I've seen several comments that our members wish death on Trump and liken him to Hitler

Can be 100% sure, without a shadow of a doubt this is not a politically savvy group.

That said, NOS is still being a supreme weirdo too.

I knew there was a reason Continental philosophy isn't taken seriously...

Your response was "nonsense" and then reposting the post from which I quoted.
I don't know what to do with that level of sillygooseness ( my tongue is rather in my cheek but i got the same impression from you.. so *shrug* lol)

Nonsense. — Leontiskos

I see you've chosen to deny what is clearly a reasonable take, in terms that themselves indicate you're not thinking very clearly.

Here is the whole post: — Leontiskos

I read the whole post. Do with that what you will.

True. in the specific case, as an answer to an example. Not a goalpost; not in the OP. — Vera Mont

You've sort of... nevermind.

Okay. How does one justify a career in drug-dealing? — Vera Mont

Please re-read my comments as I have thoroughly outlined how this could be done. We are third parties. The person themselves just needs to be honest. We can't make further comment.

Hoe do you judge a dealer's scruples in retrospect, not having witnessed his sales? It's up to him or his advocate to offer a justification, explanation, excuse or mitigating circumstance. — Vera Mont

This is, again, a legal description of a possible answer. I'm not doing that, though.
The justification is purely one toward the individual's moral compass. Personally? I would need to see which drugs, where, how often, whether there are any consideration of the wider social implications(locally) and whether or not the dealer is actually developing and moving forward in life. But, that's for them to assess.

My point is that justification is a nonsense. The above seems to suggest this, as we have to exclude an authority to which something is being justified (jury, judge, police, wife, children.. whatever) meaning instances of justification are actually just assuagement.

Well, seems to me that the obligation exists beyond the act of making the promise. That is, to make a promise is to place oneself under an obligation. — Banno

Understood. I think, though I wouldn't assume your mind, that i've groked that correctly across all exchanges to that end. You believe the obligation comes into existence, and that you are "under" this "thing' that you posit "exists". I understand.

Now that obligation is not physical. It is not "floating around". But it does exist. — Banno

Descriptively, I'm with you - but i'm already off the bus. Onward..

It is a promise, it is an obligation. — Banno

Which is it? I am already sensing self-confused response here.. They aren't the same thing in either this post, or your quite thorough responses to Michael. So why are they here?

the undertaking of an obligation — Banno

Is an act - which clearly exists 'in time' as they say. So, so far, descriptively, I'm still with you. This fits my account nicely. I just don't make use of "thing" here, rather than "act". To the above "calling out", this is apt - If the promise causes the obligation, they aren't the same thing - could you be pressed to say the promise "occurs" and creates "an obligation"? If so, we've made some headway.

Not nothing. — Banno

This one is somewhat hard to respond to, because I can see exactly what you're trying to point out. But the answer is: the question makes no sense. If both parties (assuming no one else knew) have forgotten, there isn't anything to be spoken about. There is nothing. We are playing God with time and perspective to even have this discussion. IN real life, that can't happen.

and again the promise exists. — Banno

Ok, for hte moment ignore that previous response, because this is interesting. How does it exist if neither the commitment, or expectation, currently exist? This indicates there must be a "something" out there in the world which constitutes that promise. What/where is it once both parties forget?

is the promise the sum of all the brain states of everyone who has heard of it? — Banno

On my account, which is probably quite incomplete in the sense that this has never interested me as something to write about before - it exists as the two complimentary brain states of "commitment" and "expectation" on the opposite sides of the act of promise. Promises happen - no issue. Those two brainstates then result, and are (barring mental weirdness) inextricably linked to a single end. That, to me, is enough to fulfil the concept. Perhaps more than.

I gather that you would like to argue that promises are brain states? — Banno

The above may have already done this for me, but not quite. They are highly relevant, but they are not, individually "an obligation" or 'a promise'. The act of 'promising' creates brain states. The relation between them (which is a state of affairs only, on this account) is where people want to say some third thing, "the obligation", comes in. I deny this. The two states obtain. The "obligation" is just a description of the resulting emotional states of the two parties. You describe the two brain states - indicate the emotional states (determination and expectation, i guess), and you're done. There's nothing further to add (again, on my account). We don't need to go further to explain what's happening here...

a similar structure that each and every person that has heard of the promise has in their brain? — Banno

I really like this, which is why I've quoted it, but I don't take that, no. Other than the two "assigning" parties, as it were, other brain states aren't relevant. This can be easily accepted because it also applies to your account. The two parties involved are the relevant ones, in either account (unless you disagree? Interested if so).

And what ab out written promises, or audio recordings - are these also promises? And how does the promise move from one page to another? If it is a physical state, then the nature of that state is quite irresolute. — Banno

I don't think the situation changes, unless we're talking Law again in which case - lots to be said! But roughly, yes, they are records of promises. Not acts as above, but recordings. The only difference here is they create legal obligations which are actually just rules pursuant to punishment or loss of some kind. Not hte same thing we're talking about, to be sure.

The promise seems to be something quite apart from any such physical state. Isn't it more a construction, put together by people using language to get things done? Isn't it a way of undertaking an obligation in a social and linguistic context? — Banno

But why shouldn't we talk of such things as existing? Along with money, property, friendship, and so much more. We live in a complex of social constructs. — Banno

These two go together well, and make for a relatively straight-forward set of things to respond to at once.

To me, no, it doesn't seem that way at all. BUT, giving some credence to that version of things, the 'promise' is literally an act made. The obligation might come into existence, but the promise exists ephemerally as a decision, not a 'thing'. It doesn't exist anymore than 'the decision to shut the fridge' exists. If you feel that decisions 'exist' as 'things' then that's fine. I suppose I would put this in the category that 'personality' goes in. It can exist, and then not exist(perhaps as the exact firing of certain exact neurons at an exact moment?). No issue.

Yes, I think "obligation" is a language game we use to allow us to get things done. We socially enforce promises made to avoid the chaotic nuisance a majority-dishonest society seems to devolve into. I do not think this means it 'exists'. It is a useful fiction. A heuristic-type thing, perhaps? A concept under which we denote instances, but under which no actual token occurs. Its descriptive only - maybe this can be thought of as similar to "dancing around the point". It does not actually occur. But we use it all the time to symbolize certain behaviour and the resulting emotional response to it.

In terms of why we shouldn't think of these things as 'existing' - I note the stark difference between "money/property" and "friendship". The former can literally be pointed at, even in the endless contexts in which they occur - the concept is unchanging and we have millions of tokens to be analysed. The latter is ... grey, and probably just a symbol for several emotional states that people can share. They can be transferred to other people, which says to me it relies on the brain state involved to even get off the ground as a concept - in reality, there is no 'friendship' to be talked about. There are activities and attitudes - in a certain box, we'll call these reciprocal attitudes friendship. But whence aquaintancship? Friendship? Bestfriendship? Friendswithbenefitship? Also, to note, people's version of what constitutes a friendship vary quite a bit. The particular emotional states required aren't set. It's, at best, an indicator that someone one (or people) are within a range of emotional states with regard to one another. That's not actually a thing. That occurs with anyone who has interacted. We're just sort of picking a colour and going with it.

These are all murky, "best we've got" terms for things that we 'feel' but do not actually exist, is my view there (though, again, this hasn't interested me to talk about before so Its entirely possible more good exchanges like this might change the view).

We live in a complex of social constructs. — Banno

I agree. Mostly in the mind. Shared delusions don't cause things to exist.

Fragile? :rofl: What an idiotic inference; what makes you think I care about some random ad hominem projections beyond making the effort to call them out for what they are? I'm not interested in participating in your silly game of one-upmanship. — Janus

Here you are, Janus. I need to do no more.

I set no 'goalposts' — Vera Mont

Ahem.

justify it to a jury — Vera Mont

This is a Neon Green goalpost, totally different to personal justification. That's my point. And it's correct.

o, you can't 'lump' individuals - they're all separate — Vera Mont

I don't think you've read my post correctly. When i say "lump individuals" I am talking about that individual's drug-dealing career as a 'case'. Not several individuals. Sorry if that was unclear.

Dealer A sells drugs 200 times. This is one of the unscrupulous dealers.
Those 200 times constitute a "case". There is no need to look at every sale. The risk factor is high enough to "justify" some kind of response (on this account) whereas a dealer who does not unscrupulously sell drugs may need a more thorough analysis. Again, this is just talking within your framework - I don't think either makes too much sense, myself. But that's to do with the inadequacy of cultural/social attitudes to drugs, so you can ignore that if you like.

Given the above clarification, the final line is nonsensical, understandably so, and so i've not responded to it.

It is, but I dislike using shorthand. — Tobias

Fair - i suppose I was looking toward a situation where you'd have just outlined your personal position with reference. But in any case, it looks like we saw that similarly.

I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make. — Tobias

Hmm. I really appreciate the clarity this seems to be granting me. Things don't need to be mind-independent to exist (im further down the concepts-exist-in-reality line than Banno, eg), true. But some things do. Such as, the authority in the previous element of the discussion. That exists. It's authority exists (perhaps by consent, so it's some levels above the mechanics of an interpersonal obligation) and is arbitrarily enforced to the emotional contentedness of the majority of it's subjects and little, if anything else, is involved. In this case, I can't quite see how you could then still claim obligations exist.

The same can be said of an "obligation". It's an empty space between commitment and expectation. But there is nothing there. I guess, while this example is pretty parochial in terms of what concepts its engaging:

Person A promises;
Person B that they will attend X event on date Y specifically to accompany/support. Meaning B being present is crucial.
Person B, unfortunately, perishes on date V (i.e prior to the maturity of the 'promise').
Person A feels their promise is unfulfilled.
Person B is ... dead. There is nothing to oblige. They couldn't feel one way or the other. There is no obligation.

I think you would be wrong in all conceivable respects to claim that the obligation still exists (this is worded as if momentarily granting the idea that an obligation can exist besides the two or more brain states involved).
The situation has not changed for person A. They mentally/emotionally feel their 'obligation'. This is all they had before, too. But Person B is dead. Given that there is no material difference whatsoever to Person A prior to, and after person B's death with regard to the 'obligation' (i.e it exists in their head as a commitment) either:

1. Obligations do not exist. People with commitments and expectations exist; or
2. Obligations can exist in a positivist sense only.

Now, that gets messy - the kinds of 'authority' vary, and the enforceability varies etc.. etc.. etc. etc.. but the overall point seems clear to me: the obligation only exists as an instrument of authority and does not obtain without it. However, I now anticipate some type of "well, your emotional reaction is a kind of authority". Yes, it is. But it is not an obligation. It's an enforcement mechanism. So, "obligation" is the wrong word, I'm just trying to be least-confusing.

I think that is a metaphysical assumption that one need not make. — Tobias

Fair enough, but per the above I think it's required in this case - otherwise, "obligation" can only obtain within descriptions of other things. "thing" not needing to be physically extant, here.

It needs no logical compass. It simply needs a society in which one expect from one another that one fulfills his promises. — Tobias

Seems to me here you've inadvertently dropped your point here, and picked up mine? I'm only hearing, as conclusions to these points "It leaves a bad taste" or "It would hurt the relationship between entity X and entity Y". Yep. Not an obligation? Onward...

The fact that some concept is dependent on our societal interaction doesn't make it any less real. — Tobias

It does. But that aside, what you seem to be saying is that IFF your society has the concept promises, that magics them into existence as actual things (or, to be a bit arcane - choses). This is plainly not true?

