s not police restraint and eventual imprisonment not a violent reprisal clearly stated in law? — Isaac

It is. Therefore, the threat is clearly stated and no assumption needs to be made.

I'd like to think so too. So the crux of the matter isn't anything to do with legal property, it's to do with the fairness of each person having their needs met. we'd allow the starving man that loaf, regardless of the means by which he acquired it, regardless of his legal rights to it, regardless of the fact that another has a claim on it...rather we'd allow him it entirely on the grounds that he should have it, that it would be inhuman to deny him it.

So how are taxes different, in essence? — Isaac

The fact that I was going to share the loaf of broad, does not changed the fact that I am being threatened into doing so.

What happens when all-benevolent loaf-of-bread-sharing governments turns into something else?

What it comes down to, is governments forcing their inhabitants to act in accordance with subjective moral viewpoints through threats of violence.

That I may or may not agree with said moral viewpoints is, as far as I am concerned, not relevant; the means are unjust.

In a world where people would not pay taxes unless forced by threat of violence to do so, I can't see how those same people would refrain from just driving away in your car unless threat of violence prevented them. what is it about your car which makes it sacrosanct in the minds of the same people who would let children starve for want of a few pounds on their tax bill? — Isaac

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think the somewhat bleak picture you are sketching is exactly the world we are living in now. People apparently need to be forced to care. I think that fact is as unfortunate as the coercion itself.

The difference is that between coercion and deterrence. In addition, the violent reprisal to the would-be car thief is an assumption on the thief's part, whereas the intention of government to coerce one with violence is clearly stated in law.

For example, I'd imagine that if the object to be stolen was a loaf of bread and the thief had some good reason for stealing it, there may not be any violent reprisals at all.

If you posit a world where people care as little as possible about the welfare of others unless forced by threat of violence to do more, I don't see ownership being anything other than a free-for-all with the strongest winning. — Isaac

I don't posit this. Doesn't the fact that people need to be forced to pay taxes imply it? And wishing for all the power to be in the hands of government is simply another version of the strongest winning.

True of all property. — Isaac

Is it?

How many would pay taxes if there wasn't a punishment for not doing so?

Thus, governments take what they want under threat of violence.

Whether that is ethical I will leave to each to decide for their own.

You pick some demographic and you figure out what they fear.
Then you feed that fear through media and present a scapegoat.

Well said.

In short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, he abases himself - combats his egoism -, but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake. — Gus Lamarch

Even as an egoist this seems rather foolish, for aren't their political opinions more concerned with the sacrifices of others instead of their own?

(I liked your post, by the way)

You must be deathly afraid that he is right.

While rational thought may lead us to conclude that retributive justice is no justice at all, reality forces the legal system to take into account the victim's experience of justice.

If the system cannot provide a solution that appeases the victims (and their close relations), the risk will be very high for them to take matters into their own hands.

And of course, punishment is also thought to function as a deterrent.

An interesting new trend where everything that one doesn't like is branded as "anti-Semitic".

So why does the question "why?" get raised with regards to such cherry-picking, as you stated in the quote I cited? — Isaac

Isn't that obvious? Why would I allow myself luxuries when I know that they cause harm? Would this make sense from an ethical standpoint? Doesn't a luxury imply that I do not need it? And what does this mean for almost everything I own? These should be quite humbling questions, which should help you make sense of that quote.

This is why I noted that this should be discussed without attitudes of moral superiority — Tzeentch

You appear to be raising the property of consistency above the property of causing harm. — Isaac

I do nothing of the sort.

There is surely some ethical reason to mitigate your impact though, right? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps, but what I tried to point out is the following:

To stop eating meat is basically foregoing a luxury or convenience because it came about through what one deems unethical practices.

But what of many other, similar luxuries and conveniences in our lives; superfluous, but in some direct or indirect way harmful to others (like driving cars).

If one allows themselves to cherry pick what luxuries one sacrifices and what luxuries one chooses to keep, it quickly begs the question "Why?"

And if one allows themselves to cherry pick, then shouldn't others be allowed to cherry pick as well?

This is why I noted that this should be discussed without attitudes of moral superiority; if anything it should show how morally imperfect we are.

I don't think the "leftist bias" on this forum inhibits discussion.

I think the behavior of certain members, some of which probably would style themselves as leftist, inhibits discussion.

I would say in a democracy the first step to better politicians is a better educated and less gullible population.

Some political movements considered left-leaning have. Some political movements considered right-leaning have used the state toward their ends as well. — Pfhorrest

Excluding perhaps a few fringes, I'd say they all have, and are.

The original left-right axis, which recognized [...] that you can't attain liberty without equality — Pfhorrest

Then you cannot attain liberty at all, and we should stop with all the false advertising!

