No. Why would it?

The conservation of energy principle concerns the behaviour of the material world.

The point I have made is that dualism - interactionist dualism - does not violate it. — Bartricks

Even if it doesn't require energy itself, if something immaterial like a ghost or a mind acts on the material world, wouldn't this create physical energy?

Can immaterial events occur without material events as their causes - yes, I do not see why not. — Bartricks

In this case, does it not take energy for the mind to be activated? Where does this energy come from?

Also, mental energy turns into physical energy - adding to the energy within the physical world?

So, if dualism is true, then we have material event A causing immaterial event B, which causes material event C. — Bartricks

For clarity, what's an example of material event A causing immaterial event B? Is immaterial event B ever not caused by a material event?

The truth is, 'conservation of energy' is not true. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why do physicists believe it is then? When given the choice to throw out the conservation of energy or cartesian dualism, they tend to throw out the latter.

It depends what definition of veganism you are using; philosophical of dietary. The Vegan Society says: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment".

Bearing in mind "as far as is possible and practicable", you can be a vegan that purchases and consumes animal products. However, unless you are in a situation such as living in a remote part of the world where you cannot grow crops, or you need medication derived from animals, etc, your purchase of animal products is causing suffering and death unnecessarily.

You suggest people should have a diet with meat, fish, etc, but this would mean to keep paying for animals to suffer and die when it is not necessary? “It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases", “These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes".

It doesn't feel right to me to cause animals to suffer and die just because we like the way they taste etc.

I think we should be nice to animals.

Don't want to get @schopenhauer1 banned but their posts helped encourage me to join. I was already familiar with the literature but didn't know the topic was so widely discussed.

In that case, on what grounds are you judging the argument 'fair'? What would an unfair argument look like in this context? — Isaac

That is a good question. How can we judge an argument, when there can be no correct answer.

For one, I would say ability to convince. I don't know how far you would agree on this point, but in my view the vast majority of people don't consider the philosophy of procreation, and having and raising kids is so engrained in society it would take some serious persuasion to remove their status quo bias. However, if presented with the question within The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a fair number of people would opt to walk away. It feels wrong to them that people's happiness is contingent on others suffering. In the context I was using fair, unfair wouldn't make a lot of sense as an antonym, but would mean not fairly convincing.

Yeah, I think all that is true, but there's a third option which I think is more significant, which is those who see the world as a bad place and see children as means of fixing that - ie ensuring there's a next generation, better than the last, to help those who still remain to live more pleasant lives.

Contrary to the archetypal antinatalist, we're not all selfish sociopaths. It's not always about me, me, me sometimes people spare a thought for their community as a whole and consider themselves (and others) to have a duty toward it. — Isaac

Yes, that's a third option. A factual case that procreation is a better way to cut down on suffering than antinatalism. This is different to the other two in that there is a right and wrong answer to it.

Why do you think so many people work so hard to alleviate suffering? Such as the whole medical profession and those involved in medical research and why do you think so many people get involved in protest, political movements, philosophy, debate about how we might live better lives? Is it not to reduce the number of lives of unbearable suffering? — universeness

It would be science as opposed to antinatalism that beats lives of unbearable suffering. Although this is likely to take hundreds of years.

I wouldn't say people get involved in politics etc with the goal of reducing the number of lives of unbearable suffering. Many people have other goals that take precedence, and there are those that take a deontological approach, preferring personal freedom etc, despite the consequences. Look at America electing Trump, and Brits voting overwhelmingly for the Tories who cut the NHS killing tens of thousands in only a few years, according to the Royal Society of Medicine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/nhs-cuts-excess-deaths-30000-study-research-royal-society-medicine-london-school-hygiene-martin-mckee-jeremy-hunt-a7585001.html

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Go on...

Why ought we discourage that? — Isaac

I don't believe there are right and wrong answers to moral questions. It could be argued, we ought to do what we feel is right. Thus, if one feels the sacrifice is wrong, then they should discourage it. If one feels the price is worth paying, they ought not.

It has been suggested on here before by pronatalists that because of their miserable lives, antinatalists are looking at the world through excrement-tinted glasses. I can't say this is true of all antinatalists, but I believe this accounts for a significant number. Of-course the opposite is also true - if you're living a pleasant life, the sacrifice is worth it - why would you throw all the wonders we experience away, just because some people suffer.

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is antinatalism the answer?

Perhaps the lure is the provocative nature of this absurd idea. After all, if everyone believed in antinatalism, we as a human race would be wiped out of the Earth. Too bad for all of our domesticated animals. — ssu

Save for editing our biology to remove the ability to suffer (as promoted by David Pearce) there is only antinatalism. Everything else is mitigation of suffering.

Alternatively, one could say the hundreds of millions living in torture are a price worth paying for all of the happy lives/

While the vast majority may live happy lives, the hundreds of millions with lives of unbearable suffering are the sacrifice for this. I think there's a fair argument that this should be discouraged.

What's to stop the super-rich buying up all of the main roads and charging sky-high prices to travel through (putting the price of everything up), or refusing anyone but their businesses access thereby holding a monopoly?

Even Adam Smith believed you needed regulation to keep the market competitive.

How easy is it to leave a game compared to life?

Good question.

I agree that there is a double standard. However, a lot of those that are opposed to immigration would also be opposed to "benefit scroungers" reproducing, but as we already control immigration to some degree, see this as having a better chance of political success than eugenics.

Do you have a pet ? Let’s assume an unlikely scenario a post-apocalyptic world where eating your dog ensured your survival…would you do it ? — Deus

And would the answer be different if you didn't need to eat it to survive, you just liked the way dog tastes?

I'm not sure what good it would do in practical terms. People tend to be led by emotion and self-interest, rather than philosophical or any other type of reasoned argument.

I think climate change is one thing leftists (although not all climate change activists are on the left) are up in arms about. They are gluing themselves to trains, roads, damaging buildings, interrupting nationally broadcast speeches (including the new Prime Minister's conference speech). If the dangers of what they are preaching are true, maybe rightly so.

I have been watching the channel V-gan Booty, where the girls are going out naked, covered in their own menstrual blood, throwing paint over businesses, chaining themselves to things, screaming that people are animal abusers, and stealing animals from farms. As extreme as this is, if slaughterhouses are as bad as they say they are, rightly so.

I broadly agree. — universeness

I thought you'd disagree with my point about Peterson.

One of his latest things to get riled up about is climate change. Saying that the error bars around a climate change projection for 50 years time are so great that we wouldn't be able to measure the positive or negative affects of anything we do right now, "so how in the world are you going to solve a problem when you can't even measure the consequence of your actions. How is that even possible".

That's one of Nigel Farage's hobby horses too (in addition to immigration).

I would say this complements the argument from divine hiddenness.

Why hide and let us make mistakes that harm our fellow beings, and lead us to damnation? We would still have the free-will to follow or ignore god's advice, so he can't use that as an excuse.

I certainly consider extremes, but I don't choose to fully exist there.
Do you feel that the powers that be, the media and perhaps many 'philosophers' seem determined to push us all in the direction of focusing on extreme scenario's? — universeness

The mainstream media is nothing compared to GB News. Their narrative, day after day, is that there's a war for the heart and soul of the country against the politically correct, woke, lefties. They and a large proportion of Britain are angrier than the left, despite the right being in power for over a decade, and the current government being the furthest to the right. Practically everything in politics has gone in their favour and they still find things to be the end of the world.

I include Jordan Peterson as a right wing drama queen.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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

Morality 'is' subjective — Bartricks

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

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.

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)?

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.

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.

Interesting question.

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

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.

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?

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

Are they? How does anyone know anything?

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.

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?