Comments

  • Trouble with Impositions


    I'm not so sure though. Because antinatalists are not doing anything to "any one", there are no restrictions taking place (nor freedoms for that matter). As everything with the asymmetry, the damage (collateral, intended or otherwise) goes one way. That is to say, only the person born would be restricted.. And I do mean to use it in a sense of restricting, because at the end of the day, the "choices" in life are actually rather limited based on contingent circumstances and de facto realities of cultural and physical space and time. Reality presents only so many things, and it is those things that are assumed the person born must deal with/endure etc.schopenhauer1

    The asymmetry would say lack of freedom is not a bad thing. But freedom is being prevented?

    Responsibility is often a bad thing, and the asymmetry would say that this lack of responsibility is good. But responsibility is being prevented?

    This prevention is more paternalistic than letting the experiment play out.
  • Trouble with Impositions


    By its very nature, presuming for another that "these range of choices are good" is wrong. I call this moralistic misguided thinking "aggressive paternalism". It presumes one knows what is meaningful, best, or good for another, when in fact they may be ignorant themselves (if these are somehow "objectively" true), or simply, wrong (if they are relatively true and that person being affected just doesn't agree).schopenhauer1

    Paternalism refers to restricting the freedom and responsibilities of others for their own good. It is more suitable for anti-natalists, that want to restrict all of the freedoms and responsibilities the unborn would have, for their own good. Pro-natalists are throwing caution to the wind, opening up the freedom and responsibilities, and any harm that comes with it.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    I've explained why it is a form of subjectivism. I've also explained why it is often thought to be a form of objectivism (objectivism and externalism are often conflated). And now you are just ignoring what I've said.
    If you think DCT is a form of objectivism then you are not using that term as I do. Indeed, I think you would be unable to provide a clear definition of the term. But that's semantics. You accused me of inconsistency. I took the trouble to explain to you something I had already explained in one of the quotes from me. And now you are simply ignoring what I have said.
    Fine.
    Bartricks

    It's not really inconsistency to change one's view on something. And I asked rather than accused.

    I remembered you gave good reasoning for morality being subjective. An explanation of how you were wrong the first time could have affected my view on the matter.

    And I am not ignoring what you said - I was responding directly to your question of why I thought DCT went into the objective category. I thought it was a special case, as I've only ever heard its proponents arguing that morality is objective. Further, you can forgive me, someone that barely knows what DCT is, for thinking that, when the Florida State University's Department of Philosophy also thinks its objective.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    You are wrong about an innocent not deserving a happy life. But it doesn't matter as my argument goes through with the agreements secured from you. All that's required is that the innocent deserves no harm. The fact they positively deserve a happy life compounds my case, but is not essential to it.Bartricks

    It doesn't follow that if they get that which they do not deserve it cannot be made up for.

    but I believe harm can be made up for with pleasure (e.g. prick of a needle to be irresistible to women, meet the woman of your dreams).Down The Rabbit Hole

    An overall happy life is more than what they deserve.Down The Rabbit Hole
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.Bartricks

    Agree.

    An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.Bartricks

    Agree.

    Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.Bartricks

    Disagree. Just as someone only deserves harm if they've done something bad, they only deserve a happy life if they've done something good.

    So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life.Bartricks

    Disagree. They only deserve a harm free life, for the reason already given.

    This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.Bartricks

    Agree.

    It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.Bartricks

    Disagree. I don't believe they deserve a happy life, for the reason already given. They also don't deserve any harm, but I believe harm can be made up for with pleasure (e.g. prick of a needle to be irresistible to women, meet the woman of your dreams). This would not be an injustice. No debt would be owed.

    Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life.Bartricks

    Disagree. An overall happy life is more than what they deserve.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    Why did you think that when I gave - and you quoted - a definition of objective versus subjective?Bartricks

    Objective morality is all I've ever heard theists argue for.

    Florida State University's Department of Philosophy says:

    "One of the primary advantages of Divine Command Theory is that it answers why morality is objective. Morality is not just the sum of everyone's opinions about what is right and wrong, but the buck stops, so to speak, with God's views on what is right and wrong. So even though people can disagree about morality, God ultimately determines the content of the moral law".

