By it, the simplest justification for having a child is that it will do more to improve the welfare of one's community (including the future child) than not doing so would. — Isaac

Except, of course, if the child is of the wrong skin color/ethnicity/socioeconomic class, has a disability, is one too many.

You keep ignoring this.

Yes. NU is as bizarre a ethic as any. Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? — Isaac

It's about the quality of one's intention. The one thing one always has to live with.

The thing is, you presuppose the individual to be a part of something. A circle, a group of people available to build a house, etc. — Tzeentch

No, my analogy only requires that it is an option. By choosing not to be a part of something you are creating the conditions where that something has one fewer participants. If, by having one fewer participant, those conditions cause harm, then you are creating condition of harm. This is exactly the same situation you're claiming to be immoral with procreation.

when that opinion turns out to be false, the person who wasn't involved in the first place hasn't suddenly started to cause harm. — Tzeentch

More goalpost shifting. With procreation you weren't talking about 'causing harm', you were talking about 'creating the conditions for harm'.

However assuming one hasn't caused the people to freeze and isn't involved with them in some other way, it is neutral. One may very well choose to help out, however if one has reasons not to do so, non-interference is acceptable. — Tzeentch

As I said, weird premises in, weird conclusions out. Standard fare for antinatalism.

Sitting and watching people die who you could easily save is sociopathic. Imagine every film, book, or play you've ever encountered. Where in any of them, does the hero sit an watch someone die because he can't be bothered to help? It's absolutely universal that such behaviour is considered immoral. But then you know this already.

No moral system that holds non-interference as unacceptable will make sense, because there are people proverbially drowning everywhere at every moment, and if non-interference is not acceptable, well you get where that is going. — Tzeentch

No-one said anything about not weighing other factors. One cannot be everywhere at once, one has limited mental and physical capacities, we have a justifiable expectation, that's all.

It seems apparent to me that not acting in a particular situation can be one of the causes of a state of affairs continuing in a certain way, since doing something could have stopped/changed the situation. Of course, there can be multiple sources and ignoring intentions and practical limitations whilst ascribing responsibility for something is not right, in my view. — DA671

Yes, which is why the antinatalist must constantly shift the goalposts. When it's pointed out that parents rarely actually cause harm to their children, the rhetoric shifts to merely being instrumental in brining about conditions where they might come to harm. When it's pointed out that the lack of a next generation can also bring about conditions where people might come to harm, the rhetoric shifts back to "well, the antinatalist isn't actually causing that harm". And so we go round and round.

More of the antinatalist goalpost shifting.

When the talk is of procreation it is the outcome that matters...

Except, of course, if the child is of the wrong skin color/ethnicity/socioeconomic class, has a disability, is one too many.

You keep ignoring this. — baker

When the talk is of antinatalism, it's now the intention that matters, not the outcome...

Why would we eliminate harm with no-one around to enjoy their harm-free life? — Isaac


It's about the quality of one's intention. — baker

How are we to judge what matters morally - intention or outcome? Pick one and then we can have a discussion about how it relates to antinatalism. Keep shifting which depending on the argument and discussion become impossible.

I agree. Unless one has a very narrow (and ultimately counter-intuitive, in my opinion) definition of "causing" something (which is not the same as being held responsible for it), I do not think it makes sense to deny that one of the causes behind the man's drowning was that he was not helped. But, as mentioned earlier, even if inaction is neutral, it cannot be always better than doing something that can be an all-things-considered benefit.

Unless one has a very narrow (and ultimately counter-intuitive, in my opinion) definition of "causing" something (which is not the same as being held responsible for it), I do not think it makes sense to deny that one of the causes behind the man's drowning was that he was not helped. — DA671

That would be my preferred definition, but I'd be happy with at least a consistent one. What's frustrating is that causality is treated, by the antinatalists, as super-specific when talking about the harms of antinatalism "it's not my fault if I didn't directly cause it", and then suddenly becomes hyper-general when talking about the harms of procreation, where one is apparently a cause merely by "creating a situation whereby harm might come about some years later"

Indeed. The concept is stretched and contracted in a way that seems a bit capricious. For instance, if one believes that an individual is responsible for harms even if they do not directly cause them, then they should also think about all the good that could happen regardless of whether or not the creators directly caused or intended it to happen.

