no act of unasked for happiness-bringing would be exempt of that minimal possibility of harm. This would also put more evidence in my camp that once born, there is almost no escaping ameliorations. Happiness bringing becomes wrapped up in the possibility of harm. But again, procreation is one place where no ameliorations have to take place. No using anyone has to take place either. You simply prevent unnecessary harm, period. No ONE loses.

Same goes to you buddy. Why are you debating me so much? You feel your life's mission is to put me in my place on this forum for some reason? — schopenhauer1

Because I FEEL LIKE IT!!!!!!!!

Also to prevent AN threads from turning into the echo chambers they usually turn to. Start whatever thread you want, but stop complaining when the same people respond to the same arguments in the same way.

When something is just "the way it is" for a long time, it isn't really questioned as there was never a precedent for it. — schopenhauer1

You think slaves were culturally indoctrinated to believe what’s happening to them was fair?

Create a situation where no one gets harmed and then compare it to one where there is immense harm. — schopenhauer1

Is it no one gets harmed or is it:

here is a case of so limited a prospect of harm as to be negligible in terms of "harmful imposition". — schopenhauer1

Because it makes a pretty big difference. Also, when did this comparison take place? Kindly point me to where I compared imposing life to giving 5 bucks.

For example, right here you ignored all the examples of wrongs that are so negligible as to not matter, like the limits of calculus. — schopenhauer1

I didn’t ignore them. I ignored you for thinking them. You unironically think that surprise parties and surprise gifts are wrong. To make it sound less ridiculous, you say “oh but they’re not that wrong”.

You think gifting someone 5 bucks is wrong. I don’t see the point of continuing the conversation at that point.

And I also ignored them because you don’t see the obvious next problem: You think that some things, while wrong by to do, are acceptable (surprise parties). What makes life not one of those things? And we’re back at step 4

But again, procreation is one place where no ameliorations have to take place. No using anyone has to take place either. You simply prevent unnecessary harm, period. No ONE loses. — schopenhauer1

False. The people who exist are ameliorated usually. Unless everyone decides tomorrow not to have kids, which won’t happen. Assuming the “torch will be passed” (which we agree it will) it is not clear that having children is so unnecessary.

Don't need painkillers if there was no pain to begin with. — schopenhauer1

But there is and there will continue to be. Making this a pointless hypothetical.

Because I FEEL LIKE IT!!!!!!!!

Also to prevent AN threads from turning into the echo chambers they usually turn to. Start whatever thread you want, but stop complaining when the same people respond to the same arguments in the same way. — khaled

But you were the one who mentioned being annoyed that I start these threads. And yet you continue to engage in argument with me, despite this. Sometimes a troll is a troll is a troll. There is something odd of the fact that you find this whole line of argument ridiculous and yet you engage. I find the echo chamber thing dubious. Barely anyone agrees with me.. If anyone else agrees, they leave like two comments and then they tend to leave, leaving me with the brunt of the work to defend. More so I find disagreement, maybe not as ardent and continuous as yours, but that is NOT an echo chamber. Take a general survey here if you like.. I don't mind argumentation, it's trollish pointed argumentation that I am suspect of. Instead of being mutually invigorating, it's just a slog.

You think slaves were culturally indoctrinated to believe what’s happening to them was fair? — khaled

Some of them, yes. A lot of religion was used in this respect for example. Systematic breaking down of one's own identity as an independent person, and then generationally etc.

Is it no one gets harmed or is it: — khaled

I don't know, does someone get harmed? Did we not agree that there is something called type-extent? Or at least did you not acknowledge that I posited this and then explained about degrees and limits to practically 0?

Because it makes a pretty big difference. Also, when did this comparison take place? Kindly point me to where I compared imposing life to giving 5 bucks. — khaled

That's your whole strategy to say, "If this isn't wrong, life isn't wrong".

