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
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
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
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
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
To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks
An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved. — Bartricks
Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life. — Bartricks
So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life. — Bartricks
This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this. — Bartricks
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
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
Why did you think that when I gave - and you quoted - a definition of objective versus subjective? — Bartricks
Why do you think there is any inconsistency between those quotes? — Bartricks
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
Morality 'is' subjective — Bartricks
That's why it is possible that morality doesn't exist. — Bartricks
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
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
The clips were actually uploaded by an antinatalist who is firmly against those extremists. — DA671
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Been recently getting into a bunch of physics history. Wasn't me that said it! Haven't read that book. — Enrique
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
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
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
• 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
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
(barring special pleading, atemporal sentience doesn't make much sense, hence asking) — jorndoe
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