eth·ics
/ˈeTHiks/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.

moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. — schopenhauer1

Same thing. Key word being 'govern'. Not do as you please.

1. When someone doesn't exist to experience good, damage has occurred to no one.
2. When someone does exist to experience bad, damage has occurred to someone. — schopenhauer1

Benatar, to be consistent, has to say:

1*. When someone doesn't exist to experience good bad, damage benefit has occured to no one.

1 & 1* (a consistent pair), together, means that nonexistence can't gain/lose anything [Who? Nemo (no one)]

However, Benatar's argument for antinatalism is based on the premise that

1**. When someone doesn't exist to experience bad, benefit has occurred. He truncates his premise by leaving out "no one". Below is how 1** should look if Benatar is to be consistent

1***. When someone doesn't exist to experience bad, benefit has occured [to no one].

1* = 1***

So, Benatar has to be inconsistent in how he treats nonexistence to make the case for antinatalism. That's the flaw in his argument in my humble opinion.

That's why I wished to take nonexistence out of the calculus by proposing we assume people exist before they're born on Earth. That way we can avoid the metaphysics of nonexistence, a complex topic in its own right and reduce the problem to a mathematical game of chance.

"Natalism" needs to be justified? Since when? — 180 Proof

Natalism: It's ok/good to birth children.

Question: Why?

So, Benatar has to be inconsistent in how he treats nonexistence to make the case for antinatalism. That's the flaw in his argument in my humble opinion.

That's why I wished to take nonexistence out of the calculus by proposing we assume people exist before they're born on Earth. That way we can avoid the metaphysics of nonexistence, a complex topic in its own right and reduce the problem to a mathematical game of chance. — Agent Smith

Well, I think that's why it should be read in its context. He gave common intuitions we have when trying to justify the claim. So he thinks that while not experiencing good is always instrumental, not experiencing bad is intrinsically good. There is something weighted to make the asymmetry such that no bad occurring is just "good" whilst good not occurring is not just bad but bad only if instrumentally felt by an actual someone.

He gives examples like, it seems intuitively weird to be sad about the non-existent aliens on Mars. It seems intuitively more salient if we knew there were aliens and they suffered. We would probably feel a sadness.

Same thing. Key word being 'govern'. Not do as you please. — Isaac

It says govern, but the definition I pasted did not mention "accepted rules about behaviour". That of course makes your definition entail some sort of community-deemed foundation to ethics, when it is more general than such a definition. Rather, it is simply rules that govern behavior, and can have a multitude of foundations in ethics and metaethical analysis.

We must tread carefully here - nonexistence (nothing) must be avoided at all cost for it complicates the matter as is obvious from what you say about how Benatar resorts to intuition rather than logical rigor.

If you're game let's go over this again.

1. Nonexistent people don't feel the deprivation of joy.

To be consistent,

2. Nonexistent people also don't feel the elimination of suffering.

Nonexistent people have no moral status then, oui? If so to say being childless is moral is devoid of any meaning for no one's happy/suffers less or not at all except the people who decided not to have children. You know what I'm driving at, oui? We must shift our focus from possible people (babies) to actual people (people who can have babies). Give it a shot, will ya?

One response would be we're looking at the potential for suffering (if a baby is birthed, s/he may suffer). However, there's the potential for happiness too and it's back to square 1 for us.

Question: Why? — Agent Smith

Why the question?

Why the question? — 180 Proof

Why not the question?

Why would we want to reproduce given that path leads to disaster: overpopulation and its accompaniments like diseases (e.g. Covid), famine, ecological collapse, so on and so forth.

You did mention in an earlier post that reproduction is as natural as breathing - it's the default state of all life. However, is it sensible/reasonable to have kids? There are many things that are natural, e.g. we're violent by nature, but does that mean we should be violent?

That's why I wished to take nonexistence out of the calculus by proposing we assume people exist before they're born on Earth. — Agent Smith

And, recycling souls makes for an efficient universe and leaves enough space in hell for everybody, if necessary :naughty:

This is child's play. — Tzeentch

Yes, it is childish. How could you possibly know where a town will flourish in two hundred years?

Why would we want to reproduce given that path leads to disaster: overpopulation and its accompaniments like diseases (e.g. Covid), famine, ecological collapse, so on and so forth. — Agent Smith

Some people want to reproduce, others don't. There is no one rule or one set of acceptable conditions that should govern everyone's decision as to whether or not to procreate. It's self-righteous nonsense to imagine there could be

It says govern, but the definition I pasted did not mention "accepted rules about behaviour". — schopenhauer1

One is not 'governed' if one gets to make up one's own rules. One is simply doing as one pleases.

There are many things that are natural, e.g. we're violent by nature, but does that mean we should be violent? — Agent Smith

Yep. Remember my arguments around the differences in things like drinking water, taking a shit, and procreating? Procreating is not instinct in the way the first two are (necessary or death).

One is not 'governed' if one gets to make up one's own rules. One is simply doing as one pleases. — Isaac

That’s not how the definition was using governed. It referenced no actual government or community and the word just means there controls.

