It's evidently difficult for some people (of a pessimistic disposition) to understand that something cannot be forced if it doesn't go against the existing interests of a being. And if it can be, then all the good in one's life may as well be considered an invaluable gift that one can be grateful to have. After all, cherishing happiness is not a matter of mere compliance. If one thinks that having true joy is simply a matter of "not minding something" instead of being genuinely happy for possessing that good, then perhaps all that does is demonstrate the limitations of their worldview. It's great to know that you like working. I hope that you can continue to find more than enough meaning in life and that others are also inspired by you. May you have a good day!

No such situation was forced upon me. I don’t think remaining in the womb is a preferable existence.

The alternative is no you at all. It’s called states of affairs. I can talk about those as conditionals and counterfactuals. A child could be born (forced) or not (not forced). Oh dear how I broke all time, logic, and proportion, oh my!

For NOS, if it was okay to be born, and have the conditions of life foisted on you, then some people want healthcare foisted on others. If a majority vote it in a democracy, foisting can become legitimate governance. Then it’s about at what level is healthcare programs appropriate. Is it violating a right? So is any governance some would say. Where’s the line?

Oh dear how I broke all time, logic, and proportion, oh my! — schopenhauer1

I would boast about it, but if you're impressed...

I don’t want this condition..is not breaking any grammar rules. The condition being necessary makes it all the more pertinent to the argument. You do X then Y will always happen. It is a state of affairs.

I don’t want this condition..is not breaking any grammar rules. — schopenhauer1

No. You can whinge about it all you like. Saying it was forced upon you, is nonsense. There's no 'you' without it. The trouble with all your arguments is that you just can't let go of the drive to blame someone. someone did this to you. But no-one did this to you other than you. There was no you, then there was, and one of the conditions of being you is that you must either do what it takes to survive or else die. Since there was no you before then (nor could there even possibly be) no-one 'did' anything to you.

Since there was no you before then (nor could there even possibly be) no-one 'did' anything to you. — Isaac

So baby born into lava pit. No one “did” anything. Lava pit is a condition.

And your problem with all your arguments is you don’t recognize de facto conditions as still forced conditions.

So baby born into lava pit. — schopenhauer1

Yeah. Lava pits are dangerous and babies need not be born into them. Someone did that to the baby the moment that baby was born (or conceived even). It's not a necessary part of being them that they drop into a lava pit. It is a necessary part of being you that you either do what it takes to survive or you die.

Yeah. Lava pits are dangerous and babies need not be born into them. — Isaac

Glad we are on the same page there.

Someone did that to the baby the moment that baby was born (or conceived even). — Isaac

That’s also applied to any necessary condition of life.

It is a necessary part of being you that you either do what it takes to survive or you die. — Isaac

And a conditions necessity doesn’t make it any different than the lava pit scenario, when it comes to impositions.

And your problem with all your arguments is you don’t recognize de facto conditions as still forced conditions. — schopenhauer1

a conditions necessity doesn’t make it any different than the lava pit scenario, when it comes to impositions. — schopenhauer1

I'm quite happy to admit they're forced too. But not on you. There's no 'you' without them.

It's the difference between a fireman complaining about long working hours and a fireman complaining about fighting fires. A fireman need not work long hours, but a fireman just ceases to be a fireman unless they fight fires.

All of which I learned from individuals.

I have never met the collective, let alone learned anything from it. — NOS4A2

Nor has anyone else. But the things you've learned from those individuals can only work because there is the assumption that those things work interpersonally, within a social group, as opposed to idiosyncratically, as things that would work only between yourself and the person you learned it from.

It's the difference between a fireman complaining about long working hours and a fireman complaining about fighting fires. A fireman need not work long hours, but a fireman just ceases to be a fireman unless they fight fires. — Isaac

I don't see the distinction as valuable. If you had to fight fires for the rest of your life and could not escape unless you killed yourself, you can complain legitimately, even if that means there wouldn't be a "you" without fighting fires. If someone says.. "Boy, I hate this feature that life is about that I find myself having to encounter".. That is a legitimate complaint (e.g. people inevitably get sick, die, encounter negative things, etc.).

Your complaint isn't the illegitimate part. Your blame is.

No one did this to you.