    Source: https://philifefsu.org/its-all-about-god-divine-command-theory/ (You have to click on "It's Not Up to Us" further down the page).
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    Why do you think there is any inconsistency between those quotes?Bartricks

    I guess I thought of divine command theory as objective morality rather than a subset of subjective morality. In this context, it appeared like you had changed your mind from morality being subjective, to it being objective.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    I should explain why morality is subjective.
    To say that something is objective is to say something about its mode of existence. More specifically, it is to say that it exists outside a mind's mental states. So, the 'objective physical world' denotes a place that exists outside anyone's mind.
    By contrast, if something is subjective, then it exists inside a mind or minds- that is, it exists as mental states; states of a subject.
    Morality is subjective because morality is made of prescriptions and values. But only minds can issue prescriptions or value anything. Thus morality exists as the prescriptions and values of a mind. And thus it is subjective.
    Bartricks
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    How do you get from this (on another thread):

    Morality 'is' subjectiveBartricks

    That's why it is possible that morality doesn't exist.Bartricks

    To this (on this thread):

    If you're going to reject my argument by embracing some form of individual or collective subjectivism about morality, you're welcome as then you'd also be committed to concluding that the Nazis did no wrong.Bartricks
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    Apologies for the late reply. I agree that there is a difference between the moderate supporters of AN and those in the video, but I have also seen people gradually slide towards the darker side after a while. Sadly, there isn't much awareness about it.

    I disagree with universal AN, but, as I have explained ad nauseam, I do believe that it can have value in making people realise the necessities to take suffering and procreation more soberly. I hope that you have a good day/night!
    DA671

    I do agree with your point that antinatalism opens a gateway to promortalism. This is arguably an argument against the spreading of antinatalist views, as opposed to antinatalism in and of itself. I think @schopenhauer1 is right that it is the absolute consequentialists that would have to go through the gateway, and as long as you have overriding principle/s such as sanctity of life and/or consent, you are not affected by the criticism.

    Kudos for admitting this:

    The clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists.DA671

    @universeness play the ball and not the man.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    I do accept the slippery slope point about antinatalist belief, however this does not answer the question of whether it is moral to build such a city. I know both schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying.Down The Rabbit Hole

    Antinatalism would not be true to its own morals.. I guess technically, it is agnostic to being based on consequentialism, but that is why I would not entertain that kind of super consequentialist thinking. I don't see the ground of morality based on such views. If you are a political lefty/socialist, does Stalin represent your highest ideals? Surely not. THAT'S not what you envision. If you are a Christian, does the Crusades or David Koresh or some nutball terrorist represent your highest ideals? My guess is no. There are extremes to any positions/beliefs/outlooks/worldviews etc.schopenhauer1

    It seems to me that the strongest argument for AN is consequentialist (would you build a city that is reliant on the unbearable suffering of a small child) (There will be hundreds of millions of sacrificial lambs in what we are building). The consent argument, asymmetry argument, etc, don't have the same feel to me.

    Interesting that you say "super consequentialist thinking". What proportion of your views (if any) are consequentialist? Do you think it's consistent for one to have a general consequentialist outlook while also having overriding principles (such as sanctity of life, consent etc)?
  • Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.


    The Great Courses' Mind-Body Philosophy is great. They got Patrick Grim to do it. His "Mind and Consciousness: Five Questions," which has work from Chalmers, Dennett, Putnam, L.R. Baker, Hofstadter, and others could be a nice supplement.

    The courses are significantly cheaper through Amazon/Audible than on the Great Courses site BTW.
    Count Timothy von Icarus

    Thanks. I've been meaning to watch some more of Sean Carroll's Mindscape to get a handle on the subject.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    What about if a city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery.Down The Rabbit Hole

    Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place?Down The Rabbit Hole

    Why destroy everyone in the city if you could save them, even if it takes a long long time to achieve it. It's like the Sodom and Gomorrah biblical fables. Those dimwitted angels and the dimwitted god that sent them caused the death of everyone in both cities, when all they had to do was appear, demonstrate their power, educate those who did not understand the folly of their ways and they could have improved the lives of everyone in both cities and perhaps their progeny would have been very nice people.universeness

    Well it wouldn't be destroying the city, it would be not building the city in the first place.

    Even if you think it's okay to build the city, surely you can understand people thinking it shouldn't be built?

    I watched about 6 mins of it then had enough. This is always the problem, extreme viewpoints like antinatalism, attracts some seriously disturbed individuals. These creatures are not like any of the people I have clashed with on this thread I assume but they should watch it and understand the cautionary message it suggests. Hopefully the American authorities are keeping tabs on them otherwise I am sure they will appear on CNN in the future having committed some heinous act that they attempt to justify using some variety of the relatively harmless antinatalist reasoning typed on this thread.universeness

    The woman in the video is arguing for efilism to dominate antinatalism and be the "last act standing". This is the difference between not building the city and destroying the city.