And, recycling souls makes for an efficient universe and leaves enough space in hell for everybody, if necessary :naughty: — Merkwurdichliebe

Recycling souls in samsara! Makes sense to me!

That’s not how the definition was using governed. It referenced no actual government or community and the word just means there controls. — schopenhauer1

Firstly, how could you possibly know what they meant? Secondly, one is no more 'controlled' by one's own rule than one is governed by it. If you can change the rule any time you desire, then you are de facto controlled by your desires, not the rule.

Whether or not it's "reasonable" to procreate is moot. In other words, either "reasonable or unreasonable" makes no practical – existential – difference.

Yep. Remember my arguments around the differences in things like drinking water, taking a shit, and procreating? Procreating is not instinct in the way the first two are (necessary or death). — schopenhauer1

Biological urges usually have a perfectly good explanation says the theory of evolution. The problem is that sometimes they can be counterproductive e.g. emotions tend to be problematic by deprioritizing reason - it initiated a vicious cycle that leads to death spirals.

Whether or not it's reasonable to procreate is moot. — 180 Proof

Really? Why?

In other words, either "reasonable or unreasonable" makes no practical – existential – difference. — 180 Proof

:roll:

Recycling souls in samsara! Makes sense to me! — Agent Smith

Precisely!

In other words, either "reasonable or unreasonable" makes no practical – existential – difference. — 180 Proof

You mean to say reason doesn't guide us/doesn't inform our deeds? That's antiphilosophy, not philosophy! I quite like it! :smile:

Precisely! — Merkwurdichliebe

This however raises the question of where exactly in samsara (hell/earth/heaven) souls started out. It's a rather interesting puzzle, oui? Did we begin with a net karma that was positive (heaven/earth) /negative (hell)/zero (limbo)? Basically, how does karma in samsara work?

This however raises the question of where exactly in samsara (hell/earth/heaven) souls started out. It's a rather interesting puzzle, oui? Did we begin with a net karma that was positive (heaven/earth) /negative (hell)/zero (limbo)? Basically, how does karma in samsara work? — Agent Smith

Very interesting indeed. I find it's best not to think about karma too much. But according theosophy, we started out as spiritual/ethereal beings in paradise with zero karma. But as the "race of adam" became mired in matter, it began accumulating karma. That race has since evolved over the aeons into our glorious generation, where we are currently working out the karma that we have built up through countless lifetimes. But that's only one perspective.

You get points for imagination and evasive tactics!

I've neither claimed nor implied that.

I've neither claimed nor implied that. — 180 Proof

Apologies then. Must be the bad cold I have. Au revoir.

irstly, how could you possibly know what they meant? — Isaac

Because that's how governed is used unless in the context of talking about government, as in "The people were governed by X government". Anyways, this is pedantic asides. Look up govern in the dictionary, besides the political usage, it means controlling something.

Secondly, one is no more 'controlled' by one's own rule than one is governed by it. If you can change the rule any time you desire, then you are de facto controlled by your desires, not the rule. — Isaac

Well that's a separate issue on whether people change the rules they think they follow. Clearly, that in itself is moving the goal posts and is not moral so much as expedient, quite the opposite of what moral reasoning is doing. So again with vegetarianism.. You may really miss meat, but not indulge in it as an ethical rule. See how that works?

On the other hand, if you want to justify any action, you constantly change morality to fit your needs, whereby it is no longer a governing rule but simply preference-maximizing with post-facto justification (unless I guess your ethic was absolutely preference-maximizing, which is more egoism or self-interest.. hard to justify as an ethic).

Some people want to reproduce, others don't. There is no one rule or one set of acceptable conditions that should govern everyone's decision as to whether or not to procreate. It's self-righteous nonsense to imagine there could be — Janus

:clap:

How could you possibly know where a town will flourish in two hundred years? — Janus

Finding excuses not to have to deal with the dilemma is not a very convincing way of solving it.

The answer is so obvious too, which is probably why you're trying to avoid it. That's the go-to solution for many in this thread who have an issue with antinatalism: finding excuses to avoid having to deal with what is blatantly obvious.

Of course, if one knowingly creates conditions by which individuals will befall harm in the future, one is morally responsible when that harm eventually befalls them, regardless of whether the individuals existed at the time of the creation of the conditions. That is why the harm that may befall others in the future as a result of our actions needs to be considered upon acting.

The individual in my example obviously is morally responsible for the harm they knowingly committed. It's absurd to argue that because the sufferers of said harm weren't alive when the conditions were created, the individual bears no moral responsibility. The individual was aware of the conditions they were setting up, precisely like a parent is.

it means controlling something. — schopenhauer1

And how do rules control your behaviour when you do not have to abide by them if you don't want to?

Well that's a separate issue on whether people change the rules they think they follow. Clearly, that in itself is moving the goal posts and is not moral — schopenhauer1

Right. So I shouldn't change my current rules, that wouldn't be moral. What exactly are you hoping to achieve here then?