We live in a world with doors, similarly, we live in a world with marriages — Tobias

A marriage is not at all analogous to a door. Forgive if my next response is a little glib. The above is really difficult to parse...

it is also different from: "rules made by a competent authority" — Tobias

That is, by your own description, exactly what it is. A society with the same collective concept, but not enforcing authority simply doesn't have marriages the way we think of them. Which is literally, a legal instrument evidencing a commitment and expectation enforceable by the relevant authority. Telling someone you wont cheat, that you'll raise kids right, always take care of htem etc.. is meaningless to a marriage. That's just being nice to each other.

Than indeed, there is no marriage anymore. — Tobias

So, your position here is that if anyone knows about hte purported marriage, then it obtains? Yikes. That is extremely confused to me. And it also violates your entire position - if one must know of the thing for it to exist, then we're back at rejecting that reasoning and having no basis for invoking an obligation separate to the individual brain states involved. Banno's entire point is that we can accept things exist without knowing. You seem to be saying if no one knows about it, it doesn't exist - which is plainly wrong, too.

At what time does it exist then? — Tobias

The decision exists at the moment the decision is made (or thereabouts). It doesn't create anything further. It is a decision made. That's all.

I think one would prefer a theory — Tobias

This is not relevant. What one prefers is a road to the end of rational discourse.

The decision can be undone at any time? If it cannot and you are still bound to the decision, what is it then that binds? — Tobias

You're getting it.

It is not Banno that holds Banno accountable. — Tobias

It is (and this is directly in response to the questions in the quote immediately above this. It is Banno. If he doesn't care what hte other side of the "obligation" does in response, he couldn't care less whether he fulfills the promise. If he does care about their response, he will likely do it (assuming it causes that response that he wants) because it makes him comfortable with himself. However,

I recognise in your addendum here ("it is others") you are essentially invoking just authority. It is on the authority of the other's expectation Banno should be accountable for his promise. Sure. That has been accepted. It does not mean an "obligation" exists. It means someone expects something, and Banno doesn't want that smoke. These are, put plainly, hold-over tactics masquerading as some moral concept of "obligation". And, while i take your earlier point - these are culturally embedded and for the most part, agreeable, forms of interaction - they are arbitrary. There is no objective benchmark, or divine reason for them. It's just how we best-get-on. And that is all we can hope for, surely?

I would really not know why one would hold a position that cannot make sense of obligations. — Tobias

It can, though. The problem is you want something to exist which doesn't - and so the position seems incomprehensible (wrt obligations, anyway). To me (and, i guess Michael and Frank) we see no issue. The obligations simply don't obtain. Other, relevant and important things obtain which give the same appearance you're trying to explain with 'obligation'. We see no issue, because we don't take that position. You already took that position, and so the theory seems torturous. Understandable. I just htink you're wrong, and you think I (we) are. Fair.

legally — Tobias

yes. You're getting it (maybe ;) )

My position comes down to what I know as 'interactionism' — Tobias

This explains a whole lot about your responses around Marriage, but this just makes it all the more obvious there exists a legal obligation and where there is no enforcing authority, there is no obligation. And, here, "obligation" actually just means "threat of consequence".

ou need to hold on to all kinds of obscure positions, namely that a promise exists one moment and stops existing the next or that a promise should really be conceived of as a brain state or that an obligation only reaches as far as I am willing to be bound to the promise. — Tobias

Bold: Not my position. I was actually really, really clear to try to avoid this charge. The promise happens. It is an action not something which "obtains" in the "thing" sense. A promise can be made the same way an explanation can be "made". Its more "made out" or "enunciated". It doesn't come into existence. I would suggest thinking here of someone making a false promise again. The actions are the same. Only hte brainstate changes, and (in this story) only for the promissor.

Italics: Not only is this plainly true (to me), this is probably one of hte better descriptions i've seen. Maybe its uncomfortable? But yeah, the obligation isn't there if you don't attend to it. If you, personally, jettison your promise you have no obligation. Even if we're going to grant the obligation "thing" status, its collapsed because you pulled your support out from it.

Michael apparently thinks it does not matter whether one is ordered by a gang of robbers or whether one is taxed by legitimate authorities. — Tobias

It doesn't. One is simply "legitimate authority". The behaviour is the same (i touched on this earlier in this post, funnily enough). What could possibly be said to be different?

"Do this or I'll break your legs" - Dealer
"Do this or I'll take your kids and give them to another set of parents temporarily" - Gov'munt

I may prefer my legs broken, personally. But that aside, there are given rules, and given consequences to not following them. The "culturally embedded" concept of promise functions the same in both of the above scenarios. In fact, I would argue that both of these scenarios exist precisely because the obligation itself is no where to be found. Enforcement solves that.

reality ;) of legal principles — Tobias

Purely on a legal mind-to-legal mind basis, what do you mean here? Is the assertion that there is some kind of legal principle which actually transcends human minds? I have never been able to get on board with anything remotely close to "natural law" type arguments so Im really curious.

You know it is rational to invoke your landlord's promise, and you would do so in real life — Leontiskos

Because legal support exists. Otherwise, no one in their right mind would go to a landlord and try to hold them to their word. This is intensely naive to the history of commerce.

You could do the exact same thing with "do flowers exist." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. You could not. And you did not. I shall illustrate why not:

A. Nope. You haven't explained what a flower is at all. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This doesn't appear to be relevant at all to the discussion. WHAT an obligation is, can be gleaned clearly from the descriptions given.
"where is it?" is the question, and flowers are demonstrably extant as "whatever it is we call flowers". This cannot be done for an obligation or promise (i use that word alittle differently, but I take yours/tobias/bannos use here). You have to describe something else. It's a shadow, at best.

How does the dealer justify it to a jury? — Vera Mont

Very, VERY different question that shifts the entire conversation to a different goalpost (not sure you intended to do that - just being clear why its not addressed here).

Selling drugs is case-by-case. But, you can lump individuals as 'a case'. If someone is uscrupulously selling drugs in an area where by and large, impoverished children seek them you can round up all their cases under this banner to deal with the overall risk.
If a drug dealer was to claim they have a moral framework, i'd want to hear it and discuss it with them. I, in fact, was one of these dealers for some time.

