That in no way addresses what I said. — DingoJones

Look closely, it does. But if I must explain it, no actual person is being foisted upon by not having them. That is not true if they are born.

in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2). — DingoJones

Hey, you are not giving me money right now even though I may believe I deserve money on you. I would really appreciate it if you stopped foisting your values of private property on me. Now you owe me money.

See how ridiculous it is to say you are foisting something on someone by NOT doing something?

So basically, it's just your opinion that it's not your job (you seem to be forgetting that I'm talking about opinions on whether some things are ridiculous to count as suffering, but at any rate . . .), and you're deciding for me that it should be my opinion that it's not your job to have opinions contrary to others about what's worth or not worth counting as suffering etc.

That in no way addresses what I said. — DingoJones

He can't or won't interpret anything you said as anything other than an argument about antinatalism, because that would get him off his campaign/branding script.

Why would I necessarily defer to someone else's opinion? — Terrapin Station

Because you are acting on said someone so not deferring to their opinion as to whether or not they consent to your action would be directly going against the consent of a consent capable being

As I just noted above, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with. — Terrapin Station

Well don't worry, birth doesn't fall under that category of "mommy I don't wanna eat broccoli" sorts of harm because it literally includes ever possible type of harm

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'll try to put my arguments as premises and conclusions that'll point out discrepancies way faster

P1: Not giving birth results in no harm done to anyone and no pleasure enjoyed by anyone (or you can use whatever values you want, I'll use pleasure and harm for now) thus choosing not to give birth is a morally neutral act

P2: Giving birth results in harm done to someone and pleasure enjoyed by that someone as well (again, you can use whatver values you want) thus choosing to give birth can be either morally good or morally bad depending on which was experienced more often (pleasure or pain)

P3: One cannot know beforehand whether their child will experience more of pleasure or more of pain (redundant at this point but you can use whatever values you want)

C1: Thus giving birth is either a morally good or bad act and one cannot know the outcome beforehand

P4: When an act risks harming someone else severely and doesn't alleviate nearly as much harm as it risks to cause, consent is necessary before the act is done

P5: Giving birth is an act that risks harming someone else severely and doesn't alleviate nearly as much harm as it risks to cause and for which consent cannot be obtained

C: Giving birth is wrong

The point we disagree on I think is mainly that you find doing things unto others without their consent that may risk harming them severely allowed in some circumstances as long as you personally feel that thing is ok. And you find imposing life on someone else one of those "ok" things even though you have no input from someone whether or not they'd want to be born beforehand

Because you are acting on said someone so not deferring to their opinion as to whether or not they consent to your action would be directly going against the consent of a consent capable being — khaled

First off, the topic here is whether, in my opinion, contra someone else's, it's ridiculous or laughable to consider some things suffering.

Let's make sure we have that straight. It's what I was talking about. (schopenhauer was having the same problem with not being able to stick with that idea.)

First off, the topic here is whether, in my opinion, contra someone else's, it's ridiculous or laughable to consider some things suffering. — Terrapin Station

You can consider certain things laughable or ridiculous all you want but you can't do them on someone who expresses a clear desire not to have them done on him if you have no need to.

Actually you didn't even catch that I confused my conversation with you and my conversation with schopenhauer. With you, you were arguing that I need to defer to someone else's opinion re what's a benefit or detriment.

No I don't. I don't need to defer to someone else's opinion on that.

Whether someone else considers anything a benefit or detriment is irrelevant to consent on my view. Some I'm not sure why you've changed to talking about consent.

We're absolutely getting nowhere. Let me just ask you this: Why are you still debating moral principles when you say you don't have any. You said in another thread that murder is wrong only because of a certain emotional disposition you have. If you don't do principle based ethics why are you talking to people who do? More importantly, why do you debate the principles themselves? Not the act of doing principle based ethics? Why didn't you just start the thread with "Y'all can do all the philosophizing you want but unless you can change my emotional disposition towards birth it's fine by me" and no one would have replied to you.