I don't get to put someone in harms way because I'm bored nor put them in harms way because I think that they should like it (even if they don't). YOU should not be making those assumptions for others. — schopenhauer1

Have you ever bought a gift for someone, or mailed someone a letter? Did you consider the harm you could have caused if the person were to get a paper cut by opening the letter/gift? Did you assume the person would like the gift?

I find it very difficult to think of any situation where an interaction with another person has absolutely no risk of causing harm and doesn’t require any assumptions about what that person may or may not like/want.

Let's say I plant a timebomb in the ground in a place where I know a town will flourish two-hundred years from now. — Tzeentch

Let’s say I plant a tree in a yard that will be owned by someone else 100 years from now. If that tree falls and causes property damage or some other harm, am I responsible for that?

With inaction I mean non-interference. So the choice would be not to do anything about a given situation. — Tzeentch

You mean like neglect?

No, my analogy only requires that it is an option. By choosing not to be a part of something you are creating the conditions where that something has one fewer participants. If, by having one fewer participant, those conditions cause harm, then you are creating condition of harm. This is exactly the same situation you're claiming to be immoral with procreation. — Isaac

What you're missing is the fact that this presupposes the person in question was a participant in the first place. That's what I take issue with - that is not so by default.

In the example of your house that needs to be built you presuppose there were five people available. What if the fifth person was never available to begin with, as evidenced by the fact that they did not participate in the building?

More goalpost shifting. With procreation you weren't talking about 'causing harm', you were talking about 'creating the conditions for harm'. — Isaac

This isn't goalpost shifting. As far as I'm concerned, by non-interference one isn't creating any conditions that impact a given event. Letting the drowning man drown is not a creation of conditions.

As I said, weird premises in, weird conclusions out. — Isaac

You may find them weird because you're not used to principles being applied consistently.

I've already made a case for why your argument that says non-interference isn't morally permissable doesn't hold up when applied consistently.

Sitting and watching people die who you could easily save is sociopathic. — Isaac

I'd argue that believing oneself to be the proper arbiter to judge who could easily save who is at least equally sociopathic.

Imagine every film, book, or play you've ever encountered. Where in any of them, does the hero sit an watch someone die because he can't be bothered to help? — Isaac

Inaction being neutral doesn't mean interceding cannot be moral. In all the situations you have presented it may very well be the case that helping out is the moral thing to do.

However, I am arguing that not helping out is not immoral, at least by default.

It's absolutely universal that such behaviour is considered immoral. — Isaac

Well, then people are universally wrong for reasons I've already described. The idea that non-interference is immoral by default cannot be applied consistently.

And quite honestly, that belief is not universally held.

Let’s say I plant a tree in a yard that will be owned by someone else 100 years from now. If that tree falls and causes property damage or some other harm, am I responsible for that? — Pinprick

Yes.

But responsibility isn't the primary subject here. It is morality, and intentionality is a large part of that. That factor is lacking in your example, but present in mine.

You mean like neglect? — Pinprick

Call it whatever you like.

But responsibility isn't the primary subject here. It is morality, and intentionality is a large part of that. That factor is lacking in your example, but present in mine. — Tzeentch

It is also lacking in virtually all cases of childbirth as well, right? Or do you think people intentionally have kids so that they can cause the conditions for that child to be harmed? Also, is being irresponsible not immoral?

Call it whatever you like. — Tzeentch

It’s not “what I like to call it,” it’s what it is. Allowing your child to starve to death by not intervening and providing food for it is neglect, which is also an example of non-intervention, which you claim is neutral, which I assume means amoral. If that’s your position, then you shouldn’t feel like those who neglect their children should be punished, as they’ve done nothing morally wrong. You agree with all that?

It is also lacking in virtually all cases of childbirth as well, right? Or do you think people intentionally have kids so that they can cause the conditions for that child to be harmed? — Pinprick

Parents are aware of the harm that may befall their child, so it is intentional. They just assume on the child's behalf that the harm will outweigh the good.

Allowing your child to starve to death by not intervening and providing food for it is neglect, which is also an example of non-intervention, which you claim is neutral, which I assume means amoral. — Pinprick

I never claimed that act was neutral.

I said non-interference is neutral, meaning neither moral nor immoral, by default.

Having made the voluntary decision to create another human being whose well-being will depend entirely on them, the parent has incurred responsibilities and is no longer in a default situation.

this presupposes the person in question was a participant in the first place. — Tzeentch

Nope. Merely present. I'm talking about conditions (as you are in procreation - apples with apples). The 'conditions' under which it is not possible to build a house are that there are only four people present. Before anyone has even decided if they're 'available', four is too few. So you have created a condition (too few people even potentially available) where it is not possible to build a house and so people suffer harm.