Mikie still not capable of a rational thought.

Oh well.

The last three days have been wild. Trump will win. It will be a fun watch, and its a shame there are dickheads across the USA who think it's such a dire situation that some kind of "society burning down" is going to occur.

It's utterly bewildering that people as intensely dull as is required to make that type of comment are in fact, capable of operation modern technology. But here we are. 180. Mikie. Benkei. The whole crew! I implore all of you to remember that you can actually speak to other humans without being dimwits.

His argument is just a whine. It's not really an argument. I fail to see how it requires actual rebuttals?

I only think its possible to 'justify' as far as 'it wasn't entirely arbitrary'. Beyond that, I think its not al that possible to 'justify' much at all. There's no objective moral to use.

Legitimate authority. I do not know what you really want, as an explanation, but as I said one can only explain by reference to certain kind of distinctions. — Tobias

You could (and please don't take this is prickly... it really is not) have just explained legal positivism to establish why a 'legitimate authority' could be a reason for adherence. It's a common position.

a command is uttered by whim of the commanding entity while an obligation is incurred by following specific procedures — Tobias

I think this is true. However:

We take the command “do this”, we phrase it as the truth-apt proposition “you ought do this”, and then we believe in the existence of some abstract entity - the “obligation” — Michael

This is also true. This speaks to our previous fracas but not directly. You can establish the existence of some 'obligation' in the sense of "you promised X" happened in time. You cannot establish "the promise" as it's own entity(this to me seems beyond discussion. Not because I'm stubborn but because there is literally nothing to be spoken about under that concept). This is why, i think, Michael is calling it 'fiction'. There is no logical compass that lands on "fulfill your promises". That's only ever going to be relevant case-by-case and is, in fact, a moral decision which only exists at the moment it is made. Sometimes, promises are made to be broken in service of some other greater good for instance so that 'decision' never imported what you're terming an 'obligation'. You actually didn't promise anything despite creating the apparent 'obligation' to fulfill the promise. Now, I've not gone back to Banno's response/s yet but I see this as the crucial point he (and, i'm presuming you) seems to think explains itself, rather than providing one (or, in fact, being a bad quippist - even worse). What is the promise? There is no possible answer to this without simply describing something else (a brainstate, a decision, or one's personally 'ought' motivation - Banno likes to fulfill promises, it seems. Fine).

As noted previously, "making a promise" obviously exists and imports (given honesty is involved) some reason to do something. It does not create an obligation beside you wanting to keep your promise, as it were. It is yours. It isn't 'out there' as anything.

So you are chasing your own tail when you ask what 'ought' means? — Tobias

The sense in which this is true, is that he's giving you far more opportunity to answer the question than is reasonable. He's chasing an answer that you cannot give. Which is interesting, as you seem to think that the opposite is true - that anti-realism can't explain obligations. Well, the answer there is pretty simple. You see an obstacle he (we) don't. Is that a bit more diplomatic here? What these last two pages look like is Michael wants a reason to think obligations exist outside the internal emotional state of having chosen to hold oneself to that intent.

No one has even tried to do this. It looks to me, and probably to Michael, like every one is simply talking around the point. Particularly bad in this regard is Leontiskos' posts on the previous page. They are bordering on unjustified condescensiion. Michael has pointed out that simply appealing to convention isn't actually an argument. And there the conversation seems to stall. A perfect example:

You wrote the subsidized check on the basis of a promise - a real promise that involved obligations. Without those obligations it would make no sense to write the subsidized check, and given the promise it makes no sense not to invoke it when he says you underpaid. — Leontiskos

This doesn't do anything to establish an obligation as an 'object'. It's an attempt to explain the psychology (potentially contradictory) behind why a person would fulfil their promises. And the answer (honestly, imo, well put here - despite his attempt to claim a different landing pad) is that convention has meant that if you crunch the numbers, people generally do what they say. Therefore, reasonable to expect someone's word to hold. There is nothing remotely about obligations or what the 'ought' involved is. It is states of affairs leading to a statistical outcome informing a course of action. Contradiction isn't even a problem now.

I think that unless the below is adequately addressed, without avoiding the direct question, this is a futile attempt to convince someone to believe your emotional responses are facts:

I am saying that I don't know what "Orestes had an obligation" means. I am asking you what it means and you appear to be doing everything in your power to avoid answering. — Michael

That bold is going to make this thread pages and pages more of nonsense until it's sorted.

No. It's not. Thanks for playing.

I am amazed that you haven't been banned. — Janus

All I can say is lets hope you aren't quite this fragile in the real world. As with Tobias, I don't care, and nor should you.

Thanks for this. I can tell you see something in it, regardless of your protestations.
No. People 'make promises' in the same sense people 'make friends' or 'make sense' or 'make out' an image in the distance. There is nothing that exists beyond the act. There are no promises out there waiting for you to fulfill them. There are no free-floating 'friends' that you've made out there waiting for you to call. You don't 'make sense' of a sentence, and then the 'sense' sits there to be observed. Exists in the sentence. It is nothing, of itself.

There are other people with particular brain states in both accounts, as result of your behaviour. Those brain states obtain, exist, affect and all the rest(with the addition of being, while extant, related). And while we disagree, there's nothing wrong with noting these can be considered moral aspects of having caused those brain states i.e to disappoint one to whom you've agreed to idk, provide food, is 'bad' because you said you would. Not just because you didn't do it.
However, the promise was a singular act and quite clearly doesn't exist as 'an' anything. It is the person's brain state that exists. But as noted earlier, if both parties to a 'promise' forget that it was made, the there aren't even these brain states and te claim that the 'promise' still exists becomes risible to the point of perhaps being an indicator of sillygooseness.

I would be hard to imagine a funnier response than Banno's above.

None of this matters - it only relates to what I already granted you - what HUmans do about this is a fun discussion.

But this changes nothing about hte objective facts which exist in the Universe where Abrahamic God created it all.

