• Echarmion
    1.9k
    This is not about law, so not sure why we need to make those comparisons.schopenhauer1

    It was an analogy, to explain the principle.

    It's not the universe handing down what is right.schopenhauer1

    Does the universe do that, in your opinion?

    Do not create unnecessary harm for another without cause (ameliorating a worse situation). Same for the axiom of unnecessary impositions and violations of consent.schopenhauer1

    What's so hard to understand about the fact that I just don't agree with this principle? You keep repeating it like some sort of magic incantation, but I already stated outright that I disagree.

    The responsibility to have prevented this unnecessary harm, in this case lies with the person who creates the conditions for all other harms (and impositions) to occur for the future person who will be born from the decision.schopenhauer1

    That's the disagreement again. I don't think it does. There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with.

    Note, this doesn't mean that the parent is the cause of all specific harms, simply that the parent is the cause of not preventing (and more accurately, enabling) the conditions for these unnecessary harms. There is a difference you are conflating.schopenhauer1

    I'm not. I just disagree that the parent has that responsibility.

    And when I say "My child will suffer" I am saying "My child will do this comparison you are speaking of and wish for a different state of affairs". That's it. No metaphysical mumbo jumbo.khaled

    But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed?
  • schopenhauer1
    5k
    It was an analogy, to explain the principle.Echarmion

    I guess if it is just "Look something else that is similar" rather than "Look, because it's the law this must be the best way to look at it.." The implication could have been the second.

    Does the universe do that, in your opinion?Echarmion

    Nope, just hope you weren't inadvertently implying that about law.

    What's so hard to understand about the fact that I just don't agree with this principle? You keep repeating it like some sort of magic incantation, but I already stated outright that I disagree.Echarmion

    Just making sure you know there is no moving target. What we are discussing is what we are discussin and not some other extraneous factors.

    That's the disagreement again. I don't think it does. There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with.Echarmion

    Yes and now you are repeating your claims like an incantation. I already acknowledged this and gave you an answer for the difference.

    I'm not. I just disagree that the parent has that responsibility.Echarmion

    Why? Your answer will be truly telling if you understand the difference I explained.
  • schopenhauer1
    5k
    But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed?Echarmion

    @khaled will probably answer this in his own way, but I believe I have answered this above:

    Also note, that the condition of being born, in order to "know" one is being harmed and imposed upon, doesn't compute in this argument. It is simply about not creating conditions of harm and impositions for someone else. Period. The person who would have been affected, does not need to be born to know that this was prevented. It is simply about that situation not occurring for someone else. It is about not creating a future condition. You certainly do not need someone to exist currently for this condition not to be created in the first place. The thing is, it really is not a hard ethic. It's certainly not the only one, but it's not a difficult one to put into practice. Just don't do something that is easy to prevent.schopenhauer1
  • khaled
    2k
    But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing the conditions that allow harm to be assessed?Echarmion

    It is both. Still, better to prevent harm than not to. In absence of a justification to do otherwise. What’s difficult about this.

    The "conditions that allow harm to be assessed" are precisely that someone is harmed for you. Which I find so weird. This quote amounts to "But then doesn't preventing harm here turn into preventing harm here?"

    "Harm assessment" happens when you wish for a different state of affairs because of what just happened to you. In other words, ANY prevention of harm would amount to "preventing the conditions that allow for harm to be assessed" by this definition. Let me give an example:

    A considers punching B, then chooses not to. IFF A had punched B, B would have thought "damn this sucks, I wish this didn't happen". But A did not punch B. Therefore A eliminated the conditions that allow harm to be assessed. Since B will no longer go into "harm assessment phase". Since B did not get harmed. This is because, again, the way you define the"conditions" is precisely that someone is harmed.

    There is no general responsibility for all possible harm. Rather, there are specific responsibilities towards the people you interact with.Echarmion

    What do you mean here exactly? Because I like to point out that there is no such thing as “guaranteed harm”. There is only ever “possible harm”. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is not guaranteed harm, as the gun might jam. It’s still all “possible harm”. So if you mean to say that you need harm to be guaranteed for the act to be wrong then that’s ridiculous.

    Where is the hard line between "general" and "specific" responsibilities? Also what happened to "special suffering" whatever that was?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment