Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:55:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 20:59:08 GMT
Normally this asymmetry is intuitive. For example, although there are some responsibilities in society to do good (i.e. pay taxes), the one responsibility of all and that takes precedent over all others, is to do no harm. There is no obligation to donate time and money to charity, there is no obligation to be kind to others. We are just obligated by law not to go out of our way to inflict harm on each others, even if we believe that there is eventually going to be a reward which is worth the harm. We don't punish people for not doing good by law but people who could do more but refuse are usually looked down upon - would we not be disgusted by someone who walks past a drowning child? Do we not shun the millionaire who gives nothing to charity as a miser? Plus why only look at the stick and not the carrot? We praise, honour and celebrate heroes and philanthropists. Sometimes we even celebrate them despite previous misdeeds. You could perhaps say that we condemn negativity more than we praise positivity on average and there is still a slight assymetry. But if we are comparing a supposed existence of pure positivity like Heaven supposedly is (put aside for the meantime whether such a state is achievable) then this would be better than non-existence, no? Even in those examples, it's being framed in terms of the positive action being one which protects another person from grievous harm. So the positive action acknowledges the existence of harm and tries to remedy that. And if everyone went directly to heaven and if it were somehow possible to guarantee that nobody would experience suffering or boredom, then I suppose that I could be OK with that. But the reward that may await us at the end of our life does not justify inflicting harm to begin with, as nobody would have felt deprived of heaven if there had been no consciousness, but many would have been spared suffering. Like you've mentioned, you leave your money with the bank with consent and the risks are very low. Regarding the example of other people driving, you are afforded the same freedom to drive (with the risk of running down a child) and other people driving (assuming that you aren't run down) doesn't require you to do anything. When you give birth to someone, you are requiring something of them, and not an insignificant something either. You are placing an imposition upon them (they're going to be required to exert energy, effort and suffering in order to sustain the life that you have bestowed upon them, without being asked whether they are willing to accept that) and hoping that they will see it as a gift as opposed to an imposition. Many would choose that gamble and many would consider it worth it. But that isn't what we are arguing - we are arguing whether someone else should be able to take that gamble on your behalf. In my view, none of us should have the moral authority to take that gamble on someone else's behalf, especially when the hypothetical being will not feel that they have been deprived in the event that you decide not to go ahead with the gamble. By perpetuating the cycle, someone will end up paying the price of that gamble, even if it isn't your child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 21:00:02 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 21:01:12 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2017 21:03:25 GMT
Heaven is Now!
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2017 21:48:33 GMT
Even in those examples, it's being framed in terms of the positive action being one which protects another person from grievous harm. So the positive action acknowledges the existence of harm and tries to remedy that. In those examples ok. But we can think of other examples that are more positive rather than fixing negatives. Is it not a good thing to treat a child, even if he had no longing for such a treat beforehand? Do we not think of parents who do such a thing as kind? But they aren't conscious they've been spared so it's not good, is it? Even if it's not bad. It's neutral. While as existence could be good or bad. And in a world where everyone may suffer a bit but will eventually get much more bliss then the good would far outweigh the bad, no? Therefore even if existence guarantees some will suffer for a time it would be better than non-existence. Ok. But then most I think do take it as a gift. Whether they are wrong to do so is debatable, but odds are people won't see existence as an imposition. They may not like aspects of their existence of course but we can try to correct these without giving up completely on existence. But for the purpose of this argument, we are assuming all can get into heaven which is eternal bliss. So even those who endure the most suffering will still have more happiness than unhappiness in their lives. Not really much of a gamble then. But if we assume there is no such eternal paradise, could we achieve a near paradise in the material world? Suppose mankind continues for billions of years, technology improving so no-one need suffer, moral advancement removing cruelty, the human race expanding to all reaches of the galaxy. Far far far more people would be happy on average than were ever unhappy in the past. Would people suffering now be worth all that potential happiness in the future? Throwing in the towel now and letting the human race go extinct would stop that happiness. Of course no-one would exist to feel deprived so we've done no harm. But no-one will exist to appreciate escaping pain so we've done no good. But this is perhaps too optimistic a vision of the future. But even as the world stands today, there is a lot we could do to make people happier. Both in the sense of alleviating ills and in encouraging them to find happiness in something they love. Are these pursuits not preferable to the morally neutral goal of anti-natalism?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 23, 2017 22:44:02 GMT
tpfkar "People are religious because they want to believe that this all means something."People are religious because they're trying to tweak their inputs to make them feel better.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 23, 2017 22:53:06 GMT
tpfkar "Non-consciousness cannot be turned into some form of torture, and therefore I believe that it is morally unacceptable to put someone at risk of harm for a gain which is both ephemeral and unnecessary. The positive is unnecessary, because nothing would have been lost and there would be no deprivation in the event that consciousness were not created to begin with. Whether you are a deity creating sentient life, or a parent procreating."Having a superset of choice is inherently superior to limitation to only one circumstance. It is a gift whether from a parent or a horribly limited god. Or even from an omnipotent sadist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 8:39:10 GMT
tpfkar "Non-consciousness cannot be turned into some form of torture, and therefore I believe that it is morally unacceptable to put someone at risk of harm for a gain which is both ephemeral and unnecessary. The positive is unnecessary, because nothing would have been lost and there would be no deprivation in the event that consciousness were not created to begin with. Whether you are a deity creating sentient life, or a parent procreating."Having a superset of choice is inherently superior to limitation to only one circumstance. It is a gift whether from a parent or a horribly limited god. Or even from an omnipotent sadist. A non-existent being doesn't have any circumstance, and does not covet any circumstance or any range of options. Your notion that even a 'wheel of torture' type scenario that goes on for all eternity being preferable to non-existence is incomprehensibly absurd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 8:48:50 GMT
Even in those examples, it's being framed in terms of the positive action being one which protects another person from grievous harm. So the positive action acknowledges the existence of harm and tries to remedy that. In those examples ok. But we can think of other examples that are more positive rather than fixing negatives. Is it not a good thing to treat a child, even if he had no longing for such a treat beforehand? Do we not think of parents who do such a thing as kind? It's good to be good (especially since you've gone and inconsiderately brought the child into existence without its consent) but it is not considered an obligation to treat the child. The obligation is not to harm the child. A barren universe has no need or use for the concept of 'good'. It is meaningless. And under your scenario, harm would still have been imposed upon those unnecessary beings without their consent, because the creator assumed that they knew what was best. Heaven only becomes a useful or positive thing when there is someone to behold the positivity of it. So again, you are creating the problem just in order to be able to create a solution. It's pointless. It's virtually inconceivable that humankind will reach a point where nobody is suffering in order to maintain the pleasure of someone else. And what we know for certain is that such a utopia is not imminent, so we cannot justify the suffering that we are going to be inflicting on the children that are born tomorrow. Why should they pay the price for someone's future utopia? It's still an unnecessary gamble. There's no need to create the problem. Why create a problem that causes grievous suffering for many, just to be able to come up with a reward for having to endure those problems. It seems that the only purpose of the suffering is to be able to get the (unnecessary) reward, which doesn't make much sense. If there is to be any utopia, it is still a very long way off and is still going to come off the backs of many sweatshop workers, with colossal amounts of collateral damage inflicted on those who didn't agree to pay the price. And there is no need for anyone to appreciate escaping pain. We would have eliminated the need for good. I think that the best we can do is to try and prevent undue suffering, given that a suffering-free utopia is not going to be in the offing for a very long time, and will very likely never come to pass.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,677
Likes: 1,302
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 24, 2017 11:05:00 GMT
In those examples ok. But we can think of other examples that are more positive rather than fixing negatives. Is it not a good thing to treat a child, even if he had no longing for such a treat beforehand? Do we not think of parents who do such a thing as kind? It's good to be good (especially since you've gone and inconsiderately brought the child into existence without its consent) but it is not considered an obligation to treat the child. The obligation is not to harm the child. I disagree, we generally don't think of a parent who does the bare minimum for their child as a particularly good parent. Yeah we don't think they should go to prison or have their children taken off them, but we probably don't think of them that well. At best we're indifferent to their parenting. While as those who endeavour to make their child happy as opposed to merely unharmed we consider admirable.
But it is you who is arguing that anti-natalism is a good policy, but even if you were to institute it, there would be no-one to appreciate its goodness. While as existence has the potential for both good and bad. As long as the good outweighed the bad, existence would be better than the completely neutral state of non-existence.
Because the alternative cannot be called a good world since it has no-one to appreciate its goodness. While as a utopia could be called a good world.
Let's flip that - why deny people happiness to spare them suffering which they won't even appreciate escaping? You can't have it both ways - if there is nothing bad about missing out on pleasure by not existing then there is nothing good about escaping suffering by not existing.
Meaning that an anti-natalist result would achieve no good. Therefore it is not a good pursuit. If there is an obligation to do good in the here and now (something you seem to take as a given), the goal of goodness cannot be the elimination of goodness. That makes no sense.
Let's say you waved a magic wand and made everyone sterile. You would at first cause untold suffering for billions of people. Eventually when they all died out, there would be no more suffering. But there wouldn't be any happiness. You'd have caused massive suffering in order to achieve a morally neutral state. How would that be good? Even if everyone consented any who want children would still suffer.
No less likely than achieving universal anti-natalism. Of course if you don't want children, you're personally within your rights not to have any. If you do want children then will you take your definite suffering of not having children you want in order to prevent a non-existent person from suffering which they won't even appreciate? Especially when all evidence suggests that people who do exist generally value their existence? Seems a big ask for little good.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 24, 2017 11:41:49 GMT
Not sure you understand why people are religious. I am certainly not religious on the basis of where I wind up since I have no idea. Then again, since I am religious, I don;t face too much suffering right now. I'm a pretty content guy regardless of how whacky the world is around me. I also don;t think you have an understanding of his grand plan. I think that I do understand, actually. People are religious because they want to believe that this all means something. For many people, an important element of that meaningfulness is that their existence is not ephemeral, like a footprint in the sand, to be washed away by the tides of time. I don't know if that is the case for you, but I think that the notion that life is meaningless does induce an existential crisis in many people. Whatever the 'grand plan' is, there would need to be an answer to the question of why something is better than nothing, especially when the 'something' will put a sentient being in the path of unasked for harm and risk. I can't think that there is a sound philosophical justification for this. It looks like you claim to understand it only because you refuse to consider the notion that you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 24, 2017 12:29:18 GMT
tpfkar "A non-existent being doesn't have any circumstance, and does not covet any circumstance or any range of options."
There is the circumstance of both a hypothetical being's existence and of it's non-existence, both of which we are free to consider. "Your notion that even a 'wheel of torture' type scenario that goes on for all eternity being preferable to non-existence is incomprehensibly absurd."
It is most assuredly absurd for anyone save an extreme masochist, however it is your absurd notion. Having a superset of choice is inherently superior to limitation to only one circumstance. It is a gift whether from a parent or a horribly limited god. Or even from an omnipotent sadist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 13:59:24 GMT
It's good to be good (especially since you've gone and inconsiderately brought the child into existence without its consent) but it is not considered an obligation to treat the child. The obligation is not to harm the child. I disagree, we generally don't think of a parent who does the bare minimum for their child as a particularly good parent. Yeah we don't think they should go to prison or have their children taken off them, but we probably don't think of them that well. At best we're indifferent to their parenting. While as those who endeavour to make their child happy as opposed to merely unharmed we consider admirable.
But the only types of 'good' that one feels obligated to do is a type of good that would spare the child negative emotions. For example, give the child toys to alleviate boredom. Send them to clubs so that they can avoid the feeling of social isolation, etc. Parents are enjoined to do as much positive as to quell the threat of a miserable childhood, which speaks to my point that positive is merely a relief from negative. There wouldn't need to be. The barren universe would still have as much goodness in it as would be needed. 'Good' is only a construct which described relief from 'bad'. The negative needs to be there, at least in potentia, for the good to have any meaning. There is absolutely no logical reason why a hypothetical deity ought to create problems for many different lifeforms as long as it could provide solutions for most of those lifeforms. Which surely you know doesn't even describe the universe in which we're living in - one which life is struggle for most forms of sentient life. But the 'good world' is only good because of a concerted and constant effort to eliminate bad. The barren universe is one in which the concept of 'good' is irrelevant, as there is never any negative (including the desire for good) to be eliminated. Because, I've explained. Nobody will feel 'denied' anything in a barren universe. What you are describing is a negative consequence that simply will not exist, because negativity will not exist. A world without pushing suffering on those who have not deserved it is closer to ideal than a world in which a number of people are made to suffer for the pleasure of others. In the actual real world, it would be the vast majority who suffer for the pleasure of a small group of elite. But even if you reversed those numbers and it was only 1 in 10 that were suffering, it still would be unjust. It would eliminate the need for good, which is probably the best solution that is achievable. Good only entered the universe as a useful or necessary concept when sentient life began and needed to be fed and to sustain itself (i.e. problems that needed to be solved). Yes, if nobody could have children, that would cause suffering for a few generations of humans. But causing suffering for a few generations, followed by no suffering at all, is better than a continuous cycle of suffering for our species and the suffering that we inflict on other species. In practical terms, the universe can only ever have a morally neutral or morally negative state. So I would pick the morally neutral state. Even many people who hate their life are terrified of that life coming to an end. Even when anything that can go wrong does go wrong. It's simply our instinct to try to find meaning in life, and religion is a big part of that. If life weren't inherently a fairly raw deal, religion probably wouldn't exist, because merely enjoying/valuing life on its own terms would be enough. And it is always a big ask when the people who do derive positive emotions from existence expect others who have a different experience (for example, the people in the sweatshops who work 16 hour days without toilet breaks to manufacture your clothes and technology) to pick up the bill. And the purpose of antinatalism is to eliminate the need for good by eliminating bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 14:02:04 GMT