And I also ignored them because you don’t see the obvious next problem: You think that some things, while wrong by to do, are acceptable (surprise parties). What makes life not one of those things? And we’re back at step 4 — khaled

Right as I said above you are doing.. We disagree on the extent of the unnecessary burdens of life. You think I'm overestimating it and I think you are underestimating it. I also disagree that self-reports are the only way to assess whether it is estimated correctly. Rather, both inescapable and contingent burdens great and small take place regularly, whether or not people report that they have a positive favorability towards life.

False. — khaled

You mean, YOU believe this to be false based on how you view philosophical positions on this manner. But I get it, shorthand..

The people who exist are ameliorated usually. Unless everyone decides tomorrow not to have kids, which won’t happen. Assuming the “torch will be passed” (which we agree it will) it is not clear that having children is so unnecessary. — khaled

Irrelevant. If the majority found X wrong thing to be good, doesn't make it so. Some people are ameliorated by things that harm others.. I don't put any malicious intent on this, just a kind of ignorance of the harms. Do you think that I think most natalist-sympathizers are malicious in wanting or condoning having kids? Then you would be very mistaken.

There is something odd of the fact that you find this whole line of argument ridiculous and yet you engage. — schopenhauer1

Huh, funny, I was just about to say the same to you.

You understand it takes two to debate right?

And it was only recently with your saying “having surprise parties is wrong” that I began to find it ridiculous. But you also introduced old arguments which are what I spend most of the list addressing.

Or at least did you not acknowledge that I posited this and then explained about degrees and limits to practically 0? — schopenhauer1

There is a difference between 0 and “practically 0”.

Practically 0 is what you say when you want to make a ridiculous position sound less ridiculous. “Yes gifts are wrong, but so slightly that we’re better off ignoring I just said this”.

That's your whole strategy to say, "If this isn't wrong, life isn't wrong". — schopenhauer1

False. And I pointed out on 3 separate occasions that this is not what I’m doing. It's more like "If you think this isn't wrong you have no consistent basis by which you can tell someone life is wrong". Now you do, since you thinking gifting people things is wrong....

What do you think we’re debating? Whether or not AN is right? Again, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I am arguing is that your version of AN is personal and can’t be generalized. — khaled

Irrelevant. If the majority found X wrong thing to be good, doesn't make it so. Some people are ameliorated by things that harm others. — schopenhauer1

So, you recognize the fact that next generations will exist, and even in light of that fact do not consider that having children could be ameliorating?

You consider surprise gifts wrong, and to make it less ridiculous you introduce a degree of wrong at which it "tends to 0 like in calculus" so it's fine to do, not realizing that this doesn't help you at all since now you have to explain why surprise gifts are "wrong but not wrong enough" while life is "wrong and wrong enough". Again:

What I am arguing is that your version of AN is personal and can’t be generalized. — khaled

In addition to having these ridiculous premises that I very much doubt you believe yourself, you also don't even understand what I'm arguing for despite me pointing it out to you multiple times previously. So continuing this is pointless. Bye.

Huh, funny, I was just about to say the same to you.

You understand it takes two to debate right?

And it was only recently with your saying “having surprise parties is wrong” that I began to find it ridiculous. But you also introduced old arguments which are what I spend most of the list addressing. — khaled

Well, at least I don't hear anything about echo chambers so I think I made my point on how it isn't/wasn't for my threads.. so still suspicious for your ardency. I probably debate you as I feel if I just leave it, then you think that I am just saying that the case rests.. I don't know how you interpret silence, but it is not going to be in a charitable way based again, on your ardency and style. You can also say, that I fall for troll bait, not sure.

There is a difference between 0 and “practically 0”.

Practically 0 is what you say when you want to make a ridiculous position sound less ridiculous. “Yes gifts are wrong, but so slightly that we’re better off ignoring I just said this”. — khaled

No, not at all. It's what others might say is "trivial harm". I have nothing against trivial harms.. If life was JUST trivial harms, then it is fine.. That is the point of type-extent.. You don't get that part because you are still shoe-horning it into type-only arguments and not getting how degrees work.