'The Bible was an attempt to capture my nature for a less sophisticated time. Much of the stories were misconceived and misunderstood.' — Tom Storm

Then that's an objective fact. I didn't note any, so picking apart any particular belief people hold doesn't come across my desk, as it were. It is conceptually airtight that the Abrahamic God existing imports objective facts.

I'm not sure about that. — Tom Storm

It's not arguable. In this scenario, its cooked in that states of affairs are relayable by the ultimate being. They are going to be 100% air-tight and unassailable save for dishonesty - which is baked out of hte concept because an objective goodness is baked in. You have to remeber, we're playing by THEIR rules. You can't just question the Abrahamic God if we've established it exists - and not be wrong.

The problem you raise, I see, and it's a fun one to play with ie What would people do about objective facts IFF Abrahamic God exists?? All your questions are live in that arena and imo a lot of fun.

I read the whole post, and chose the bit that was most ridiculous. — Banno

No. You took something out of context to make it seem ridiculous. This is called strawmanning among other things. IN the real world, this sort of underhanded nonsense is ignored. Perhaps why you're here?

Your claim is that there are no promises. — Banno

Hahaha. And then you go on to impugn my comprehension. Cannot make up this level of irony. Sniff away!!

Your repeated vindictive and lack of substance — Banno

If you think clearly, precisely rebutting a clearly erroneous argument repeatedly is "lack of substance" this is explains you quite well. And again, why you're here.
I would recommend how you could overcome yourself but I don't think you want to gain any insights. Just sniff.

Determinism seems flawed in that regard because it looks backwards to the present and says the sum of all my choices lead to me having or not having my breakfast. — kindred

It does this forwardly too. We just don't know the outcomes because we don't have the calculating power or access to the data (in fact, we might have teh calculating power come to think of it).

If evolution has provided a brilliant illusion, as so many believe, that we make choices proper, this would acceptable on current understandings, as would free will. I don't think its a conundrum at all. You essentially play a little film in your head about making a choice you've already made.
Libet seemed to 'discover' this fact though that's been thrown out mostly from what I can tell.

I remarked on a previous nonsensical statement that 'without god, there are no objective truths'. — 180 Proof

That isn't nonsensical though, is it 180? Its simply not veridical. IFF an Abrahamic God exists, then there we have objective facts from on high. Without, we're where you're situating us (and I agree). So, it holds..

No one has explained how it is logical for an AN person to say “thou shalt not procreate” but, after a person breaks that rule and gets pregnant, how they can also say “it is permissible to get an abortion.” That would mean, it is wrong to create a newly conceived fetus, because that causes suffering, but once you create one, you can still kill it. Where is the internal logic there? — Fire Ologist

I missed this, so will give my response here, and then add responses to your most recent below:

Ah, but this is entirely fine and there's nothing wrong with those two positions. It is wrong to bring a fetus to term because thence begins suffering. Being pregnant, per se, isn't an issue. If you were 100% sure to miscarry every child you ever had implanted in your womb - go for gold, but get a therapist.
An abortion prevents the human life entering the pool of suffering. There's no failure in logic that i can see unless there's some underlying imports i'm not grasping.

you need individual stories that provide some insight into suffering levels. — Fire Ologist

I agree, and in the process of getting to the 'data set' these are meaningful, just not to antinatalism. It's the contour of the aggregation that's used in this discussion, rather than the fine-grain you're at(or were before).

If we treat humans like any other animal and for whatever reason want to reduce the suffering of humans, we could end procreation and let it all fade out. — Fire Ologist

I think, in a poetic sense, this is more or less where most antinatalists lie. Just don't do anything to increase the number of people. The rest can take care of itself, if we dodge an asteroid in the meantime.

we are not only removing all of the suffering humans from the universe, but the ethics that inspired their removal in the first place. — Fire Ologist

Yes. I see no issue, though. The ethic which leads us to remove bigotry would be defeated by a defeat (removal) of all bigotry in the world. This is an oddity of most ethical views, but they are about how to act. If we can't act, its not up for consideration I think.

Christ. No wonder you do this on a forum.

This is how I approach it (with academic vigor included.. its now my vocation). I can't get into the weeds on Ethics in real life. Its not worth my time further than putting my position forward and defending against attacks. Actual discussions are circles.
Parfit was a very interesting one as he was an atheist who sought to the very end to come up with an objective ethic. He failed. As all will.

It’s not. I’m saying, to convince me of the premise that my life is mostly suffering, you will have to add some suffering to my life. — Fire Ologist

Right, somewhat fair. In this case, I think it would take that accounting exercise though. Again, in the individual circumstance your delusion(Trademark - lol) is a + for your experience but I'm unsure why this matters. I also suffer the above-noted delusion but I'm still aware of all the suffering outside myself - with the addition of my being relatively sure I'm wrong about my own life. The former aspect is far more important than the suffering I actually acknowledge in my own life, as I see it. Forgive the somewhat combative nature of that approach too - it was tongue-in-cheek.

“because your life is mostly suffering, you should not procreate.” — Fire Ologist

No, no. Let me be clear. This is wrong. I have struck through the erroneous word that I think is doing a lot of lifting. Without that word, it becomes as described in the first response paragraph in this post. Its actually pretty damn key to remember that zooming in on a specific life is the wrong method here, and I just don't see it as relevant in the wider discussion because of the potential that you're just simply wrong about your quality of life - despite that wrongness improving your quality of life hehe (though, noting that almost no antinatalists think suicide is a reasonable response to any of life, once it gets going).

They are all glad I “inflicted” life on them. — Fire Ologist

Because they are alive. You're doing the wrong calculation. Suffice to say, your point here stands but your reasons for it are simply not at all relevant to coming to conclusions on whether to have more children versus what you think about your existing children, or what they think of you. They are already alive. Not in the discussion, as individuals.

There is no aggregate until there are individuals to pile up into that aggregate. An aggregate construction doesn’t get off the ground without constructing all of its individual stories first. — Fire Ologist

And yet, the individual stories aren't relevant and the aggregates are. *shrug*. Not an uncommon reality.

