I would've broken their legs for the threat to me. — Benkei

You're playing the tough guy on a philosophy forum. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. Are you making a case for how little we have evolved beyond chimpanzees?

Oh, I remember something about kicking their ass and broken legs.

Seems like you got rattled by some kids on a train.

Don't backpeddle now. You were giving us the whole spiel about how tough you were. I'd love to hear more.

You were going to break their legs?

It's amazing how afraid these people are of people in a uniform and immediately listen. — Benkei

They were being implicitly threatened with violence. That is why they were afraid. Nothing strange about that. With violence or threats thereof you can make people do all sorts of amazing things.

Why is this so? Why can't the prisoner unshackle and free himself? — Shawn

A great question!

The step of realizing the shadows on the wall and echoes of voices aren't real but merely representations is but the start of the philosphical journey Plato speaks of.

What comes after is perhaps more profound, but also, as Plato keeps emphasizing, a terribly painful and arduous journey. Painful in a spiritual or intellectual sense, I imagine. Having to build one's idea of reality back from scratch, having to cut away all those ideas that as a result of one's insights are now seen to be mere opinions or based on ignorance. For example, what does it do to one's identity and idea of self?

I fear the sad truth might be that only certain types of minds can make this journey. The types of minds dedicated to finding truth, ones that are not attached to their ideas and will dispose of them without remorse upon finding that they are not truthful.

For many are confronted with the faultiness of their ideas but cling onto them because of a sense of attachment, likely because these opinions are an integral part of what they perceive as their identity and makes up their ego (that eternal enemy of happiness and truth).

In my eyes, philosophy isn't complicated or hard to understand. It is about applying simple ideas consistently. It is the consistency that most people seem to struggle with, because it must then also be applied in instances where we may not like the implications.

The sad conclusion of Plato's allegory is that upon the philosopher's return to the cave, the prisoners assume he went crazy and do not take him seriously. The prisoners either cannot see, or do not want to see. Most people don't react positively to their idea of reality being rattled. They'd rather live in the comfort of their own illusions than to confront them. That is why.

There is a caricature of a Jew being smashed by a Nazi fist on that poster.

Who could've thought violent rhetoric would lead to actual violence?

You're both just trying to excuse naivety with deadly consequences at this point.

And however could they have known?

Can you cite some texts or studies that support that conclusion? — Janus

Have a look at the 1932 election results.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to make decisions regarding their own body, but it is a bit disheartening how easily people (on a "philosophy" forum, no less) have fallen for an us vs. them narrative hook, line and sinker. Unable to see nuance, unable to consider that other views are possible. Every dissenting opinion must be caricatured and treated with hostility.

The behavior of the useful fools of history, who are completely possessed by a narrative which tells them what they want to hear and feeds their feelings of moral superiority.

I used to wonder how people could stand idly by while the Nazis rose to power in Germany, but I've come to realize that people did not stand idly by, but happily participated. The narrative provided them with the approval of their own conscience and as history has taught us, the sky (or should I say, the deepest, darkest pit) is the limit with such people.

The "intellectual" parts of society are not as immune as they think. In fact, their arrogance may make them more susceptible to being told what they want to hear.

I agree with the general idea of the premise, but I would put it somewhat differently.

One does not possess the knowledge nor power to ensure one's child's good life, because of the many factors that are beyond the parents' control.

Therefore procreation cannot be a moral act.

One does not possess the knowledge nor power to make one's intentions come about, however just those intentions may be. It is down to fate and chance.

I would argue simply that the having of children belongs in a moral limbo of just intentions coupled with a fundamental ignorance and lack of power to make those intentions come to fruition.

Too much is unknown about the future life of one's child, and too much is out of the control of the parents. The outcome is a matter of chance, therefore it cannot be considered a moral act, but at the same time I cannot conisder an act immoral if it wasn't done with malicious intention.

The most appalling ignorance is that of individuals in regards to their own nature.

Most are willfully ignorant though, simply avoiding the confrontation with their true selves because this would require them to accept truths about what drives them that they would rather deny. Of course this also ensures they are unable to change.

To improve the world, one must start with oneself. Sadly, most skip this vital step. They would rather project their imperfections on the world around them and blame it on others.

What drives people to think they can fix anything if they are incapable of fixing that which is closest to them and they are most knowledgable about: themselves?

As long as the Earth orbits the sun and spins around its axis, climate change is going to take place. Best to get used to it.

I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness. — T Clark

I wasn't aware that your comments needed to be translated first.

Let me have a try:

"I don't like what you're saying, but I can't find grounds to disagree."

I tried to engage with you in a meaningful way about this topic. This type of response isn't exactly going to prompt me to keep trying.

We make decisions for other people, especially children, all the time without their approval. We take them to the doctor; make them take medicine; make them have operations; make them go to school; punish them for bad behavior.... — T Clark

There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children.

The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act.

The second, possessing some wisdom of what constitutes that well-being. In case of raising a child, it can be argued that the parents have gained some wisdom in regards to the nature of their child and what constitutes their happiness and well-being. In the case of having children, no such wisdom exists as the object, the child, does not yet exist.

If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either.

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks.

If you don’t believe in the fundamental right to bodily autonomy just say it. Tell everyone, “I want to trade your will with my own”. Let them know that you and the government should decide what to put in their body. You’ll feel better when you let it out: “I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to do what I want you to”. — NOS4A2

Well said.

I think anti-natalists like to project their own misery onto the rest of us without any sign of self-awareness. — T Clark

I guess you consider your assumption that antinatalists are miserable most definitely not projection, and not a sign of a lack of self-awareness.

I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it.

@Tzeentchquietism. — Fooloso4

Drop the strawmanning already.

You are using Grime's work to claim that there is an absolute contradiction between the the old and new books in regards to, as you say, their respective moral systems. — Valentinus

No, I am not.

I linked Pierre Grimes's work because it touches on some interesting ideas about the subject of this thread.

The point I made is entirely my own and consists of spotting the contradiction I have already laid out several times now.

It's been a while since I watched those lectures, but as far as I know they never touch on this specific subject.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus makes clear his strict allegiance o the Law. Valentinus comment about a Jew wrestling with another Jew is central to understanding this allegiance in practice as seen in Talmud and Midrash, interpretation and commentary on the Law. Even the style of Jesus' comment fits the form. It is dialectical. — Fooloso4

The contradiction between 'an eye for an eye' and 'to turn the other cheek' is to me a fundamental one, because the two present entirely different approaches to responding to injustice.

One teaches to respond to an injustice with (at most) an injustice of equal measure, whereas the other teaches that an injustice should never be responded to with an injustice of one's own.

Your position is that, whoever he was, he was not speaking about or from Judaism. — Valentinus

This is not my position. My position is the one I have stated here clearly twice before - that there is a clear contradiction between some of the teachings and that they are, in my opinion, fundamental to their respective moral systems.

I can't figure out why you are so eager to misrepresent my position.

I've pointed out a contradiction between Q and the Torah that I think is a fundamental one to the moral systems they prescribe.

Apparently you find this ill-informed? And also something about me saying Jesus was not a Jew?

Again, it seems like you're attacking me based on a position you think I've taken, but I'm having trouble figuring out what position that is.

Whatever it is, it did not take long until you became personal which is usually not a sign of confidence in one's beliefs.

You seem to be assuming an awful lot. I think this subject just makes you very defensive for whatever reason. Perhaps you fear its the truth?

He did not talk about his being a Jew or not. — Valentinus

And neither did I. Are we just completely talking past each other?

Whether you 'feel' a connection doesn't have any bearing on whether one exists. — Isaac

Maybe not, but as I said, abstractions and miniscule connections are of no significance to me when it comes to dealing with other people. I wouldn't expect my neighbor to compensate me for breathing the same air as I, even he were to breathe a little more than I.

These supposed connections to people on the other side of the globe are only theoretical and do not find any true bearing within the human experience: at least not in mine.

It's a lot easier, for a start. I doubt they have as much moral qualms about doing so as you do. — Isaac

Yes, states have historically proven to lack any semblance of a moral compass that could in some way justify the power attributed to them.

But that's not the argument you're making, the argument you're making is about the rightful ownership of the taxed portion of your pay. — Isaac

What is rightful and what is not was never a part of my argument, so this is simply not true.

The stealing of land by force from those who originally made use of it pre-dates states by several hundred thousand years. — Isaac

Maybe so, but states have perfected this dark art.

Not to mention the fact that our current population density and current place in such a long complex history, makes any return to such a state impossible - again I'm not entertaining childish whinging here. — Isaac

It's good to know you're not entertaining whinging in regards to a point I am not making. A little irrelevant to our discussion, though.

Yes, that is exactly the argument. — Isaac

This would imply you see the problems as I have laid them out, and are simply asking me to stop talking about them. I won't, obviously.

You share the same air, water, food sources, economy, oil reserves, enemies (sometimes), future... If Bob is unemployed the cost of labour is reduced because there's a demand for jobs. that means the manufacturer has to pay less for labour which means you get cheaper products. No state necessary, you benefit from bob's unemployment. — Isaac

I don't share those things any more than I share it with Mr. Liuang on the other side of the world. And even if I did, it is a situation I neither brought about nor asked for.

Again, I don't feel that connection in the same way you might. I deal with people in my vicinity - people whose interests I can properly understand and aren't statistical abstractions.

I think if the government wanted to take what it believed to be it's property, it wouldn't have too hard a time doing so without violence — Isaac

Ok, so why do governments historically and temporarily rely on (threats of) violence if they don't have to?

How did they obtain the goods? No violence, so they what? Just found them? — Isaac

Yes, why wouldn't that be possible?

Natural resources used to be up for grabs before states started claiming all of it en masse, with all the consequences that has brought.

That's the situation you're in. state or not, because you live with others. again, if all you want to do is whine about how difficult life is, then we'll just stop here. — Isaac

I'm not whining at all. Our discussion isn't about me.

Your opinion seems to be that there are no alternatives for the problems I have laid out, and that I should just stop whining about them. What is this other than tacit agreement?

I don't know. Maybe you think I am arguing something that I am not. I never said Jesus was not a Jew, for example.

I don't think the Torah can be reduced to one quote, but I think these two dictoms are extremely fundamental to the moral systems the two books lay out, and that they are in direct contradiction to each other.

The state didn't create the problem... — Isaac

Of course it did. The only reason I am connected to unemployed Bob who lives hundreds of kilometers away from me of whom I supposedly benefit, is because at one point a state decided an area of land was theirs.

Then tough luck on the state. — Isaac

In that case there is indeed no threat of violence, but how long would such a system of taxation last when untaxed alternatives are available without a threat of punishment?

Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. — Isaac

That makes no difference to the point I am making.

If this is true, then it's true whether states exist or not. Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. It's just a fact of the world, nothing to do with states. We could prevent it, if we thought it was unethical. But it would require organisations - ie a state. Still has nothing to do with taxes because the state needn't use this method. — Isaac

You asked how threats of violence make any difference when seeking compliance and I explained it to you.

Again - the question of alternatives is not all that relevant when discussing the nature of taxation.

There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. — Isaac

Of course there is. Are you suggesting people cannot exchange goods and services unless they're being taxed?

Yes you did. You were given the opportunity to vote, campaign, make a party, seek election. You chose not to. That is what constitutes your agreement in a democracy. — Isaac

This is not true. Even if I were to do all those things, every single one of them would be an implicit agreement to the state's impositions, not a disagreement. And even then a situation where I'd be completely reliant on being able to sway others to my cause in order to disagree makes no sense at all.

To state that the "sayings" from the Q document do not bear a relationship to the good as seen through the Torah ... — Valentinus

I think the teachings aren't compatible, even though they have been claimed to be.

For example, the contradiction in the dictom "An eye for an eye" versus "Turn the other cheek" is such a fundamental one I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled.

The latter seems to have a lot more in common with the Platonic teachings, for example those of The Republic.

The problem of evidence is that there is no evidence. We do not know what Jesus taught. We can date the gospels and note significant differences, but we cannot determine how any of them relate to whatever it is that Jesus might have taught. The stories take on a life of their own. In addition, the canonical gospels are only a part of what was written. — Fooloso4

Sure, on all those things.

There are many historical figures of whom we only have written records. It's up to each individual to decide whether they find that convincing or not.

For me it is not necessarily important who wrote it - it's the content of the message.

How can we know what the teaching of Jesus are and what are the teachings attributed to him? — Fooloso4

There is much debate over this, and entire studies devoted to this question. Because we may never know for sure, it is up to each to look at the evidence and arguments and decide what they believe.

If you're interested in this subject, here are a few (non-religious) lectures which I found very interesting:

If one wants to know about Christianity, one first needs to strip off all the things notable Christians have said that is in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. One is interested in Christianity after all, and not Paulinism or Johnism.

Christ's message to the world was one of mercy and compassion - different, but not all that different, from Buddha's message to the world.

I am not religious, by the way.

You benefit from their unemployment. — Isaac

Even if we take this to be true, I never asked for it. Is there a way for me to opt out of my supposed benefits? I think not.

Again, states creating situations and problems I never asked for and am only a part of as a product of the impositions of the state itself.

What, all four thousand of them? — Isaac

Sure. Obviously no one is going to bother, because these so-called disputes are meaningless.

If my supposed stake in this situation is so miniscule that it isn't even worth finding out who I am, then I think that is reason to assume there isn't any real dispute worth mentioning here.

We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out. — Isaac

Bank account is empty, and person refuses to leave their house.

If they avoid detection, how does a law help? — Isaac

Because the threat of reprisals often works in a deterring fashion. In fact, many would argue deterrence rather than punishment is the primary function of the justice system.

You are equating taxation with justifying violence and you're wrong to. Taxation is just about reaching an agreement over who owns what. — Isaac

Taxation is to redistribute wealth according to one's perception of what belongs to who under threat of violence (which is what the law is - impositions under threat of violence).

This is what I pointed out. If your position is any flavor of "This is ok, because..." you are justifying violence. If your position is "This is not ok, but..." then maybe you are not.

And taxation is not an agreement. Not one that involves me at any rate. This situation is simply imposed. I've never been presented with any terms, asked for a signature or given an opportunity to opt out. I never agreed to anything.

