• schopenhauer1
    The answer is to get better at protecting the innocent despite white noise protestationsuniverseness

    This is all that's needed. Unless you don't mind YOU yourself, don't mind causing unnecessary harm to others, no other contingencies are needed. And certainly you can agree life itself is going to be full of harm. It is a known fact..entailed in life itself. That fact however, doesn't make it right, it makes it a reason to not do something to someone else.. Just like any other case where if you know it will harm, and it is unnecessary to do so, you wouldn't do it. Unnecessary being the key here. No one NEEDS to be unnecessarily harmed. Adding (because I want to see X) would add to the wrongness, because besides having no reason, you are now using a person for your preference to see something or an agenda beyond the person affected from the harm.

    I also might add, being overly paternalistic is also a factor to consider. To think that because you think this life we have in this universe is somehow a good one, that others must live it, is the height of arrogance. You are making a decision on someone else's behalf that THESE conditions of life are perfectly fine for others to have to endure. Simply because one can't have a choice to endure this life, doesn't mean "Oh, ok, this be permissible to make someone endure because this is the only thing to endure". That doesn't go together. The only choice is compliance with sub-optimal conditions or suicide if they don't like it. A terrible thing to do to someone, and again, paternalistically arrogant to think that this should be done to someone else. That beyond all the harm that will incur to someone is enough to disqualify procreation being considered neutral or good.
  • baker
    Just like any other case where if you know it will harm, and it is unnecessary to do so, you wouldn't do it.schopenhauer1

    What is "unnecessary"?

    Is refusing oneself the satisfaction of one's ego "unnecessary"?
  • baker
    Based on what evidence? The technologies created by scientists are open to abuse by the nefarious and by self-interest or just incompetent decisions made by those in power.universeness

    Not at all. Already the "regular" use of scientific achievements is what causes pollution. Plastic waste is plastic waste, regardless whether produced by an honest, hardworking man or by a glutton.

    Again, keep to the text:
    — baker

    Again, try to improve your clarity.

    Look up a textbook for learning English, under the chapter "Giving short replies".

    The dismissal of those with existential concerns is done by those who have relatively low aspirations in life.
    — baker
    Do you consider such people a large majority of the global population?

    Yes. Look up the DSM; "a religious problem" and other existential issues are actually listed as signs of mental illness.

    We live in very imbalanced rich/poor conditions. It is harsh to judge the aspiration level of any individual who has had poverty imposed upon them since birth and very limited or no opportunity to escape it.

    Having relatively low aspirations in life has nothing directly to do with poverty. There is plenty of very rich, very educated people who nevertheless have relatively low aspirations in life. Their aim is the pursuit of sensual pleasures in their various forms, and that's it.

    I assume you are not female.

    Why do you assume that?

    No woman I know has ever raised any concern about such.

    Because they know that for a woman, it is best to be a fool, a beautiful little fool.

    So even they spell it as "as a women, I ..."
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.