Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2017 15:27:31 GMT
tpfkar
Sept 19, 2017 3:14:42 GMT @miccee said:
The non-existent and never-to-exist do not have any moral stake. But the people who will exist in the future may feel aggrieved at the gamble that was taken on their behalf; and therefore the lack of consent is a valid moral concern. I'm sure you wouldn't say that it was acceptable for a pregnant mother to abuse alcohol and drugs just because the foetus is not yet a full person.Unlike empty spaces where something does not exist, extant competent people at any time can make their own calls. And once extant the balance of good vs. the bad can be comprehensively considered.
And of course actuals can decide for themselves, although the incompetent (to whatever task, of various types including immaturity) have their consent proxied in varying degrees according to their abilities by guardians of one type or another.
But looking to the future, inductively it is easy to support that a live person at any time will far likely be quite grateful for their shot than not.
A fetus is decidedly not nonexistent, and alcohol and drugs during gestation have actual effects on these actual beings. As noted, they and children up to I don't know what age are considered incapable of consent, and older than that still of informed competent consent. Should they all be terminated now?
I have virtually nothing to say over what a woman can do with her body. Even the law doesn't, at least prior to whatever standard cutoff there is for legal termination.
It's also not even to get started on the climate chaos that is caused by our wasteful lifestyles in the developed world - creating the conditions for natural disasters, and then pulling up the drawbridge when the people who are affected (the people who have contributed the least to the problem) try to seek refuge. Which is something that I can virtually guarantee is going to start happening within the next 50 years.
Anyhow, sensible compassionate sustainable living and human specicide are very different solutions, to phrase things very diplomatically.
Even if you could say that only 1 out of 20 had a truly wretched time of life; that would be akin to your holding a party every night for yourself and 18 of your closest friends, then kidnapping someone off the street to serve as a slave, and not only forcing them to do the catering for the party but also to pay for it themselves, then keeping them in a spartan cell in the basement.
Wait, no, the other 18 would have precisely zero effect on the party serf unless the the host decided to be a psychopath. Another one of your grounded analogies. And by "wretched", do you mean as your self-stated ennui? Otherwise your numbers are hugely pessimistic. And we're improving them all the time.
Wait, is this slave non-existent and never-to-exist?
But a person's suffering is his or her own resource; and a precious one at that. And with the best will in the world, you cannot take all the suffering from your child and make it your own.
And once that resource exists, the child is already extant.
Then what is?
If the antinatilist dream was fully realized, what do you suppose would prevent life's inevitable reappearance or sub/less-sentient species becoming sentient?
Morally I would be fine with post-birth abortions, but I realise that this would probably be too radical to ever be implemented.
And the fact that children of a certain age can be suffering terribly but not consent to be killed, or have the wherewithal is another area of moral concern, for you will be condeming a certain number of young children to a period of suffering. And those with the worst disabilities are being born into a long life sentence that would be considered cruel and inhumane if it was inflicted upon a sadistic torture-murderer.
You dropped "relative", I wonder why? Not because doing so would facilitate your hyper-hysterical framings, right?
All those things you list are not really "risks", just life, albeit with your very impassioned if perverse slant. And we're improving them all the time. Nor must upping my wellbeing drop nor lowering it raise another's. Very animated analogy though.
All those things you list are not really "risks", just life, albeit with your very impassioned if perverse slant. And we're improving them all the time. Nor must upping my wellbeing drop nor lowering it raise another's. Very animated analogy though.
I don't think that it is a relatively small risk, considering the state of the world at the moment, and the fact that even a large segment of well-off people are evidently very unhappy with their lives and this is reflected in the kinds of behaviours that you would not see from happy, well adjusted people (alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide, domestic abuse, child molestation etc).
Sure, and the fact that you think either that situation or the like of imported "cheap clothes" is necessary or in any way inherently linked to child rearing and so takes you straight to species extermination, again highlights the truck-sized holes in your emotion-laden lunges.
If you bring a child into the world in a wealthy nation, then children and adults in other parts of the world will be exploited so that your child can be provided for. And of course the same thing can be said of farm animals who will be kept in poor conditions and killed for their meat.
I hear you, Erj. Although it seems like with your various past defenses of Trump you'd be simpatico with the drawbridge crowd.
Anyhow, sensible compassionate sustainable living and human specicide are very different solutions, to phrase things very diplomatically.
Anyhow, sensible compassionate sustainable living and human specicide are very different solutions, to phrase things very diplomatically.
I don't want a lot of hyper religious people having the power to impose laws on me; especially when there are people who claim to be non-religious who want to impose arbitrary moral limitations on what services I'm allowed to obtain from the state or free market regarding something that affects me alone. In theory, I support open borders, because nobody should own land by dint of having been born on it...but if people are going to gain a foothold and then seek to aggressively impose religion, then that's a different matter. And I never really defended Trump; merely pointed out the undeniable fact that he wasn't as bad as Ted Cruz, and his presidency was in effect unlikely to be much different from a Hillary Clinton one (which is coming to pass).
Sure, having a kid and facilitating the best life they can have is just like that. Wait, no, the other 18 would have precisely zero effect on the party serf unless the the host decided to be a psychopath. Another one of your grounded analogies.
And by "wretched", do you mean as your self-stated ennui? Otherwise your numbers are hugely pessimistic. And we're improving them all the time.
Wait, is this slave non-existent and never-to-exist?
And by "wretched", do you mean as your self-stated ennui? Otherwise your numbers are hugely pessimistic. And we're improving them all the time.
Wait, is this slave non-existent and never-to-exist?
Globally, the majority of people are living in poor conditions, and it is a small minority who are doing the exploiting. Most of the world;s population isn't part of the middle class of a wealthy, developed nation. So the numbers provided were very optimistic. Sweatshop workers in places such as Bangladesh work for very low wages and in terrible conditions because they have to support themselves and consumers do not collectively demand better conditions (and show willingness to pay a premium so that their clothes and electronic devices can be manufactured in humane conditions).
Sure, a resource integral to survival, and innate and inseparable from them, although increasingly mitigable. And what's described in the second line is not even desirable, as it would harm the kid horribly.
And once that resource exists, the child is already extant.
And once that resource exists, the child is already extant.
And just because someone does not already exist, does not mean that there isn't good reason to be concerned with the conditions in which as yet non existent beings will exist. Society already frowns upon parents who have far more children than they can ever afford; so that indicates that the wellbeing of a future person is taken seriously.
And again, "good". "Great opportunity". "Wonder". "Ride". "Blast". Etc. With great and looking up odds for happiness & satisfaction when facilitated. Over too soon in any case.
If the antinatilist dream was fully realized, what do you suppose would prevent life's inevitable reappearance or sub/less-sentient species becoming sentient?
If the antinatilist dream was fully realized, what do you suppose would prevent life's inevitable reappearance or sub/less-sentient species becoming sentient?
But why is an unneccessary 'good' (in that absolutely nobody would miss the absence of it if there were no sentient beings) justified by the toll of suffering that will be exacted from the unfortunate?
There's no guarantee of preventing the future appearance of life (I see how you've stolen Falconia's point); but that is beyond the control of anyone currently existing. It should be considered a moral imperative to stamp out suffering as far as we are able to; then hopefully any future civilisations that rise out of our ashes will find the same epiphany.