Being you requires that you survive or die. So it's impossible for someone to impose that situation on you. It what being you consists of.

You can whinge like a five year old about it. Fucking annoying, but not incoherent.

Saying someone did it to you is equally annoying, but additionally incoherent.

Being you requires that you survive or die. So it's impossible for someone to impose that situation on you. It what being you consists of. — Isaac

Procreation is not an event? Being born is not a state of affairs caused by an act previously? Interesting. Didn't know that.

You can whinge like a five year old about it. Fucking annoying, but not incoherent. — Isaac

But this is the canard of those who impose. I can call anything you say, do, and believe annoying as fuck and even throw in a lot of :roll: :roll: :roll: , so? These kind of not-so-subtle ad homs don't do much and are annoying as fuck.. Not unpredictable though.

Saying someone did it to you is equally annoying, but additionally incoherent. — Isaac

So like anything nuanced, it's not really that kind of complaint, how you phrase it. Rather the project of procreation itself is being impugned, and not trying to "pin" the practice on this or that set of people for not sufficiently understanding the philosophy or embracing it. I am not here to condemn the people, just question the practice and philosophy that is seemingly "unquestionable" for many folks and who get riled up in any philosophical attempt to engage it because they can't cope with differences, which is real fucking annoying sometimes.

Procreation is not an event? Being born is not a state of affairs caused by an act previously? — schopenhauer1

Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you.

I am not here to condemn the people, just the question the practice and philosophy — schopenhauer1

A claim which is performatively contradicted by your grammar...which was the point of my comment.

As to the general philosophy, I've already presented counterarguments on several occasions. I've no intention of repeating them to the disinterested.

As to the general philosophy, I've already presented counterarguments on several occasions. I've no intention of repeating them to the disinterested. — Isaac

And I've argued and counterargued back, so? These are the kind of statements that can be said on both sides against the opposing view.

Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you. — Isaac

What? Procreation takes the will and act of others...The state of affairs of being procreated is a state of affairs of X condition. You can mince words all you like, that is all I need to make the case. Everything else is rhetorical nonsense you are trying to make a case OUT OF but for which none exists.

Both created you, of necessity. Neither were done to you. — Isaac

Exactly.

We'd have to venture into a more "exotic cosmogony" in order to be able to coherently claim that the injustice of birth is done _to_ someone.

An "exotic cosmogony" like the one where living beings happily exist as "disembodied souls", but who can be embodied against their will by the act of someone else.

Twisting of how language works...

Conditions X are a necessity of Y state of affairs.

Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Being born (Y) ALWAYS entails X (working in some manner to survive). One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. Some act had to be done previously.. decided upon or allowed to happen, etc. THIS situation is how I am using "forced". It is obvious how it is used. I shouldn't have to explain it like this, but since cases are being made from nothing, I'll do it to appease my pedantic interlocutors (even though they know themselves how I am using it).

We'd have to venture into a more "exotic cosmogony" in order to be able to coherently claim that the injustice of birth is done _to_ someone.

An "exotic cosmogony" like the one where living beings happily exist as "disembodied souls", but who can be embodied against their will by the act of someone else. — baker

Yeah. The interesting question then is whether (and why) those 'disembodied souls' have any criteria necessary to their existence. I mean, it seems pretty implausible to me that even 'disembodied souls' could exist without any necessary properties.

I fear even if such entities existed, then @schopenhauer1 would still be whining to the other 'disembodied souls' about being 'forced' to maintain those properties.

Any system at all requires that it works against entropy to exist. So disembodied souls would be subject to no less a requirement.

Someone brought about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X.

Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X. — schopenhauer1

None of that makes sense. The state of affairs you're talking about are a necessity for the 'someone else'. So your second statement is absolutely, unarguably false.

One doesn't just "come into existence" without someone else making this happen. — schopenhauer1

One doesn't 'come into existence' at all. It's not a thing that 'one' can do because 'one' has to exist first. Before.

None of that makes sense. The state of affairs you're talking about are a necessity for the 'someone else'. So your second statement is absolutely, unarguably false. — Isaac

Maybe you are misunderstanding it? It is meant that there is a counterfactual that COULD have happened (Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X).

