I've said at least four or five times now that the problem isn't planting the bomb. It's the bomb going off. — Terrapin Station

Ok. When you have a child and he experiences pain. How is that different from the bomb situation. Let's compare analogies here. I'm comparing having a bomb implanted in someone whcih explodes harming him without his consent with having children then them experiencing depressive thoughts which harms them without their consent:

Did PLANTING the bomb cause it to explode AND hurt the person? No, it only enabled it to explode, the act of planting did not harm anyone and you don't treat the planting itself as the source of the problem so neither will I. However you also say that the planter is at fault when the bomb explodes because the harm is causally peggable back to their fully intentional action of planting the bomb. So the act of planting the bomb itself is not the problem but it exploding is what makes the act wrong.

Did HAVING the child cause the harm that hurt the person? No, the harm came in the form of depressive thoughts (because that's the example of suffering I felt like using). You don't treat the act of giving birth itself as the source of the problem so neither will I. However you also SHOULD (i think) say that the parent is at fault when the depressive thoughts come because the harm is causally peggable back to their fully intentional action of having the child. So the physical act of giving birth itself is not the problem but the depressive thoughts are what SHOULD make the act wrong.

I see these situations as mirror images, I don't see why you treat them differently

You just logged on.... Ah shit here we go again. As you know, have to go soon it's 10 pm. Also as you know I probably won't be going soon

You are aware that people commit suicide aren't you? — Andrew4Handel

I've had five, maybe six (there's one that's not clear), people who were close to me commit suicide, and I dated a woman who had tried unsuccessfully a few times.

Wow this thread is digressing pretty hard...

Ok. When you have a child and he experiences pain. How is that different from the bomb situation. Let's compare analogies here. I'm comparing having a bomb implanted in someone whcih explodes harming him without his consent with having children then them experiencing depressive thoughts which harms them without their consent: — khaled

So, the reason I went into some detail about consent criteria wasn't so that I'd have to keep repeating it. So the first point here (I'll get to the rest of the post after we settle this--one thing at a time so that I don't have to keep repeating stuff), is what specific action are we talking about re whatever pain you're referring to? And re "experiencing depressive thoughts" you're claiming a causally-peggable specific action that gives someone a particular type of thought?

Yes. That causally peggable specific action is giving birth to them. The depressive thought happened because of X, X happened because of Y. Y ultimately happened because the person was born (if we're talking about subjective phenomena)

That causally peggable specific action is giving birth to them. — khaled

Wow. Okay, so take me through the causal chain.

I did. Whatever caused the depressive thoughts was ultimately caused by being born. Oh X is not a real life event in that example, it's a neurological reaction. So the depressive thoughts happened because of a depressive hormone. Why was that depressive hormone emitted? Maybe because of some sight or sound that was translated in a very negative way. Why was that sight or sound translated in a negative way? Becuase the person was standing there to observe it, etc, etc until you inevitably get to: And why did this all start? Because that person was born.

The source of all suffering is as much that there is something there to suffer as as the real life cause of suffering.

I did. Whatever caused the depressive thoughts was ultimately caused by being born — khaled

Lol, no, you didn't. "Causally-peggable" isn't satisfied by saying "whatever caused it." It's only satisfied by pegging--that is, specifying and being able to demonstrate--each step of a supposed causal chain.

So you need to actually list, and be able to demonstrate, the specifics of the causal chain you'd be claiming.

Just because the causal chain is complicated doesn't change the fact that it ultimately started with birth. Birth caused subjective experiences to be a thing so it is as much a cause for unpleasant subjective experiences as the physical cause is.

Also can you explain to me exactly how a bomb operates? The actual chemistry behind it all? Or else the cause of it's explosion isn't causally peggable to the person that planted apparently? That's what you sound like to me right now. So would you need a degree in chemistry and human anatomy to be able to put guilt on that bomb planter?

Just because the causal chain is complicated doesn't change the fact that it ultimately started with birth. — khaled

Either you can specify the causal chain or you cannot. If you can, let's get to it. If you cannot, simply admit that.

Either you can specify the causal chain or you cannot. If you can, let's get to it. If you cannot, simply admit that. — Terrapin Station

I cannot. Now explain to me chemically how bombs work. Because unless you do that the bomb planter is innocent apparently. Can you do that? If not just admit that.

I cannot. Now explain to me chemically how bombs work. Because unless you do that the bomb planter is innocent apparently. Can you do that? If not just admit that — khaled

If we can't do that, then we can't say that the bomb planter violated someone's consent, right? How would that help your argument?