Two things: 1. — Fire Ologist

I think you're wrong and I can't find any intuition as to how your reversed version could be reasonable as an assumption.

But 2. — Fire Ologist

That wasn't really asserted. I've been very clear that what I think about any particular life isn't relevant (nor is what you think, for that matter). I'm unsure how better to explain that?

Your position seems to result in the notion that it is never permissible to require behaviours from people who are ignorant of the harm those behaviours cause, because they don't report the harm. IF you're consistent in that, I can't really fault your reasoning But i think you're wrong about the states of affairs. If we all accept that life is on balance, a shit experience, having kids would be morally wrong ipso facto - no law needed. Having kids at 80 (males) is in this box. No one thinks Al Pacino isn't all hunky dory for being a father to his newborn at his age. Most agree it's wrong.

The AN position is not this. — I like sushi

This is somewhat false. Many antinatalists would prefer there were restrictions on procreation on ethical grounds. Otherwise, your description is good.

ou're all missing the mark to some degree. — schopenhauer1

I'm not.

The argument relies on the asymmetry of preventing suffering and not preventing suffering. — schopenhauer1

Not quite. This is what supports it. It relies on the state of affairs being that suffering is the overwhelming mode of experience for humans.
The a-symmetry simply supports the ethical solution of not procreating. Not the position itself.

I thought we were talking about ethics, a moral law. — Fire Ologist

We were - i tried to take your posts as this. I've responded to the additional comment above as-if. I didn't take you to be insinuating common law.

But often being angry about something means there is something of consideration that you find worthy of having to be addressed. — schopenhauer1

This is why I have a semi-constant smirk on. Every time I've been pressed on this by non-philosophers they get quite angry at their inability to find fault. I think people assume i'm telling them their choice to have children makes them worse people in my eyes

AN defeats it’s own good, which are ethical human beings. — Fire Ologist

I think this is wrong. If the goal is to reduce suffering in humans, eliminating humans is its ultimate good. The fact that Ethics then cease to exists doesn't say anything about it. No humans is a success.

A further comment on the a-symmetry being leaned on here: It is a crucial part of hte position, but you can actually jettison this and still hold AN views. This is why you can see it supports the action rather htan the position. A lot of people will say "Ok, but why would that mean I shouldn't have kids?" and the a-symmetry comes in.
But this also, and it needs to be clearly understood, makes it obvious that the AN accepts that nearly every living person should continue living as death causes a large proportion of the suffering being calculated.

If you can only read three words out of a post, please don't respond to it. You're only further evidencing your inabilities anyway, so I'm giving you a top tip here.

It’s all bullshit we tell ourselves. — Fire Ologist

This is ethics in a nutshell. It's also why co-operation is such a crucial aspect of being alive.

if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless. — Fire Ologist

I'm unsure it would. Its just far less high-stakes, i think.

Right, if I made a promise, I made a promise regardless of documentation. Even if I fail to remember making the promise, that doesn't change the fact that it was made. — Janus

This isn't touching the problem that I'm seeing missed: "the promise" does not exist. The act of commitment happened, and that can't be changed retroactively(so, depending on position this could be said to 'exist'. But the 'promise existing' is just an incoherent statement. Where is it? What is it? Who arbitrates? The promise doesn't exist, per se. It obtains in two related mindstates which assumably exist. If those mindstates change, the 'promise' fails to obtain. There is no other way to explain what a promise is, again, unless you think there's a cosmic repository somewhere of all promises made.

Banno's attitude here is simply the kind of non-engagement that Searle loves so much. Literal hand-waving.

(y)

Can someone stop AmadeusD from trolling about? He seems unable to discuss matters without peppering his responses with invectives on his interlocutor's mental abilities. I have not bothered to read his last post because it annoys me to be insulted. — Tobias

If you're not reading my posts, don't talk about htem - particularly using terms like 'trolling' which you are doing with that exact sentence. Tsk tsk. Civil discourse and all. But, in all honestly Tobias - your posts are crap. This has nothing to do with your mental abilities or you as a human. Your posts are crap. I'm allowed to say that. You taking personal offense is something you're going to need to work on.

Odd, the reactions it elicits. — Banno

Haha - yeah, this happens a lot with you. They aren't odd to those of us paying attention, though.

No.

Nor should it be.

I agree hence boredom, rather than frustration.

Still not understanding sentences it seems. Well done mate.

But the argument is that the lives to come will be full of suffering, and the evidence that the lives to come will be full of suffering is gleaned from those living now, who are suffering. So the judgment: "my life and those of others, are full of suffering," IS relevant. — Fire Ologist

I agree, but I see that as entirely impersonal. Each individual arguing about the merits of their lives doesn't really touch the discussion too deeply. Its aggregation that matters because we're talking chances. And when speaking about this, in aggregate, that most people are wrong(or right) about how 'good' their lives are becomes highly relevant. A birds-eye could count up the good moments vs bad moments (by their own lights) and most people would come out in the negative yet claim the positive. This is unfortunately, true for myself and every person i've ever pressed on the subject.
I should say, I take this position, but its not "mine". This is an age-old position that I think some of the more recent antinatalists have just tried to quantify. I think it works. Its just hard to accept without becoming cynical, which i've not. It's an 'on average' claim, which results in a x chances in x that one would have a life balanced toward not suffering. That chance is vanishingly slim.

the personal experience of lives now is one of the premises of the argument. — Fire Ologist

Not really, no. The chance of a particular kind of experience is relevant, and we can aggregate extant experiences to calculate chances of more or less of that kind of experience. Ones where suffering isn't the overall flavour are rare. I wouldn't even consider doing the vast majority of things with a risk of a lifetime of suffering, without a 75+% chance of that not being the outcome. And even then, i'd most likely not do it. This rises to 99.9999999% when it has to do with my children's experience, which is telling, and may give some insight into the antinatalist thinking.