As far as I'm concerned, by non-interference one isn't creating any conditions that impact a given event. — Tzeentch

See above.

I'd argue that believing oneself to be the proper arbiter to judge who could easily save who is at least equally sociopathic. — Tzeentch

One doesn't, we rely on society as a whole to come to an agreement.

The idea that non-interference is immoral by default cannot be applied consistently. — Tzeentch

No, I can't. Are you seriously having trouble understanding the notion of taking more than one factor into account?

that belief is not universally held. — Tzeentch

Give me s counter example then. A culture, or any person considered moral (or neutral) for standing by watching a person die who they could easily save.

Nope. Merely present. I'm talking about conditions (as you are in procreation - apples with apples). The 'conditions' under which it is not possible to build a house are that there are only four people present. Before anyone has even decided if they're 'available', four is too few. So you have created a condition (too few people even potentially available) where it is not possible to build a house and so people suffer harm. — Isaac

Like I said, I was never available in the first place. So that condition was already in place - I did not create it.

Four people have a desire to create a house that can only be built by five. There are only four people available. Who is the creator of the conditions here? Surely not a bystander who wasn't involved in the first place.

One doesn't, we rely on society as a whole to come to an agreement. — Isaac

I don't accept that answer. Societies have agreed on terribly immoral things in the past.

Are you seriously having trouble understanding the notion of taking more than one factor into account? — Isaac

Tell me about those factors, and I will tell you why it is still inconsistent.

Give me s counter example then. A culture, or any person considered moral (or neutral) for standing by watching a person die who they could easily save. — Isaac

It's a fairly common phenomenon in certain countries for people not to help out in traffic accidents out of fear for being held accountable.

https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31-why-people-would-usually-not-help-you-in-an-accident-in-china-c50972e28a82

I was never available in the first place. So that condition was already in place - I did not create it. — Tzeentch

Why, is your availability outside of your control? Did someone else force you to become unavailable?

There are only four people available. — Tzeentch

That's not the condition I'm referring to. I'm referring to the condition where there are only four people potentially available. That condition leads to suffering because five people need to be potentially available as a minimum requirement.

I don't accept that answer. Societies have agreed on terribly immoral things in the past. — Tzeentch

Right, so back to everyone doing as they please. No morality.

Tell me about those factors, and I will tell you why it is still inconsistent. — Tzeentch

I already have. The limits on mental and physical capacity, limuts on access to resources, reasonable other goals which occupy one's time...

It's a fairly common phenomenon in certain countries for people not to help out in traffic accidents out of fear for being held accountable. — Tzeentch

Right. Then they couldn't easily save them then, could they? They'd risk some psychological harm (fear of retribution). I specified "easily".

Why, is your availability outside of your control? — Isaac

It's a notion that doesn't exist to an uninvolved bystander. It's the person who has the desire to build a house that creates it.

I'm referring to the condition where there are only four people potentially available. That condition leads to suffering because five people need to be potentially available as a minimum requirement. — Isaac

Perhaps so, but I don't agree that it is the uninvolved bystander that creates the condition, nor the suffering.

It seems to me the builders are themselves creating the conditions that cause suffering.

This idea of 'availability' is subjective. I could reasonably assume half my town to be "available" to do things for me. Why don't they build me a house? Because they're not involved with my house building.

And they don't thereby create the conditions for my house not being built, nor my suffering. I created that.

Right, so back to everyone doing as they please. No morality. — Isaac

People do as they please regardless. The question is whether reasoned morality is a part of that which pleases them.

I already have. The limits on mental and physical capacity, limuts on access to resources, reasonable other goals which occupy one's time... — Isaac

And who is to be the arbiter of this?

Should I decide for you that you are not doing nearly enough, and you're occupying yourself with unreasonable goals?

Right. Then they couldn't easily save them then, could they? They'd risk some psychological harm (fear of retribution). I specified "easily". — Isaac

I don't agree that what is "easy" should in the context of morality be determined by a third party.

It is precisely what is under contention.

When a person chooses not to get involved they must have some reason for it, and if they choose non-interference then interference must not have been as "easy" as a third party may have deemed it to be.