To clarify, the question was tongue-in-cheek, and like I said I am unconvinced of the left-right division in general.

“Leftism” is not a form of statism. — Pfhorrest

I'd argue it is.

Or does it not use the state as a means to pursue social and economic equality?

Both left and right have abused the state, but the original left-right divide had the state on the side of the right. — Pfhorrest

So has the left moved to the right, or the right moved to the left?

I should specify I use the term 'left' and 'right' in somewhat of a modern sense, though I am not convinced of their usefulness. Any system that puts liberty and equality in the same box is bound to be contradictory.

Old definitions have given way to new realities.

There is nothing new under the sun. "New" leftism is simply a more overt and vulgar expression of what has always characterized leftism, and indeed most forms of statism; the use of (government) coercion to impose one's own views on others.

There are plenty of people who think that equality is the natural way of things in a free society, and inequality only arises through the exercise of authority. — Pfhorrest

The great paradox at the heart of all of this type of thinking, is the idea that then through the use of authority should individuals be forced to be equal.

Their definition of a free society is similarly paradoxical. Freedom unavoidably leads to unequality, so when there is mention of a "free" society in this context, it isn't in fact free. A government is needed to tell individuals exactly how free they are allowed to be.

Thereby these ideas supports the greatest and most inescapable heirarchy; that between governments and their citizens. With every law that is passed to further this idea of equality, more force and more authority is exercised, and a stronger heirarchy established.

Interesting discussion.

I think society, and especially governments, rely greatly on coercion to force individuals to behave in certain ways.

Consider that almost all our interactions with governments are involuntary, and our compliance based on fears of what may happen if we don't.

How many people would pay taxes if there were no consequences for not paying them? Very few, I estimate. What this implies is that all these people are being successfully coerced into paying taxes, under threat of violence, which is what imprisonment is.

Perhaps he endeavored to showcase the pettiness of some of the forum's posters, and in that he certainly succeeded.

The scale of equality and heirarchy struck me as odd, as it implies that equal societies do not favor strong heirarchical structures. I think this is not the case. After all, use of authority is required to enforce equality, as it will not arise naturally.

Also the scale between change and stasis did not make sense to me, as these things are, in my opinion, not goals in themselves and whether I would favor one or the other is entirely dependent on circumstances.

An option that says "no opinion", or something like this, would be great.

Is it ethical to drive a car?

Cars pollute the atmosphere and by driving one we contribute to the suffering of countless living beings in the same death-by-a-thousand-cuts manner as buying animal products.

I'm willing to consider the ethics of things like this, but I can almost guarantee you that the logical conclusions of these ideas are irreconcilable with modern life, and perhaps any kind of life.

So lets have this discussion, but without any attitudes of moral superiority.

How can a man that wishes for evil and does good, therefore doing good by error, be a good man? — Matei

I think the intuitive answer is: he cannot.

Thus, it seems a good action requires both a just intention and the intended result.

We can attribute an unjust intention to malice, and an unintended result to ignorance.

And aren't they both great sources of what is traditionally regarded as evil?

Western youth is taught from an early age to have an unhealthy relationship with sex. "Incels" are one of its many outgrowths. Lets not judge them too harshly.

We can have a very good idea what it might be, humans are not radically different from one another in fundamental preferences. — Isaac

Disagreed.

Making decisions for others (making decisions that will affect future others - I still don't agree with your incoherent wording), is something that humanity has been doing in this context for several million years and overall happiness ratings for the people who have later been affected by these decisions have been consistently quite high. — Isaac

I don't buy this argument. This seems to be based on a severely cherry-picked version of history. There are many things humanity has been doing for much of history, where some have suffered and others and have profited, which we now consider inhuman.

At any rate, regardless of what the ratio might be between happy and unhappy people (it seems silly to reduce one's choice to have children to generalizations and statistics, but this aside), it seems we're arriving at a "ends justify the means" type of situation, where forcing individuals into existence is a "necessary evil" to produce a net-positive outcome. This fails to take into account those individuals who must suffer as a result of it. It is easy for an outsider to say they find the suffering of those individuals an acceptable sacrifice.

Then we have no basis on which to make any decisions at all, since all lack millions upon millions of theoretical data points which are impossible to know. — Isaac

What were you saying earlier about Socratic ideals?

Presuming I cannot possibly access that person's judgement I have nothing else to go on. — Isaac

Then the argument for inaction seems obvious; by your own words you claim to have no idea what you're getting that person into.

