You'd have to say that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things — Terrapin Station


I did. And so did you. You said genetically modifying babies to suffer is bad. Genetic modification and birth are both things you do to organic materials that turn into living things. — Terrapin Station

At this point you had used "materials" to refer to sperm and eggs on multiple occasions and so I decided to roll with it. You are aware genetic engineering is done on sperm and eggs right? given that, and that you seemed to consider them "materials" I said that we would then both be saying that it's morally problematic to do things to materials that could turn into living things


sorry for all the confusion

Do you consider the big bang a partial cause? — Terrapin Station

yes

At this point you had used "materials" to refer to sperm and eggs on multiple occasions — khaled

Remember when I said just above that I care about honesty in conversations?

In my defense I thought you were talking about this:

I didn't say anything about sperm and eggs, though.
— Terrapin Station

I did. Birth is modifying sperm and eggs so I'm not saying this: — khaled

There are two "I did"s. I truly don't mean to cause any confusion

Sure, so there's an uncountable number of causes for every event in your view, and "cause" need not even refer to something with a deterministic connection to an event.

So could you explain just what you have in mind with a "cause" and what any cause's significance is to anything in your view?

Cause: A necessary condition

In my defense I thought you were talking about this: — khaled

You're either being dishonest or you're an idiot or crazy. You don't have another option here, and none are satisfactory.

That was AFTER the post in question.

Cause: A necessary condition — khaled

So it has no relation to "cause" in terms of culpability? For example, for legal purposes?

look

https://imgur.com/a/uF1MBQv

THAT'S the "I did" I thought you were referring to.

So it has no relation to "cause" in terms of culpability? For example, for legal purposes? — Terrapin Station

I say that you ARE culpable if you "caused" something by my terms. So for example: If someone turns key A and then someone turns key B in the last example a few seconds later they're BOTH culpable not just the guy that turned the last key

So if someone decides to commit suicide, say, you're holding not only their parents, but their grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., as well as the gun manufacturer, the builder of their home, the people who zoned that area as residential, etc. all legally responsible for the suicide?

I can see lawyers loving you, at least. "Hey, this is my kind of guy."

So if someone decides to commit suicide, say, you're holding not only their parents, but their grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., as well as the gun manufacturer, the builder of their home, the people who zoned that area as residential, etc. all legally responsible for the suicide? — Terrapin Station

I never said legally culpable. What is practical to make legal and illegal and what's moral and immoral are not the same. And I would actually hold everyone on that list culpable to differing degrees. First off, direct reasons of suicide (if they exist). Ex: Bullies. Those would be all who get punished legally (because I can't track that suicide back to every single cause). Second: People who I believe have done something wrong but are not going to be legally punished for it: Parents, Grandparents, etc. Finally, the furthest causes: gun manufacturer, builder of home, etc.

First layer are people who caused direct suffering PURPOSEFULLY AND had no good reason to do so

Second layer are people who caused suffering without intent(unless the parents in question are direct bullies) AND had no good reason to do so

Third layer are people who caused suffering without purpose AND had good reason to do so. Although both the gun producer and home builder caused suffering, more would have been caused without their jobs (debatable for the gun manufacturer but still). By building the house the house builder stops even greater suffering, although there is a chance he causes some.

The further back the cause the less responsible the person that did it. So for ex: Building the house did not in any way guarantee suffering onto anyone. Same with the gun. Birth did. Bullying did.

I never said legally culpable. What is practical to make legal and illegal and what's moral and immoral are not the same. — khaled

What makes the difference on your view?

It seems like you don't really buy the idea of free will.

You don't believe that every preceding factor could be the same (hypothetically) in two different cases with person A deciding x and person B deciding y (which is not-x)?

(Or we could ask rather if you don't believe that in possible world W, versus actual world A, someone couldn't make decision y (not-x) in W at time T1 rather than decision x in A at T1?)

The point remains that to know this, we'd need data about persons' evaluations at the two different time periods in question--the (1) scenario in my post above.