In a default situation, ergo completely uninvolved bystander, it's my position that whatever reason they presents is sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent.

It's a notion that doesn't exist to an uninvolved bystander. It's the person who has the desire to build a house that creates it. — Tzeentch

Right. So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability.

Perhaps so, but I don't agree that it is the uninvolved bystander that creates the condition, nor the suffering.

It seems to me the builders are themselves creating the conditions that cause suffering. — Tzeentch

What? The four people who are available are responsible for the fact that the fifth isn't there? What the fuck?

This idea of 'availability' is subjective. I could reasonably assume half my town to be "available" to do things for me. — Tzeentch

No you couldn't. Half the town would clearly be occupied with a ton of other reasonable tasks. You could reasonably assume half the town are available to do some things for you. And indeed are and they do.

And they don't thereby create the conditions for my house not being built — Tzeentch

Just gainsaying is not an argument. Or else... Parents to not create the conditions for harm to befall their children, those perpetrating the harm do.

And who is to be the arbiter of this? — Tzeentch

I've already answered thst several times now. The community reaches an agreement by various means. Is there something about this answer you don't understand?

People do as they please regardless. The question is whether reasoned morality is a part of that which pleases them. — Tzeentch

Mortality is not 'doing as you please'.

I don't agree that what is "easy" should in the context of morality be determined by a third party.

It is precisely what is under contention. — Tzeentch

So we all do as we please then?

whatever reason they presents is sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent. — Tzeentch

So why does this not apply to procreation? Whatever reason the prospective parent thought made it morally OK to have children must be sufficient, no matter how irrational it may seem to a third party, assuming it is not malevolent.

Once more you are just using different criteria depending on which supports your theory. Now it is that the reasons for inaction cannot be judged by a third party and must be assumed good, but the reasons for action apparently magically can be judged by a third party and are not assumed to be good.

Which is it?

Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging them?

You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good.

So you are responsible for creating those conditions then, because you are responsible for your availability. — Isaac

Negative. Availability is something that exists in the mind of some other individual. It is not some objective state, which is what you're trying to sell it as.

No you couldn't. Half the town would clearly be occupied with a ton of other reasonable tasks. — Isaac

Nonsense. They're sitting on their lawn, reading books, watching tv. Terribly unreasonable things, those immoral creators of suffering! Why isn't my house built yet?

Parents to not create the conditions for harm to befall their children, those perpetrating the harm do. — Isaac

Parents create the condition of life, and life invariably also includes harm.

The community reaches an agreement by various means. — Isaac

This is clearly missing some essential puzzle pieces, unless you wish to argue that morality is whatever a community agrees upon, which honestly it kind of sounds like you're saying. And the evidence to the contrary is so vast that I would indeed be confused if this is what you're arguing.

So we all for as we please then? — Isaac

In the absence of objective truth we have two options: leave the individual to judge themselves (individualism) or let the community dictate (collectivism).

I lean heavily towards individualism.

But we are going wildly off-topic here.

So why does this not apply to procreation? — Isaac

Because procreation is an act, and not non-interference.

Are we really coming down to nothing more than that the antinatalists want to be able to morally judge others but don't want others morally judging them?

You get to judge us for our actions, but your inaction is off limits and whatever your reasons are must be assumed good. — Isaac

I'm not judging anyone. I'm presenting moral principles and the logic that supports it.

Availability is something that exists in the mind of some other individual. — Tzeentch

Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control?

They're sitting on their lawn, reading books, watching tv. — Tzeentch

All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening around them). Rest and relaxation are demonstrably necessary.

Parents create the condition of life, and life invariably also includes harm. — Tzeentch

You created the condition where too few people were available to build the house. Homelessness invariably also includes harm.

the evidence to the contrary is so vast that I would indeed be confused if this is what you're arguing. — Tzeentch

What evidence would that be?

In the absence of objective truth we have two options: leave the individual to judge themselves (individualism) or let the community dictate (collectivism).

I lean heavily towards individualism.

But we are going wildly off-topic here. — Tzeentch

It's entirely the topic. The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, and b) extreme - leading to the same conclusion we always end up with - rubbish in, rubbish out.

Because procreation is an act, and not non-interference. — Tzeentch

That's just a declaration of difference. You might as well say "because act has three letters and non-interference has 15".

Why does non-interference escape judgement?

Why must we assume the reasons for non-interference are good, but not for action?