One doesn't 'come into existence' at all. It's not a thing that 'one' can do because 'one' has to exist first. Before. — Isaac

Weird metaphysics. A "person" at some point X becomes a person (though this is often debated as "when"). You disagree?

is meant that there is a counterfactual that COULD have happened (Someone could NOT bring about Y state of affairs for someone else, which entails X). — schopenhauer1

It couldn't have happened. It's impossible.

One could (or could not) have created a person.

One could not do (or not do) anything to a person or on behalf of a person at all because there was no person to act upon until the act of creation was over. Ergo, the act of creation cannot be done to, or for, the person thereby created. It breaks normal causality.

A "person" at some point X becomes a person (though this is often debated as "when"). You disagree? — schopenhauer1

Yes. Obviously. A person cannot become a person. They already are one. An embryo becomes a person, or a gamete does, or a 'disembodied soul' does, depending on your beliefs.

But...this is the important bit...no one imposes the necessary conditions of existence even on those. An embryo has necessary conditions of existence. A gamete cell has necessary conditions of existence. A disembodied soul has necessary conditions of existence.

For anything which exists it is necessary that it resist entropic decay otherwise it will cease to exist.

This is a necessary condition even of computer code, galaxies, sandcastles...

No one imposes this.

One could not do (or not do) anything to a person or on behalf of a person at all because there was no person to act upon until the act of creation was over. Ergo, the act of creation cannot be done to, or for, the person thereby created. It breaks normal causality. — Isaac

This is ridiculous. Now you are going to deny the idea of conditionals (things that COULD very well happen if you acted upon it?). Odd thing to deny. For example, you COULD be making a better argument, but you are making this one. If a baby is born into a lava pit, what is it that is born into a lava pit.. Wait. for. it. A PERSON! THAT is the entity that should not be thrown into a lava pit. But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? Rubbish.

Yes. Obviously. A person cannot become a person. They already are one. An embryo becomes a person, or a gamete does, or a 'disembodied soul' does, depending on your beliefs. — Isaac

Yep and do not make those X (gametes, embryo, disembodied soul) a person. What's your point?

But...this is the important bit...no one imposes the necessary conditions of existence even on those. An embryo has necessary conditions of existence. A gamete cell has necessary conditions of existence. A disembodied soul has necessary conditions of existence.

For anything which exists it is necessary that it resist entropic decay otherwise it will cease to exist.

This is a necessary condition even of computer code, galaxies, sandcastles...

No one imposes this. — Isaac

You notice, I don't care much what happens to rocks, galaxies, and other non-sentient things. I wonder why that is?

are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? — schopenhauer1

I haven't even mentioned well-being.

Yep and do not make those X (gametes, embryo, disembodied soul) a person. What's your point? — schopenhauer1

That they'd still have necessary conditions of existence.

I don't care much what happens to rocks, galaxies, and other non-sentient things. I wonder why that is? — schopenhauer1

You don't care much about babies born on the other side of the world either. I don't see what the size of your circle of compassion has to do with causality.

If what you're saying is that human care about their necessary conditions of existence (whereas rocks don't), then I agree, but that doesn't constitute an argument against procreation. Most humans find those conditions acceptable costs and so it's a reasonable gamble to take for the benefit to society.

Having lost that argument, you now want to make the problem one of unjust imposition, but you can't because the necessary conditions of existence are not imposed by anyone, they are a fact of the world. No one forced that on me, so no injustice has taken place. All that procreation has done is change the necessary conditions of existence from those of a gamete, to those of an embryo, to those of person. At no point has the mere fact that entities must resist entropic decay been imposed.

:up: :clap:

I haven't even mentioned well-being. — Isaac

Red-herring.. I am talking about the considerations of someone in the future that isn't born yet. Lava pit baby and humans being born in general are all "real considerations". The actual person doesn't have to be born for these considerations to be "about" what could be an actual person born. This is common sense, but you are twisting it with word games.. Odd, based on some of your other positions I've seen in discussions you've had about language and Wittgenstein..

That they'd still have necessary conditions of existence. — Isaac

That is my point too, so I'll move to your next statement...