If life was under the control of an "omnipotent sadist", then there's no reason to think that we would be given any desirable choices at all. Merely different forms of torture. In fact, the majority of humans who have ever lived have experienced lives in which the only options on the table are different forms of torture. That remains the case today (to give an example, you either go to work 16 hour shifts in a sweatshop without toilet breaks in order to be able to feed and shelter yourself, or you starve to death out on the street). Having multiple choices available is only necessary or desirable if you have the problem of consciousness which is in need of a solution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 14:07:50 GMT
I think that I do understand, actually. People are religious because they want to believe that this all means something. For many people, an important element of that meaningfulness is that their existence is not ephemeral, like a footprint in the sand, to be washed away by the tides of time. I don't know if that is the case for you, but I think that the notion that life is meaningless does induce an existential crisis in many people. Whatever the 'grand plan' is, there would need to be an answer to the question of why something is better than nothing, especially when the 'something' will put a sentient being in the path of unasked for harm and risk. I can't think that there is a sound philosophical justification for this. It looks like you claim to understand it only because you refuse to consider the notion that you're wrong. Let's put it this way - I may not have a nuanced understanding of your personal reasons for being religious. But what I do know that it is not the product of an honest and dispassionate search for the truth of life. You didn't just hone in on the Bible, with all of its glaring contradictions and the fact that it reflects the state of knowledge of men who did not know about germs or where the sun went at night, and decide that was the text which intellectually comes closest to describing the nature reality and the origin of humans. You would have needed a strong emotional bias to bring you to that conclusion, in light of all of the contradictory and incompatible knowledge about the universe that you have learned.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 25, 2017 18:58:51 GMT
tpfkar All a matter of outlook. I'd consider any conjectural all-powerful being who created this world to be an omnipotent sadist. Yet life is highly desirable in the main. A combination of peculiar outlook and outright untruth. There is no indication these beings felt their lives were torture, and they and we always have the choice of nonexistence. Consciousness is not a "problem", it is a gift.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 19:34:26 GMT
tpfkar All a matter of outlook. I'd consider any conjectural all-powerful being who created this world to be an omnipotent sadist. Yet life is highly desirable in the main. It's only desirable to those who have life in the first place, and even then, many do not desire their lives. Religion would not still be so prevalent in the age of science and information if life itself were good enough. I would say that the majority of humans who have ever lived have been very well aware of their suffering and how little compensatory joy life brings. They don't have the free choice of nonexistence if a) there are some serious risks associated with trying to bringing about non-existence; and b) if the person believes that choosing non-existence will bring to pass an eternity of torture (as their religion teaches them). That is your Pollyanna-ish outlook. Before being conscious, we did not have any desire or use for the 'gift'. And that 'gift' very often turns out to be far more of an imposition, as those upon whom the gift is bestowed are burdened with its maintenance.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 25, 2017 20:01:57 GMT
tpfkar That's meaningless, as it's not undesirable for those with no life, as well. And the reasons that religions were constructed and in fact persist to this day are manifold more complex than "life would be undesirable without it". And I say they've appreciated the joys well over the suffering. Neither of which can we substantiate directly, yet people keep chuggin' along. Although the reasons for choosing one way or the other may be near infinite, in all cases save physical incapacity they have the choice. And even with physical incapacity they may just have to wait out the clock. At which point nonexistence is guaranteed. In reality. In the case of a limited or sadistic creator god, eternal bliss or some kind of spanking may be in the offing. On the contrary, I think my view is the norm as opposed to the morbid outlier. And again we also did not have any disinclination or even any apathy toward life, all of these points being senseless. And any burden of maintenance can be alleviated, or in fact eliminated for anyone who makes that sad choice.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 25, 2017 20:17:53 GMT
It looks like you claim to understand it only because you refuse to consider the notion that you're wrong. Let's put it this way - I may not have a nuanced understanding of your personal reasons for being religious. But what I do know that it is not the product of an honest and dispassionate search for the truth of life. You didn't just hone in on the Bible, with all of its glaring contradictions and the fact that it reflects the state of knowledge of men who did not know about germs or where the sun went at night, and decide that was the text which intellectually comes closest to describing the nature reality and the origin of humans. You would have needed a strong emotional bias to bring you to that conclusion, in light of all of the contradictory and incompatible knowledge about the universe that you have learned. Again, the only reason why you insist this is because you don't realize you are wrong. You can't help but t be guilty pf what you accuse me of which makes you a hypocrite. Of course, I could be wrong once you come up with all the contradictions in the Bible. However, that still doesn't make your mind reading abilities about me any better. It just helps me see whether you're stupid or not or whether it simple ignorance you suffer from.
|
|