I'm not judging anyone. I'm presenting moral principles and the logic that supports it. — Tzeentch

So declaring something immoral is not a judgement? On what planet?

Striking the right balance between pernicious optimism and unbridled pessimism is quite important! — DA671

Hear! Hear!

:pray:

:up:

Are you suggesting that your own availability is out of your control? — Isaac

Yes.

I'm not in control over the ideas in other individuals' heads for which I may or may not be available.

All reasonable activities (in moderation and depending on what else is happening around them). Rest and relaxation are demonstrably necessary. — Isaac

Those activities aren't reasonable at all. They've been sitting there for at least fifteen minutes already, which I deem more than a reasonable amount of rest. After all, I'm over here suffering by their idle hands!

You created the condition where too few people were available to build the house. — Isaac

I did not create that condition. I've already given you multiple examples as to why that would be absurd, despite your attempts at fitting your argument into the "reasonable" mould.

Remember when a few comments back I asked you why you felt people were entitled to another's action?

You denied that you were. I wouldn't be so sure of that.

What evidence would that be? — Isaac

I don't need to list the countless atrocities committed throughout history by collectives that were unable to discern right from wrong. Use your imagination.

The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, — Isaac

Explain.

Why does non-interference escape judgement? — Isaac

Because one cannot be judged for something one isn't involved in.

I argue that not getting involved is acceptable by default.

To argue otherwise would lead to absurdities like the one I explained earlier - if not getting involved is immoral, that can only lead to a moral imperative to get involved in absolutely everything one possibly can.

Why aren't you spending your every waking moment involving yourself with other people's troubles? I have a house that needs building and your inaction is causing me great harm.

Then of course you fence with notions of reasonableness - fair enough, but if you get to apply your notions of reasonableness then everyone does. After that, we can only accept that everyone is to decide by their own reason whether to involve themselves in matters or not. Hence my position.

I'm not judging anyone. — Tzeentch

So declaring something immoral is not a judgement? On what planet? — Isaac

It's a judgement, not of a person, but of an action and/or the arguments that support it.

I'm not in control over the ideas in other individuals' heads for which I may or may not be available. — Tzeentch

You either decide you're available to help with the housebuilding or that you're not. It's not someone else's judgement. If I ask you to help build my house and you say "no" and walk away, I'm not subjectively judging you unavailable. You deliberately and knowingly made yourself that way.

Those activities aren't reasonable at all. — Tzeentch

Then you've misunderstood the meaning of the word reasonable. How many people in your language community have you heard use the word unreasonable to describe fifteen minutes of relaxation time?

I did not create that condition. I've already given you multiple examples as to why that would be absurd — Tzeentch

And I've already refuted them (seeing as we're playing the "I've already done that" game).

Remember when a few comments back I asked you why you felt people were entitled to another's action?

You denied that you were. I wouldn't be so sure of that. — Tzeentch

It's got nothing to to with 'entitled' Five people are needed to build a house. You create the situation where there are only four by walking away. You created the situation in which it is now impossible to build a house from one where it was possible. It doesn't require that anyone be entitled to your help. It's simply an fact that by denying it you create a situation in which the house cannot be built. It would be exactly the same if the four definitely weren't entitled to your help. If they were really mean and you'd only just finished helping them all loads, they wouldn't be entitled to your help then. you'd still, de facto, have created a condition in which it is impossible to build a house out of one where it was possible.

I don't need to list the countless atrocities committed throughout history by collectives that were unable to discern right from wrong. — Tzeentch

And your community doesn't think they were wrong?

The degree to which you lean towards individualism is a) inconsistent - it appears to only apply to inaction, not action, — Isaac


Explain. — Tzeentch

You don't think individuals should be left to their own devices to act as they see fit (such as procreation). You don't argue that their reasons for action should be assumed to be good.

Because one cannot be judged for something one isn't involved in.

I argue that not getting involved is acceptable by default. — Tzeentch

You haven't argued, you've just declared it. I asked for a reason. If you can judge someone's action to be immoral, why can I not judge your inaction to be immoral? Whether you're consequentialist or deontologist, inaction or action can both have consequences or be a dereliction of a duty.

of course you fence with notions of reasonableness - fair enough, but if you get to apply your notions of reasonableness then everyone does. — Tzeentch

They're not 'my' notions of reasonableness. I haven't just plucked them out o thin air. I've been living with other humans using the word 'reasonable' for nearly 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what 'reasonable' means that's considerably more than just me making it up. Otherwise, why don't I think it refers to pottery?