No it isn't, because asking that other person whether they'd like a suit is almost always possible and never logically incoherent. — Isaac

You miss the point. Why would one feel entitled to make that decision for someone else in the first place, especially considering the fact that the decision is irreversible and can result in a life-time of misery.

You really think it so strange to choose to err on the side of caution here?

That is not the information I'm referring to. I really don't want to have to walk you through what has already been written. Just read it again more carefully. The data point in question is not about the rusk of harm in general (which is the only rusk I've spoken about considering). It about the rusk of consent violation or displeasure over the matter of existence. — Isaac

Whether that information is unknown or unknowable is irrelevant, because the basis (or lack thereof) for our decision remains the same. — Tzeentch

Any type of information that is lacking only affirms the lack of a basis for our decision.

The benefit. Same as any other risk. — Isaac

And what if your judgement on what constitutes benefit may drastically differ from that of the individual one is making decisions for?

As noted, it's like buying a suit with someone else's money, while not having the slightest idea of what type of suit they may like.

No. It's not that there's no way of knowing. It's not a data point which exists but is not 'knowable'. The data point doesn't even exist. — Isaac

Enough with the semantic games. We are talking about the same thing. You have acknowledged that birthing a child is taking a risk in regards to its future, implying we do not have all the information. Whether that information is unknown or unknowable is irrelevant, because the basis (or lack thereof) for our decision remains the same.

The benefit. Same as the justification for any risk. Why would you think this one any different? — Isaac

Because one is taking a risk on someone else's behalf, obviously. What necessity is there to make such a decision?

I'm curious why you think this is a special case actually. I cannot think of many cases where we take risks with others' wellbeing without permission. — khaled

I guess what it boils down to is the claim that at the point of decision there is no individual whose well-being can be violated, foregoing the fact that we already know such an individual will come about as a direct result of our actions.

It's an odd wall to hide behind.

What we cannot coherently do is wonder if they'd prefer to exist or not because nothing which has that choice is capable if forming an opinion on the matter. — Isaac

One only needs to conclude there is no way of knowing, and make decisions based on that.

Some may want to risk it. Others may not.

I lean towards the latter, but I don't consider the former to be unreasonable. It simply makes me wonder what the justificiation is to take such a risk.

Maybe so.

What justification could you possibly have to drive to the store while being unable to foresee the consequences and unable to verify in advance whether anyone wants to take the risk of sharing the road today with you? — Echarmion

I would say that anyone who feels they cannot guarantee the safety of others while driving should not get behind the wheel.

There is no someone. — Isaac

This keeps being repeated, and it seems to be the last wall to hide behind, but you build your walls flimsy indeed.

Tell me then, for who is it we seek to preserve the planet?

The justification is... being able to foresee the consequences (life is really good - love, sunsets, adventure etc) — Isaac

They are unable. They may believe life is worth living, but there's no way of knowing whether their child will.

we can't possibly check in advance whether they want these things, — Isaac

Indeed. Sounds like a fantastic reason not to force those things upon someone.

Clearly a parent gets to decide whether they want to create children.

The parents don't go around thinking "my child wants to live, therefore I am going to create it". That's not a decision that actually happens. — Echarmion

Indeed. They want a child and therefore they will create one. So what justification is there to make this decision despite being unable to foresee the consequences and being unable to verify in advance whether the child actually wants to experience life?

Noone gets to decide whether they want to live in the first place, — Echarmion

Indeed, the parent gets to decide. And what justification do they have for making that decision? Because the parent was born involuntarily, so should their child? Why? Notice we're talking from the perspective of the decisionmaker, not the (would-be) child.

There is no such thing as a good life. — Echarmion

Then why decide that an individual should involuntarily partake in one?

If you answered it, I must've missed it. — Tzeentch

Apparently you have. — Echarmion

You have objected to the question. You have not answered it.

But enough slithering and crawling. Since you seem so hung up on semantics I'll rephrase my question;

How does one reconcile the fact that when making the decision to have a child, one does not know A: whether the child wants to live in the first place, and B: whether the child will have a good life, even by one's own standards (let alone those of the child)?

What justifies the act of forcing an individual to experience life without knowing whether they want to or not? — Tzeentch

If you answered it, I must've missed it.

And isn't it great that the view you have actively argued and defended in this thread is the one "just asking the hard questions" that the other side just "cannot answer". — Echarmion

It is what it is.

Presumably, the only people still reading are the 6 regular posters, and they won't be fooled by airy declarations of socratic ideals. — Echarmion

Good.

So, to clarify, you don't think the anti-natalist position is true in an intersubjective sense, that it should convince people? You just like it for entirely personal reasons? — Echarmion

It's not about truth or liking.

All I know is that it raises questions I cannot answer, and, judging by the tone of our conversation, you cannot either.