sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps. — khaled

To some extent yes. Especially discussions where people continuously misconstrue one another. War substitute.

:up:

Maybe it's the nature of consciousness that we're only awake when there's some measure of struggle.

The "someone" doesn't exist, is merely hypothetical. They can no more be harmed, or saved from harm, than Santa Claus can.

The "someone" doesn't exist, is merely hypothetical. They can no more be harmed, or saved from harm, than Santa Claus can. — 180 Proof

Sure. Now why is placing the mine wrong? Or do you think it isn't?

???

For example: Say I knew that if I planted a mine at coordinates X,Y,Z, that Jeff will step on it 200 years from now and there is 0 chance it harms anyone other than Jeff. — khaled

Is placing the mine morally wrong? If so why?

It's wrong – vicious – only in so far as your intention is to place the mine in order to kill regardless of whether or not "Jeff" (or anyone) ever steps on it.

So do you only care about intent? And not about consequences? What if I placed the mine there as decoration with no intent to kill anybody?

And besides, if I KNEW Jeff would be harmed, wouldn't placing the mine anyways count as "intent to kill" regardless of my reasoning for placing it? Is it possible for my intent to be "to decorate the park" while I know that Jeff will die because of it 200 years from now?

Intent is the only relevant factor in your scenario because, as I pointed already, khaled, you can't harm or save from harm a fiction, or hypothetical person. And as decoration the mine only morally problematic if you intentionally or negligently left it armed to explode when stepped on (i.e. without disarming it).

And as decoration the mine only morally problematic if you intentionally or negligently left it armed to explode when stepped on — 180 Proof

But this is not an issue for anyone. You know this. No one will be harmed by the mine (since Jeff is a fiction). So what's the problem in that case? What is it about armed mines that will never harm anyone (again, since Jeff is a fiction) that is problematic?

It's just harmless decoration....

Depraved indifference. The armed mine is placed where any actual person can step on it.

But in this case you know no one will step on it. No one that exists right now anyways. And that's all that matters right?

And parents saving money for their children's college education before the children are born are also committing "bad metaphysics" I guess....

I just don't understand why people pretend that we cannot consider harm done to a person who doesn't exist yet. We do make considerations like those all the damn time. Another example: The common saying of "Let's not leave a terrible world for our grandchildren" when talking about climate change. It's almost as if doing something that will harm someone in the future is bad even if the person to be harmed doesn't exist right now.

It's just not true that the reason placing the mine there is wrong is that someone "might" step on it. Because in the example you know as a matter of fact no one will, except Jeff of course. But Jeff is a fiction so we don't care about him....

It make no sense to talk about harming or saving from harm nonexistent persons. However, one can presently increase the probability conditions of a harmful occurence that will last into the future. Intentional or negligent endangerment, even without a victim, is vicious because it deliberately makes probable a harm where there once was no risk of such harm.

Right, so now apply that to the act of procreation. But one major difference is that procreation will lead to someone getting harmed (or being forced into a way of life, society, laboring person, etc..which pertains to other forms of de facto, unavoidable coersion that goes with being a self-aware person born into the world that has to survive in a social setting, etc.).

However, one can presently increase the probabilty conditions of a harmful occurence that will last into the future. — 180 Proof

I’ll take that. And this is wrong correct? Yet having children is an example of presently increasing the probability conditions of a harmful occurrence that will last into the future (this is literally the exact premise I gave but reworded) no? So what makes having children fine but placing the mine not?

Oh and the original premise was:

Do not do something that will harm someone if there is a safer alternative available — khaled

Which is PRECISELY what you’re saying.

Intentional or negligent endangerment, even without a victim, is vicious because it deliberately makes probable a harm where there once was no risk of such harm. — 180 Proof

Don’t think any AN could have said it better!

Again, you're confusing the fact of being alive with the occurence of suffering; the latter correlates to, but is not caused by, the former. Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer, so the balance between addressing actual and hypothetical suffering favors preventing, or reducing, actual suffering. 'Preventing life' does not prevent, or reduce, suffering; relieving (ideally, as much as possible) the experience of harm to living (i.e. already born) persons prevents, or reduces, suffering.

So what makes having children fine but placing the mine not? — khaled

Read my reply above.

Besides, biology hardwires the ever-present risk of harm correlated with offspring whereas planting an armed mine arbitrarily introduces an additional risk. Not planting armed mines is painless (unless they're psychopaths) but, for all who feel compelled to do so, not having children is persistently painful.

correlates to, but is not caused by, the former. — 180 Proof

Last I checked, being alive is a prerequisite for suffering. It's just not the direct cause of an instance of suffering, but the necessary background for which it (by empirical observation of what happens in life) definitely will occur.

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer, so the balance between addressing actual and hypothetical suffering favors preventing, or reducing, actual suffering. 'Preventing life' does not prevent, or reduce, suffering; relieving (ideally, as much as possible) the experience of harm to living (i.e. already born) persons prevents, or reduces, suffering. — 180 Proof

Why are you assuming I'm some sort of "totalizing utilitarian" whereby I must add up everyone's suffering and use people as pawns to get the greatest good? That isn't what I am proposing.

:up:

Read my reply above. — 180 Proof

Again, you're confusing the fact of being alive with the occurence of suffering; the latter correlates to, but is not caused by, the former. — 180 Proof

Ah well you see, stepping on a mine is only correlated to blowing up to bits, but doesn’t necessarily cause it. There is always a chance the mine randomly doesn’t go off! It’s only a perquisite see!?

Yea I don’t think this one flies.... Being born causes suffering in the same way that a mine causes suffering. The chances it doesn’t are abysmally low (the chances someone has a “suffering free life”). And the chances someone has a life they consider not worthwhile are pretty low, but still existent. It would be like placing an old dysfunctional mine instead. Still an arbitrary risk, for which you need something to counteract the risk. Which you do provide:

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer — 180 Proof

I like this one. That’s the one I use. Because it works off the same principle of minimizing suffering, no need for extra premises like “Mankind must go on”.

Being born causes suffering in the same way that a mine causes suffering. — khaled

Ok. We're just gonna differ here.

Also, 'not procreating' causes the vast majority of the Already Born to suffer

Seems like this itself works as a justification for having children

I think there's a portion of society that won't be satisfied with that. The best option would be to send them off-world, to Mars maybe. — frank

They day we send people off-world because of bigotry, I'll hold you accountable.

They day we send people off-world because of bigotry, I'll hold you accountable. — TaySan

We wouldn't send them for bigotry but for not being able to settle down.

Would that work?

my family survived prison camps and an exodus, so no, not for me. Perhaps for someone else

People naturally recognise hierarchies and think in hierarchical terms and fail to agree to a non-hierarchical structure. It's not just about actually ranking high on hierarchies but acting in a manner that creates the impression of superiority. Whinging on the internet is aggressive, condescending, patronising and almost always reinforces or constructs a hierarchical outlook. I mean, your OP is actually a pretty good example of this isn't it? You constructed a group of "whingers" who are kind of useless and destructive, doesn't it at least feel a little good to feel these people are less useful or whatever else than you?

I think that's just how humans are, nothing can be done about it.

Uhmmm... Is there a meaningful difference between whining and whinging?

Is there a meaningful difference between whining and whinging? — Benkei

I would say that whinging is self-righteous whining - give or take. Dogs whine, but they don't whinge.

I'm with you Benkei, haven't heard of the term until now.