It's a judgement, not of a person, but of an action and/or the arguments that support it. — Tzeentch

I see. So it's OK for me to be immoral?

You either decide you're available to help with the housebuilding or that you're not. — Isaac

Sure. But that is not what was proposed. What was proposed before was that my availability was already decided, and that to dissent was to create conditions and harm.

Then you've misunderstood the meaning of the word reasonable. How many people in your language community have you heard use the word unreasonable to describe fifteen minutes of relaxation time? — Isaac

Reasonableness isn't decided by majority decision, as we've already established.

Funnily enough I've been in communities where fifteen minutes of rest was unacceptable.

Five people are needed to build a house. You create the situation where there are only four by walking away. You created the situation in which it is now impossible to build a house from one where it was possible. — Isaac

There were never going to be five people available to build the house. I haven't created a condition by not getting involved, it has merely informed the builders what the conditions are, namely that there are and were only four people available all along.

Your position is based on an assumption that the starting point is another's desires and their opinion of whether you're 'available' to help out gives them a right to make you part of the problem. I disagree.

And your community doesn't think they were wrong? — Isaac

Some do, some don't. Plenty of fascists, racists and communists around. Most western countries are flirting with totalitarianism. Bad ideas are alive and popular as ever.

You don't think individuals should be left to their own devices to act as they see fit (such as procreation). — Isaac

Me having ideas about morality does not mean I believe individuals shouldn't be free to make their own choices, including choices that I would deem "moral mistakes". Let's keep the discussion honest.

You don't argue that their reasons for action should be assumed to be good. — Isaac

I don't see what that has to do with individualism, nor what part of our discussion this is relevant to.

If you can judge someone's action to be immoral, why can I not judge your inaction to be immoral? — Isaac

Non-interference can be immoral, however it is not so by default.

We can't judge someone who isn't involved for not getting involved. I've already told you why - if not getting involved is immoral, it turns into a moral imperative to get involved in everything.

And you cannot solve that with subjective notions of reasonableness. For one, because such a moral theory would be missing an arm and a leg, but second, because people will also use their subjective notions of reasonableness to decide whether to get involved or not.

The man doesn't involve himself with the building of the house because his subjective notions of what is reasonable told him his time would be better spent fishing.

You may try to ammend that by stating that his notions of reasonableness are only valid if they correspond to whatever community he is part of (which would also imply we're no longer talking about a 'default' situation, but alas), to which I'll say that collectives have never been a reliable source of moral behavior.

inaction or action can both have consequences — Isaac

Inaction does not have consequences. To argue such would be a typically human but erroneous way of representing causality. The drowning man doesn't drown because I did not help him, but because he could not swim and somehow ended up in the water.

The apple doesn't fall on the ground because I wasn't there to catch it.

etc.

They're not 'my' notions of reasonableness. I haven't just plucked them out o thin air. I've been living with other humans using the word 'reasonable' for nearly 60 years. I have a pretty good idea of what 'reasonable' means that's considerably more than just me making it up. — Isaac

I imagine that someone in the Middle-East who is about to stone a woman to death for adultery would come with a similar argumentation.

"What do you mean reasonable? My people have been doing this for hundreds of years!"

So it's OK for me to be immoral? — Isaac

It would be more accurate to say I would not ask you to conform to my ideas of morality.

What was proposed before was that my availability was already decided, and that to dissent was to create conditions and harm. — Tzeentch

I don't recall making any mention of it being 'already decided', but regardless, you admit that, in deciding, you create the conditions for harm.

Reasonableness isn't decided by majority decision, as we've already established. — Tzeentch

Then by what? How did you learn how to use the word 'reasonable'? Why do you not apply it to the act of making pottery, or use it to refer to a bus, or the colour red? You know what 'reasonable' means because you've heard people use it. Use it to describe certain kinds of behaviour. Those people unarguably then, determined what 'reasonable' means. You didn't. You learned the word from them.

There were never going to be five people available to build the house. — Tzeentch

So you were born unwilling to help? All your decisions programmed from birth?

that there are and were only four people available all along. — Tzeentch

So it's not possible to change your mind? Weird in, weird out.

Some do, some don't. — Tzeentch

I didn't ask about some I asked about your community. When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning?

