That's all that is needed to defeat this point. — schopenhauer1
Explain what kind of "restrictions" you are talking about here. — I like sushi
Anyone with a more thorough understanding in favour of enforcing such ideas by law are extreme radicals and should probably be treated with contempt by everyone else (they will be by me for sure). — I like sushi
I think its not entirely wrong to require that a lack of harm is pursuant to an individual. But, if its true for *insert any considered future person* then it is true for every other considered future person. These are, to the degree it matters here, individuals in consideration. So, you can take an individual who does not exist, yet is on the other side of the Yes/No choice being made (determinists shhh) - it's clearly wrong to create something which will primarily suffer. — AmadeusD
You have entirely missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position.
I do not feel you post does what you've described. It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe? — AmadeusD
One possible route would be licensing for parentage. — AmadeusD
It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe? — AmadeusD
I have a feeling this is parallel to something I have tried to mention before on the subject of AN.
Often what is ethical is used synonymously with what is moral. With AN we are really talking about a 'moral' view (individual conscience) whereas as an 'ethical' view (general rule for society) it is something quite different.
The lack of common distinction with these terms causes discussions about AN to become fractious. This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society). — I like sushi
which is not really what AN is about. — I like sushi
This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society). — I like sushi
This is as regards the Asymmetry. The asymmetry supports acting to prevent more people. Not the position that more people is an unethical course of action. One pre, one proscriptive. — AmadeusD
ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop. — AmadeusD
My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually. — AmadeusD
This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. Do you agree that what you say here aligns with what I stated as being a 'moral' stance rather than what I stated as an 'ethical' stance? If not why? (Note: I used these terms fairly loosely so there is wiggle room). — I like sushi
This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. — I like sushi
Impose antinatalism — schopenhauer1
) Impugn others who don't believe in the rightness of antinatalism — schopenhauer1
umber 2 seems a non-sequitur or self-refuting. — schopenhauer1
However, being on a philosophy forum, and defending the position, would in a minor way be "impugning" those who are objecting — schopenhauer1
If you look at all the arguments and conclude "Not good enough", fine, but I'll think you're wrong and would try to persuade you otherwise. — AmadeusD
Impugn "intellectually". Very different to impugning their ethics in my view. I think other people should not have children. Would I purposefully insinuate this to people? No. I'd prefer to suffer in silence on this issue unless asked. I wouldn't assert someone's mind was wrong (in terms of some kind of retardation(in the strict sense)) for not agreeing with my ethical position. Please keep in mind, though, I am an emotivist to the degree that i have an actual Ethical view.
I don't believe my ethical framework can be enforced. It should should be followed by me. No, this is not morality, but it is a bit of a get-out-of-jail card because it basically is a meta-ethical theory that asserts there is no objective morality. Moral theories in general don't make any sense in this light. — AmadeusD
You do this actively or only when questioned about your AN beliefs? — I like sushi
I am assuming you are a moral realist? If not how does this fit into your views on AN? — I like sushi
You deem 'suffering' as 'bad' (or rather "Boo!") knowing it is your subjective emotions talking. — I like sushi
How then can you state, in any serious way, that something is 'right' or 'wrong' — I like sushi
But you seem to be saying "it is 'wrong' (boo!) for me" not that it is out and out wrong (Boo!) for everyone or that there is anything dictating what is objectively viewed as 'right; or 'wrong' other than commonality of emotional expressions. — I like sushi
It is interesting how this, in part, appears similar to moral naturalism rather than moral scepticism. — I like sushi
...what I previously expressed as harbouring a 'Moral' stance of AN rather than an 'Ethical' stance of AN...I think we could argue back and forth a bit more but it may be mostly a semantic issue given that emotivism is hard to articulate (a serious flaw of emotivism). — I like sushi
The fact that I don't think I should be forcing other people to adopt my view doesn't make it less ethically-driven. — AmadeusD
Could you expand? My understanding of Moral Naturalism is that it more or less indicates that morals are evolutionarily-required aspects of human development, which I don't agree with. — AmadeusD
It just seemed that you were framing emotional dispositions as the grounding for moral choices rather than there being no moral choices. — I like sushi
Moral (Right for Your Perspective) and Ethical (The Right Objective Implementation). — I like sushi
Therefore, antinatalism leads to the ultimate ethical goal of never needing ethics. — AmadeusD
Which is another way AN harms itself as a reasonable ethical system. — Fire Ologist
If the goal of ethics is to eliminate ethics — Fire Ologist
we could just ignore any pangs of morality now instead — Fire Ologist
using scales of ethics and motality to help decide one’s way forward for sake of eliminating ethics is a bit like using math to show how numbers can’t exist (or in this case shouldn’t exist). — Fire Ologist
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.