I did not include omnibenevolence simply because the question was about how this person ought to behave. But I could have included it, it just would have meant rephrasing things. — Bartricks
If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. — Bartricks
change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents — Bartricks
So, was the moment life formed in the universe immoral? Is an earthquake or a tsunami or a rainbow immoral according to your logic? — universeness
Life starting in the universe is not a moral question. — Tzeentch
Violence and many other "natural" tendencies have been around long before humans evolved. Does that mean that humans perpetrating violent acts are beyond moral scrutiny? I think not. — Tzeentch
you claim all reproduction is immoral without consent, which must include asexual reproduction — universeness
So, by what logic do you suggest that an antinatalist viewpoint, that would have the final effect of ending all life in the universe is warranted, based on a human constructed morality issue, when you have just accepted that the origin of life, is not a moral issue of consent? — universeness
The existence of human life in the universe is not within the jurisdiction of human morality. — universeness
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer? — universeness
That is not something I claim. — Tzeentch
I'm a supporter of "ending all life in the universe" now? You're starting to sound a bit like a clown.
The origin of life is not a moral issue. It's not even related to this discussion.
When individuals (in this case parents) make choices that have major consequences for other individuals (in this case children) that becomes a moral question.
I'm discussing that moral question.
Maybe you need to calm down a little. — Tzeentch
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to kill and eat a baby deer?
No. — Tzeentch
YOU stated that newlife must be consulted before being born. — universeness
You further stated that such consent is not possible, so, by default human morality, human reproduction is immoral. — universeness
The origin of life is very much related to this discussion as you wish to terminate it, ... — universeness
Do you think it's immoral for a Lion to reproduce?
If your answer is no, then what intelligence rating would you apply before your antinatalist radar/morality issue kicks in and you ban a particular lifeform from reproduction and cause it to go extinct in time?
Are dolphins safe from your antinatalism proclamations? How about chimpanzees or dogs or cats? — universeness
You have not typed anything exciting yet, so I remain perfectly calm. — universeness
I never stated that. You need to read more carefully, and stop the great strawman game. — Tzeentch
Impositions, even small ones, are generally regarded as immoral. Birth is one giant imposition.
Does it matter whether the imposition is made with the individual's best interest at heart? I don't think so. — Tzeentch
I'm talking about the act of creating a child, which is an imposition upon the child. — Tzeentch
Whether it's A and B's business to decide whether C shall live I find questionable. But at the very least C ought to be consulted, which is impossible, hence the dilemma. — Tzeentch
Humans are the only moral actors.
This is starting to sound a lot like that rejection of morality that I predicted. — Tzeentch
How surprising? YOU, EXAGGERATING!Then why are you capitalizing every other word, — Tzeentch
resorting to constant strawmanning, personal attacks and pseuo-psychoanalyzing?
Those are not the actions of a calm person. — Tzeentch
Ok then state your position, ... — universeness
If this imposition is fully founded on the fact that you cannot get consent from that which is to be born, then this must apply to all life. — universeness
Procreation is an imposition. — Tzeentch
I have patiently waited for an logically coherent explanation as to why this should be ok. — Tzeentch
- It is not a moral question, to which I replied: it certainly is. I don't see how individuals acting in ways that significantly impact other individuals is not a moral question.
- It is moral because if man would not procreate, man would go exitinct - an 'ends justify the means'-type argument.
- It is moral because the individual cares about their "legacy" and "bloodline" - in this argument new humans are instrumentalized to suit individuals' ego-driven vanity projects. — Tzeentch
Neither of these mention the well-being of said new humans, which is odd to say the least. — Tzeentch
The second argument is a moot point, since no human reproduces "for the survival of the species", and even if people did, they have no control over whether the species survives nor do they have a stake in what happens to the species in X years from now since they won't be around to witness it, ergo their preoccupation with the "survival of the species" is irrational. — Tzeentch
Additionally, it excuses imposition based solely on the idea that the outcome is desirable, which, without any type of explanation, implies that imposition can be excused whenever the imposer considers it would lead to a desirable outcome - 'the ends justify the means' is a notoriously slippery and hypocritical slope. — Tzeentch
The third argument about legacy and bloodlines is similarly an 'ends justify the means'-type argument, but in this case the ends are completely selfish - vain ego fantasy. A preoccupation with illusory things like "legacies" and "bloodlines" as though they have some objective value is similarly irrational. Needless to say, that will not do as a basis to attempt to justify imposition. — Tzeentch
Only human beings are moral actors.
I hope that clears things up. — Tzeentch
Do you know what a proponent of the problem of evil is? — Bartricks
Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?
Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't. — Bartricks
Best to have a chat by PM with Baden and see if you can understand his reasons. Overall, I have found the Moderators/administrator's very reasonable people. An administrator such as jamal can talk to a moderator, if you are not happy with a decision they have made, but if the administrator backs the moderator, then there is nothing you can do except to accept their decision. But you can still moan at them a little. — universeness
Do you not see how arrogant your words here are? — universeness
Evolution through natural selection established the 'survival of a species imperative' and there is no intent behind it. — universeness
Oh, that's rich.
Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime. — Tzeentch
It's irrelevant. Individuals have intentions, and individuals aren't subjected to evolution, natural selection or any "natural imperatives". — Tzeentch
Your issue is that you're attempting to have a moral discussion about "the human species", but the "human species" as a whole is not a moral agent, and not part of a moral discussion. — Tzeentch
How many support your position on this thread so far? — universeness
The human species is made up of individual humans who are moral agents, but you now suggest that they have no moral agency as a totality. — universeness
The universe applied no discernible morality or intent towards creating humans. — universeness
In what way does this also suggest that the human species as a totality, has no moral agency? — universeness
What makes you think I care? :chin:
I'm not here to convince anyone. — Tzeentch
That's just dictated by logic. — Tzeentch
Then you admit you just enjoy preaching; — universeness
you don't accept the burden of trying to convince others of viewpoints that you think will help them in their lives? — universeness
No, it's interpreted by YOUR logic. National and International laws are informed by human past and present political debate, which certainly includes morality issues. If we ever unite as a single global species and establish a world government, then planetary law will be informed by human morality.
This would then represent the agency of the entire species. I agree that there would be very few, if any, global laws or moral standpoints which would be fully accepted by every human alive but I think we can still label the likes of a global human law, as having human species agency.
I also think the national or international laws we have now, hold up as examples of the representation of the morality of our species as a totality. 'It is immoral to rape,' for example or 'child abuse is unacceptable and immoral.' These are pretty close to being aspects of the current moral agency of our entire species. — universeness
I enjoy testing my ideas. That's the only reason I am here. — Tzeentch
No, and especially not on a forum filled with strangers. — Tzeentch
In philosophy it is of great importance to use accurate language.
All of what you just wrote is generalized (inaccurate) language - shortcuts to convey practical ideas. Useful as practical tools for everyday conversation, but not for philosophy. — Tzeentch
"The human species" does not think with one mind or acts with one body. It is never a moral agent. Speaking of what "the human species" does or thinks is a gross oversimplification of the huge variety of thoughts and actions by individuals. — Tzeentch
Some human efforts to improve the human experience and reduce human suffering.
Posted by another member in the shoutbox, copied and pasted here by me, as I thought they were good examples, relevant to this thread. — universeness
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.