If we can't do that, then we can't say that the bomb planter violated someone's consent, right? How would that help your argument? — Terrapin Station

No we KNOW he planted the bomb. But you do not know exacly how it works and that makes him innocent?

Also I would say we CAN explain the causal chain between being born and feeling pain quite well, it's just that I personally cannot in the same way that you cannot explain how a bomb works. I don't have a degree in neurology. But it would be pretty ridiculous if a terrorist testifies to court that they cannot prove that he caused the bombing because the judge doesn't have a degree in chemistry

No we KNOW he planted the bomb. But you do not know exacly how it works and that makes him innocent? — khaled

If x didn't cause the event, E, that nonconsensually, physically harmed y (assuming it was a consent issue), then x is innocent of performing E to y, yes. We'd have to blame the actual cause.

I explained all of this already, basically, just in other words. It's why indirect actions must be causally-peggable.

So the bomber is innocent until you personally get a chemsitry degree?

So the bomber is innocent until you personally get a chemsitry degree? — khaled

How bombs work is causally-peggable. I was just pointing out above that if they weren't, we wouldn't be able to take that bomb-planter to be the culprit--and that wouldn't help your argument.

In your case, mental states are influenced by all sorts of things, including environmental factors (including foods you eat, things you breathe, etc.), and including experiences and other thoughts that you'd need to eliminate free will for in order to peg them to some particular, long-ago action.

If X is a necessary condition for Y to occur and Y occurs was X the cause of Y?

If X is a necessary condition for Y to occur and Y occurs was X the cause of Y? — khaled

No, of course not.

Wait wot. What's an example? Wha'ts a cause then?

Wait wot. What's an example? Wha'ts a cause then? — khaled

For example:

"I broke my leg in South Africa."

Traveling to South Africa was a necessary condition for that to occur, but it certainly wasn't the cause of it. The cause was a motorcycle accident.

Other necessary conditions are that I was alive, that I had a leg to break, that physics and physiology are such that a leg can be broken via a motorcycle accident, and countless other things. Those are not the cause of my broken leg.

What exatly counts as a cause for you then. Because I count birth as a cause of suffering and you don't. That's the only real disagreement. Define what you count as a cause for your causally peggable specific actions

Also I have to go now. We can continue this later.

Causes are the forces that necessarily result in property F (of some entity x) obtaining versus some other property. If c is the cause of F, then c can't occur without F occurring.

You can travel to South Africa without breaking your leg. So traveling to South Africa doesn't cause you to break your leg.

Antinatalism simply pegs all forms of suffering to being born. It is a KNOWN that life contains various amounts and varieties of suffering and negative experiences. All suffering can be prevented with no a ACTUAL person being deprived. Win/win.

Antinatalism simply pegs all forms of suffering to being born. — schopenhauer1

It doesn't causally peg it to that. Since that's not possible.

I dont have to show how every connection leads to birth. By definition, all forms of suffering come from being alive in the first place. If you want to refute the self evidence of that, despite what you know to be true, and die on your absurd molehill of bad reasoning related to "not being able to do d all causes leading back to birth" then be my guest. That would certainly be ridiculous though and not worth replying to.

I dont have to show how every connection leads to birth — schopenhauer1

You do for it to be causally-peggable, because that's what that term refers to.

You do for it to be causally-peggable, because that's what that term refers to. — Terrapin Station

Legal definitions dont need to apply here. That is one definition. Antinatism is clearly about decisions made at the procreational level. That is to say, suffering at the wholesale level, not the piecemeal.

Antinatalism simply pegs all forms of suffering to being born. It is a KNOWN that life contains various amounts and varieties of suffering and negative experiences. All suffering can be prevented with no a ACTUAL person being deprived. Win/win. — schopenhauer1

Life also contains positive experiences. Some people see their life as a net negative, some other people as a net positive.

If you see negative experiences as what has to be eliminated, why don't you kill everyone? That would be more effective. You may convince a few people not to have children, but there are still billions having children.

However if instead of focusing on negative experiences we focus both on negative and positive experiences, the goal could be instead to reduce negative experiences and increase positive experiences, to make life a net positive for most people. And then life would be a net positive as a whole, and that's better than the absence of life.

You can travel to South Africa without breaking your leg. So traveling to South Africa doesn't cause you to break your leg. — Terrapin Station

If you break your leg on South African soil then South Africa was a causal factor in breaking your leg.

South Africa refers to the territory governed by South Africa and that territory contains hazards that can harm you.

South Africa is not a necessary and sufficient cause to harm someone but creating a child is.