Me having ideas about morality does not mean I believe individuals shouldn't be free to make their own choices — Tzeentch

So your moral rules don't apply to others. What exactly are you arguing for then?

I don't see what that has to do with individualism, nor what part of our discussion this is relevant to. — Tzeentch

I have reasons for having children. Do you assume they are good reasons?

Non-interference can be immoral, however it is not so by default. — Tzeentch

Agreed. Took an inordinate length of time to get there. So...how do you judge when non-interference is immoral?

Inaction does not have consequences. To argue such would be a typically human but erroneous way of representing causality. The drowning man doesn't drown because I did not help him, but because he could not swim and somehow ended up in the water.

The apple doesn't fall on the ground because I wasn't there to catch it.

etc. — Tzeentch

All that's just restating your assertion. Why does inaction not have consequences?

I imagine that someone in the Middle-East who is about to stone a woman to death for adultery would come with a similar argumentation. — Tzeentch

I imagine they might, but I'm not talking to someone in the middle east. I'm talking to you.

It would be more accurate to say I would not ask you to conform to my ideas of morality. — Tzeentch

Then why are you telling me them?

you admit that, in deciding, you create the conditions for harm. — Isaac

I do not. It would merely inform the builders what the conditions are.

Before the builders ask my help the condition is that there are four people available. After I have made it clear I wish not to get involved, there are four people available.

No conditions have been created.

Then by what? How did you learn how to use the word 'reasonable'? — Isaac

I don't know. Reasonableness isn't a part of my argument.

I can live with a phrase such as "beyond any reasonable doubt", but reasonableness as you are using it is very subjective and in my view unusable.

So you were born unwilling to help? — Isaac

I was born uninvolved.

So it's not possible to change your mind? — Isaac

Sure I can.

I didn't ask about some I asked about your community. When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? — Isaac

What does this matter? In my "community" ideas vary wildly about what is moral, and many of those ideas I would consider clearly the opposite.

I have reasons for having children. Do you assume they are good reasons? — Isaac

I believe you that you must have had good intentions.

But let's not make it personal.

If you scroll back through this discussion you'll see the intentions of the parents are not what's being questioned.

Agreed. Took an inordinate length of time to get there. — Isaac

I've been saying the same thing for a dozen or so posts, so you may take the credits for that one.

So...how do you judge when non-interference is immoral? — Isaac

When one has voluntarily taken upon themselves the responsibility to care for the person in need.

For example, a parent cannot let their child starve, because the parent voluntarily created a situation in which the child depends on them to fulfill their life needs.

Why does inaction not have consequences? — Isaac

Because things that do not exist in reality do not have consequences.

When we describe reality we point at things that are actually happening.

I imagine they might, but I'm not talking to someone in the middle east. I'm talking to you. — Isaac

Well if you're interested in my approach to morality, you're in luck because I've already been sharing it with you over the last few pages.

Then why are you telling me them? — Isaac

You have asked me this before in another discussion, and the answer is the same as it was then.

The reason I post on this forum is to test my ideas. That's why I'm taking part in this discussion with you. Not to convince you, not to judge you, not to spread my gospel, etc.

Before the builders ask my help the condition is that there are four people available. After I have made it clear I wish not to get involved, there are four people available. — Tzeentch

What about before you change your mind and decide not to help (having previously planned to)?

Reasonableness isn't a part of my argument. — Tzeentch

Then why are you disputing what is reasonable?

reasonableness as you are using it is very subjective and in my view unusable. — Tzeentch

I'm just saying that some behaviour is reasonable and some behaviour is not. You learnt how to use the word 'reasonable' in this context. You know what it means. You did not determine what it means. Others did.

In my "community" ideas vary wildly about what is moral, and many of those ideas I would consider clearly the opposite. — Tzeentch

When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? No. So those behaviours are not moral. It's not what the word means.

So it's not possible to change your mind? — Isaac


Sure I can. — Tzeentch

So when you change your mind, what happens to the conditions? Do they change or not? You change your mind, the conditions change. You don't change your mind, the conditions don't change. Are you seriously going to claim you changing your mind doesn't bring about a change in conditions?

If you scroll back through this discussion you'll see the intentions of the parents are not what's being questioned. — Tzeentch

I know, but the intentions of the non-involved are. You're applying your approach to morality inconsistently. You said both intentions and consequences matter.

When one has voluntarily taken upon themselves the responsibility to care for the person in need.