False. And I pointed out on 3 separate occasions that this is not what I’m doing. It's more like "If you think this isn't wrong you have no consistent basis by which you can tell someone life is wrong". Now you do, since you thinking gifting people things is wrong.... — khaled

Okay.. I see at least a landing pad here for your argumentation.. I know you have said this before but you did keep arguing so I am still in the air, so to say...

So, you recognize the fact that next generations will exist, and even in light of that fact do not consider that having children could be ameliorating? — khaled

I am not an aggregate utilitarian so this wouldn't even be a consideration. Creating UNNECESSARY, non-trivial, inescapable, burdens on someone else is the key. We do not have a right to cause unnecessary, non-trivial, inescapable burdens on someone else because it might increase our happiness.

You consider surprise gifts wrong, and to make it less ridiculous you introduce a degree of wrong at which it "tends to 0 like in calculus" so it's fine to do, not realizing that this doesn't help you at all since now you have to explain why surprise gifts are "wrong but not wrong enough" while life is "wrong and wrong enough". Again: — khaled

So other people would phrase the term of giving a gift or surprise parties as "trivial harms" (if anyone at all is even harmed by this, hence why it's so trivial). You are comparing trivial harms that can easily be dealt with and gotten rid of with perpetual, inescapable, and unnecessary burdens. You know the difference but you are trivializing trivial harms. It is showing how non-trivial, inescapable, persistent, and unnecessary these burdens are, that I normally do on the threads when I am not talking about surprise parties with you.

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? — schopenhauer1

Do you mean that in multiple-choice exams, for instance, you should also have an option of "No choice" for each question? :smile: (Of course, you always have the option of not answering any question (= no option) and fail the exams! :smile: )

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? — schopenhauer1

I thought that my previous comment could be taken as ironic. Sorry about that. Well, that was not my intention. It's just that I use to joke a lot. In fact, I started initially my comment as follows, but then I thought it was too serious.

What kind of "no option" do you mean? Anyway, wouldn't that have to do with the kind, subject and purpose of the options?

So please, replace my previous comment with the above two questions. Thanks.

So this had to do with the idea that we have no option for "no option" when it comes to being born. Is it just to procreate with this in mind? One can never opt out of the endevour in the first place. This leads to all sorts of problems.. We must "deal with" and endure burdens great and small because we could not not do this excepting the option of committing of suicide (which is not the same as opting out of life in the first place).

Never having the option not to option is not just. One needs to have this option. Not to option is not an option is not an option is not an option is a human right. It's not an option.

Never having the option not to option is not just. One needs to have this option. Not to option is not an option is not an option is not an option is a human right. It's not an option. — VincePee

Well-stated, on the state, of no option status.

I had no option...

So you have a whole range of X, Y, Z, etc. options. You cannot select the option for no option. Is this just? Does imposing on someone the need to pick from a range of options negate the fact that the imposition leaves out never having the option to not play the game of options in the first place? I guess this goes back to "most people" again..cause if most people like the options, it must be just, even if you could not pick no option :roll:. — schopenhauer1

I'm reminded of two things:

1. The old liberal saying: "When someone gives you two choices, pick the third";
2. When the Marines say "Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" they forget the fourth option, which is to actively resist.

My point here is that, whether or not it is "just" for one to try and limit another's options, that other always has the option to not play. The one might kill you, or otherwise make your choice untenable, but, as they say, the last great act of defiance is "FUCK YOU!"

The fact that most people like the options does not make them just. They must rely upon something else besides numbers if they want to find justice. In the U.S. we have a system designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Certain rights are not dependent upon alliances. It doesn't always work, and sometimes it only works after the fact, but it is, nevertheless, there.

But it can be "just" to limit options. We can say you must take the vax or stay home. We should add: Or you can offer an alternative(s) suitable to us, but if we don't like it/them, then tough: vax or stay home. That is "just", whether you like it or not. Justice, or just us, doesn't matter: we have a right to not be subjected to your filthy disease or your ability to catch and transmit it. Justice can be isolation as a penalty for obstinance, petulance, stupidity, what have you.