Seems like you are basically saying either you know your life is full of suffering, or you are living in LaLa land. — Fire Ologist

in aggregate yes. Maybe 1/100,000 people would be right making the claim. Or living in lala land, yep.
Nought wrong with that other than that it blinds you to the fact you're deluding yourself and hey presto having kids looks good to you. *sigh*. If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally.

I disagree the suffering is all of the time for every living being. — Fire Ologist

Same. Hadn't intimated this as best I can tell.

And I think the non-suffering is well worth the suffering — Fire Ologist

There are ways I can get to this position, but I can't only do so in light of a fully-conscious being at the level humans are making an informed decision. Inflicting this on those unborn is horrid.

So I would need to be tortured and watch my family tortured for a few days at least before I would throw away all of human history and its future — Fire Ologist

This seems extremely, extremely selfish imo. Why is your experience the tell-all for humanity? (this being said while I fully get your point. This just seems a more fun way to take it).

But still, for most, much of the time, life is worth it. — Fire Ologist

I think they are deluded that this is hte case, for sure. For most people, evolution has provided a rather handy mechanism for dismissing the almost inevitable future of mostly suffering to allows to go forth and fuck, basically. I'm unsure this can be gotten around without some kind of spiritual invocation and I'm unsure what that would look like for you. Peterson'eqsue perhaps?

I don't think those are in any way accurate encapsulations of options for evolution of society.

And on what metaphysical theory are you basing that assertion? — Tobias

Its not a metaphysical assertion. The explains a huge amount about hte dullardry you're putting forward.

I did not promise my brother to return the book when there is no record of it? — Tobias

No. Because I didn't intimate this was the case. You are an extremely confused interlocutor.

Best not to take your word for anything then. — Tobias

Given the utter ridiculousness of your responses, I still do not care.

You should care because you are violating rules of civil conduct. Last time I checked they were taken seriously on this website. — Tobias

Tobias, you sweet summer child - I take part in the real world. This forum is not significant, and 'civil' discourse requires I be honest in my reactions to your responses. And I have been. If you're offended, that's up to you. I simply don't care.

However, if there really was such a man — Tobias

Begging the question. Also explains a lot. "If there were such a..." is not what we're talking about. A marriage is literally a legal instrument. For whatever reason you don't believe this is the case - which amkes everythign you say about it honestly tooth-grittingly stupid.

But there is such a fact, namely my assertion that I am married. — Tobias

This isn't a fact about your marriage. It is a fact about you. The marriage doesn't obtain because you claim it does. You're in the exact same position as someone who was never married yet made the claim. There is zero difference. Zilch. Nada. None. You can claim whatever you want, and in this case at least you'd be right that you believe you are married. That has nothing to do with whether you are married.

I am simply not believed because others cannot corroborate my assertion and there are no records of it. — Tobias

I take it you are not seeing the inanity coming to the fore here?

It's very basic stuff. — Banno

Banno, you don't even understand straight-forward sentences half the time.

"literally no evidence." — frank

I meant exactly what the quoted line means. There exists zero (none) evidence for proposition X. If that X is something which requires specific evidence such as the legal instrument of a marriage, then the rest of this is dull side-points that aren't relevant. If you're talking conceptual existence, which it seems Tobias is, that has nothing to do with what we're actually talking about and i've clarified this multiple times. I should be clear - I'm bored - not being 'uncivil'. This is tedious. Its like trying to explain something to my six year old:

See this? Its a marriage license. It's required to be married to someone in law

See this? "No" Exactly. That's the promises your mother and I made.

Two complete different things that exist in different arenas in the world, in the mind and in practice. If Tobias wanted to discuss the merits of claiming the existence of a promise, we'd have a lot more to say to each other. However, it seems he's trying to have kind of a debate between legal concepts that literally don't exist.

In everyday practice we constantly end up in such situations. Let's say you told your friend you'd return him some money you owe, what do you do? I think you will return the money. Or will you think: "Well there is no written record of me owing the money and hey my memory may be wrong and so might his, so there is no need to return the money, the promise does not exist". No, of course not. — Tobias

The an exquisite misunderstanding of what's being discussed. Ignoring that you have designed what amounts to a 'lie by omission' your scenario does not talk about what we're talking about. But, on it's face, I still disagree. The fact that you, in your head, note a 'chance' that you could be wrong does not intimate that you even could be wrong. So none of this goes anywhere.

If you, and your friend have faulty memories and neither remembers the promise - it doesn't exist. That is the only source of it. And those sources no longer exist. There is no other way that a promise could obtain. Unless you're of hte position there is a secret cosmic repository of promises in the ether..

Frank has the right idea. What exists is your beliefs. Not the things you believe (when those things are mental, like a promise).

I note that all attempts to outline somewhere that is 'better than democracy' currently, are describing violent theocracies in the main.

Anyone who votes this cycle is clearly not capable of a rational thought.

What I find particularly interesting is the notion that not getting involved is equated to commiting the act. — Tzeentch

If it feels good to hear this, you're welcome:

Silence is not violence.
You can be without, rather than with or against.
Not acting is literally not acting. It is incoherent to assign blame because of inaction. The laws around this is utterly absurd and make no sense. Importing obligations on members of society to endanger themselves is fucking WILD my guy, and this is based on the idea tha tnot acting is at least some way toward committing hte act.

Bollocks. Absolute bollocks. "Well, I would have helped" is usually a lie.

Mission accomplished — Fire Ologist

Congrats :)

Really? You don’t use metaphors to make the text more interesting? — Fire Ologist

This is a bit sleight-of-handy. That's not what's happening here. They are informing the interpretation of the argument. That, to me, is bad form in the sense that you are in la-la land if you anthropomorphize nature to support a factual or logical argument because you think its relevant - and really not contacting the argument if you think it addresses it. I understand flowery language for engagement, but this isn't hte place.