If we had the data in question, and it suggested what you're hoping/claiming it would suggest, we'd also need an argument as to why the evaluation at time T1 has precedence over the evaluation at time T2, rather than those simply being two different evaluations, where it's not the case that one is correct and the other is incorrect. — Terrapin Station

All I'm saying is self-reports don't necessarily tell the whole picture of what's going on. But, as I said to you, this empirical data, doesn't even matter to the argument. I know shocking, since that is what you will use..

Most people will self-report they want to be born, therefore it is is permissible to have children in mitigating economic household circumstances, is about as far as your argument goes, correct?

All I'm saying is self-reports don't necessarily tell the whole picture of what's going on. But, as I said to you, this empirical data, doesn't even matter to the argument. I know shocking, since that is what you will use.. — schopenhauer1

The reason it matters to me is, as I said, that my view doesn't ignore other persons' opinions. Most people don't think that only suffering matters, and most aren't so miserable that suffering greatly outweighs everything else. My view takes other persons' opinions into account. You don't have to do that, of course. There's not a right or wrong way to formulate an ethical view. I'm just telling you how I formulate mine on this particular issue.

Aside from that, as I've mentioned countless times, I don't formulate ANY ethical view merely on "suffering" or "harm"--those ideas, simply stated, are never an ethical hinge for me. Those terms are too vague for my tastes, and in that vagueness, they often refer to things that I don't feel are an ethical problem at all.

At worst a little responsible for their suffering , and greatly responsible for their joy (in the case where I do my best to bring happiness to the child and it works). — leo

But a little responsible for EVERY INSTANCE OF SUFFERING. That adds up to a lot.

It's different if, say, a teacher (just using another fatherly figure) is very nice to you and you're grateful to him and you blame other people for your suffering. In that case he literally has no connection to your suffering so is not to blame. However if it turns out the teacher is the one that originally picked your classmates and knowingly picked bullies when he had other options, it would be a different story wouldn't it?

The individual is the one who decides who to blame. It seems to me that you're blaming your parents for your suffering, but plenty of people do not blame their parents, they blame other people. — leo

Please don't put words in my mouth. I have never blamed my parents for anything. Nor other people for that matter and I don't see how it is relevant who I personally blame for what as to the validity of that blame

I disagree with the contrast between suffering and pleasure, I would rather talk of joy or happiness in opposition to suffering. Because some people (potentially many, including me) don't see pleasure as worth living for, but they see joy or happiness as worth living for, to me pleasure is not the same as joy. — leo

Again, replace every instance of "pleasure" with "joy" and everything I said still makes sense. I'll continue to say pleasure but know that I use these words interchangeably. Again, as I said earlier, if you really want replace them with "improve" and "deteriorate" state of affairs and it would still make sense

I don't see why we would owe "no suffering" to future children but not "joy". — leo

Oh you don't see that? What about all those starving children in africa who you know apparently OWE money to? How long of a sentence should you get for NOT providing as much joy as you could to other people. Stop typing and have more kids lest you deny them joy which is apparently morally punishable.

See how ridiculous it sound to say you owe others joy or pleasure? If you truly did you wouldn't be wasting time typing here as it is denying someone somewhere some pleasure potentially. The only thing you owe others is not harming them. Neither of us OWES the other a massage.

You apply a double standard there. On the one hand you focus on the positive experiences you can provide other people, on the other hand you focus on the negative experiences you can provide to a child. — leo

No I am not. Look at the asymmetry thing. It clearly says that having children has both good and bad aspects to it. However, me participating in, or not participating in society has a negligably small impact on the suffering or pleasure of any one person so it doesn't matter which I do morally speaking. Note how I never said me not providing services to others is a bad thing. I just stated it to show how futile participating or not participating is on the suffering or pleasure of any one person

You take risks for others without their consent every second of your life — leo

But even if I don't they would suffer anyways due to some other bloke taking that risk. The case is not the same for having children. If I don't drive down the street, someone else will. If I don't have a kid I have effectively just prevented, potentially, generations of suffering. No one else will have that kid.

they need to have children to survive through the genes that their children will carry — leo

??????????????????
Am I missing something here? Since when does having children give you immortality? Are you implying that if I have a child I will somehow "live on" consciously INSIDE their cells or something? Are you finally realizing how pointless and egotistical having children is and you started running out of reasons for having them the second you started thinking about them? Seriously, the only viable reason you have so far is "Because I wanna"

Heck, children DIMINISH your survival rate. Just look at how hard and costly it is to raise them properly. This arguement just falls completely flat on its face.