    I do accept the slippery slope point about antinatalist belief, however this does not answer the question of whether it is moral to build such a city. I know both @schopenhauer1 and @Bartricks have said that they are in favour of not building but are opposed to destroying.

    If Barticks is a socialist who supports UBI then I would call him a brother in that sense. I would still argue with him until the universe ends that his support of antinatalism is misguided.
    I have probably argued with more socialist brothers on many many issues that I have argued with capitalists or theists. Socialists/humanists must argue with each other as they care about getting things correct. Capitalists just care about themselves and those they care about. They all agree on one main policy. 'Lets make as much money as we can out of the majority by any means possible!' and theists just scapegoat their god and take no responsibility for anything.
    universeness

    Comrade @Bartricks indeed.

    Yes you can expect to get more sense from the socialist, so it's actually worth arguing. My lefty politics are what I'm passionate about, but I do sympathise with anti-natalism.
  • What if a loved one was a P-Zombie?


    Interesting question.

    As humans we want for our love to be returned. I imagine that it would completely ruin the relationship.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    The city scenario you gave and the ratio you gave of sufferers to inhabitants would be two situations I would be compelled to fight against and alleviate.universeness

    Is it really that bad for someone to say that they wish the city did not exist in the first place?

    Some antinatalists are our socialist brothers. @Bartricks is in support of a Universal Basic Income.
  • A new argument for antinatalism


    I disagree because in the final analysis, for me, the single case of the person who honestly states on their deathbed that they have had a wonderful life and they would be happy to 'do it all again.' Outweighs the person or perhaps even persons who honestly state on their deathbed that they have had a terrible life and they are glad it's over. I am not sure if my opinion would become a numbers game with a cut-off point if reliable evidence was presented that the ratio of happy lives against horrible lives was 1:1000000 or such like then the ground beneath my position might well quake severely.universeness

    This doesn't feel right to me.

    What about if a city's constant state of serenity and splendor requires that a single unfortunate child be kept in perpetual filth, darkness, and misery.

    Even further to finding this acceptable, your position suggests that even if there were more suffering children than inhabitants of the city, you could find that acceptable too?
  • The time lag argument for idealism


    Yes, and what about eastern ideas? They're good.Bartricks

    Are they? How does anyone know anything?
  • Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.


    I cited it and linked to it in my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12828/the-penrose-bounce

    Definitely worth watching! I personally think Jordan was a little out of his depth but I think he got a lot from the exchange.
    universeness

    See, I said recent discussion, but I'm well late to the party.

    Jordan Peterson gets so much respect that I thought I was missing something, and pushed myself to watch more of his stuff. Still not impressed by him, especially his poetic religious beliefs and right-wing unpleasantness.
  • Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.


    Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book.Enrique

    Consciousness is something I need to read up on. I am more inclined to the view that consciousness isn't anything special (a la Dennett). Any book recommendations?
  • The time lag argument for idealism


    There's as much evidence that all of this is real, as there is that it is an illusion.
  • Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.


    Ah so it's not just me! It was like I was reading a book in another language :lol:

    I've still got to read Hoffman's The Case Against Reality. I think you said it was so-so?
  • Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.


    Complicated stuff. Penrose's recent discussion with Jordan Peterson is one of my next things to watch.



    Have you read Penrose's Cycles of Time? I really struggled with it.
  • US politics


    I like the idea of no force threatened against peaceful people, but it doesn't feel right in this context.

    Tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths v making the rich pay a little bit more.

    Obviously those in poverty aren't being helped by other means. Do you have any suggestions?
  • US politics


    I agree with you that government is worse than the rich. However, don't you accept that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people dying from poverty? Don't you think a small increase in taxes for the likes of Zuckerberg, Koch, and Musk, would fix this? Don't you think this is the right thing to do?
  • Do the left stand a chance in politics?


    Pre-Corbyn I used to vote Labour unpassionately so that things could be slightly better. Corbyn gave me hope that things could be significantly better.