For example, a parent cannot let their child starve, because the parent voluntarily created a situation in which the child depends on them to fulfill their life needs. — Tzeentch

That's not an example of the case you've given. If it's voluntary then a parent might choose to have a child but not take on the responsibility of caring for them. Or they might decide to then change their mind.

Because things that do not exist in reality do not have consequences. — Tzeentch

Inaction exists. Otherwise what are we talking about.

Well if you're interested in my approach to morality, you're in luck because I've already been sharing it with you over the last few pages. — Tzeentch

Not your approach. The meaning of the word. How did you learn what the word 'moral' means?

The reason I post on this forum is to test my ideas. — Tzeentch

How?

What about before you change your mind and decide not to help (having previously planned to)? — Isaac

It makes no difference.

When the builders come to ask the conditions are that four people are available.

When I make my intentions known that condition hasn't changed.

Then why are you disputing what is reasonable? — Isaac

To show you how unusable the notion of reasonableness is - opinions vary greatly on what is reasonable and what isn't.

I'm just saying that some behaviour is reasonable and some behaviour is not. — Isaac

Well that is fine, but I don't see why I should value your opinion over someone else's. I need reasoning and logic.

When you were learning the meaning of the word 'moral' we're you shown examples of torture, genocide and slavery to help you learn its meaning? No. So those behaviours are not moral. It's not what the word means. — Isaac

I don't determine what is moral based on what I was taught. I determine it on the basis of reason and moral principles.

Are you seriously going to claim you changing your mind doesn't bring about a change in conditions? — Isaac

In the context of our example it sure seems that way. Remember you have also claimed that changing the conditions causes harm, so now you're implying that by internally changing your mind, you're causing harm. Seems absurd to me.

You said both intentions and consequences matter. — Isaac

If someone chooses non-interference with malevolent intentions then that certainly matters, but not by virtue of creating conditions, but by taking pleasure in other people's suffering. It's not really related to our discussion.

If it's voluntary then a parent might choose to have a child but not take on the responsibility of caring for them. — Isaac

They voluntarily bring about the conditions in which a child will rely on them for survival. That's when it becomes the parent's responsibility.

Inaction exists. Otherwise what are we talking about. — Isaac

It does not. It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality.

The tooth fairy doesn't exist, yet we can talk about the tooth fairy.

How did you learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac

By reading Plato I suppose.

When the builders come to ask the conditions are that four people are available.

When I make my intentions known that condition hasn't changed. — Tzeentch

I asked about neither of those occasions. I asked about the occasion of you changing your mind.

opinions vary greatly on what is reasonable and what isn't. — Tzeentch

No they don't. No one thinks reasonable behaviour is a bus. The word means something determinable.

why I should value your opinion over someone else's. I need reasoning and logic. — Tzeentch

Did you learn the meaning of 'reasonable' from me? No. So it's not my opinion is it?

How on earth could reason and logic tell you what the word 'reasonable' means? Are you suggesting a non-English speaker could 'work out' what reasonable means by a process of rational inference?

I determine it on the basis of reason and moral principles. — Tzeentch

So if you didn't speak English you could just 'work out' what moral means using reason?

In the context of our example it sure seems that way. Remember you have also claimed that changing the conditions causes harm, so now you're implying that by internally changing your mind, you're causing harm. Seems absurd to me. — Tzeentch

So you intend to help. The conditions are thst it's possible to build a house. You change your mind and walk away. The conditions are now that it's impossible to build a house.

If you changing your mind didn't cause the conditions to change, what did?

They voluntarily bring about the conditions in which a child will rely on them for survival. — Tzeentch

Yep.

That's when it becomes the parent's responsibility. — Tzeentch

Not if it's voluntary. They just decide it doesn't.

You're now claiming that responsibility is not voluntary, that some actions bring about a non-optional responsibility. Why? And why only some actions? Why doesn't, for example, your benefitting from the protection of your community not bring about a responsibility to help with the housebuilding?

It does not. It's a mental construction we use to model reality, but such mental constructions do not necessarily exist in reality. — Tzeentch

No inaction is a word we use to describe neutral action opposite to the action in question. You're always performing some action really. You breathe, digest, look about...

How did you learn what the word 'moral' means? — Isaac


By reading Plato I suppose. — Tzeentch

Plato decided what the word moral means? You didn't know how to use the word until you read Plato? People who haven't read Plato don't know what moral means? This just gets weirder and weirder.