Some people so badly need to have a child that they can't survive if they don't have one. — leo

..... No. And heck, if there WAS such a disease I'd say it is debatable to allow having a child in this case. In this case the suffering inflicted is not out of scope with that prevented. I'd actually be happy with a world where ONLY those people who need children SO BADLY they would literally DIE without them had children. That world will last about 30-40 years. Long enough I say.

Life is not a job, that's only how you personally feel about it. — leo

I never said this is how I feel about it. Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I am very happy with my life. And heck jobs can be fun. That was the point of the metaphor. They CAN be fun but they're not guaranteed to be which is why you can't force people to work them

And yet spreading antinatalism and being successful in making parents believe that they are bad people for having children could precisely harm them to the point of them committing suicide, only to satiate your own desires. — leo

It's not "only to satiate my own desires". It's to stop more people from suffering. On the other hand, having children CREATES those parents you're so worried about upsetting, forces them to face dillemas like these, forces them to make very difficult life decisions, risks breaking them completely in a terrible accident, literally risks them being part of another holocaust, and all for what? Literally no other reason that to satiate your own desires.

Find me a valid reason or a valid benefactor to the act of having children other than the parents of said children. THEN come and claim antinatalists are selfish. How is it selfish to go against one's own bilogical wiring?

What makes the difference on your view? — Terrapin Station

Legally culpable: A set of rules that allow society to function. Completely divorced form morally culpable although often related.

Morally culpable: Did an action classified as wrong under a certain set of axioms that evolve out of culture and survival strategies.

It seems like you don't really buy the idea of free will.

You don't believe that every preceding factor could be the same (hypothetically) in two different cases with person A deciding x and person B deciding y (which is not-x)?

(Or we could ask rather if you don't believe that in possible world W, versus actual world A, someone couldn't make decision y (not-x) in W at time T1 rather than decision x in A at T1?) — Terrapin Station

I don't but that doesn't matter. That's what's so convincing about antinatalism to me. ALL THE WORLDS A through Z WILL include some suffering (except for one world and its permutations which we sure as heck aren't living in). And in ALL THE WORLDS A thorough Z that suffering WILL start at birth. Birth will ALWAYS be a partial cause in EVERY instance of suffering. Although it might not be the most direct cause, it being a partial cause in EVERY SINGLE CASE adds up to quite the atrocity.

The reason it matters to me is, as I said, that my view doesn't ignore other persons' opinions. Most people don't think that only suffering matters, and most aren't so miserable that suffering greatly outweighs everything else. My view takes other persons' opinions into account. You don't have to do that, of course. There's not a right or wrong way to formulate an ethical view. I'm just telling you how I formulate mine on this particular issue. — Terrapin Station

Let's look at this..

The reason it matters to me is, as I said, that my view doesn't ignore other persons' opinions. Most people don't think that only suffering matters, and most aren't so miserable that suffering greatly outweighs everything else. — Terrapin Station

So two things here:
1) If you notice a couple posts back I asked if you were the "arbiter" of what is good. In other words, it seems like natalists think that parents think that they are deciding on behalf of humanity what humanity needs and wants- the ultimate politicians on behalf of the unborn and existence.

This to me, is the height of hubris- to think that new people in some way should be brought into existence, because another person decided this must take place for another person and they are the persons who must do this thing. But as I've said many times now, putting someone into XYZ negative circumstances and challenges because the parents want to see some sort of agenda take place for the child (prior to its existence), is putting some agenda above the child. If I made you go through an obstacle course that was not too dissimilar to life, and you eventually identified with the challenges of that course, or maybe experienced many negative aspects but self-reported "Oh, the obstacle course is a mixed bag, but I'm glad someone put me through it", it is still wrong to do this to someone else. That is the gist of it.

Also, the tremendous collateral damage to someone who might dare to report that life is not great. What about them? Too bad? Things MUST get done?