If what you're saying is that human care about their necessary conditions of existence (whereas rocks don't), then I agree, but that doesn't constitute an argument against procreation. Most humans find those conditions acceptable costs and so it's a reasonable gamble to take for the benefit to society. — Isaac

And this is exactly what I am refuting.. First off, gambling with other people's lives, even if say, 90% of the time got it right, is still wrong. But besides the obvious gambling argument, beyond that, imposing one's will on another and burdening them with impositions is wrong 100% of the time. Significantly making decisions that affect others so greatly is never something we would normally do de novo, without cause other than "We would feel sad if we didn't". Rather, it is only ameliorating a greater for a lesser harm that this would matter. And since no person exists yet to be ameliorated, that isn't the case here. And no, ethics doesn't work like thus: "I feel sad for not being able to harm X person..therefore X person gets to get harmed.. because there MIGHT be good for that person along with the harms".. The "good" doesn't justify doing the harm to that person.. and certainly not because you or others would have negative feelings for not affecting that person so.. Again, only in people like children or mentally handicapped does that make sense because they presumably don't have the decision-making skills (NOW THAT THEY ARE MADE TO BE IN THIS POSITION OF CARE), that it would matter.

Now your natural tendency to then revert BACK to the "but there is no person.. not EVEN a child that is there".. Doesn't make a difference because a person WILL be affected (like the lava pit baby) by your actions and it is THESE very actions that are the ethical issue (causing negatives/ deciding what are the conditions another person should endure) that are in question as to whether it's ethical to decide for someone else. It's not, is the answer.. Never was, never is, never will be. And equivocating governmental actions with ethical actions (like government gets to tax you.. see greater good..) is simply making a category mistake. Your interpersonal actions are not equivalent to how law operates. Not helping the grandma cross the street, whilst possibly unethical, is not necessarily illegal.

Having lost that argument, you now want to make the problem one of unjust imposition — Isaac

Haha, what are you taking a page from Trump's playbook? Declare victory even if you haven't won? Nice try though.

ut you can't because the necessary conditions of existence are not imposed by anyone, they are a fact of the world. No one forced that on me, so no injustice has taken place. All that procreation has done is change the necessary conditions of existence from those of a gamete, to those of an embryo, to those of person. At no point has the mere fact that entities must resist entropic decay been imposed. — Isaac

The mere fact of entropic decay matters not for the previous state of affairs. Once a person, it now "matters" in the way that suffering/negative experiences/values matters to a sentient and self-aware being.

But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? — schopenhauer1

It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point.

No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious.

It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in?

It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point. — Tzeentch

Absolutely, I was thinking the same thing.

No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious. — Tzeentch

Agreed.

It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in? — Tzeentch

Yes, I think you got at what’s going on here. And I understand your frustration. It does seem like rhetorical ploys to stall the argument. Most of these arguments are of the sort that are totally against what we usually believe..examples like:
“Oh, we can’t talk about impositions since there is not a person existing presently”

“Oh well you can impose on others because you’d be sad not to”.

“Oh you can’t complain about the conditions of life because they are necessary to living/existing” (But why? That’s the very point being made..these conditions are necessary and perhaps not just to impose. They cannot be escaped once set in motion for another without significant harm).

This last point is the one I want to get to but a lot of stalling happens on the first two points.

I am talking about the considerations of someone in the future that isn't born yet. Lava pit baby and humans being born in general are all "real considerations". The actual person doesn't have to be born for these considerations to be "about" what could be an actual person born. — schopenhauer1

Yep I agree. I'm quite happy with your claims that one can take into consideration the well-being of a future person and act accordingly. That has no bearing on the fact that one is limited by the laws of physics in that an entity must resist entropy to exist.

imposing one's will on another and burdening them with impositions is wrong 100% of the time. — schopenhauer1

There is no other. Caring for the well-being of future people makes sense. talking about 'imposing' burdens on them makes sense (where those burdens are not necessary). We agree on all that so there's no need to review it.

Talking about imposing the necessary conditions of existence is absolute nonsense on stilts. One cannot impose that which is a necessary condition.

Once a person, it now "matters" in the way that suffering/negative experiences/values matters to a sentient and self-aware being. — schopenhauer1

It may matter. That's not the same as imposition. You keep arguing that future people care about their situation and we ought care about their feeling prior to their birth and act accordingly. I agree. None of this has any bearing on the notion of the imposition of necessary conditions.

To be born is to be forced by one's parents to live.

That seems like such an obvious statement of fact that I'm struggling to understand why this is still under debate.