    You talk about Boris's determination in withstanding the storm, but it is nothing compared to what Corbyn went through. Almost half a decade of his own MPs shouting him down from the benches behind him, shouting him down in the party's meetings (saying they were trying to "break him as a man", launched legal challenges etc to stop him being on the ballot in the leadership challenge that they launched against him, going on the media trashing him, and all the "left wing" newspapers such as the Guardian and the Mirror attacking him and asking for him to resign. And he fought through all of this until the public overwhelmingly rejected him.
  • Consciousness Encapsulated


    I honestly don't believe there are any credible theories in existence explaining phenomenon of consciousness. The science is completely in the dark in this area as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong).enqramot

    The trouble is, how do you prove the subject has experiences? I think it likely we will never be able to do a test to tell us what consciousness is.
  • Consciousness Encapsulated


    I am inclined to think that consciousness is a natural result of complexity. If that's the case, an exact emulation may have to be conscious too.Down The Rabbit Hole

    I heard this theory, but I must admit it doesn't really make any sense to me, tbh. I just can't see how increasing complexity can lead to anything other than just more complexity.enqramot

    It is hard to believe, but this theory must be judged in comparison to the other theories of consciousness.

    What theories of consciousness are more plausible?
  • Consciousness Encapsulated


    I am inclined to think that consciousness is a natural result of complexity. If that's the case, an exact emulation may have to be conscious too.
  • Do the left stand a chance in politics?


    Immigration has got to be the biggest issue for working class Brits.

    However, even if Labour takes a stand against immigration, losing much of their left wing vote, the Tories would just increase their stand. It's an issue that will always be to Labour's detriment?
  • Do the left stand a chance in politics?


    Hopefully some of your optimism rubs off on me :grimace:

    Someone was telling me the other day that things would improve, as we have only had the internet for a few decades, and as more of the population have it, the more they will see how bad things are for a lot of people and vote for change. My response was that practically everyone in Britain already has access to the internet, they know what's going on, and they blame those in poverty for poor life choices.
  • Do the left stand a chance in politics?


    In the US we have primaries within the party. Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton.Jackson

    I've heard the word delegates used. The delegates vote on behalf of the ordinary members of the party?
  • Do the left stand a chance in politics?


    What does "presented to the electorate" mean?Jackson

    That they are an option for the country to vote on.

    I don't know a lot about American politics. Bernie may have been rejected as the candidate by a vote of his party.
  • Do the left stand a chance in politics?


    The rail strike going on in England right now is a bright-spot, and the union leader Mick Lynch has been absolutely murdering the corporate media who have been trying to play 'gotcyha' games with him all day.Streetlight

    Yeah. Really hoping that his zeal might win back some of the support from the working class lost to the Tories from Labour's recent wet-blanket routine.Isaac

    I think the government and red-wall Tories would dread a General Election with Mick as leader of the opposition, but with the largely centrist Labour MPs as the gatekeeps, I don't have much hope for anything like that. Labour seem to think you can only win from the centre, and so offer no policies and sit on the fence on everything. Tony Blair is their prime example with his landslide wins after 18 years of Tory rule, and before 12 years of Tory rule (and counting).
  • To the nearest available option, what probability would you put on the existence of god/s?


    Yes an order of events without a time associated with it.

    Such as the infinite series of big bangs proposed by Sir Roger Penrose. One bang gives rise to the next, but outside of time.
  • To the nearest available option, what probability would you put on the existence of god/s?


    • Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
    • processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation)
    jorndoe

    You can have a temporal order without having a time associated with it.
  • To the nearest available option, what probability would you put on the existence of god/s?


    I would say the best definition is something to the effect of, being/s that created the universe.Down The Rabbit Hole

    I guess sentient is implicit...?jorndoe

    Yes, I think god/s in any meaningful sense would have to be sentient. Otherwise we are just talking about the universe.

    (barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking)jorndoe

    How does atemporal sentience make less sense than any other atemporal chain of causation?
  • To the nearest available option, what probability would you put on the existence of god/s?


    If you're trying to turn this pool into average % that's a clear bias because the result will be positive regardless of how many people vote for 0%SpaceDweller

    Yes, the poll is just to see how people assign probability.

    All but a couple of respondents have a solid belief as to the existence/non-existence of god/s.



    Gotcha. I'm not sure how professional pollsters deal with those that would prefer a particular option being more/less likely to respond to the survey.
  • To the nearest available option, what probability would you put on the existence of god/s?


    That seems about right to me.

    When considering philosophical arguments for and against god it may nudge us a further 10% or so, one way or the other?