My view takes other persons' opinions into account. You don't have to do that, of course. There's not a right or wrong way to formulate an ethical view. I'm just telling you how I formulate mine on this particular issue. — Terrapin Station

At the procreational decision level, any moral consideration should take into account the asymmetry of preventing ALL harm and depriving no future person of any actual good. That is all we are saying. To try to pretzel the logic so that it is permissible to procreate because there is some existential democracy and the parent is the arbiter of this democracy, is playing with other people's lives for the sake of an agenda that is not the child's. Being that life is all people know once born, of course they will eventually identify with it, and of course they would be bewildered or scared of any alternative- namely non-existence. But, this is not about post-birth, but prior to birth when the asymmetry is present.

I don't but that doesn't matter. That's what's so convincing about antinatalism to me. ALL THE WORLDS A through Z WILL include some suffering (except for one world and its permutations which we sure as heck aren't living in). And in ALL THE WORLDS A thorough Z that suffering WILL start at birth. Birth will ALWAYS be a partial cause in EVERY instance of suffering. Although it might not be the most direct cause, it being a partial cause in EVERY SINGLE CASE adds up to quite the atrocity. — khaled

Great point!

Also completely unrelated to the debate (but kinda related): If you've watched the movie "Passengers" was Jim wrong in waking up Aurora and why? Heck, you didn't have to watch it, just look for the scene "did you wake me up" on youtube

Morally culpable: Did an action classified as wrong under a certain set of axioms that evolve out of culture and survival strategies. — khaled

Focusing on that one first, you're claiming that a precondition like zoning an area as residential is classified as wrong where that evolved out of cultural and survival strategies?

I don't but that doesn't matter. — khaled

The reason it matters is that there's no way to make sense out of saying that Betty, Joe's mom, is culpable, with respect to causality, for Joe's suicide, where Joe freely chose to commit suicide in world A at time T1, whereas in identical world (prior to T1) W, Joe did NOT choose to commit suicide.

If you notice a couple posts back I asked if you were the "arbiter" of what is good. — schopenhauer1

If you did, I didn't see it. Probably because it was a long post. I can tell people that I'm not doing long posts covering a bunch of different points, but it's up to them whether they want to just go ahead and type long posts anyway, for whatever reason. At any rate, I'm not reading them. It's important to be able to learn that.

At any rate. Yes, I'm the arbiter of what's good, relative to me. You're the arbiter of what's good, relative to you. That's how it necessarily works for everyone. Good/bad and the like are judgments we make and dispositions we have regarding preferences. That includes if what someone uses for a guide is a consensus opinion or something like that. They're still deciding that relative to them/their opinion of good, they're going to go by what the consensus opinion is.

Focusing on that one first, you're claiming that a precondition like zoning an area as residential is classified as wrong where that evolved out of cultural and survival strategies? — Terrapin Station

No? Under what set of axioms do you think zoning an area as residential is wrong?

The reason it matters is that there's no way to make sense out of saying that Betty, Joe's mom, is culpable, with respect to causality, for Joe's suicide, where Joe freely chose to commit suicide in world A at time T1, whereas in identical world (prior to T1) W, Joe did NOT choose to commit suicide. — Terrapin Station

Yes there is. If you use my definition of causality as necessary condition. Joe's mom had to have Joe in order for Joe to commit suicide. Therefore Joe's mom is accountable for his suicide (although partially). Joe's mom is also accountable for all suffering and joy Joe experiences

Also I want to take this problem to the extreme and ask why the kidnapper is wrong in this case:

A person kidnaps you at night completely painlessly and without any damage done then puts you into a torture chamber. You wake up, he gives you a button and says "Press this button and you will die" and then proceeds to torture you. Now you have two options

A: Die
B: Severe pain

I said before:
If you are presented with the option to pick between A, B, C and D and you pick C using your free will, you were caused to pick C by two things

1- Your free will
2- The fact that C was an option in the first place
— khaled

to which you replied:

If I was caused to pick C by the fact that it was an option in the first place, then how could I have picked another option?