Message boards--how do they work?

I'm not going to explain my motivation for every post I've made in the thread. That would be way too long.

On that last post, my motivation was, for example, to tell you that you're wrong that by virtue of something, I need to defer to someone else's opinion on whether anything is a benefit or detriment. I don't need to do that.

And then another motivation was to explain that in my view, whether anyone considers anything a benefit or detriment is irrelevant to consent. So I'm giving you my opinion on something, because you're saying things that I think reflect conceptual problems on your part.

It would be too long to go into this sort of thing for every post.

By the way, I did write, in a post 20 pages ago, 22 days ago, in a response directed at you, "Personally, I'm not a fan of principle-based approaches."

Additionally, in the second post in the thread, from a month ago, I wrote: "The idea of any ethical stance hinging on 'suffering' isn't at all appealing to me, because I think that 'suffering' is both (a) way too vague, and (b) not something that's inherently proscribable ethically."

And then every post from me for a few pages was stressing how this stuff is all subjective, simply a matter of how an individual feels, etc.

Yet here you are still wanting to argue with me 3 weeks-a month later.

So basically, it's just your opinion that it's not your job (you seem to be forgetting that I'm talking about opinions on whether some things are ridiculous to count as suffering, but at any rate . . .), and you're deciding for me that it should be my opinion that it's not your job to have opinions contrary to others about what's worth or not worth counting as suffering etc. — Terrapin Station

No bro, khaled and I have explained this to you before, simple reasoning. If I don't have a child no one except the parent's own agenda is affected. That is okay, another life (not an instance, or an event but life wholesale) is not affected by my decision of not having a child. However, you having a child would affect that person a lifetime, and in certain negative ways.

Now, the nature of those ways can be debated. I am a structural pessimist, so I do believe that deprivation itself is a harm as @Inyenzi mentioned some posts ago in a very thoughtful post. You seem to ignore those as deemed as not worthy of consideration. However, if we are going to simply rely on "usual" notions of negative and positive, it is really not up to you to deem for ANOTHER what is considered appropriate to find harmful. That I find, excuse my French, arrogant as fuck. And, it is cruel and callous to think that what you find laughable and another would not, should win out by default because your decision of having the child cannot be reversed. And no, suicide is not the reverse.

No bro, khaled and I have explained this to you before, simple reasoning. If I don't have a child no one except the parent's own agenda is affected. — schopenhauer1

What does this have to do with what we're talking about. Again, I'm not talking about anything pro or con antinatalism in this tangent. I'm talking about something much broader than that.

When I wrote, "Basically, there's a lot of stuff that people consider suffering that I think is ridiculous/laughable to have a problem with," that wasn't at all focused on antinatalism. Can't you talk about anything else? What is wrong with you?

I was pointing out the double standard you are using (you did the same thing again just above, lamenting the arrogance of doing something that you yourself are doing.).
You contradicted yourself in your confused response as well, in one instance denying any possible consideration of the person to be (they arent born yet) then turning around (in other posts) and allowing that consideration (how they will suffer as a person after being born) when it supports your argument.

How about situational antinatalism? If you live in a third world country where poverty and misery is rampant, and you and your spouse have crippling heritable diseases to boot, then you shouldn't bring a child into the world who is likely to experience a hellish life.On the other hand, if you and your wife don't have significant heritable diseases, live in an upper class society, and money isn't a problem, then they should have kids because those kids are likely to live happy lives.

Not everything is so black and white.

You are confusing “not having a child” with “making a judgement on someone elses behalf”.
The two are different things, and im talking about the latter not the former.