What constitutes a moral act?

A just intention, the wisdom and ability to make that intention come about, and the intended outcome.

Lets apply this to having children:


Just intention

A just intention seems to apply to many future parents, as they often have the happiness of their child as their intention.

Some parents may have selfish intentions, and see children as a means to a legacy, to be taken care of at old age, or to simply fulfill an irrational instinctual desire.

Others still may claim that they have children because without children the human race would die out. This seems disingenuous to me, and is probably a way to mask a more selfish intention.

Then there are parents whose intentions are unjust and intentionally harmful. For them having children is unquestionably an immoral act.


Wisdom and ability to make the just intention come about

While some parents may be more wise and capable than others, even the most wise, capable and well-intentioned parents cannot guarantee the well-being of their child.

The future life of a child is something we are almost entirely ignorant of. The child could become happy, or it could become miserable. It could succeed on the path laid out for it, or fail completely. Additionally, it is affected by many factors that are not within the parents' control, regardless of their wisdom or intentions.

This is a prerequisite that I believe the act of having children cannot fulfill. It is simply for a large part out of the parents' control whether their intentions, just as they may be, come about in the way they have envisioned.


The intended outcome

Without the intended outcome, it cannot be said an act is moral.

The intended outcome for a just intention concerning child birth is a happy child - or at least a child that believes their life is worth living and the good outweighs the bad.

This seems to be the case often enough. So we can state that despite a lack of wisdom and capabilities of the parents to guarantee a good outcome, their just intention can and does come about in spite of this.


Conclusion

What are we left with then?

As I said, my opinion is that the prerequisite of wisdom and capability to make the just intention come about cannot be fulfilled for the act of having children.

This does not automatically make the act of having children immoral, though. It only makes it one that is ignorant.

How could you possibly know? Any dispute you lacked indication of you wouldn't know about, so there might be thousands. — Isaac

Well, at the moment beneficiaries of your taxes are indeed getting what they believe is theirs, so they're unlikely to have anything to say. I'm asking how they would raise their complaint with you if you were instead to keep that money for yourself. — Isaac

This is a flaw of state government, that seeks to connect people who aren't in any way connected. Such supposed disputes are meaningless to me. If they don't care enough to knock on my door, why should I?

Essentially this is bureaucracy calling itself the solution for problems it causes.

I've just explained how it isn't. The government can take the money owed without exerting any force or violence at all. So this is just false. — Isaac

As I said, quite clearly I thought, so your ignoring it is quite disingenuous, no violence is necessary. I can just come and take all your stuff while you're out. — Isaac

Of course threats of violence are necessary.

What if an individual refuses to part with their wealth? Or what if individuals continue to find ways of circumventing taxation through undeclared labor and bartering? There's a reason laws are in place that threaten violence for exactly that end - people are very crafty when it comes to avoiding things they do not want to do.

Just like how the justice system hides its threats of violence behind a line of lesser punishments, it is no less present. The authoritarian wet dream where every citizen is monitored and controlled in such an absolute way that dissent from the government's will is impossible, this threat of violence is simply shifted to somewhere else. But I suspect in such a state taxation would be the least of one's worries. It would be de facto slavery.

It's a fantasy to believe large amounts of people can be controlled against thier will without the use or threatening of violence.

So what's the alternative to government deciding who owns what? — Isaac

I've explained to you why trying to use opinions to justify violence is bad.

Your alternative is not to try to justify violence with opinions.

Some states take on the role of ensuring the property rights of their citizens and mediating the inevitable property disputes. — Srap Tasmaner

In my view states are a necessary evil, and the nature of states seems to be that they inherently rely on force, but what you describe seems like one of the more agreeable ways to go about it. Do you know an example of such a state?

How would they make you aware? — Isaac

Usually when I have a dispute with someone, there is some indication for it. If there is no indication, indeed not even communication or interaction between me and someone I supposedly have a dispute with, it seems like there isn't a dispute?

Then just reiterate your point for me, if you will. — Isaac

Taxation is to force individuals to part with what they believe to be theirs under threat of violence.

What belongs to who is a matter of perception - it's an opinion.

Using opinions to justify violence is to invite others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on the other is then a matter of who has the greatest capacity for violence leading to a situation of might makes right.

In fact, I view all use of force against individuals as flawed, and I see states as deeply flawed institutions that are a necessary evil at best. That to me is the essential starting point from which to consider what powers we grant to states.

So do you have an alternative? — Isaac

As I said earlier, I contemplate the nature of things, and whether I have an alternative or not does not change that nature.

If a philosopher tells you that killing is bad, you don't ask him "Well how can I cause death if I cannot kill?" or "How will I continue running my assassination enterprise without killing people?"

You consider his arguments and, if you agree, you stop killing people.