You're not saying that a cause can obtain without the effect in question, are you?
— Terrapin Station

So, in this scenario, if we're going to assume you have free will, you're ultimately responsible for dying or experiencing severe pain. Thus it cannot be said that the kidnapper is causing you severe pain while torturing you because, ultimately, it is your choice not to pick option A that is causing you this severe pain. It is POSSIBLE for the torturer to attempt to torture you WITHOUT it happeing (since option A is available) so how can you say the torturer is causing any physical deformations or pain? You're not saying a cause can obtain without its effect are you?

No? Under what set of axioms do you think zoning an area as residential is wrong? — khaled

Zoning an area as residential is a cause per your vernacular, where you're using cause to refer to culpability, for someone committing suicide at home.

Zoning an area as residential is a cause per your vernacular, where you're using cause to refer to culpability, for someone committing suicide at home. — Terrapin Station

Oh in that sense yes but there is a nuance here. Zoning an area as residential IS a cause for "Joe commited suicide at home" but not for "Joe committed suicide". It is a necessary condition for the area in which Joe commited suicide to be called "home" but not necessary for Joe to have committed suicide

Yes there is. If you use my definition of causality as necessary condition. Joe's mom had to have Joe in order for Joe to commit suicide. Therefore Joe's mom is accountable for his suicide (although partially). Joe's mom is also accountable for all suffering and joy Joe experiences — khaled

The reason we'd not be able to make sense out of it is that all of that's identical in the two cases with different outcomes. So that makes mincemeat out of the conventional connotations of "cause" and "culpability." There's no way to make sense of it other than simply saying that it's a precondition, but that term doesn't at all have the same connotations.

Also I want to take this problem to the extreme and ask why the kidnapper is wrong in this case:

A person kidnaps you at night completely painlessly and without any damage done then puts you into a torture chamber. You wake up, he gives you a button and says "Press this button and you will die" and then proceeds to torture you. Now you have two options

A: Die
B: Severe pain

The kidnapper in that case would not be the cause of the person choosing to die. The person deciding to push the button was the cause.

Oh in that sense yes but there is a nuance here. Zoning an area as residential IS a cause for "Joe commited suicide at home" but not for "Joe committed suicide". It is a necessary condition for the area in which Joe commited suicide to be called "home" but not necessary for Joe to have committed suicide — khaled

It's necessary for him to have committed suicide at home, though. It's the same thing as my South Africa example earlier, where you and Janus argued that traveling to South Africa was indeed a cause of me breaking my leg in South Africa.

By the same token, by the way, in my view Hitler didn't kill anyone (at least not per my knowledge/memory). People beneath him (hierarchically) rather made decisions to kill people.

The reason we'd not be able to make sense out of it is that all of that's identical in the two cases with different outcomes. So that makes mincemeat out of the conventional connotations of "cause" and "culpability." There's no way to make sense of it other than simply saying that it's a precondition, but that term doesn't at all have the same connotations. — Terrapin Station

Doesn't it? "Precondition" and "Necessary condition" sound like synonyms to me. That's exactly how I defined cause: A necessary condition. Aka a precondition

If Joe has a fantastic life, his mother gets some of all the credit as well, although it doesn't excuse the initial transgression.

The kidnapper in that case would not be the cause of the person choosing to die. The person deciding to push the button was the cause. — Terrapin Station

So how is what the kidnapper did wrong? He wasn't the cause of death OR of suffering

By the same token, by the way, in my view Hitler didn't kill anyone (at least not per my knowledge/memory). People beneath him (hierarchically) rather made decisions to kill people. — Terrapin Station

Yea this is exactly the problem I have with you definitions of cause combined with free will. How would Hitler be culpable for anything? He didn't cause direct physical deformations did he?

If you simply define cause as necessary condition, then Hitler's orders and his government style were all partial causes to the holocaust. Hitler isn't responsible for each individual death but he is partially responsible for ALL of them which adds up to a huge atrocity. Same with birth

Heck, you can debate whether or not Hitler was a necessary condition for the holocaust but what you absolutely cannot debate is whether birth is a necessary condition for suffering. Again, it ALWAYS is. In every conceivable world.