The natural evolution of ethics in the world was necessary so that ethics could be ended by these ethical animals. — Fire Ologist

Your use of 'necessity' in this paragraph is perplexing. None of it necessary. That invokes a (whats called) cosmic level of intent which simply doesn't exist. But, for the sake of discussion, let's grant it - why is this conclusion at all a problem? Things are cyclical as best we can tell and don't adhere to much in terms of form (over such long periods, that is).

Seems like natural necessity gone astray because of our “ethics” — Fire Ologist

I would say to some degree, this one gets a bit of traction. I think its worth discussing why Ethics even matters to this discussion beyond whether or not one feels that having children is ethical. I don't. I can explain why and see where other's are lets say not making sense, but if someone simply rejects that suffering is ethically relevant to whether or not life obtains I can't argue with that. That's their view, and IMO ethics its nothing but personal emotional response - if you're a fairly logical person, you can get further but that's all. But again, 'necessity' is not a good word here. These things didn't have to happen. The natural necessity you invoke didn't see the Dinosaur asteroid coming, that's for sure.

seems like it’s based on a preoccupation with suffering too much maybe? — Fire Ologist

If you suffer too much, whether you're preoccupied with it isn't relevant. Those who aren't have the 'polly anna syndrome' and those who are are simply in touch with reality (this being a take - not my position on every human's psyche lol)

What? — Fire Ologist

Hard to know what you're not getting. Swap humans for God. God's decision to remove the ocean. Human's decision not to procreate. They are diametrically opposed in the two stories we've told. If you can be clearer about what's not landing, I'd be happy to draw more parallels.

Wow. Philosopher king hath spoken to the little suffering people. Is anyone ever “wrong” when they judge what is right or wrong about the quality of OTHER PEOPLE’s lives? — Fire Ologist

Sly digs aside, you have entirely misunderstood what is being said here. If someone tells me they have a good life, yet all they ever do is complain to me about their life.... *shrug*. I don't have to even explain why they are wrong there. They are lying to themselves. "quality of life" is subjective, where a count of suffering is not. Don't conflate the two.

Maybe “most antinataliats are wrong about the quality of their lives.” Possible? Killing off all procreation might be a little rash? — Fire Ologist

Possibly, for sure.. but i see absolutely no argument that gets anywhere near the realm of getting that off the ground. Antinatalists don't claim their lives are horrible, and you've got to stop insinuating there's some personal judgment going on. It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, personally, but in aggregate. Most people are flat-out delusional about how good their life is because evolution has provided us with several incredible illusions to keep us procreating. Which is arbitrary, unnecessary and IMO bad for all involved. We do not need to procreate, other than to procreate, whcih is tautological crap. And even more importantly, most people are completely ignorant to the suffering of others. This is partially why polly-anna syndrome is so rife. Most people don't have a fucking clue how bad the majority of people's lives are - and this obviously a sliding scale. People are getting more ignorant about others over time, which the strict number of people suffering at the extremes comes down. But the number of people not majoratively suffering is vanishing. More slaves than ever, more concentrated wealth, authority and power than at most points in history (though, this is to do with population booms as much as form).

The man inflicts a fetus that can be killed on a woman — Fire Ologist

Accepting the over-simplification, yes. This does fall to women at some stage of hte analysis (careful of the alphabet soup). I see no issue there. That's just a fact of how humans procreate (the woman chooses, essentially, whether it comes to fruition). But, I think this is a bit dull of a version of the discussion. Whoever makes the choice is the culpable one. It's not all that interesting that at some stage the woman has the ultimate say (also, that's not always true anyway - men are larger and stronger on average and can physically force a woman to carry to term - which, obviously, is unethical already so we're fine heh).

we can kill the fetus if we want, without inflicting suffering — Fire Ologist

We can. Yet, those alive will suffer for it, almost invariably. Yet another reason not to procreate - the possibility of having to go through an abortion.

To be consistent with the notion procreation inflicts suffering, much harder for men to break the antinatalist rules? If ever? — Fire Ologist

Not in any way whatsoever, and I have to say I do not think your run up to this illustrated a support for this conclusion.

Men choose to have children. If men never chose to have children and women were surreptitiously getting pregnant, or carrying to term then this gets some truck, but hte fact is men choose to have children and in fact have been the prime drivers behind procreation for hte majority of history. Only in the last seventy years or so have women had any control over when to conceive, carry and birth children with any lets call it accuracy.

Men actually seem more likely to break antinatalist 'rules' by breaking several other deontological rules.

This all said, perhaps it would make more sense to make an evolutionary argument:

Evolution wants you procreate. It will delude you to this end. This doesn't make your life better. It is a parasitic kind of manipulation of you body by your genes, to have more, and less happy, children (that is biased, and its illustrative, to be clear - not trying to sneak it in). This functions the exact same way drug-seeking behaviour functions in addicts. You have to break the cycle to avoid the hurt.

I think that claim is wrong. We do not require evidence for existence. — Tobias

Then you're flat-out wrong because the second part is false.

I find the way you write offensive, facetious and displaying an arrogance which is I think both unnecessary and baseless — Tobias

I don't care. You're stubborn in your incoherence so this is par for the course.

We are stuck with having to make a choice, even about what we claim to know. — Fire Ologist

I don't disagree, but I don't think its relevant. This could be the case,and it would still logically be incoherent to claim belief without knowledge. The justification isn't that relevant here IMO.

If you are going to logically deny the existence of God, — Pantagruel

You're not talking about atheism, so that's cool.

Or is it inferred from recognizing or interpreting the experience as a typical near death experience because one has seen alleged near death experiences depicted or described? — jkop

Generally, there must be an 'actual' near death-ness to the experience. However, there isn't a 'typical' experience so it seems pretty shoddy to even posit this as a way to explicate some kind of after-death consciousness. Seems, prima facie, not relevant.

If there were some kind of proto-typical experience (where you could calibrate for cultural baggage and get roughly the same form as with some psychedelics) then we'd get somehwere. As it is, they are closer to drug-type experiences than much else - with even less homogenaiety!