Yet here you are still wanting to argue with me 3 weeks-a month later. — Terrapin Station

I don't want to argue with you but the thing is the WAY you argue is what's so weird. You argue the principles themselves and then when it no longer works out you go back to your "But actually I don't use principle based approaches" crux. That's why I called you a troll. Because you DO principle based ethics, for a bit, by arguing why this principle is better than that or what motivation there is behind this principle etc but then you turn back to saying "But actually I don't use principle based approaches" at the first sign of inconsistency

If you don't do principle based approaches don't argue the principles themselves. Every time I argue with you I think you're suspending your disbelief and actually doing a principle based approach only for it to end with "but actually I don't do principle based approaches". If you don't, don't argue the principles themselves because that's called oing a principle based approach

Because you DO principle based ethics — khaled

I actually wasn't. I could see how maybe you'd interpret it that way. It's a bit ridiculous for you to tell me how I'm thinking of something though.

You are confusing “not having a child” with “making a judgement on someone elses behalf”. — DingoJones

I thought you said that not having a child IS making a judgement on someone else's behalf when you said this:

in addition to making a decision on behalf of somebody else (anyone born!) based on your own evaluation about suffering. (Foist number 2). — DingoJones

And I was showing that that's ridiculous

I actually wasn't. I could see how maybe you'd interpret it that way. — Terrapin Station

I think everyone interpreted it that way.

It's a bit ridiculous for you to tell me how I'm thinking of something though. — Terrapin Station

Most of the time you were, in fact, doing principle based ethics because you were arguing with the principles themselves not the act of doing principle based ethics. I'm not saying you believe in or employ principle based ethics, I'm saying you were arguing as if you did one second then going back to arguing as if you didn't the next.

Again, if you don't do principle based ethics, you shouldn't be debating principles. And if you DO suspend your disbelief with doing principle based ethics and decide to debate principles then you at least should continue suspending your disbelief until the debate is over. Not go back to "But actually I don't do principle based ethics" the second a contradiction between a principle and your behaviour arises.

I think everyone interpreted it that way. — khaled

I seriously doubt that anyone was reading most of it except for me and you. And maybe just me for most of it.

Most of the time you were, in fact, — khaled

Your interpretation is not a fact . . . at least not aside from the fact of it being your interpretation.

Fine fine. At least now I know for sure talking with you is a waste of time. Because no matter how good a principle based argument is you will go back to "but actually I don't principle based ethics" despite previously spending hours debating the actual principles.

What did you ever think that talking with me was going to accomplish for you?

Point out hypocracies between your behaviour/beliefs and what I perceived to be your principles

And what was that going to do for you?

Nothing. It's fun. What's posting this doing for you?

How about situational antinatalism? — Purple Pond

I would say that's what I employ. However not as you formulated it here:

On the other hand, if you and your wife don't have significant heritable diseases, live in an upper class society, and money isn't a problem, then they should have kids because those kids are likely to live happy lives. — Purple Pond

I don't think this is good enough still. Would you agree to someone betting all of your life savings on some random business that has a 4 or 5% chance of failing miserably? Sure the chance is low but why take the bet in the first place for someone you don't know? Especially when so much is at stake

Nothing. It's fun. — khaled

Haha, okay.

I post here because I don't have much chance in real life any longer to talk about philosophy with anyone who has any knowledge of it from an academic perspective. I see it as "keeping those muscles exercised" a bit, so they don't just completely atrophy.

I think this place is really, really lame for it for a number of reasons, but unbelievably, it's the best place I've found for it, with a requirement of being relatively active, in recent years. If I could find any place better, with people who aren't nearly as unintelligent and ignorant and who don't have near as much of that typical arrogant Internet asshole attitude to boot, combined with whatever mental ailments, obsessions, neuroses, etc. most folks here seem to have, I'd bail in a New York minute, but I haven't found anything better yet.

unintelligent and ignorant and who don't have near as much of that typical arrogant Internet asshole attitude to boot, — Terrapin Station

"Asshole attitude". Really dude? Because you have been the absolute pinnacle of gentlemanly, chivalrous conduct? "Asshole attitude" coming from you means absolutely nothing no offence.

Youre not nearly as smart, as you think you are. You should learn some humility.

Youre not nearly as smart, as you think you are. You should learn some humility. — Baskol1

And why would I consider you a qualified judge?